The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1981/11/02Civls Canter Anah~im, Califo~nia Nov~mber 2, 1981 RECULAR MEETING OF THE ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION REGULAR Th• r~gular maeting of tne An~helm City Plsnntnq Commisston MEETI NG Nas col l~ ! to order by Chql rm~n Bushore at 10:00 s.m. ~ Novenber 2~ 1A81 ~ In the Counct 1 Chambe~, e quorun belnq present, a n d the Commisslon raviewed p1a~s of the items on today'~ agenda. R~cass: 11:00 o.m. Reeonv~ene: 1:3~ p.m. for publlc testimony. PRESENT ABSENT ALSO PRESENT ~ Ch airman Chalrman 8ushore Commissionars: Be~nas~ Bouas~ Fry~ +~~~rbst~ King~ McBurney Conanl s s I one rs : Nons RAn Thompson M~tka S~ntalahtt Joe 1 F i ck Jaek Whlte Jay Ti tus Jsy Tashi ro Pau 1 S i nge r f3ob Ke i l ey G reg Hast t ngs Edith Narris Planntng director Asslstt~nt ~trector for zoninq Aasistont Director for Planninc~ Asstst~+nt City Attorney Office Engtneer Assoctate Planner Traffic Engineer Assoctate Planner Assfstant Plenner Plenning Canmissto~ Secretsry PLEDGE OF AILEG 1 AN~F TO T11E FLAG lED BY - Canmt ss lo~er McEiu~-~ey. Chatrman Buaho~e welcomed the naw Planning Comn+issto~er~ E. "Cl~uck" Mc9u~ney. I TEH N0. 1: E 1 R NEGATI FiCAT10N N0. 81-92-1 READV_ 15 1 REAQV. : PUBLIG ~iEARING. O~MER: DONALD f. HEYDENDAHL~ ET AL. 205~211 Fbrrh '~estern Ave~ue, Mehelm, CA 92801. AGENT: SUN•CAL INVESTME~iTS~ ATTENTIQN: 9RJCE EIIEFF~ 20A6 llorth Broadway, N1Q2, S~nta Ana. CA 82706. Property describ~d as en irregularly•shaped parce) of land cnnsisting of approximately 1.4 acres~ 20y-211 ~brth 4lestarn Avenue. RECLASSIFICATIOM REQUEST: RS-A-W;.000 TO RM-3000. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTABLiSh A 1-LOT, 17-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SU801VISIQN. VARIANCE N0. 3243: MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK Subject peti tio~ was contlnued from the meettngs of August tA~ 1981 ~ and Septeniber 9th and 21, 19 81, at the request af th~ petTtloner. The ro wera fif !e en persons indlceting thetr preaence In oppo~itta- to sub]ect request, and although the staff ~eport was not read. It is refe~rsd to ~d a~aade a part of the mi~utes. 81-65; 11/2/81 ~• ~ i , ' ) MI NUTES~ ANANE 1 M CItY PLANNI Nti CQMMI SS l ON, NOVEMBER 2~ 1981 81-655 Bruos Elieff~ aqe~t. explained th• revia~~d pl~~s are fo~ 17 units rathsr tha~ 18 as origtnally proposad. Ha st~ted th• intent of Rhe code is to insure the p~tvaay of , the surrounding single-famllY home rasidences ~nd etngle-fan~ily restdenc~s could be built wilhin y feet of the prop~rty 1 tne a~d based on that. fe~el they are meetinq tha (ntent af the code. Ile satd they fael tha h~rdship Is the shepe of the proparty wtth th• most north~rly p~rtton b~in9 o~lY 7~ feet wlde. Ne steted h~ did speak wlth 65 of the 7~ pr~perty owners tn thihe~Q~e~~oushhearl~ge pe~p,e ~~v,~9 ddJ~cent to the i property are opposad and apoke at P Rick W~rslnakl~ Associate Planner, CitY of Buena Park~ reed the followinq letter to the P1~nning Commisslo~ from P~trick Ei~own, Otrector of Plenninq as follows: The Plenning Division of the City of Buene P~rk has ~evlewed the plens for the aforement 1 oned appl i cat 1 ons and wou 1 d i i ke to express the 1 r oppas h1 ton to sald developmant based upon the fol lawing: "D.velopmnnt of the pro)ect wl l l raf se existing nolse levels cx+ adJacent ~ single famtly rasidances north of the stte based upan the locatton of the ` proJect eccess drive and swimining pool arca. The potentlal of vehicles on the sttc hitting the block wal t on the ~ northerly proJect boundary whtle negotlating the curve In the drive and whlla backing from their gereges. ~ The requlred 20 feet landscapin9 ~i~b~of thetadJacentesingte fa~nt~y~undary i a necessary to protect the i nteg y residentt~l zone~ The maJor concerns ~n thls matter evolve a~ound the requested varl~snco from the requirement of a 2~ foot landscaping setback a~)acent to a single- family zone~ The raqui~ed findings for the granting of sald varlance as stipulated by State Isw and local ordtnances do not appea~ tc- be p~esent in this case as more detailed balow: There are no speclal circwnste~ces or unusual herdships applicable to tha subJect proper~y which dep~ive the subject p~opertY of privi leges enJoyed by other propertles in khe vicinity and under identtcal zor+e clssslficatton. The grenting of thls varisnce is construed as the g~anting af a special privllege Inconststent wlth the timitations upon ether prapertles in the viciniti~ and zona (n which tha 5UI3jCCt prope~tY ls sttuat~d. Tliat the granting of this ve~lance wi l l be materlally detrt~,~ental to the publtc welfare or injurlous tA property ~nd (mproven+ents in the ~aa~e zot~e and vicinity. i l /2/81 ~ HINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY P LANNING COMMI~SION~ NOVENQER 2~ 1A81 That the 9~anting of lhis vsrtance is cantr~ry ta the obJectives of the Master Pl~n and toning Ordinance. aassd ~o~ the aforementloned co~s~fdBuen~~Park~dwn reA~stwthat thisdlltem a ~gat~~ ~mp~~t upo~ ~esldents be deni ed by the P 1 ann 1 n9 Comn+~ ss ton . Thank you for the opportunitY to conn~ent o~ tMis item. Youra Tru1y ~ 81•656 Patrick 0. Hrown~ Director of Planning and Building~~ He stated he has discussed this with severhborsre e opposed,tobthe reclassiff catlon belteve the Ctty of nuene Park or the ne 9 of Anaheim adopted Generel Plan~ because tt is basically in confo~mance w~th the City w~th the City codes and they do not ob~ect to the condominl at thetapPltcant comply~lessificatton be grAnted; hvwever. they are requesting t to provide the surrounding nel9hba~s W~th e Z~'fO°t ~e^dscaped setback. p~~ ara Beach~ 8a8Q Johnso~ Circle. au°ne ed~GreC~sCa~9sN~f theeAnaheim,Plenntn9s to meet the nelghbo~s needs and alsa thank 9 pe a~tment for his help and steted they ~o ~rtt i li enandnnoted9er9~eattdealwof nolse p pool whtch will be 200 feet fran th~ r P p ~ can be leased for {s generated from the use of the poo~ ~ G~^ i~ ~+ Prlv~te dr+el l ing a~d this w11 ~ a conxnon swimmin9 Poo1 for the ent(re proJect. She asked if the poo arties~ weddings or socisl events a^d if~thereuaillhbe any eff~ t~to enforce~rpoel P some kind of nolse co~trol. She asked o rating hours. She referred to the patie which wtll be shove `he r°Sheaststed Pe erea and stated she is a~ssh~ ~u,dediketohaee maturef n1~ntingsrP18ced so that tt tf the poo) Is permitte ~ h her and she N111 edd both s vlsua) and audio b~~~~d'thatph~~Ef~ther resfde~twi~ f~he stste ~s of the peoP1~ i~ the area are older w~~h noise~ thought It would be very detrimenta~ andheurly•mornin9hhou~s~andton week-ends. psrties~ etc.~ wc11 into the evening Bob Papini, 8881 Buchansn Circ1G~ ~uena Ps~k~ stated he is opposed to thls ~ro)ect o~ the grounds of the variance of tha 2Q'fO°tsitioncof the poolti~,nagreedhwlthlthe~Y adjACent to tfie propcrtY l ines. and tl~e po points braught out by the Clty of Buena Park Ptanning DePa~tme^t and st~ted they A~e lld conce rn s. IIe added they are concerned sbout the fact that the drivew~lrs will va ~t~s with vehicles in and out v+h~ch would heve qulte a bQ ed~acent to the property but felt any ~Arge noise level. Ne sthatdarea~should be desig~edht°cf~t~h°1a ~~' ~ stated he type of construction in t~vQlo~~* p~ this particul~r property appears to be fett the or-e and two story im ractical snd he hoped the CItY of P~aLhim woel~~ykp~~asedithstfthe C~tYa f s P coRCe rns ineo con~lder~tion• He state eY 11/2/81 __ ~ ~ c ~ MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM C11Y RLIWNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMOER 2~ tA81 8t•(,y~ Anehelm will keep the residents in Buene P~rk in mind and they know the Planning Cummission daes teke thsse reque~ts for verl~nces serioualy. Mr. Papint stated they h~ve ~ petttton wlth approximately 25 signaturas and there were complalnta~ f~om many af the nalghbors who c~uld not sttend thts meeting beceusa of thalr ~obs and they were shocked th~t meetinc~s such as this are held ~t an hour when they could not attend And s~ggested th~t ar~anqement~ be made to schadule some of theae hesrings after working hours, so that all the residenca wh~ have full-time occupatlons wlll heve en opportunity to speak. Mahlon McCourry, 68~A Buch~n~n Circle~ Buene Park~ steted his property borders Western Av~nue and the ptan proposes e one-story unit withln f~ feet sdJecent to hl~ prope~ry und he felt that is enttrely too close and the code Is ta protect the people who live in the vtcinlty end thoy wauld llke the full 2~ feet of land~caping. Ne steted he appreclates the opportunlt}~ of coming before the Cvmmissicx~ and expretstng hls feelings and elso appreclates the auena P~rk Planning Departrtr~t being present and he wholeheartedly endorses the opinions expreased by them. Stephen Wo~rzll~ 8A60 Garfleld Ctrcle~ Duena Park, stated he owns property at $881 Geifield and ts o~posed ta the 2A-foot sethack waiver and pointcd out the private road will ba approximately 6 feet from his hedroom windaw and the ~001 w111 be! 6 foot 1-3/4 inches from hts property ltne and there is s 5-foot aree between the wall and h(s house whlch means he wil) have the canw~unlty poo) Just (i feet from his property ilne with na lendscaptng between and there ts no lAndscaplnc~ setbeck on tho privet~ road. He steted he (s the trustee of the prope~ty where he res(des ~nd it Is his responsibility to do hts besT to see that this varlance ts not gronted. Ile presented a petittan wtth sl~natures of people who could not ~ttend and tndicated there are appraximattty 2S signatures on the petitian. Hc read the petition as follows: "We the under slgned l lvtng In the Presid~r~~l,~ilTrsct in Dur.na Perk~ CA arA o ppo~ed to: (a) erectlon of two sto ry multlple-f~mily dwe111ngs without a SO foot setbatk, (~) erectio~ of onc story multiple-famtly cfvre111ngs withaut a 2~ foot setback~ (c) placing recraatianel snd or trash arcas sdJacent to single-famtly dwellings~ and (d) any acces~~ driveways, or walkways between the R-1 and the R-3 pronertles". Blanche 1leydandahl, awner of subJett praperty, stated this property could be develapad wtth approximetely 33 apartments or tt ccwld be used for agrlcultural uses and that it Is bare land at the pr~sent tlme and a lot of trash is thrown onto the property ~n~ it is an eyesore end that her tax blll ts S31A e year hlgher because tt has to be cleaned once a year. She steted a lot of children also play there. She atated she felt wlth condomtntums the prop~rty wtit be more heautiful snd there will not be traff{c up and cfown the street because the atreats In the proJect wlll be cul- de-sacs and vehicies cannot get through. She ~tated the existing hcwse is ebout $ feat from the property line and she did not thtnk co~dominiums would be any closer. lt/2/81 1 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI?Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMDER 2~ 1981 81-658 M~. Elieff stated the p~tvato stroet wds reloGeted because it wss mentioned at the last meeting that the atroet would be mor~ preferable e~d ~olnted out s lot of d~iveways in th• single-family aroa ere located adJ~cent te the property 11ne and he did rat think the~e wll~ be any mare of an tmpact. Ila stated he spake to •pproxinrtely G5 ~~~ers but did not get a petition and he hed thought there ware only two peopie opposed ta th~ proJect. -~e st~+ted he feit this proJact would Improve the nelghbo~l~ood and he was not aw~~e thers was this kind of response and was not sure the people opposing the proJnct have seen the plans. Ile stated they had considered the possibiltty of a three•story con+plex. but felt the beat wey ta meet the code would be to provide these orQ end two~story toamhouse type units. He st~ted the proJects they heve butlt in the past h~ve been high quality proJects and that this would eiso be a hiqh quality proJect and he felt if most peeple knew ali the alternatlves~ they would be tn fev4r of this pr~)ect. TNE PUDLIC IIEAR~NG WAS CLOSED. Chelrman Bushore explsined the Planning Commtssion reatizes ~ let af peaple work and the Commisst~~ners all have other Jobs,but thet the Commisslan starts thetr meeting at 14:00 a.m. in ~~e morn~ng and a~uid meet unti) 1A;OA p.m. tonight and polnted out the op~ositian hss the right to appeal the decislon of the Pl~nnln~ Cammisalon and c~n rayuest thet the City Councli hear thls matter et an evening ~+eetinQ. Ne stated tf this had baen n~entto~ed at ths previous meeting~ the Comnisslon would have trted to schedule thls Item towArds the end af tha agenda se more people could attend. Chatrman t~ushore stated he understoc~d the develope~ has egreed verbally to the Pla~ining Department staff to movA tfie poot back and he fett that would a~awer some ef the opnasttlon's co~cern a~d Mr. Elleff explalned they havr. the flextbility to mave the pool 20 to 30 fcet. Chatrman Dushore stated a landscsped buffer a~ee elong th~ fence could become a natural att~actic~n as a play erea and suggested that ~~the~ thsn S feet of concrete~ that area have 5 feet of Italian Cypress trees and Hr. Elleff agreed. Chalrman Buslxare referred to concerna that someone could back inta che wail and explained the wali would be entlrely on the su~)ect property end ~t wil) become ~n assoctatio~ p~oblem. Chairman tlushc~re asked about the two-story ~ecr~eational area and M~. Elieff explained it is a patio with sundeck on top beyond the 5~ foot srea and they do have a certsin amount of room to mave the pool or reduce the stze of the pool a~ eliminate it comp le te ly . Chslrmen Dushore stated a lot of smatier compie~oes sre not putttng tn thesa types of recreationsl facilitles and a~a provldtng the occupants with more prlvate space. Hr. Elieff elso explatned the F:~ol operattng hou~s will be ~estricted through the CC6Rs and that the hours aro not yet determined, but they are willing to go along with Clty staff recortrnendstions. 11/2/81 _ _ _.-~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO!1MISSION, HOVEMRER 2~ 1Q81 81•659 Ch~lrms~ 6ushare sugqes~ed a stl~ulaclo~ thst pool operating hours would be no tete~ than lO:AQ p.m. and also that any privete parties must be over st 1r1:0A p.m. e~d Mr. Eileff rasponded the norma) hc+urs would bs between 10:A0 r~.m, and 11:OA p.m. Commtssio~er Bernes potnted out the opposttlon hed elso been cancorned about the pool betng rented out for private functio~s and Mr. Elteff nsplled they could stipulate that would not be allowed a~d include tt in the CC6Rs. Commissloner E3srnes noted the opposltion wes also conGerned ebout the londsceped srea around the pooi area and tho two•st~ry rccreational area heceuae people could look ove~ into thetr pr•operttes end asked if that recreatlonal aree would be landscaped on all sides. Mr. Elleff responded they have no specific landscoping plan~ at thls time but would offer to provide Isndscaping around the west and south sides. Commtssioner I~Ing asked if the trash locaticx~ could be inoved southerly because tt is presently proposed neer the netghbors on the north. Mr. Elleff raplled they would be willing to cort~ly wlth the Sanitation Depsrtment's rec~mmendatlon. Chatrman Uushor~ stated it ts hts feeiing that most of the concerns have been mttigated and that he realizes It is not possible to mekw. everybody happy, but he felt this would be a good proJect. f~e stated there are na two•story units within 50 feet of single-family residential p~operttes and if more Itving units are gotng to be provlded, somc of these thtngs wtll have to be 11ved with such as smaller units~ etc.~ and they wilt have ta be developed In ordcr for the young people of toAay to heve a ptacc to 11ve. l~CTION: Chairman liushore offered a motton~ seconded by Commisstoner King and MOTION C R I D~ thac the Anal~etm City Planning Commtssion has reviewed the praposal to reclasslEy subject property f rom che RS-A-43~000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multtple-Family) Zone to estabttsh a one-lot. 17-unit concbmintum subdlvisTon on an irregulerly-shaped p~rce) of land coreslsting of epproximately i.~~ acres, having a frontage of app~oximately 150 fect on the west side of 4lestern Av~nue and belnc~ located approxtmately 52~ feet north of the centerllne of Lincoln Avenue (205-211 North uestern Avenue}; and dars hereby apProve the Negative Dectarati~ from the requirement to prepars an envlronmental Irnpact report on the basis that there would ba no signtfitant i~dtvidual or cumulative adverse environmenta~ impact due to the approvai of ihts Negative Declaraticx~ stnce the Anahelm General Pian deslgnates the subJect property for medium density residentlel land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive envlronment~l impacts are in w lved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submttted by the petttlone~ indlcates no significant lndlvidual or cun-uletive adverse e~vironmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaratian substanttating the foregotng ftndings 1s on file in the Clty of Anaheim Pianniny Department. Cl~+~irman Eiushore offered Rasolutto~ ~lo. PC81-222 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Com~isslon does he~eby grant Reclasstficatioh 11/2/81 \ R r I ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLIWHING COMMISSION, NQVEM9ER Z. 19A1 81-660 No. S1•82-1~ subJect to the pettttone~'s stipul+~tion to retocate the swimming pool a~d trdsh sto~sge area to th~ south iwNy from tha single-family realdentia) ars~ and that the CCbRs wtil fnclude rest~icttons that the poo) ope~attnq hours sha11 ba no leter thsn 10:00 p.m.; th~t •ny private partles allnwed In thelr rncreallenal and poo) aroa will be over by 1A:00 p.m. snd th~t the pool and recre~tionel araa~ w111 not be rentad to any outslde g roups rtor n+c~eattonal activittea and ~lsa that the final landscaped plan~ tncludt~g l~ndscaping on th~ east end south stdes of the racroeticx~al ~reas shall bs submitted to and approved by the Plenntng Department and subJect to Inte~departmantal Committee recommendAtlo+~s. On roll call~ the foregotng resdlution waa passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMI SS ( ONERS : I;ARNES ~ 40UA5 ~ BUSf10RE ~ FRY. HERdST~ KI NC, McBUR~~EY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A85ENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commisaloner Herbst asked if any l~ndscsping t~ proposed atong the private~ roadway ~nd tndiceted he did not think ther~ ts room for landaceping. Commissioner Barnes stated she wanted to be sure thet t~+~dscaptng is p~ovided on the north side along the street and polntcd out Itatl~n CyPress trees were mentloned and suggested thet they be planted on 3-foot centers. Mr. Elieff asked tf the landscaping being digcussed is around the pooi area or the enttre north praperty ltne and pointed out the road is 28-feet wide and there is no room for lendscaptng. Commiasio~e~ 1lerbst stated he felt those ~ople abutting the p roperty line should have some buffer and nane Is bel~g proposed and even thouqh the road will be there~ the vlaual intruslon wi11 also be there a~d he felt the Cypress trees will hel~. He stated the units could even be made smaller. Mr. Elieff stated they have no objection to provtJing the tendscaping but did not want to ~educe the size of the unlts. Chalrn-an Bushore stated the petitioMrhad statPd origtnalty he hed 18 unTts dnd had reduced ttiat tQ 17~ but that he never had any untts because thet lA-unit proJect was never approved. Sle asked if the three units near the po~al could be moved bsck 2 feet. Commisstoner Y.i~g asked if Commissione~ Nerbst felt the G-foot wail would be adequate a~d Commissioner Herbst raplied he did not thlnk the wall would be suffictent with bedrooms abutting it and pointed out there should be a 20-foot landscaped buffer provided and thay arc propostng a street. Ne stated the C4mmisslon ~~as even required other developera to relocate the street. 11/2l81 MINIlTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMiEIEIt 2~ iq81 81•661 Chairnyn Bushore asked the difference betwean a private atreet and a publtc st~eat snd polnt~d out thls only affects three gareges and there wiil be no reason for anyone etae to d~iv~e back the~e. Commtssioner Herbst stated he 11ves In a almilar proJect a~d he felt chere will be parking on that street. Chatrman {iushore stated the ~ppllcant could stipulate to reatrtctin9 that street to no parking In the CC6Rs. Commissione~ Barnes did not think there would be parking the~e becausr the restdents would not be ahle to get out of their garac,~es and guest parking is provtded. She stated~ hawever, she is tnterested in gettinq s~me landscaptng. ChaiRr-an Bushore explained the confusto~ wss because part of the Commisslon and developer were talktng about landsceptn~ (n the pool eree only and others were discussing landscapi~g along the entire north p~operty ltne. Mr. Elleff steted they cannot cansider moving those three units but can reduce the width of the street and they would rather havc the landscaptnq~ potnting eut that road would not be used for fire or en~rgency traffic. Chairman Bushore a~ked if there is any way to redesign the street alnce it only servlces th ree units end sug~ested it be reduced to 25-feet wide. Mr. Elleff stated thay would have no problam reducing the wtdth of the street end providing 3 feet of tt~~dscaping. Jay Titus, Office Engineer~ ~tetad from an engineertng standpotnt~ the prtvate roadway could he reduted to 2S feet and there would be adequete turning room end that is a matter of discretton of the Planning Commtssion. Commtssloner F4erbst stated reducing tha width of the driveway would eliminate the possibtlity of parking on tl~e street end would also provide e lendscaped a~ea and prevent cars from backing tnto the well. Jay Titus asked exactiy wha~t ares of the north property line is being dlscussed and Chalrman Bushore clarified they are talking about the ares from thc front curbline of the guest parking wrsterly. ACTION: Chairma~ Bushore offered itesotutio~ No. PCSi•223 and moved fo~ its passage and adoption that the Anahein Ctty Planntng Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3243 on the bssis of the unusua) shspe of the property and sub)ect to the petttioner's stipulatlons to reduce the wldth of the private roadway to 25 feet and provtde a 3•f~t wtde landsCaped area wtth Ik~lian Cypress treesplanted on 3-foot tenters along the north pr~oerty line and subJect to Interdepartrt~nt,al Cortmittee recan~+~endat i ons . On r~ll call~ the foregaing resolution was passed by the followtng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 4ARNE5, ~OUAS~ BUSNARE, fRY~ NERDST~ KING~ NcBURNEY NQES : COMMI SS I Ot~ERS : NONE ABSENT: COMM1S510NER5: NONE il/2/81 ~ ` MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION~ NQVEMBER 2~ 1981 8t'~~2 Chairmen Bushore offered a motion~ seconded by Commissloner King and MOTiON CARRIED~ that the Anahoim Clty Planning Cortmtssl~an does hereby find that the propoaed subdivi:ton, tagether wtth tta desig~ snd lmprovemant is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan and pursuant to Govern ment Code Sections t~6473•~ end does~ therefo~e, epprova Tentative Map of Tract No. 11581 (aevision No. 1) for a ene-lot~ 17-unit condominlum subdivislon~ subject to the fotlowing condtttons: INTEaDEPARTMENTAI COMMITTEE RECQMMENDATIONS IF TENTI171VE MAP OF TRACT N~. 11 ~1 I S VEQ: 1. Tha~t the approvdl of Tentative Map of Tract No. 115~1 is granted sub)ect to the approval of Reclassification No. 81-82-1. 2. That should thls subdlvlslon be developed as more than one subdtvtsion~ each subdivlsion there:of shall be submltted in tcntative farm for approval. 3. That the origlnal documents of any proposed covanants~ condlttons~ and restrictians~ and a letter addressed to deveioper's tttle company t~uthoriting recordatton thereof~ shatl be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved hy the City ~ttorney's office and Engineering Divlsion prior to the final tract map approval. Sald dacuments, as app~oved, shall be filod and recorded in the Office Af the Orange County Recorder. Said docurt~ents shall include the following restrictions: (a) that no parking shall be permttted on the private st~eet, (b) that pool operating hours shall ba no later than 1~:00 p.m., (c) that private parties in the pool and recreationa) area shall he ended by tA:00 p.m.~ a~d (d) that the pool and recreational area shall not be rented to outsiJe groups for recreational activities. 4. That street names shall be approved by the City Plannln~ Department prtor to approval of a final tract map. 5~ toabefnecessarynby the1ChiefiofttheeFiredDepartmentspriorttodconmmencemer.tnof structural framing. 6. That subJect property shait be served by underground utilittes. 7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfacto ry to the City Engineer. 8. ThaC the owner of subJect property shall pey to the City of Anaheim the approprtate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be approprtate by the City Council, said fees to be p~id at the time the bullding permit is issued. 11/2/81 - ~ ~~, ~ ~ ; ~: I MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2~ 1Q81 81'663 9. That all prtvate streets sha11 be develapad i~ accardance wtth the City oP llnahetm~s Stands~d Det~i) No. 122 for privste stroets~ Includinq tnstellstion of street nsme signs. Plans for the priv~te street ltghting, es ~equlred by the stsndard detail~ shail bs submitted to the 3uilding Oivtaion for approval and inciusion with the buliding plan~ prtor to the issuance of building pern-its. (Prtvate streets ere those which provide p~imary access and/or circulatio~ within the project). In order to provide a three (3) foot wide landscsped plsnter along a portion of the narth proparty line~ the wtdth of the weaterly portion of the proposed prtvete street measuring epp~oximately 16A feet from the western te rn+lnus of satd private street to thn front curbltne of the guest psrking area shall be reduced to 25 feet and a 3•t~t wide landscaped area with Italian Cyp~ess trena plantnd on three(3) foot centers shall be provtded along the entire north pro~erty ll~e. 10. That a ftnel landscape plan inctuding dense landscapt~g around the rec~eatlo~al area shall be suhmitted to and approved by the Planning Department. 11. If permanent st~eet name stgns have rat been installcd~ temporary street name signs shall be install~d prior to any occupancy. 12. That the c~wner(s) of subJect property shall pay the traffic signal assessment fee (Ordinance No. 38~6) in an amount as decermined by the Cfty Council~ for each ne.w~ dwe111ng unit pr~or to the {ssuence of a butldt~g permi t. 13. That app~opriate water assessment fees as determined by thg OfFice of Utilities Gene~al Manager shall he paid ta the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a buliding permtt. ty. The seller shall provide the purchaser of esch condominlum unit with written information concerning Anaheim Municlpai Code 14.32•S0~ pertalntng to "parking restricted to facilitate street sweeping". Such wrltten informatlon will ctearly indicate when on-street pa~king is prohlbited and the penalty for violation. tc. Prior to issuance of buitding permtts, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief 9uilding Inspector thst the units will be in conformanc~ with Notse Insulation Standards spectfied in the Caltfornta Administrative Code~ Title 25• 16. Prior to issuance of bullding permits~ the applicant shail present eviden a satisfactory to the Chtef Building ~nspector that the proposed proJett is in conformance with Council Poliey Number 5~+2~ Sound Attenuation in Res{dential PraJects. ii/2/81 ~ 1 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CI'TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEM~ER 2~ 1981 g~.~,~~ 17. That the propoaed aubdivislon shall provfde~ to the extent feasible, for natural and/or passlve heattng and cooling opportunities. JaGk Wf~tte~ Assistent Clty Atto rney~ presonted the w~itten ~ight to app~al the Planning Commisaian'a decisio~ within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 2: EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATION RECLASSiFICATION N0. 81-f32-~ AND CONDITIONAL ~ N 0. • --- PU9LIG HEARING. OwINER: AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTIES~ INC.~ P. 0. Dox iQA77~ Santa Ana~ CA 92711. Pruperty d~scrtbed as en trregularly-shaped parcei of land cansisting of approximately 5.g acres~ loceted n~ h and west of the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Manchester Avenue~ 2111 South Ha~chester Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION aEQUEST: RS-A-43,~OA TO CR. CONDI TI Of~AL ~1SE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A 5-STORY ~FFI CE OUI LDING. Sub)ect petitlon was continued from the meetl~gs of September 9~ 1q81~ and October 19. 1981 at the request of tlie pot i t loner. It wes noted the petttion~r has requested a 2-woek continuance. ACTION: Commlssloner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisston~r Bouas and MO ON CARRIED, that constde~ation of the aforementtoned item be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of ~~ovember 16~ 1Q81~ at the request of the petltfoner. ITEM N0. 3: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO~~ RECLASSOFICATION N0. Sf1-81- B AN~ VARIANCE N0. . PUBLIC NEARING. Oti/NER: CORNELIA S. UOGT~ 11251 Euclid Street. Garden Grove~ CA ~26l-b. AGENT: RUSSEl.L JAY~ 6971-A Linooin Avenue~ Buena Park~ CA 9062A. Prope~ty described as an irregulariy-sheped parcel of land co~sTsttng of app~oxlmetely 6.7 acrrs located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Peregrtne Street. having a frontage of app~oximately 32Q feet on the south side of l.incoln Avenue and a frcmtage of 780 fest on the east side of Peregrine Street. RECI.ASSIFICATIOtd REQUEST: RS-A-43~000 TQ RM-120A. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF: (a) MAXIMUM ~UILDING HEIGHF At10 (b) MINiMUM NUMBER 0~' PARKiMG SPACES TO CONSTRUCT A 161-UNIT M ARTMENT COMPLEX (deteted by revlsed plans). SubJect petitlon was centinued from the meettngs of September 9, September 21~ and October 5. 1989~ at the rcquest of the petitioner. There were twe)ve interested persons indlcattng thetr presence at the public hearirog, and although the staff report was ~ot read~ (t is refer~ed to and m~de a part of th~ minutes. 11/2/81 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION~ NOVEMQER 2~ 1A81 i ~ 81-665 Russell Jay~ agent~ explalned o~lgtnally 1q2-unit~ were proposed ancf the revlsed plana ere for 161 units. TNE PUBLIC t~EARIMG WAS CLOSED. Commissloner Dernes complimen~ed the developer for deleting the varlences. ACTION: Cortmtssioner King offered a mc~tfon, seco~ded by Commtssloner 6ouas end M~~N CARRIED, that the Anahetm City Planning Commisaton has rovlerred the proposal to reclassify subject property from thn RS-A-43~~00 (Residentlal/Agrtculturel) Zone t~ RM-1200 (Residentlal, Multiple-Femtly) tona to construct a 161-unlt epartment complax on an Irregularty-shapnd Parcei aF iand cunststing of approximately 6.7 acres located at the southeast corner of ltnooln rva~ue and Pe~egrine Street; and does heroby approve the Negative Declaratlon from the requtrement to prepare a~ environmental impact report on the basis that thn~e would be no signtfica~t individual or cumulative adv~ersa envlrnnmental impact due to the approval of this Nec~atfve Declaratlo~ since the Anaheim Gennral Plan deslgnates the sub)ect property for multiple-famtiy medium density land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensltive environrt~ntal impacts are tnvolved tn the proposa{; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitloner indicat~s no significant irdividual o~ cumulstive adverse environmentel Impacts; and that the Nagative Declaration substonttottng the foregoing findings is on file 1~ the Ctty Af M aheim Planning Dep~rtment. Commissioner King offered Resolutio~ No. PC81-224 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plan~ing Commission does herehy g~ant Reclassificstion t~o. 8A-81-3E subJect to interdepertrt+enta) Committee reconmendations. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following e~ote: AYES : CdMMI SS I OtlERS: dARt~ES. ~OUAS, dUS~IORE, FRY, 1~ERBST, KI NG ~ McBURNEY NOES: CQMMISSIGNERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP.S: NONE I t was noted revl sed plans de leted the need for the vartances ~ therefore, the petitloner has requested that said verlance be withdrawn. ITEM N0. 4; EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATiON AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 2178 (Readv): ~.~_ PU4LIC HEARI~IG. OWNER: W-S ANANEIM, 1400 No~th aristo) ~ No. 245, NeaPort [3each, C~ 92660. AGENT: MEYER INVESTMENTS PROPERYIES, INC.~ ATTN: MICIIAEL J. ANDERSON~ 1201 South 9each Bn~~levard~ Sutte 1b2, La Habra, CA 9Q631. Property described as an irregularly-shsped parcGl of lend consisttng of approximately 3.8 acres, 88a South West Street. Prope~ty presently zoned C-R (C4MF~ RCIAL~ RECREATION) ZONE. COND1710NAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT AN OFfICE Etlf1~0{NG IN THE C-R ZONE. I t was ~otsd th t r 1 tem was heard af te r f tem ~lo. 5. tt/2/8~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINti COMMISSION~ NQVEMBER 2~ 1981 $1•666 Tharo w~s one perso~ tndicating hls presence at th~ public hearing~ end altheugh the :tsff repart wes not read~ it is ~eferred ta and made a part of the mtnutes. Michs~) Ande n on. agent~ was present to answer eny Ruestlons. Stnvs Huson~ 1115 West Ilampshire, referMd to Item No. 1tt of the staff ropart perLai~-Ir~~a to the closure of Nampshtro Strr t end aeked 1f the resolution pe=sed in February Is stilt effective. Chalrman Bushore stated the ~eason thls matter was scheduled far pubitc hearing was that the previously approved proJect only had one driveway and the ravl~ed Flan shows two driv~eweya and the Cemmission falt because of th~ concerns ralsed by the ~elghbars~ It would be eppr. ~rlate to hsve a publ(c hearing. tla stated the Traffic Er.gineer recomne~ds Nampshtr~ Street not be closed. P~u) Stnger~ Trafftc Engineer~ steted this has bee~ discuased over the paat week and he I~as no obJection to the driveways as plrnned; however~ since the Planninq Conxnfaston did not appmve the second drivewsy, it was felt it sFwuld ba discussed sgaln and also the closure of Itampshire Street ~hould be discussed. He steted the CI ty has recomme~ded that the bus compentes not use -~ampshi re Str4et foi• th~augh traffic and tho~t bus traffie hes decreased. Mr. Huson replled thet Is t~ue but he would sti l l expect bus traffic there during a convention. Mr. Singer statad he does not recocmxnd the closure of 1lampshire Street beceuae it provtdes adcitlonal circulatvon (n the ~rea and sh~~ild it be clos~d~ the cost would b~ (n the nel~!~tiofiood of $30~f10~ and no funds are provided for thet in the current a) loc~tion budg_ t and that part icular Issue should be discussed by the City Cnunct 1. Mr, Iluson esked where he stands and if he should go tA the City Council htmsA~t. Mr. Singer replled a petftio~ would be in order t~nd Nr. Huso~~, noted th~t e p~ on had ~aen submitted to th~ Plsnnirsg Commissicx~. Hr. Singer repiled thet pe, ,n dtd not add~ess the cost of the elosu~e. Mr.l~uson stated the residents are rat responsible for the addr.d trafftc and should not be ~esponsthle fo•• the costs. Jack White~ Assistant Clty Attorney~ ~xplained the procedure for clnsing a pubitc stre~t ~s speclfically set forth tn Sectton 211~11 of the Vehlcle ~ode and thc electtng body of the City~ in Yhis case the Clty Counctl, would determine the necessfty for the street and tha conditlons upo~ whfch it should be closed and that is not the Plan~tng Commt~slon's prerogativ~e. He stated if a peti tion has beer~ submi tted. t t should be fol )owed up. Chairman Buxhore stated the Planning Commtsslon dld make s recamiendae~on ragarding the closin~ af Ifampshire St~eet to the City Council •nd at that time th~ developer n~enticx+ed he would particip~tr in the cost if tt should be closed, but that has to be reso~ved hy the Ctty Council. He expiained this p~iic hearing was held bec~use of th~n drive-~va~r change and the Ca~nisslon wt11 pass alonq the oppQSttion's concern. 11/2/81 i j MINUTES~ ANANEIM CIT~f PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2~ 19A1 O 1 ~~O' Conmissloner 9arnes domplimentad Mr. tiuson for following through ~n this and eugg~sted he Just keep gotng. THE PUBIIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commi~sioner I~erbst asked Mr. Mderson if ths developer would sti11 be willtng to participste in the cost of the~ claaure of Ilampshire Street. Mr. Ande~son repll~d they would have to know the terms before givtng e definite ansNer and Indicated he was not in a positlon to ssy tf they would be wilitng to bear the whole S3.A00 cost. Commissio~er Horbst stated he would offer a motion for approval wtitch would tnclude the developer's stipuletlon to ~artictpatp in the cost of the closure of I~empshire Street If the City Council determines it should be closad. Mr. Andersnn replied tt~~y wouid be willing to agree to thetr proportl~anate share. Paul Singar recormended thet the reasonahle perticipation would be ene-fourth~ which Is baaed on the trr,ff,;, v~lume and the conditton sh~uld read ~h~t the dRVeloper wfil p~r no less than 25~;. It was note~j a negatlve declarattor has ~reviously '~e~n approved on this proJect. ACTION: Commissi~ner Ilerbst offered Resolution No. PC$1-22; nnd moved for Its pe+ sage m~d adoption that the Anahelm City Planning Commlsst~n does hereby ftnd that the rovised plans submttted in conjunction with Condittoral ilse Per~it No. 2178 sre basically in confor nce wtth ths plans as a~pr~ved by the PlanninQ Commlssion on February 23~ 1~381, ~nd the revised plans are hereby approved subJect to the stipulatlon of the developer to pay na less than 2;~ of the ~ost of closure of Hampshire Street should the City Counctl dotermine chat It should he closed and subJect to Interdepartmental Committer. recommend~tlons. On rolt call~ the foregoing resoiution wos pasaad by the following vote: IIYES: COMMI55 i OtaCRS :~ARNES, (i0UA5, BUSI~ORE ~ FRY ~ IIERaS7~ KI NG. McBURNEY NOES ; COMMI S5 I ONE RS : NONE A85ENT: COMN'SSIONERS: NONE ITEM N0. : EIR N0. 11 PREYiQUSLY APPROVED) RECL!1551FlCAYIOt~J N0. 81-82- V I AN 0. • I C?. PUBLIC HEARIt~G. 0~1NER: THE FIEL~STONE COHPANY. 17411 Mitd~el i Avenue~ I rvine. CA 92714. Prope~ty described es an irregularly-shnped parcel of ~rnd consixting of approximately 9.96 acres located at the northwest corner of ponx~eya Ortve and Coronet Avenue~ having approximate frontagea ~f 200 f~et on ehe nort!~ side of Romneya Drive and 1495 fe~t on the south side of Coronet Avenue. RECLRSSIFICATIQFI REQUEST: RS-A-43~000 T' R.'-3oon. 11/2/81 MINUTES, ANAf1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEM6ER 2~ 1Q81 81•668 VARIANCE REQIIEST; WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT AREA PER IriIEILING UNIT. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTABLISH A'~-LOT~ 105-UNIT CQNDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION. Sub)ect petitlon was continued from the meeting of ~ctober 1~. 19R1~ at the r~quest of the petl ttoner. There were approximately ten people indic~tinq their presence tn opposition to subJnct roquest. and although the staff roport was not read, tt ts rcferred to and made s part of the minutes. Davtd La~glois~ rep~ese~ting thn Fieidstone Compenv. stated the Anahelm Gene~a) Plen ~llaws 11.3 dwelilny unlts per ac~e on thls prope~ty rnd they ere proposing 1~.5 units and potnted out the proJect meets code r~quirements for open sQace and pr~rkinq spaces anJ the variance requested is mtnimsl for the minimum lot Aree p~er dwelltng unit with 2~937 square feat proposed and 3~400 square feet required. tle stated thc opposition ts conc~rned about the prnxtmlty of the 1ak~ and even thouqh chfs proJect was never contert~latod as beooming a pert ef !he hon+eavne~'s Assoclation, the residents will enJoy the beneftt of the lakr,. Ile expleined they heve mAde a proposal to thn Anaheim Shores Nomeawner's Associ~tton concerning the lake, which is spelled out tn the minutes of the p~evious meeting. Ja-n~s Perker statsd he is speaking on behalf of the Anaheim Shores Owner's tlssoctatton and they h~ve some serious concerns about this propased development; that Anaheim Shores was intended ta be a rather targe ct~velopr-~nt of attmched single- family homes to be t~uilt out in several different Increments with a tatal of 3g~~ lots and to date, only 3 have been hutlt or 175 lots; that Martin Luther Ilospital bought onu portion to be used as a pa~king lot; thst this develo~nent will be a 2-story condamintum proJect with 105 condominium units; thet Anaheim Shores was originally designed hy the developer and the City to ba a stn5le-famtly community; that the developer has indtcated that a co~domintur~ tyD~ ~~~aA~•~t tis not compatible with the stRgle-famtly community and cannot be a pert of their association. He polnted ~ut thc Anaheim Shores extstinq developmcnt on the map and aiso thc lake~ ~trcam and the arca to be developed in th~ future ~s singlc-famtly homes by the B rock Company. He explalned the condominium p~oJett wilt vtrtually be to the edge of the lake and will create what they feet wtll be an attractive nustance which will attract people ~ children, dogs. etc.. from the conaominum project to use and en)oy the lake and cre~k and sar-cone could drr~wn. Ne explained the Anahelm Shores Owners' Association is a California non-profit organlzatlon and awns the l~kc and strea+ns ~nd adJacent walks and it has the legal duty to takc whatever steps are nec~ssary ta pr~vent pe+ople from harm; arid that thry fcet this condominium proJcct w!th the City's appreval will creatc an unreaso~t~bie burckn upon thelr Associatton. Mr. Parker stated tl~ey atready heve ~~andaitsm and poiice problema end also thare is a probiem with the underlinin.~ of the lake and stream heing dar.+aged aRd the water le v~) dropping and he felt it is onty a~:attcr of time before thcre is a tragedy. t~e stated there is a berm around the lake and stream so the lake and stream cannot be see~ from ths street~ so tt has hsd a nstural harrter unttl now, but that bbrricr t tf2/8t ( ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C~TY Pt,ANNIN~ COMMISSION~ NOVEh~ER 2~ 1981 81-669 woul d be el imi n~ted and now the rea l donts of the 105 uni ts wi 11 ha~ve di rect sccess to the lake. Mr. P~rker stated they have tried to negotiate an acreeme~t with Fieldstone Gompany a~d there have bean good fel th ef forts ~ but wanted to present thel r appos 1 t io~ for resson~ stated. -~e ~tat~d they fee) the~e should be n ba~rtcade between thet ~ two developments to protect thelr 11~ht lity and fslt there should be a so11d Impenetrable wall to avc-id liabllity P*~1~• He statca they hsve Insurance~ but hope the Clty wi l l see thel r prob i ems and suggested the approval of thi s pro Ject be cond i t t oned upan the develope~ constructin~ ~en attractive wall and providinq landscsping betwaen the two tracts. Mr. Langlots explatned in Mar h 1974~ when the Ctty Council ap~roved the Mahelm Shoros Planned Community ~velopme~t~ It encompe~~sed not oniy the sinc~le-fami ly dave 1 op~;~en t bu t a 1 so a candomi n i um deve 1 opmen t~ moh (1 ehome park ~ ne I ghbo~hooc! shopping center and an office per~ and it was never intended as a tc+telly single- family residentiat area. Ile stated thero h~vc been negotiatlons betwe~n Fieldetone and the Asaoti~tion and they have been f~tr, but there is no solutton which will provlcle 100~ sattsfactton for everyone rnd there is a potentle) problem of trespassinq; hawevar~ he did not think the trest~~ssing problem wil{ ever be solved unless the whale communi • ls turnad Into a grte-guarded commu~ ity. -le stated thetr proposal ~ es outl Ined~ went a long way toward ailevlating the oroblem~ but does not rc+l~ra 1 t 100o and the assoctatian wl ll have to maintaln ad~quate Insu~a~ce to h~ndle the t~spossing problem. t~t stated he did n~~t think (t r+ould be feir to the Anaheim Shores Ccxnm~ml ty or this development to put ;~ a sel id 6-foot hlgh b1ACk, wa1 1 bec~use this property wil) be pa~t of the community. ~le stated he had really hoped that the prc~posel he had worked o~ as late as 1:15 today would be dcceptable Co the n~mbers af the assoctation, but spparently it wasn't. THE PUBLIC i1EARING 1~IA5 CLOSEO. Chatrm~n Bushorc painted out three of the Commissloners were not present ~t the previous hearing and asiced iP the condnminlum portlon of the proJect does not went to belong to the assoctatlon. Mr. ~.anglois replied there Ts e real problem with the condomtntums Jalning the associati~n because lt ts a single-family re~fdential home assoctation where the hc~meowners maintain tholr own yards~ etc. Cha t rman Bushore asked i f they hav~e explored the poss tb ! l i ty of becami ng a~art of the assaciat(on tn tern~s of the l~ke portTon only. Mr. Langlois repl ted that is the type of agreen+ent he had hc~Red they had agreed upor~ which include~+ setting up a separate as~societton cAnce~nPd only wlth the lake and the greenbelt area immedlscely surrounding the take. Cha) rnan I3ushore asked Mr. Parker 1 f the essoGistlon is in agreer-~nt with tt~at praposai at least in spiri~. 11/2/,gl MINU~'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER ?~ 1q81 81-F7~ M~. Parkar replled th~t thara afe enough prohlems ar ohjectlons to the propo~el th~t he cannot represe~t thet there Is a maJorlty agreement and that there are o number of good pc ints and a nurr~er that are not acceptah le and t t wi l l tAke t in+e to pol i the asaoclatlan a~d they would have to conduct an ~lection. Chstrrt~n Busho~e aa~ed if Mr. Perker thought there ls a yood posstblllty he can get a conconsus that thc proposai is ~ roasonable way to go because it is knawn that there ara people who will be attracted to the la-<~ no rt-e*ter how htgh the wall ts and Mr. Pa~kcr replled he was not su~e. Chairman Bushore statad he would ass ume the take Is very expensiva to malntetn +~nd he understands there is a disagreemene eurrently among the present rr~,nbers (n the Association s~ t~ tts value, but wlth 1t15 riore units sharin~ In the cast of matntenance~ it woulcl c~rtainly I~elp the Associat~on. Mr. Parker re plied he did conduct a~urvey of 77 owners over the weekend and one of the qu~st(ons related to thls ~ropos a) to hulld condominlums and the homeowners are overwh~lming agAin~t the condominiums and want single-family honxs~ a-~1 they aere concorned about tres~assing o~ the lake. Chairman aushore noted if the condominium proJect hecomes a part af the Associrtlcx~, then the lake wlll become everyone's respo~slhility and pointed out the people who buy th~se condomintums are no diff~ rent than people who buy single-famtly ho~,es. Mr. -'arker stAted they asked haw m~ny would he ~v1111nq to change the CCRRs to include the condominiums and he thougtit therr wss an even split, ~nd when asked if the rr~mbers would want a ma~onry and wrought iron f~nce. the ma,Jortty agreed with that ~.••ncept, and wh~n asked if they would want ~ solid wall~ there wasan uverwhelmtng n,aJorlty who ~antr_d to have a solid weli. Ile stated the Commission~rs did no~. really beli~ve him at the last maeting whcn ha said the maJortty of the members wauld want a solld wall, b ut they have since gone so fr~ As to say they would he wlliing to flnance the wail~ so they are se~lous about it. Chairm~n 8ushore s[at~d at one ctme Mr. Parker bought tnta what he thought was a plannad r,ommu~ity and thts parttcuiar density of condor.+(nlums was a part of that pia~ned communtty. c+e stAted a porttan of the properLy has heen sold for a parking lot and there ls a strong possiblltty that someone wlll ask for othcr chanqes because there are about 5 es~~s proposed for a neighborfiood commerclal center. He siated the Assoctatton must stand up for thel~ rights and not aitow chis type develepnient to go thr~ugh without becoming a part of :hetr Assoctattan at lcast for the lake. ~le stated it would be a big disadvantage to anyone ltvlnq there for thls proJect to abut that lake and not taKe part ln the rt-ulntenance of 1t. -:e stated ha wants to see this proJact cievelaped but wi l l not suppo ~t i t unless the lake ts covered in the CCbRs. Commtssloner Eiernes agreed and stated she ~aiembered e~rhen thts pro~ect was orininslly planned and thcse condornlnlums wer~ planned to front the lake and she felt they zhould be included in the lake maintenance because there Is a substa~tial cost. She stated sh~ felt If thry are not mede to pa~ticipatc ln the upkeep of the lake, oYher 11l2/$1 MINJTES~ ANAI~EIM CITV PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ NOVEMRER 2~ 1981 81-671 p~ojects which come in will nat wsnt te pertlctpate elther. She esked Mr. Parker tf all the members understsnd how this would reduce thelr cost. Mr. Parke~ repliad they have discussed thts espact. but the plens~ as p~oposed~ do not Include tho condominlums as part of thsir Assoclatian. Ile explalned the existing Assoctation owna the lake ~nd wlthout a leg~l intcrest on the prrt of the condominlums. no insurance company will ~ive them fnsu~~nce. so the entire burden is on the oxtsting members. Ile statcd they unde~stoad the density of thts tract would bc substantially less and that 5~ or ~Q untts wRrc contemplated acress the leke rether than the 10~ un 1 ts . Chelrman Bushore stated he ramemhers the hea~•Ings and th~+t area was always designed to be a hiqher densit~. Mr. Parker stated he has laokrd at the records~ but the homeowners do not hav~e those re co~ds and anly relfed on what thcy were told a~d they did not understand that the denstty wes to he thls high ~nd they c11d nat understand that those units w~ulc~ not be a ~art of ths l,ssoc!atton. Cnmmtssiun~r Fry Stated Mr. Parker had indicet~d they want a f,Arrlcade to protect thel~ liebiilty and added he felt there Is no such thing and they have a p~oblem there now wt th trespassinq and asked ~•~hy they do not h) r~ securi ty. Ile state~t the problem witl~ Mr. Perker's sugyestlon ts thet It placas thc power of reJectinc~ or accepttny memhers with the existing Assocletlon and the City cann~t ferce an applicant into somGOne else's Assoctatlan. Mr. L~nc~lois ex~~lalned he can-e up with what he thought was a very crp~tive solutlon whtch would not solve eve ryone'~ prohlem~ hut there would be t~~-o assoctatlons and the existing Association would deslgn,te th~ee memhers to serve on a lake commlttee and the othcr Assoclation would d~signate tw~o People tu serve on a lAke corrmittee and those ftve peaple would assess the cost and both Assoctat(cx~s would cont~ibut~ to that cc~st. ilo stated he cannat force the existing Assoctation to ~ccept the co~dominium proJect and there are sor~ very real problems with trying to merge a condomintum proJect with a single-family project and their existina CC~Rs re~utre rat(fication of 3/4 of the existing homeowners in order ta make a chang~ and the survey ~nditated that ahout S~a do not want the project. Ne statrd they are willing ta make the financlal contrlbution and carry insurance to cover the liability but did not think a b-foot high ~rail is the a~swer artd h~- did not thlnk r~quirtng them to balong to the llssociatfon is fai~. Commissioner aarnes stated she f~it If th~- are gaing to develop a condominium project on the lake, those people should parttcipate in the upk~ep of thar, take and shc is not tatking about ,joining the Associacion anJ her questton would be w!~y should peopic onJoy the lske~ if they arP not paying for tt. She asked if thr two sides would stipulake thet thry will work o~t an agreerr~ent. Chalrman aushore stated he felt the Commisslon would be cortmitting grave errnrs if Lhey a11ow the Fieldstone Company to go ahead with the proJect wtthout becnming part of the lakt; howe w:r~ the Conmi~yion cannot ~aa~e the Anaheim Sh~~es bwner's Association accept them. f1e stated he knflws t~~•re were some stron~ feel ings wh~n the ti/2/81 ~~i y ; MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNiNf; COMMtSSIQN~ NOVENflER 2~ 1981 .y ~ 81-67~ parking lot wa~ approved, but the orqanisatton w~a not stronc~ enuugh to overcome the~ir concer~s ~nd ~hould qet organiaed because people wt11 be askt~;q f~ changes. Mr. Parker stated tn~; hsve mada aome subst~ntlal progress In cc~mnuntcating and have came up with an (de~ for a compromise. but Is difflcult to get eve ryone to egroe or get ~ concensw ~ but they do heve th-e germ for an Ides snd he felt 1t would take at lesst four day• to get ~ prtvate agreement. Gammisstoner Herbst clartfied thst the lake is owned In fee and stated the leke was s upposed to be fer the whole community~ which is why he had voted for it 1~ the first place. Ile steted he wou1~1 off~r • motlon for approvai and ~e~ve tt up t~ the people to wo~k out dn ~greertent. Ne stated th~t property wes supposed to be develap~d with a higher denslty end that Is wh~t is being proposed. Chairman Bushere stated enother slterna +e wauld -~e ta dratn the lake. Commtssioner Herbst stated he felt ev~e ryonc should pertic(p~te In the malntenance af che ~~ke ~nd if it ts being held in fee~ ft could hs sold~ then th~y would own it and could tnsure it. Mr. Parker ~eplled they had discussed gtvtng up a nortion of the leqal Interest tn the lake. Commissioner tlerbst statad the lske a~ppears to be the ~~otd-up on thts pro)ect and the Pla~nfng Commtsslon Is withtn its riqhts to epprove the proJe!ct today and it ts up to the Assoctatton and the dcvelop~r to resolve the llebllity of the lAke. Mr. Parker 3tated he has heard two or three Commissloner~s ~ay that the Anaheim Sho~es Development was Intended to tnclude and encompass that lake and if the Commission approves thls plan as proposed~ they will be dotng the san+e thirx~ as allewt~g the parking lot which t~truded Into the Integrity of the plan and wi11 be creating a definite legel tiablllty and sta;ed he Is suggesting that the Ctty may ah~~ tn the itability of thYs lake. Chatrman ~3uahore~ stated if the Assxtstio~ doesn't 9et tocXthe~ as ~ group~ they wll) have a 1ot af problems. ~~e sta ted he feels the single-famtly residenCs look at the condomintum restdenCs es bein9 different from them~ but they are people and they will be using tha~t lake and the exlsttng Association shouid be utiling to share the I tability. M~. Lanqlals stated rega~dlexs af t~~e Planntng Commission's positian~ he wanted to make it clear they will continue to hoid discussions with the Board a~d will continue to held open thelr offer ta parttcipate tn thelr p ro-rata sh~re of maintenance and the 1labiltty and regirdtess of whether or nat this plan Ts ap~reved or dented. they will not change ti~at positlon. Chairn-an Bushore stated he will not support the proJect unttl they become a part of the Leke Assocletion because he dc~es not want to see the Anah~im Shores Assoctattoh cut down to nothing. ~/2/B1 ~ MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOH~ NOVEI~ER 2~ 1981 81-673 Cammissto~er flerbst steted he wt 11 offer ~ ~tion for approv~l of the pro)act bec~uae the Cortimissto~ (s telling the develo~+ar they h~ve to become a part of the fl~soclatlon which may not be posstble ind this t.; hoidine~ up the project a~d he would 11ke to aee hin get started aa soon as poaatble. }le sdded~ hopsf~~lly~ the sltuatien wiil be resolved before the matter goes hsfore the City Counctl. Mr. Parker etated ~e menb er of the Eloard of Directors would 11ke to he heard a~d Chairman Buahore replfed he would not reopen the pubitc hearing because he was sure there wtll be another publlc heartng held I,efore th~ City Councii. it was nvted Environmenta) '^~pact Report No. 113 was certtfled by the City Councii on March 16, 197~~ in conJunttlon with the ~pproval of the Anahelm Shores Pianned Commun i ty . AC_ TION: Commisstoner Hert~st offered Resolutlon Na. PC81-226 and moved for Its passage and adoptton that the Anahelm City Plenning fnmmlssion does hereby qrant ik classificatton No. 81-82-3 suhJect to Inte~departrtrental Committae recommendatians. On roll call, the foregotng resolution was passed by the fallowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIaiEQS: aARNES~ DOVAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, f~ERBST~ KING~ McE1uRNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSEf~T: COMMI SS i ONE RS : NONE It was ~oted Commissloner (3ouas origtnally voted no o~ the rectasslftcetion~ but trtm~diatcly following the break asked that her vate be reflected ss yes on the reclassificat.~~. Commisston~r Nerhst offered Resolution No. PC81-227 and moved for tts passage and adoptio~ th~t the Ana~heim City Plan~ing Cormisston dc~s hereby qrant Vartanco No. 323a on the basis of the unusual shape of the p rnper~y~ ~nd that the requcst is minimal and subject to Intn~departmental Conmittee recommendattons. On roll call~ the foregoing rasolutton was passed hy the follawtnq vate: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DUSHORE~ ~'RY~ t~ERBST. KING, ~icE3URNEY IOES: COMHISSIONERS: 60UA5 Ab~:NT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Herbst offe~ed a motton. seconded by Commisslor+er Fry and M(1TION CARRIEO (Commissioners ~ouas and 6ushcre voting no) ~hat the Anaheim City Planning Commission doos herehy find that the proposed subdivis~~n~ togethe~ with its destgn and improvemenc is cor~sistent with the City of Maheim's General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 and, does~ therefore. approve T~nteeive Map of Tract No. 11637(Revtsion No. 2) for a 105-untt condominium subdlvision subJzct te the petitioner's stipulstion to co~tinue negotlations wlth the existfng Maheim Sharet Owne n Associatio~ to wark out an acceptable agreement pe~taining to tne mainte~ance and itabiltty of the lake~ aitl~ the developer sttpulattng ta participate in a pro- 11/2/81 l i ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2~ 1981 d 81-F74 rata sha~e af those maintenenc~ costs and subject to Intnrdepartmental Commtttee recommendatians. ~NTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDAT_IONS IF TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NC. 1163Z I ~~C~' RO D : 1. Th~t the approval of Tentettve Map of Tract No. 11~37 ts ~ranted subJnct to the app~oval of Veriance No, 3238. 2. Th at should this subdtvislon be dev~elop~d as mare than one subdivislon~ each subdlviston thereof shdi) be submttted In tentiative form for approvai. 3. That all lots withl~ thls tract shell l~e served hy underctround uttlities. 4. That the ariginal documents of the cavrr~:~~ts~ condttlons~ and restrictions~ and a letter add~essed to devrloper's ~itle campany authoriztng recordation thereof~ shull bn submitted to the City Attorney's office and app~oved by the City Attorney's Office~ Publlc Utllittes Department. Buttding Division, and the Engtneering Divisto~ prior to final tract map approval. Said docum~nts~ As approved~ shall he fiied and recarded in the Office of the Orange County Racorder. 5. That st~eet names shall be eppr~ved by the Ctty Planning Depertmant Frlor to appraval of a final tract map. 6. That trash storage areas shall he provided in accordance with ApE~roved plar+5 on ftle wtth the Office of the Executive Director of Publtc W~rks. 7. That fire hydrants shell be installed and charged as ~equtred and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Flre Department prior to canmencement of structural framing. 8. That drainage of sub~ect property shall be disposed of tn a manner setisfactory to the City Engtneer. 9. That tl~e oMrner• of subJect property shall p~y to the City of Mahelm t;:e appropriate park and recreatlon i~-lleu fees as determined to be approprlate by the City Cou~ctl~ said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is i ssued. 10. That all private str^eeets shall be developed in accordance wieh ttie City of Arvahelm's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets. including ingtallation of street name signs. Plans for the private street 1lghting, as required by the st•ndard detail~ shall be submitted to the Duildtng Dtviston for approval and inclusQon with the huliding plans prior tc the issua~ce of butlding permits. (Private streets are those which p~ovtde primary access and/or circuletion witht~ the projnct. 11/2/81 _J i r '~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2. 1981 81-675 11. If pe~nwnent straat name signs ha~e not been Installed~ temporary street nsme siqns shall be installed prior to any occupancy. 12. Thst the owner(~) of subJact property shall pay the tr~f4'tc signel ~s~essrnent fae (Ordtnanc~: No. 3896) tn an amount sa determined by the City Council~ for e~ch new dweliing unit prior to the lssuance af ~ buildi~g penr~l t. 13. Th~t appropriato water assessment fees as determinod by the Offfce of Uttlities General Manager ah~l) be pe~d to the CitY of Anahelm prior to :he issuance of a buildiny pe rn~lt. 14. Prior to Issuance of building rannlts~ che epplltant shall present evldence satfsfaGtory to the Chtef 8ullding Inspoctor that the proposed pr4Ject is In confo nnence wl~h Council Policy Numha~ ;42~ Sound Attenuatlon in Residential Pro)ncts. 15. i`rlor to Issuan us of bu "cfing permits~ tha applicant shal: present evidence sattsfacto ry tn the Chief Bulldtnn insp~cte~ thet the units will be in confc,rmance with Nois~ InsulBtio~ Standards spe.clfled in the Californfa Administrntive Code~ Title 25. 16. Th at the praposed subdivtston shali provide~ to the extent f~astble, for passive or natural heating and cooltng opportunties. Jack Whtte. l~ssistant City Attorney~ presentad the written rtght to appeal the Pianning Commission's declsion within 22 days to the City Councii. RECESS There was a tcn-minutc rccess at 3:15 n.m. ._....__ RECONVENE The rn~eting was i~econven~d at ~:25 p.m. ITE~ k_N,O~. 6: E1R NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~1-82_^2: PUBIiC HEARING. OWNER: E. 0. AND PN~lL15 M. RODE~FER~ 1$20 East Garrv "venue. R106, Santa Ana. CA 92705. AGENT: f1ARRY SCHREY, c/o RODEFFER INVESTMEt#TS 320 East Garry Ave~ue~ ~106, Santa ;,na, CA 92705• Property described as an irregu'~rly~shAped pa~cel of lan' consisting of approxtmately 6.1 acres~ located north and east of the northeast corner of Oran~ewood llvenue and Santa Cruz StreCt, 1501 East Ort~ngewood Avenua . RECLI~SSIFICATION REQUEST: ML TO C0. SubJnct petition wa of the petitlone r. ontinued from the rtr.ettng of October 1~~ 1~81~ at the request ?1/2I81 l MINU1'ES~ 11NAHEIM CITY PLIINNINC COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2~ 1~181 81-~76 Thero wes ona tntoras:ed peraon lndiceting his p~~sence et the publlc heering~ rnd although the ~'.aff ~port was not reed~ it is referr~d to and made a part aF the minute~. John Rodaf~~r, •gent~ explalned a copy of their Traffic Enginaer'a ~eport was suomitte~ to the Commission and also a copy of the Tr~nsportatlon Systams Management Progra!~ which they have proposed. Ete steted they feel the mftigating measuras suggested answer their she ro of the traffie eancerns in thR area. lie exalained they hsve had extonsiv~e meattngs with the City's Traffic Englneer~ and he has indicated approval of their propossi. Mr. Rodeffar referred tc~ Conditlon No. 7 which calls for private street standards a~d stated they conside~ their access a private drlveway. He stated although the parcel hes a strange configuratlon~ it cbos have di~ect acce~g to a dediceted publlc street and he understands the ordt~ance is to be designed for restdential subdlvlstons and they are propostng subdtvtslon of office hulldings Inte separatc ownership Interests or air sF,ce condominlums. Ne stated they f~e1 the 25-toot a+ide prlyate drtveway ts adequ:atG and ~rAVtdes ade~uate circulation. !1e potnt~d out the latest office buil.ling built In the aren immedtatety to the west of their p~+rce~ h~a 25•foot wide privete driveways. ile noted with the 28-font widc private ctreet there wr>41d be no landscapin,y ~d if they wlden the street tn ?6 `~~t wlth~ut changing th~ alan. they w~uld be trading landscaping for the wldth of t~~e street. Mr. Rodeffer referred to Item 13 on page G-b nf the sta~f rep~ri concerning freestanding siyns not being permltted ln the CO Zone and indtcated they were not awaro of that requiramenx and hR was not sure of t'~e destgn uf their signs~ but rzquest to be aliawed to place a la~-proflle rt~nurtrnt sign on the property. TNE F'USLI C HEARING WAS ClOSEO. Chairman Bushore ~xplalned a slgn wouid ~~.~ulrp a var(ancr requlring a separate applicatton. ile clarlried the prlvate drive~~ay would be for one-way ~ntry and onc- way exlf and s~eted he did nnt see any argument f~c~m the Commtssio~ concerninq the 25-foat wide privatc driv~way. Mr. Rodeffer explained theY have discussad modifications atlowing a single-la~e for ar:rance and a do~s~la-lane for exiting, so that someone turning left woutd r+c~t block traffic. Paul 51n~~~r, Traffic E~gineer, Indlc~ted this plan was modif(e~ at hts suggestion. Cormissioner Barnes as'ed what type t~affic would be generated hy the proJ~ct and Mr. Rodeffer replied this woule st~lctlY be offtce condominlums wlth reo medica~ uses and that they woutd bestc~lly be service oriented uses. ACTION: Commissioner 3arnes affered a n~tion, se~onded by Commissto~er King and MO ON CARRIED~ that the Ar,aheim City Planning Co rnissic~ has reviewed the proposT' to rectassify subject property from the M~ (Industrial, Limited) ZonG to thE CO 11/2/81 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ NOVEMOfR 2~ 1981 81-677 (Commerciol~ Office and Professio~al) Zone to construct a con~ rctsl affice complex on an irro gularly-shaped parcel of land con~isting of eppraximately 6.1 acres~ located north end esst of the nartheest corner of Orangewood Avenue and 5anta Cruz St~ect (1501 East Orangewood Avenue); and does hereby approve~ the Negative Declaretion fmm the requlrement to prepere a~ environmental imp~ct report on the basts that the~e would be no slgnlficAnt Individual or cumuletive adverse anvironmsntal Impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaretien since the Anaheim Gnnerel Plan designates the s~Ject nrope~ty for qene~al Arofesstonal lend uses eommensurate with the p~oposal; that no semsittvA enviramm~ntal impac.ts ar~ In wlvecl fn • osal; that the Initial Study suhmttted by the petitioner indicet~s n~ icant individual or cumulatlve adverse enwironmentat impacts; and that the Nega~~ Declaration substantlating the foregaing flndinys is on file in the City of Anaheim i'lanning Department. Conxnisstoner Barnes off~rcd Resolution No. +'C81-228 mnd m~ved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassificatlon No. 81-82-2 subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recorm~endat(ons deleting Condition Ko. 7. On rol) call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES : COMMI SS I ONE RS : t3ARHES ~ BQUAS ~ aUSNORF ~ FRY ~ FIERISST, KI NG, McBURNEY ~~OES: COMMISSIONERS: NO~IE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE I TE~M N,_f'. 7: E I R CATEGORI CAl EXEMPTI Otl-Cl.AS°~ 1 ANn CONDITi OtJAI USE PERMIT N0. 2260: PUBLIC FIE~,RiNG. OWNER: FIRST NATIONAL (3AtIK OF ORANGE COUNTY~ 77A Wilshlre Boulevard. Los lingates, CA 90017. /1GENT: ANTI~ONY STRANMIELLO. 511 South State College E3oulevard, Anahetm, CA 92806. Propcrty descrtbed as an irreg~tarly•shaped pa~cel of land consisti~g ~f approximat~ly 3.Q acres located south and west of the southwest cornPr of Santa Ana Street and State College Boulevard~ 511 South State Collec~e Doulevard (Angelo's). Property presently zoned CL (COMMERCiAL,IIMITED( 20N~. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST; TO PERMIT ~1N-SALE REER ANQ 1JINE IF! A~~ EXISTI~IG DRIVE- TNROUGN RES7AURANT. it was noted the petitioner has requested a 2-week contlnuance. ACTION: Cammissioner King offe~ed a motion. saconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED~ that consideration of the aforementioned ttem be continued tu the regularly-scheduted meeting of ~~ovember 16~ 19$1, n: the request of the petitione r. ITEM Nn, ~; EIR CATEGORICAL CXEMPTIO~~ CLAS 3 ANO VARIA~lCE N0. 3240: r s .~.~.~r ~ PUaLIC HEARIi~G. OWNER: CALIFORNIA COMPUTER PRO~UCTS, INC.~ 2-+11 West la Palma Avenue, Anaheim~ CA 92801. AGENT': NOLMES AND NARVER, INC.. 9q9 Toam and Country Road, Orange, CA g266a. Prope rty described as an irregul~rly-shapcd parcel of land 11/2/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLfNNINC COMMISS~ON, NOVEMQER 2~ 1981 81-6~8 conatsting of approximately 22.1 ~c ro located at the northwest corner of La Pelma Av~nue and Gflbe~t Strcet, 2411 West La P~Ime Avenue (Cal•Comp Co~p.). Property presontly zo~ed ML (INDUS'f. AL, LIMITEG) ZONE. VARI -1NCE RF.QUEST : WAI VER OF MAXI MUM FENCE NEI GHT TO PERMI T A 6-FOOT 11 I GN CNAI N-LI NK FENCE. There was no one Indicating their presence tn oppositton to subJect request, a~id although the st~ff repart was not road~ it Is referred to and rnade a part of the minutes. Jtm Turnor~ ~epresQnting Cal'fornta Computer Products, stated they wtll be mtak.ing e perking lot at the corner of Gilb nrt and La Palme which is cur~ently pl+~ntad in strawberries and wish to instai) a 6-foot high c'~~inlink fence 680 feet. elnng La Palma. THE PUBLIC HEARING 41AS CLOSED. Commissioner Earnes ~tarifled tt~ere wtll be landsceping on eith~i sl.f~ of the chainlink fence ond Mr. Tu~ner clarif'ei that is corrcct r~nd referred to Cor;dttiori No. 3 requiring sidewalks end explalned he had dtscussed this with Mr. Devitt And he is agr~eable to allowing a 7-foot sidewalk the tength of thts new development. Jay Titus~ Offic^ Engineer, clarified this conditian refars to the standrrd plans and specifications on file in the Office of the Clty Enginee~ and th~y do not necessarilY dete rmtne the width of the sidewatk. It was notcd the Planning Directo~ or hts rutho~lzed representatlve has determined thet the proposed pro)ect falls within the definition af Categorica~ ~xamptions. Llass 3~ as defined in paragraph 2 of thy City of Anaheim Envtror.mental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore. catego~ically exampt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTI aN : Comn) ss loner Ki ng of fe red Rasol uti on No. PC81-22~1 and naved for i ts pessage an- d doptlo~~ that the Anaheim Ciky Plannfng Commission does hereby g~ant Varlance No. 3740 on the basis that denial would ck prive subject prope~ty of a prtvilege enjoyed by other properties in th~ same zone and vtcintty and subJect to interdepartmentai Commitiee rccom~sendations. On roli call, the forcgoin~ resolut(on was passed by the foliowinc~ vote: AYES~: LOMMI SS IONERS s 4ARNES, BOUAS. BUSNORE. FRY, HERQST~ KI NC~ McBURNEY NOE5: COMMISSIQNERS: ~IONE AB5EI~T: COMMI SS I ONERS • NONE 11/2/81 ) MINUTES~ ANA1iEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ NOVEMDER 2, iQ61 g~~~~9 ITEwM ,N_q,~qt EIR NEGATIVE ~ECLARATION AND COND1Ti0NAl. USE PERMIT N0. 2271: PU9LIC NEARING. OWNER: BRITISN MOTOR CAR OISTRIf3UTORS~ iNC.~ iGA~ ;outh Anahelm Baule~vard~ Anahelm, CA 92805. ACENT: TAIT s ASSOC1/1TES~ INC.~ 9A0 Orengefalr I.ene, Anaheim~ Cll 92803. Property descrfbod as en irr~gulariy-sh~ped p~rGal of iand consisttng of sppr•oximately 3.A acrea~ Ifi0) South Anahelm Boul.~vard (Anahetm Toyota and British Car). Property presently zoned CL (COMMF.RCIAL~ I.IMITEp) tONE. CONOlTIO~~AL USE REQUEST: TO EXPAND AN EXISTING AUTO Q~ALERSIIIP IN TIIE CL 70NE. Thero was no one indicating thelr presence tn bpp~sltion to subJect request~ and although the staff report wes not read~ it is ~eferred to and made ~~ pe-t of the minutes. Les Cooley, Tait b ILssaclates~ explained Maheim Toyota wish~s to t~dd Ah additlo~al 1700-square fout showroom bullding on thc present site becausr of a ne~v lin~ of automobiles whlch they will be handltng. TNE PUQLIC IiCARINf; WAS CLOSEQ. Chainnen Bushore esked if any ne~~ signing is p roposed and Mr. :oo1~y replied the only present change r,il) t~e to the front stgn whlch fronts the Santa Ana Freeway and a~ existing sign wllt be rertaved and advertistment for the new vehfcle wi11 replace it. Ne explained his client Is lookl~g at a complete new slgning progr~r~ and that they do hav~e an existing varlance~ but plans w111 he suhmltted far the new stgns. Cvmmissioner f3arnes statcd she has been informed that a hot-air balloon was seen cn top af thts butlding approxln-ately ri~o wecks ago and Mr. Coaley tndicated he was not aware of any balloons. except the sma11 ballonns whlch are placed on individual vehicles an weekends. Commtsstoner Bouas explatned a lar~e hot-air balloon was scen flying on top of this biii ldtng two Sundays ago. Joe Mealey~ Store Rirector Anah~im Tc~yotA~ explained he was not aware of these balloons and would make it a point to see that tt does not happen agai~. A~_: Chairman aushore ~ffered a mc~tion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MaT10~~ CARRIED~ that the Anahetm City Pienning Commtssion has revia.wed the proposal to permtt expansion of an ex(sting automoblle dealership in the CL (Comnercial, Limited) 'Lone on e rectangularly-sh~ped parcel of land consisting of approxinu~tely 3 acres~ having a f rontage af approxtrnateiy 48q feet on the west side of Anaheim Ooulevard~ approximately 550 feat soutfi of the centerllne of Cerritos Avenue (16a) SAUth Anaheim Boulevard) ; and dues hereby approve the Negat (ve Declaration f rom the requi rement to prepare an enviranmental impact report on the basis that the~~ would be no sig~ificant tnd~vidual or cumulative adverse environmeneal in+pact due to the app roval of this Nag~tiv~e peclaration since the Mahetm General Plan designates the subJect praperty for commercial professfonal land useS comnensurate with the pt'OpOSai~ that no sensitive envtronmental imp~cts are invc~ived in tho p~oposal; that the Initiai Study submitted by the petitioner indtcates no signiflcant (ndividuai or cumuletive 11/2/81 MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NQVEMgER 2~ 1~81 A1•68A ~dvsrse envlronmentsl Irt~acts; and thst the Neg~tiv~e Declsretlon suhatantlating the forngoing findinqs Is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Chalrman Busho~e offered Resolutlon No. PC81-230 and moved for tts passagG and adoptton thst the At~ahelm City Planning Commisslon does hereby grent Conditiona) Use Permit No. 2271 aubJect to the p~titianer's stipuletlon that there ahall be no additlana) ~Igning either on the bullding or o~, the site and that no hot-e!r adwrtising balloons shall be dtsplayed and in compliance with Secttons 18.03.A3Q; .031; .A 32i •~ 33; .034 and .035~ Titie 18 of the M ah~tm Municip~l Code and subJect to lnterdepartmentol Commlttee recommendatlons. On rol) c~ll, the foragoing ~esolution was pessad by the fallowing vota: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; OARNES~ DOUAS~ BUSHQRE~ FRY~ NERttST. KING~ McDURNEY NOES: CONMI SS IONERS : NONE ABSEfIT: COMMI SS I ONE p'' : NONE Chelrman 6usho re exp1A(nod a condttto~al use permlt can he revoked if the co~ditlons are not complted wlth. 1 TEM N0. 10 : E I R CATE~7R1 CAi. E XEMPTI ON-CLASS 11 AND VARI A-~CE N0. 324?.: ~~~~w~ r~.~~~.~~~ PUBLIC HEARING. 0-~MER: DOUGLAS E. JONES~ ET AL~ 2045 South flarEio~ Bauleverd. Anaheim~ CA 92~02. I1G~Nf: VAUf~1At1 fiERRICY.~ 7A~3 East Compto~ Boulevard, Paramount~ CA 9~723. Property descrt!,ed as an lrr~gulerly-~haued percei of land consisting of epproximately 3.3 ~cres~ 2045 South 1larbor Boulevard. Property presently zoned CL (C~DMt~RCIAI, LIMITED) ZOt1E. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVE R OF PERMITYED LOCATIOM QF FREE-STANDING SIGN TO PERMIT A FREE-STANDi ~~G S IGN. There was one person tndicating his presence In oppositton to suh)ect ~equest* end although the staff rcport wes not ~sd~ tt is referred Lo and n+ade a pert of the minucas. Vaughan Ilorrick~ agent~ stated this varience ts for ~ sign in order to adverttse thAtr business to southbound t~affic because the vi~w ts obstructed by an electricai tawer, shrubbery and a motel sign an the ~ortF sidr_ of the p roperty. He stated they want to ncve the sign closer to the south edg of their property amd it wili not obstruct any other bustness signs. David Thoma~s. stated he ltves in Nuntingtor~ Beach end is representing Thriftimart. ~~e atated they have ~~o obJectton to the slnn Itself because lt ls done in good taste end Is very attraetive, but are cpncerned with the ~l~n to rrbve it s~utherly hecause in that location it would ettract patent~a) customers to use the Thriftimart parking iot and the~o is no roctprocal easement agreement across the Thrlftirtu+~t ~roperty to any other o~mrr~rctsl enterp~ise in the araa. tle explai~ed tfie petitia~er has painted parkt~g speces on the southerly sdge of hts property; haweve~~ access fa those spaces i t/2/~31 MINU1'ES~ AN/WEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ lIOVEMBER x~ 1981 f!1•681 i s across Th ~i ftimart property and he does not have the rt ght to use thei r prope~ty. Mr. Thomas stated he felt thts slgn would tell the custortwrs that they hev~ the right to us~ thsc ~ccees. Ile e~dd~d ha hal~aved the petitlone~ hss ample perking withaut thoae 22 soutl~erly spetes. Ne atated they have hed many problams in thet r cents~ with parki~g end this ~~rould Just add ta th~se problenn. Ne polnted ~ut the parktnc~ spaces betng r+eferred ~~~ ai the plens to the Pl~nning Commtsston. Mr. Herrick stated he unde+~stand~ the opposition•s concern and he rx~uld hrve to ~evlew the plan end may have to ellminate thet row of parklnc~ spaces, i f i t beccxnes a ~robtem. TNE PUBLIC t~EARIHG WAS CLOSED. Chalnnan Bushore explalned the perktng 1~ not the discusston beforc the Planning Commt ss Ion todAy end the metter to be di scussed is the request f~r the s i gn, Mr. Thomas presonted photographs of the pnrking spaces because he felt movin~ the slgn would creatg problems. Commtssion~r McBurney clarifled that tt (s enp~oximnteiy (>~ fcet ~rom thc south prope~ty l tna to the Th~lfttmart entrance. Commisstonar King stated hc fett the sign is existing in the perfect spot. Mr. 1lerrtck stated It is the perfect spot for the northhou~d t~affic~ bu~ southbound trafftr, would ba past the faci l tty before seeing the sign beceuse of the palm trees~ electricr~l ta~er, shrubbnry~ and motel stgn deR~nding on which wey they w~re travel ing. Commisslon~r King polnted out traffic would he slowing far the stop at ^rangewood and Mr. Herrtek rcpiied it Is over 15~ yards to Orangewoad at that poTnt and vehicles wauld be speeding up to meke the stop signal at Convr.ntion way. Chatrman Bushore stated he traveis thst strcet frrquently and ~ticad the sign a coupte of days after tt wes put uQ end he did not think there was ~+ visual problem and stated he really does not see any hardshtp in this case. Mr. Ilerriek stated therP Is not a wlde open vlcwof the sfgn traveling south on tiarbor, especlally (n the outer lanes and he wcae~id like fo~ the pubiic to have the opportuni ty tc make e decision to stop befo~e they h~ve p~ssed the praperty. h~e Statod th~ relocetlon of this sigr~ would assist the pubi ic and make thei r business mcre prof i table~ Comnlssioner McBur~ey asked (f any other busin~sses In the lm++ediate are~ have been grented similar sign variances and Annika Santalahti~ assist~nt Dtrec[or for Zoning, ~xplained thero art no other variances in th,st area and a lot of the axisting signs in the ar~ea wern thero before the ordtn~nc~ aas adopted and are there legally ~a+- conforming. tt/2/81 ~~ ~ ; a , MINIlfE5, ANIWEIM CITY PLA~~NING COMMISSION~ NOVENBER 2~ 1981 8~-6a2 Cha i rn+an~B~uB~;~Roadtandh fe 1 tmt~ rca i shp 1 QntY i Qf t precode~t9 forrnot~ appr~v 1 ng~ t~at t Ste~ta z varlance. ' ~ Commtssioner 9arnes stdted the Cammi3slon ts flrm about the sign ordinance+ and is ~ trying to clean up signing in the City. ~ Commtssioner King stated he fel t the existing sign Is hic~h enough far a cleer vlew for vehicles traveling aouth. Mr. Herrick askedana it was~no~~d) that w~uidthaveito be handlaci by,Parkwaysinc~e It Is on C i ty prapcrty Mal~tenance Division. 1 t wes not~d the Plflnning Ut reelor or his authori=ed representatf ve has determined that tha p~~posed proJect fal ls wi thin the definition of Categarical Ex~emptlona, Class 11 ~ as def inandi isnathere fore ~categaricel ~y exemptmfrom~ theR requi ramen~tto Repart Guldelines ~ prepare an EIR. AC~~p1~: Commlssinner Ilerbst offered Rnsolutlon tlo. PC81-231 ~~d mov~d for itz passage ~nd ed242, on thetbas i s~tl~at` ~oChardsh) pnexists .~i ss tan does he~eby aeny Vari ance No. 3 On roll call~ the f~regoing r+esolutton was passed by the foilowing vote: AYES : COMNI SS I ONERS : BAaNE 5~ 80UAS ~ QUSHORE ~ FRY ~ HER6ST, KI NG, ~ck3URNEY NOES : COMMI 5S I ONERS : NONE A85ENT: COMMISSIONERS: NON~ .faek White~ Assistant C(ty Attorney, Presented the written right to appeal the Ptanning Commisston's decision within 22 deYS to the Ctty Council. I~EM N0. 11: EIR NEGATIVE OECtARATION AND C~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 227~: PU9~1C 11EARING. GJNER: aERKEIEY SQUARE ASSOCIATES, 930 South Plac~~tta Avenue, AA~ p 1 acen t 1 a~ CA 92b 70. AGE-IT : JACK AND ARLENE M I LLS ~ 1015 Ees t Ka te 1 1 a Aven ue ~ AD, Ansheim, CA 92805. Property descrtbsd as an irregula~ly-shaped parGel of land conststing of approrimat~~~` ~ ~~~~STRIAL~~LIMITCQ)K7.ONE,a ~~~Ue, ~p ~Discount Sales). Property presently zone CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO RETAIt~ RETAIL SALES IN TIIE HL ZONE. Thare was no oLeffndece~L^was~t~ot readei1lt is referred totand~~detarp rtgof the a 1 though the Po minutes. I1/2/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, NOVEMIOER 2~ 1~$1 81-f~83 Jack Milis, pettttoner. axpl~ined they are tn a smnll industrie) complex and sell sewing machines~ microw~ve ovens and ceiitng f~na and ~re asktng ~,~ermis~lon to s~l) 25$ retell. -le explalned they have been selling retail for sar-etime with nc~ problems and they are located s cors i dereb le di stance f rom Ketel te and cb hrve enough pa~king. THE PUdLIC f~EARING WA5 CLOSED. Conmisaloner King usked har they could control selltng only 25~ reteil and Mr. Mills ~ep118d that that wes his esttmate. fle explained they hav~ no sign on Kate11A and real ty need to be able to s~i l retat l I n o~~r to survive. -ie explained they compete with discaunt houses and he~~e to huy ln volume. Commissloner tlerbst stated they could contral the retali sales through the sales tax bocause overyone who buys r~wall must pay sales tax. Mr. Mills axplalned his wife does theoffice work~ with Mrs. Mtils ~~spondiny she could provide e report of retail sates and they heve corrpir.te records of sales. Commissloner fry polnted out this husin~ss Is advortised 1n the Santa Ana Ragister and is trYing to attrACt the i~~ilc. Chalrman Dushore polntod out tha Commi~,ston hss hod problems In the past with retel) sales In the indu~trtai a~r.~ and there ~~cds to be a wey to control It. He pt~inted out that these type requests are normall~~ granted for aone year perlod, sub)ect to review~ which fs a a~ay co prot~~ct both thc pcttttonar and thc City, tx~tnting out the Commfssia± doe5 noc +~ant to sea another Adr~ys type operation in thic locetion because of the: perking and t~affic. Cammisslonc~ Darnes polnted out a~att~er ~ason to 11m1t rata6l sa{es 1~ the industrle) area !s that peopla tn the industrial aree pay less pe~ square foot for thelr place of b~siness and it Is nat fai r for those ~rlro nre paying full price. Mr. Ml lls indicatad that they wauld be wlll inq to comply wtth a one-year l imitation and s~bmitting e yeerly sales ta~x report. Ct+ainnan Bushore pointed out al l they need to do is submit a letter requestlnq an extcnslon and a yearly sta~ement must be submitted prior to xhe renewal whith shc~ws the portlon of retatt and whal~sale s~lcs for the year, under penalty of perJury, and Mr. Mi l ls inlilcated ehat would t,~a acceptabie to him. AC. T1pF1; Ghatrman Busiioro afferecf a motion, seconded by CommTssioner Bouas and MOTIAN CARRIED, that the Anaheim Gity P~+a~ning Commission has reviewed the ~roposal to retal~ retat 1 sales in the ML ( Industrial ~ Limlted) tone on an irrogula~ly-shaped parcel of land canststtng of approxlmately 2.b acres, I~avinc~ a front~ge of approximately 60 feet on the north side af Katelia Av~nue (1~15 Cast Ketelia Avenue OD); and docs he~eby approve the Negativ~ Orclaratipn from the re~uiren~n~ to prepare an environmenta) impact rtport on the basis that there wa~1d be no slgntficant indivldual or curnulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Ueciaration sinca the Maheim C~ener~) Plan designaxes the subJect Froperty 11/2/~1 .. ; °, J MINUTE5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMiSSION~ NOVEMBER 2. tAB1 81-684 fo~ general Industrisl tand uses commensurate wlth the p roposel; that no sensttiva envl~onmantel Imp acts ere Invoived In the c~roposat; that the Inltial Study submitted by the p~titloner indicates no significant individusl or cumulattve adve~se environmente) tmpacts; and thst the Negative Deciaretlo~ suhstentl~ting the foregolnq flndings ls on fTle ln the City of Anaheim Ptanni~g Ospartment. Chairrtu+n Bushore offered Reaolutlon No. PC~1-232 and rrove~' !~r its p~ssage ancl adaptlon that the Anaheim City Plennin9 Comnlssion does 'nereby e~rent Conditianal Use Pe~mit NA. 2z73 subJect to the petitlone ~'s ~tipulation to submit ~ yearly statement of the ro teil and wholesate sates and sub)ect to revlew in one-yeer in compitenca with Soctions 18.03•03~i •~31 ~•032; ~~33; .~3~~ and .~35- T~t~1e 18 nf the Anaheim Muntclpal Coda and aubJ~ct to Interde~~rtmental Committee reumn~ndatlons. 0~ roll cell~ th e foregoing rasolutian w as passed by the foliawing vote: AY~S ; COMMI SS I ONERS : DARNES ~ 90UA5 ~ BUSHORE ~ FRY ~ IIER[15T ~ KI NG ~ McQURNEY NOES ; COMMI SS I ONERS : NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ITEM N0. 12: EIR NEGATIVE DECLAal1TION RECLASSiFICATI~N NQ. 81-82-~ AND VARIAIICE . IC FIEARING. OWNER: MAGNOLIA BAP715T Ct~URCH OF ANAFICIM~ 72~ 5outh Mngnolia PUBL Strect, Anahelm, CA 92(304. AGENT: MARGE fUTO c/o SAHER REAI.TY. A~A Sauth Brookhu~at Street~ Ansheim, CA g2804. Property describec~ South'VetarauStreetshAped parcel of land consisting of approximat~ly 0.~ acra~ 1~5 RECLASSIFICATIOlJ REQUEST: RS-A-43~QA0 TO RM-12A0. VARIANCE N0. 3239: WAlVfRS OF MAXIMUM 9U1L.DlNG IIEIG~~T AIID MINIMUM DISTANGE BETMIEEN BU I LDI NGS TO C~NSTP,UCT AN 18-uN I T APARTh~riT COMPtEX. There was ne one inditeting their praaence in opponitio~ t~ sublect request~ and although the staff ~eport was not read. ft is rcferre~d to ~nd made a part af the mtnutes. Ken Nishimato, archttact. stated there is a possiblilty the owner wtil live in thls complex so it wtll be a plece he will be Provd to liv~e. 11e ~tated s preudent has been set for R~1-1200 zoning beuuse the prn~rty to the north all the way to the next stre~tcha~~e~a^e~variance~andpdenlaltwoutd deprive them of5a prlvilegepgrant~d~toas ber.~ s t otfiers . TNE PUBLIC I~EARING WAS Cl4SED. Commt~sioner King qointed out there is an existing ws11 on the r+ortfi and Mr. Nishimota replle~i tha wall may hive to be axt,~nded o~ a new wa11 constructe~. ~~~z~s~ MINUTE5~ ANNIEIM CIT' PLANNINC COMMISSION~ ~IOVEMDER 2~ 1981 81-685 Chalrman Bushore ststed Chsre is a questlon ebout the slc~e of the driveway from the s ubterranean p~rkt~g~ Mr. Niahtmoto st~ted they have tatked to the Traffic Engineer and that it is the p~licy af the Trafflc Department to requtre the 22 grede difference~ but with this particulAr property, they cennot p rovide tha 27 grade. Ne rofn rred ta the properties to the north in whlch this was not done and explained they had drtv~en the d~iveway with a sports car and a lar~te car a~nd did not feel th~re wtll be any problams with thatr proposed driveway. tie s~id there Is good visibtitty for trafftc on both sides and thb~e wilt he no problem as long es there are no watls or fencea on the slde. Chairman Bushore stated epproval can be subJoct to the Traffic Engineer's approval. Mr. ~Ilshimoto statcd they have the ahllity to create whetever they necd far the driveway and that they wil) make sure vtew (s not ohstructed. AC_Ti'1N: Commissioner King offered a motion~ secc~~cled hy Cammissloner Qouas t+nd MOTION CARRIED, that th~ Aneheim City Plannlnq Commtsslon has revlewed the praposal to reclassify suhJect c~roperty from the RS-A-~i3~00~ (Residential~ Agricultural) ~one to the Rh!-12~0 (Weafdential~ Muttiple-Famlly) Zone to construct en 18-untt ~partment complex wtth watvers of maximum bulldtng hoight and mtnimum dist~nce b~tween bulldtngs on a rectangulariy-shaped parcel of iend consisting af approxin-ately 0.6 acre, having a frontagc of ap~roxtmetely 1AU fr_et on the west side of Uelare Street (705 South Velarc St~c•et) ; and does hereby a~provc tl~e Negdtlve Declaration from the requi~ement to prepare a~ envircmn~entei tn~act report on the ~,asis that there would be no significant indlvldusl or cumufative adwrrse envtronmenYA1 irr~act due to the approval of thls Negattve Detlar~tlon slnce the !-nahetm Generai Ptan designat~s the subJect property far Ic~w mediur++ density land uses commensurate with the proposAl; that no sensttlva environmental impacts ar~ involv~:d ln the proposal; th~t the Initte) Study submitted by the petitioner indlcAtes no signiftcant tndtvidual or cunulative adverse envlrc~ mental Impacts; and that the Ncgatlve Declaration substantlating the forego(ng findings is on fite In the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Gorm~issioner King offered aesolution tla. PC81-233 and rmved for (ts passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby grt+nt Reclassification I~o. 81•82-P subJect to I htcrdepartmental Conimt ttce recommendations. On roll call~ th~ furcgeinc~ resotution wss passed by the follawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONFR5: BARNES~ 90UAS, BUSIIORF~ FRY, HERI~S'f. KIN~, Mt6URNEY NOES: COMMI SS 10~~ER5 : NONE ABSEWT: COMh1S510NER5: !~ONE Commissio~er t'.ing offered PC81-234 a~d moved for its passage anci adaption that thc Anaheim Ctty Planning Cammissi~n does herehy grant Variance t~{o. 3239 on Che basis that denial would deprtve subJect property af a prtvilege en)oyed by other properties in the san+r_ zone and ~eicintty and subject ta the Traffic Eng(neer'R approvat of the lt/2/81 MINUTES~ ANANEtM CITY PLANrvINC CQMMISSIAN, NOVEMBER 2~ 19a1 A1-68F slope of the subte rranean p~~king drlvew ay and suhject to Inte~dept~rtmental Cammittee reco~rmen da t t ons . On roll call, the fo~egotng resoiutlon was pessed by the fnlla+inc~ vote: AYES: CONMISSIpNERS: BARNES~ 60UA5. E~USNORE~ FR~'~ IIERCST~ KIt~G~ McQUFt~t~Y NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONC ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~lONE ITEM I~O. 13; EIR NEGATIVE OECIARATION AND CONDtT10NAL USE PERMIT Nn, 227-,; ....~.._.~~. ~_....-.. PUBLIC IIEARING. OWNER~ ORANGE COUNTY WATER DiSTRICT~ 1f150~ Elils Ave~~~e Avenue, Fountstn Valley~ CA ~;:708. AGENT: LORTON TRUCK ~ EQUiPMEMT~ RONALD D. C1IRISTIAN, 8311 Westmtnster Avenu~~ Westminste~~ CA 92f,83. Property desc~ibed as ~~ lrregutarly-shaped pai•ccl of Idnd conststing of ap;~roxtrr~tely 1~.1?. acres. 1124 North Richfield Roed. Property presently zoned RS-A-43~~A~(SC) (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLA'r) 20NE. GONDI TI o~1Al USE REQUCST: TO F~ERMI T A TRUCr, AND ~'AVY EQUI PMENT STORAr,E YARD. There was no one IndicAtir~y their presenre in oppusltion to subj~ct raquest. and atthcw gh the staff report was not read, it is r~ferred to and made A part af the minutcs. Ron Ch~lsttan, agcnt. exptained the proposed operation w111 not he seen from the straet and is approximately 400 feet from tttchfield Road and (s hounded on thr. north by tha settling hasi~ and the Santa M a River ta the south; that all treffic would be generated down the IeW road from Lakevl~~ or Krecm~r Boulcvard and there would be no vehtcular access off Richfieid Road. fle explatned the Rfchfleld 4to~d address is used 1n ordtr to get utilities to the property. fie explained everythtng on the p roperty ts portable and could b~ mov~d except the shed. THE PUBLI C IIEARi NG WAS CLOSED. Commission~r flerbst asked why they could not use Rtc.fif~eld Road rather then roming in on the ~e~Y road and M~. Christlan explained tt isn't wide enough betNeen the ,xnd and the existing fence and explained there are water gates wh(ch ~ransFer the water from one pond to another and the smaltest area is 12 feet aide ~end the Water btstrlct does not went Richfield Road used for access. Conmissiuner He~bst explained the City Trafftc Enqtnee~ does not want them to use the levy road access~ with Mr. Christian pointin~ out the T~affic Engtnee~ did not want them to use Richfield Road elther. Commissioner tle~bst ciarified that the hours of vperatton would be from 7:00 in the rtarnOng and noted Lakeview is a heavily traveled strcet at tl~at tirnr. tt/2/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C14Y P~ANNlYG COMMISSION. NOVEMBER 2~ 1~81 81-68~ t~r. Chrlstian ex~1alned they can use Tustin Avenuo~ noting the equipm~nt is large ~:erth-moving eyul~-ment and ~tated, hope~aily~ it wil) net be in the ya~d very often ~~nd it would be out on tha Jc~i and thst moving lt is really very ax~enstva. Ne explained the propa~ty woutd be leased 1~or 5~~ee~s. Commtsstoner Barnas tndlcated she is Also concerned ahout the Lakeview trAfflc becawe of tha bridge ~nd M~. Christlan expl~ainad this equlpment ts drtvcn in traffi~ all the tlme without eny problems. Commissioner Barnes asked •~rhy Richfield Road could not he used and M~. Chrtsttan explalned because of the tr~sfcr gates snd r~lso the Traffic Engineer ~ecemmended not using Richflnld Ro~d bacause of th~ ~a Falma/Rtchfield intcrsection. Chalnnan Elushor~ asked why this site was chosen end Mr. Christfen replied because it cannot be seen. Ne also explein~d they Are currently located dc~wn the street in Plae~ntia. Paul Sfngar~ Traffic En~ineer, ~xplained he has recently reviewed th~ b rtdga an Lakoview tn canJunctien rrlth the hospitol trafFtc and thst visil~iltty ts very restricted. lie st~ted he would recommend access ba t~ken through F~ee Ana Street or Richfield. Mr. Christian explained Fees l~na has been abandoned ~nd is now a water pond. Chalrman Bushore indicated fi~ was concerned heceuse this is the thtrd request that has cort~ to the Commissfon through tho Wste~ Dfstrlct. fte st~+ted he realizes thls is the ftood plaln zone~ 6ut thst the Water Dt~trict Is ~ taxing body and he apprectated the fact they ar~ leasing the land to bring in revenues~ but was concerned that if the aroperty ts excess ~ i• should be+ sold. Commissio~er Barnes stai~:~d ~he wouid have no problem with the use tf the L~kevtew access problem can be ~r,~olved. Commissioner Nerbst str,ted if the property Is going to be used far (ndustrtai purposes~ the nwner as petitioner should prrtictpate in the traffic signal fees and that it should be fig~~red on an acreaye basis rather than the square footage of a pro~osed building. Jack ldhite explatned nnrmally these fees are tied in wtth the butldinc~ ~e rn-it process so that they ara paid before the building permlts are tssued~ hut tn thts case xhere would ba no buliding permtts. Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Director for Zaning. pointed out Condielon No. 1 lntludes the Trafftc Engineer's rrcor+n~e~datton that r trafftc signal assessn+ent fee in the amcunt of 5500 pe~ etre be renui red. Mr. Ch ristian po~nted out they wtll F,e usinq 1.76 acres of the land. 11/2/81 ~ ' ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY P~ANNINC COMM15510N~ NOVEM9ER 2~ 1981 81-688 Commi as (aner tierbsC st~ted he fel t th ( s S500 p~~ acre fee~ based an the 1.76 acres ~ would ba a reesonable fee. ACTION: Commisstoner I~erbst pf~Fered e mation~ secanded by Commisst~ner Bau~s ~nd M ION CARltiED~ that the Mthelm Ctty Planntng Cc>mmisslon has revit.~wed the propose) to permlt a truck and hc~avy equi~ment storrqe yard an e~ irregula~rly-shaped psrcei of la~d conslstl~g of appraximately 17.12 ecres* h~ving s frontage of ap~~oxlmately 1~336 faet on the e~st side of Rtchfield Road (1124 North Rtchfield Road); and does hereby apprave the Neg~~tivR becla~asion from the ~equtrement to prepe~e an environmental im~,ect r~sport an the basis thst there wauld he no signiflcant individual or cu+~ulativ~ adverse envtronnr..ntal Impact due to the approval of thls Neaetlv~e peclaratlo~ ~ince the ~lnaheim Generel Plan designates the subject p roperty for gr.neral tndustrial land uses c~+rn+ensurate wlth the pra~os~l; that no sensitive envira~mentai (mp~cts a~ tnvalved in the praposel; that tl~e Inittal Study submitted by ehe petitioner in~iicates no significant indlviduai or cumulativ~ ~dve~se environmente) impacts; and that the Fk gaCive D~sclaratior, substantlating the faregoing f(rdings is on filc in the Ctty of Anaheim Planning bep~rtrt+ent. Cortani ss loner lie rbst af fe red RQSOI uti on No. PC81-235 ~nd moved for 1 ts ~assage end adoptlon that the Anaheirn~Gity ~'lanning Commisslon does hereby grant Condltlonal Use Permit Na. 227~+ far a period of 5 years subject tcs ~eview rnd subJect to the c~nditian that Lakevlew Avenue or Tustin Avr.nue ~t~el1 not ba used for acc~ss end in comp'tanc~ with Sections t?.03.~3~; .~31; .~32~ •~33; •~3~+ A~d .~35. Title 18 af the Anaheim Municipa) Code and su~)ecr. to ~~~terdepertmantal Committe~ recommendations. Prior to voting on the resolution~ Annika Santelahti as~:cd that Condltia~ No. 6 be modifi6d to read that tha fees shall t,e ~eld v~ithin b~ days or rrlor to the commenaanentto activities. On roil ce11. the foregotng resolution wes passed hy the following vote: AYES : COMMI SS I OrIERS ; ElARNES, BOUAS ~ aUSHORE ~ FRY ~-iERBST, KI NG ~ McBURNEY NOGS: COMliISSIONERS: NONE AtiSENT: COI~MISSIONERS: NONE iTEM N0. 14 : E I R CATEGQRI CAL EXEMPTI OPl CLASS 5 AND VAR_i ANCE N0. ~241, E I R NEGATI DECLARATION AND REQUEST~OR REMOVAL 0~'~~ IN N S: PUBLIC NEARING. OWN£R: C. P.OBERT lANGSLET L SON~ INC., 2~6 Redondo Avenue, Long 8each~ CA 90803. Property described as ar- frregularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approxtmately 6.6 acres locar.ed at the south~~ester'ly corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairnx~nt Bouleva~d, heving approximat~ frontages of 310 feet on the southerly side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 333 feet o~ the westcrly side of Fatrn~ont Bouleva~d. Property pres~sntly zoned CL(SC) (CAMMERCIAL, LIMITEO-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAlVER OF MINIMUM lA1tDSCAPED SEi'fiACK TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER. 11/2/81 , ~ r ~; MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY PLAMNING COMMISSION~ NOVEM9ER 2~ 1q81 81-689 Therc• wss one pe~son t~dicating hls presence r~t the pul,ltc hea~ing~ and aithough the staff report waa not read~ it Is referred to and made a pert of the minutes. Normen Rasmussen. represent)ng C. Robert Lsngsiet Company, stAted thelr proposal Is for a 6-acra ~ommerctal center at the south+vest corner of Falrmont Boulevard and Sante Ane Cenyon Roed. H~ stated they reviewed the condttto~s recommend~d by staff and agree with them; that tt~ey are requestinc~ a permit for removai of specimen tree~~ but are actualty~ plsnning to relocate the trees~ but need thr pe~mit in case of the death of a tree. Ile ateted they plan to restore the Peralta Adobe and turn (t Into a financinl bullding such as a savings and loan Assoclatton and explained that ts the oniy pa~t of the development that wtll ~~qulre a setbeck va~tance. He requeated Condttto~ No. g be watved b~cause ther~ is a prc~blem with the nelcihhor's ~ol deGk being on tl~etr propnrty end thcy wf 11 hav~ to worG: out e solution to that problem before bullding ~he a~all. Anntke Santalahti~ Assistant Dlrector for Zoning, explelned th~ well is a requtremnnt of the zaning code but tt do.esn't have to be right on the property llne and the issue of the ~oo) deck was discus~r.d lASt wePk~ but if that c~ndttion is deleted~ an additional wal~~Ar would have to be advr.rttsed. She expl~tned typically the wall must be completed prior to f(no) zaning Inspectton. M~. Resmussen stated Condttton Nn. it has to do with the haurs of operation and they h~we discussed the hours of delivery ln the past and he w~ould ag~ee Chat needs to be a part of the proJect. but thay woul~i iike the hours of operation not restricted bec:ause they are negotiating wlth tlu~hes Market and do ~ot kna+ what hours th~y ~rou{d anticipate. Ile explatned there wili be a wali all nround the dev~lopment and it is true they are across the street from single-family dcvelopn~nt~ but thls proJect Is downh~tl and below grade so It Is not t~~e same thing as being next doc~r. Annika Santalahti stated thrae condittons have heen omitted from che staff report ond asked that conditions be Added pe~tAlntng to insfalletion af traffit signal at Fairrnant and Santa Ana Canyon Raad and an eque~trlan trAil. Ga ry Gook~ C~unty of Orangc Rcal Esiate Oivlsion, stat~d the County has no probiem with the proposed development, but are concarned and are conttnuing negotlations conce~ning the restoratio~ of the adnbe itself ~nd want to be sure that Items ~b. 18 and 10 are included fn the epproval. tle sieted tha County owns the land. Mr. Rasmussen statad they agree to the inclusion of the additionai condittons and ex~:~lainec! the adabe ta awned by the County and they arr leasing tt. ~n~ rUBLIC HEARING wAS CLOSED. Ch~atrman Etuahare asked if tthe cather Commisxioners have any probltrn with deleting the hours of operation and Commissloner tlerbst stated he hms ra problem hecause if it da~s becan~ a pr'ot~lem~ it can be reviewed. 11/2/81 , MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEML~ER 2~ 1981 01-Ggp Cortxnt xs i oner aa rnas fe 1 t muybe the hou rs wera res t rl ctad because of a 24-hour a day operation and ~uggested the houre of delive ry be r~stricted to 7:06 a.m. to 12s~0 p.m. Commisstonnr Nnrbat stated there was a probian with a market on Lincotn becauses of the esrly morning and lste nic~ht deliverios and the delivery hours were not adhearad to in that locatlon and there were campl~lnts from the noighhors. Ne felt a merket operetton is qutet and there would be no pr~biQm if it is open all night as l~ng as del iv~ries ar~ not made. Mr. Cook stated he deals ~•rith the rcai estete aspects of ~he adobe sike and Is not involved with the Historicel Commisston. He stated their ~~~~ppk ts to have the developer restorc the adobe and offer it to the public for pubitc use wlthin reason; however, there are no funds in the Illstorica) Commission budget and this is an oppertunlty to provtde the public a service. Answertng Cortxnissioner [iarnes~ he explained the actual acbbe ts app roximately 500 square feet and is the only part involved and the ~ld cafe will most like!y be removed. It was noted the Planning Director or his Autho~ixed representative has determined that the proposed proJect fa11s wtthtn t!~e definition of Categorical ~xem~tions, Class 5, as dcfined in parAgraph 2 of the t:tty of Anah~im Environmental Impact Report Guidellnes and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requireme~t to prepare an E I R. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolutlon ~+a. pC91-23~ ard moved for its passage and adoption that the Anahelm City Pian~ing Commi,sion does hereby grant Variance No. 3241 on the basis thet denlal would deprive subject pro)~ct from a prOvilege enJoyed by other properttes in tt~e same zane and v(ctnlty and subject to Interdapartmental Commltte e recommendations modifying Condition No. 11, that the hnurs of delivery shmll be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and adding Condi*6ons 12, 13, and 14. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the f;,ilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIQ~VERS: BARNES~ 80UAS~ aUSHORE~ FRY, IiERaST, KING, McBURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner llerbst offered a mntion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIEO. thaL the Anaheim f,ity Planning Commission has rsvte~-ed the prAposal to remove seven (7) specimen trees on a irregularly-shaped parcel c:f land consisting of approximately 6.6 acres~ located on the southwester~y corner oi' Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fatrnant Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Dec.laration from the requi rement to prcparo an envt:ronmcntal impact repart on the basis that there would be no significant indivtdual or cumulative adve~se environme~tal impact dues to the approvei of thts Negattve Ueclaration th~t no sensitive environmental irr-~acts are involved in the proposal; that the InitTal Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no sic~ntficant individua) or cumulative adverse envlronmental Impacts; and 11/2/81 ` ! l MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, NOYEMBER 2, 1981 81-6g1 th~~t the Negative Declaratlon sub~=tentisting the foregoing findtngs is on file in the City of Anahetm Planning Depsrtment. Commlaatoner Nerbnt offered ~ mot0on~ secondad by Conxnisstoner Baues and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Ctty t'l~nning Commtsston daes hercby c~rant requrst for remeva) of soven 17) specimen trees on the basis that e ~easenable and pra~tfr,a) developrtr.nt of the Property ~ which the trees ~re lacated requtre~ removal of the trcea whase remova) Is sought and subJect to the condition thet any specimen tree rCnqved wil) be ~eplaced with the planting on the seme parce) of equA1 number of trees from A sp~~ctfied list. RE~, CESS Thare r~as a fl fteen-minute recess at 5:05 p.m. REC~ E The meeting wss reconvened at 5:20 p.m. ITEM N0. 15: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT t~0. 247 (PREVIOJSLY ADVERTISED) AND GENERAL PLAN NIENOMENT N0. 1 • PUBLIC i~EARING. 01~1NF.R: To consider alternate uses including but not limitad ta low density residentlal~ law-rt~dium de~slty ~esidenttal~ medium density residential~ and commercia) professtonal deslgnatton and con~tnatlons of thesc. Study area is approximately 1fl.6 acres located on the west side of Y,ne~tt Street approximately 655 feet south of the centerllne of Ball Road. There was no one indicating thetr presence tn opposftion to subJect rQquest, and although the staff report w~~s not re~d~ it (s refcrred t~~ and made a part of the mtnutes. Jay Tashiro, Associate Piannerr orese~ted the staff repor•t noting this is a property- awner tnitiated Genera) Plan Am~ndment to change a current Junior high school destgnation to medium dc3nstty re~cldential and ~ortme~ctal orofessional and that the property owner proposes to either tonvert or ~epiace the ~~xtsting schoo) building wlth epproximately 60~00~ s~uar~ feet of conmercial officee buildtngs on 6.1 aeres wtth the remaining 12.5 acres propoc.ed for th~e development: of a maximum of 4S0 dwelling unita. Ne explained Apollo Junior Hlgh Schooi has heen cios~d stnce June 1980. Ne stated Exhibit A is the ap~itcant'3 al~e~native ~Nhicl~ proposes me~tum density residenttal on the 12.5 acres and commer~:i~l professional on b.1 acres and Exh ib i t B proposes 12.5 acres for medi um dens 1 ty and 1F.1 acres for cormie~cia 1 professtonal and Exhibtt C proposes 12.5 acres for low density and 6.1 acres for commercia) professional, Exhibit D pmroses 19.h acr•es for medium densliy, Exhibit E proposes 18.6 acres for low rn~dium density and Exhibtt F pror~oses 18.G acres for low density. Dob McCieltan~ 11 Mountaln Ash~ irvine. stated he represents Paui Salada, current awner of the Apolto sitr. Ile stated the proposed development witl be highly compatible with the City's goals and pollcies and wtll utilize existing buildtngs and also the va.cant acreage will be developed with housing to 'nelp mnet the City's housing needs. I~e stated this wLil be an infili proJoct and has excellent ingress 11/2/81 ,~~>-`: NINUTES~ Af~ANEIM CITY PI,AN"IING COMMISSION~ NOVEMUER 2, 1~81 81-692 and egress and will not disturb the surroundtng areas And will serve as a transition between the commercial and singie-family uses and thtl intec~rlty of ~he residentia) neighborhood wtll rcmaln intect. '~r. McCI e I 1 an stated the~~ havn appeared before the AI rport Ler,d Use Commi ss ton and presented thetr proposa) and the Commisslon did not obJect te the oroJect for rosidential purposes and ar~ fn the p~ocess af revfewlnq the ~Ituetion to find out whether o~ nat there ts n~y noise Impact; however~ they dld sugq~st certein conditions be includad whlch ere agre~able. Fle explalned they ere seeking the medium density designatton i~ order to retain che rlexibility for futu~e d~vetapment. He added they fecl the EIR ack quately addr~ssos al) the trafftc issues. TNE PUBL.I C IIEARING WAS CLOSED. Jool Fick, Assistant Dfrect:or for Pianning. stated staff did receive a letter from the Dapartme:nt of Transportation~ pivtstan of A~ronauties. Garol Stanks~ Ultrasystems ~ncorporated~ stated thev r~ceived a letter from the Division of Nero~autics on the report which ,~ertalned to noise~ safety~ lond use and clrculatton and that they feel all the4e issue~ are adequetely addres~ed (n the EIR and all camrtwnts wilt be includad In t-ie final draft. C~mmissioner 8arnes asked the doveloper to justify why conmerciat fs needed in that area and Mr. McClellan stated they are trying to uttiize the existing buiidings ~vhich are nat ve ry old and are in gc~od shape and they think there is a merket for commerctal office type uses and thet tt wiil make an adequate transltton from th~ commerc181 retAt) uses on the ca~nar to th~ nortl~ stngle-family residential. ik explalned they are seoking tha CO designatlon. Conmissio~er Ilerbst asked if a rn~dical center ts prupos~d and Mr. McCleilan replled they have had some indications that sanething like thst wouid be desired~ but h~ve no specific plans and would like to retain the fl~xihiiity. Commissioner Herbst stated there would be pa~king and trAffic problems wtth a medical center and strted when the zoning ls applted for, he ax~uld ask for a list of pro~osed us es . Hr. McClellan stated they dld not request the reclassificatton tod~y because they want to find out what type uses are warranted tn that area. Commtssioner Herbst pointed out that this is a Genara) Plan M~endme~t and pubtic hearings would be held on any proposed acttvittes in the futu~e. Chalnnan Bushore stated there is an exass of carrnfrctal office space in th~s C~unty and he questioned the rcasons for asking for morc unttl he realized they want to use the existing butlding~; hayever, he did see problems in usi~g thosc buildings since they were designad for schools and if tl~e d-~~an is not done properly~ he felt it wouid :ontribute to the de:cl ine of the comme~ ~~ ul uses tn that area~ whlch are not doing well at the present time. >>/z~a~ ~~ c~ HINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI,AWNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2, 1981 81'693 Mr. McClellsn s*.at•d th~y are looking at an anttru 1Q.S acre pro,ject and will rx~t do somethtng with tl-s corn~:rctal portion which will have rn ilt effect on the re~ldential portic~+. Chalrman Busho~e +~aked which pc~r'tlon will be developed first end Mr. McClellan ropl;Pd th~y a~~ not rosidentlal developers~ so they Intend to maximiza the use of the cammarciel portion~ Chatrmar Bushoro indic~ted he wouid like to sne tf.e residential portlon developed f~ nt because he doea not think there ts a need for the commarc3al portion at this t.ime. N~. McCl~ilan state,d they feel any residential development would be a~.!+esed developrt~ent fram the southerly porti~n rnovinc~ forward ~htch ~auld allow thr.rn to take advantac~e of th~ comme rc i a 1 market ~ i f thero i s one ~ and i f ther~! i s not a market, they cauld come bsck for chenges, kea~-ing in line with the phased development. Commissioner McBurnay asked if el) residentlat access would be taken on Knott and Mr. McCtellan replied thst is the plan I~ecause thoy hav~ had Indicattons from scaff ~hst it makes more senae to use Knott so there will be no iraffic impact on the single- fami ly reaidentlal to the west. Comnissioner Herbst offered a motion, seaondad by Go+nmisstoner Fry and MOTiON CARRIEO, that after conside~i~g EIR No. 247 for the General Pl~n An-endn+ent No. 166 for designation of Apollo Junior High School stte for rr~edTum denstty resTde~+tia) end commerclal professional uae and reytewing evid~nce~ both w~itten and oral~ presented to supplement ~raft EIR No. 2k7~ the Planntng Commission finds that EIR No. 2~~7 1s in eomp118~ee with the Celifornla Envlronmental Quality Act and tt;e Ctty and State EIR Guideiiness and that potential environmental impacts may be reduced to an insig~lfica~t levet by confo~mence with City plans, ooitctes and ordinances; therofone~ based upon such infarmation~ the Pla~ning Com~missi~n does hereby recomnend to the CitY Counci) that they cettify f.n~iromm~ntAl Impact Rcport No. ?.~47. Conwnissioner Hz~st offered R~esolutien Na. PC81-237 anci moved for its passage and adoption that the Anshelm C{ty Planning Commission aoes hereby recam~end to the City Council that Exhibli A fo~ Generz~l Ptan Fmend+nent No. 166 be approved. On roi) call~ the foregotng resolutiur. was passcd by the fotlowtng vote: AYES: COMMi5SI0NERS: BARNES. i0UA5. BUSNORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING, McBURNEY NO~S; GOMMiSSION£RS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NQNE MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ N~V~MB ER 2~ 11q81 A1-69h ITEM N0. 16s EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIAN ANp CENERAL PLAN AMEN~MENT N0~ ib~; ~~~_r..~.... PUBLIC NEARING. G1,MER; To consfder aiternete p~o~os~ls of uitfmate land u~es including but nat 1lmlted to low-de~stty ra~identl~l, law-medlum density ~esldantlel and medtum density r~sidential desiqnatlon~. Study area is appreximately 5.6 ~~r~s loceted no~th of Laverne Street on the west stde of Cttron Street end on the no~th stda of Northgste Lane. There wera two tnterested persons tndtcattng thei ~ presence ~t tl~e publ tc heartng~ and althouc~h the steff repa~t was not ~eed~ it ts referred t~ and made a part of the minutes. .lay Tashi~a~ Assoc~ate Plenner~ presented the staff report nottng this is a Ctty Initteted requast to consider ult(mata propos~is of lrnd uses. Inclucling but not limtted to low d~nsity rosidenttal, 1ow medlum de nslty reslderttla) and medlum density residential designetions on approximately 5.6 ac res located on the west slde of Citron Street~ north of ~a Verne Street and the norih side ~f Ibrth~ate L~ne on the cast side of Cltron. Ne ~xplained the results of a restdent survey promptod the twe alternattves prepared. Exhlbtt A proposed low medium residenttn) design~+tton and Exhtbtt ~ proposad medtum density~ which would b~e twlce as meny units a~ permttted undor Exhtbtt A. lie stated four percels on the r-orth side of Norxh~ete were Included on the bas ts tliat Mo of the percels bre current 1 y devel~ped wl th apartment complexes and zoned RM-1200 and property owners of the ~enu~ininc~ two parcels huve lndicated an interest in higher cien~ity designation. He t+ointed out Sanitation~ Watcr, Trafflc~ Fire and Elect~ical Departments c~f the City hAVe mecle c~mmenta an thts propossl which are inctuded in the steff repart. Mrs. Howard Olsnn~ 912 North Cttran, stated her p roAerty is across the street from subJect pro~erty and if this is gol~g to he changed (n the f,eneral Plnn~ most of the haneawners woul d prcfer Er.'~ tb i t A rather then the medium dens 1 ty because t t i s a residentiel area. She stated apsrtn+ents were developed in iqf,2 aC La Verne and Ci tron and they dld not ob ject becau~e they did n~ot ~e+~l ize a precedenx was heing set for the ~st of the whole street. She polnted ou t the property north of this was rezoned to RM-24~0 end she fett the rest of the p roperty owners wcwld be ag~eeeble to that zorting. She stated the property owners re~uested a study so there rrould not be any spot zon(ng. She stated north of Northgate L ane ther~ ar~ two-story apartments end they d~ not affect the residents in the a~e a, and thay f~ei keeping the proJects to one-stary units woutd be aqreesbte. She stated her p~operty was not included in this amendment; that she ortginatly ~jacted an d want~d to keep the area stngie- family~ hawev~er, they are between two churches with an ampty lot behlnd theTr p~operty and ere not agalnst another~ single•fsmtiy ~esidence. She ststed she did not know why she wes nat incluckd in this amendn+ent r+hich would qive her the opportunity to seil to saneo~e in the future withaut hsvtnq to go througti this proccdure again artd she would like for her prope~ty to be Includ~ d. Jack White, Asststant City Attorney, expta-ned p~ople within 3~0 f~et of subJec't praperty were notifiod a~d In ord~r to include Mrs. Oisens property~ the m~tter would have to be readvertised. Commissicmer I~e~bst stated his urigin~l motien for the amendment Incl~.ded both stdes of the street. Jay Tashiro steted only the west porti~ ;,f the streat was st~dted because that was what the fiinutes refiected; however, prope~ty o~ the no~th side wes Included because the property owners rsquested thst it be inctuded. Ne stated he thouqht Mrs. 41~~r-'s tt/9/Rt ~ .__- i r 4 '~ ~ i ~ f~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINR COMMISSION~ NAVEMBER 2~ 1~81 81•695 surv~y had Indtcated she would lika to ,~tetn the eingle-fsmtly desi~n~tio~ em he~ p rope r ty . Mrs. Olsen st~ted they would like to keep ths single•femlly ~h~recter~ but If there w~s no chotce tn the matter~ thay would nat want to be left out end oriqin~ily her property had been included. Joe) ~tck~ A~si~t~nt DlrQCtor for Plenning, ex~lelned if the Plenninq Camnission feals thst p~o~erty should be included, tho~e pe~cels could be inciuded tn the reconrnend~tlon to the Ctty Cauncil and the matter would be r~~dvertised befare t~e Cc~u~ci) hearing. Mrs. Olsen replied both she and her nelghbor would like to be lncluded. Jay Tashiro ststed he c~uld revterv the ~urvey submttted to see how Mrs. Alsen's nelghbor hed answered the queationnaire. Wlillam Jollsselnt. 141 North Citron, stated he does not w~nt density; that ~ precedent has been s~t on the corner of La Ve~ xo~ed RH-1200; I~owever~ the units are one•story and e stmiler sult~ble~ so he would he in favor of Exhihit A for low-medium he owns prope~ties at 1001 And 1005 and 1~0~1 No~th Cltran and the projects all sin~le-atory. THE PUBLIC IiEARIt~G WAS CLOS£D. to see Increeaed r~e and C i t ron wh I ch i s developmont would be denslty and expleined he would ltke to sea Chatrman Iiushore steted he f~vors RM-24A0 zoning ~:nd felt urtits on che ~_ st stde of Citron al~ould be limited to one-atory and the Commission's recamie~daticx~ to the Counti) ahould tnclude a 20-foot landaca~ed setback ~nd encipsed ~J~rec~es. ~{e st~tad ha ~ealizes the property wtll never be developed to the highest denstty~ !~uc hIS proposel would be that an asssasrtw~t fe~ be requlred ~f S-+,OA~ per unit tn r~~wer to cover the coat of repiacement sewers either now or in tho futurG. Jack white explatned this is s Generei Plan Ame~dment and he assumes that these are ~pacffic requirem~nts the Commissio~ shauld look for wh~n sp~cific plans are submttted. Chelrman ~uahore stated he wanted to be sure these concerns are Included in the minutea so that t.he cievelopers will know what direction to t~ke. Con~misato~er Ilerbst agreed with the stngtrstory u~tts ~nd sewtr assrssment fees; hvwever~ he felt th~t would be difftcuit to handie~ hut that developers should be sware they will have ta pay their p~oporttonate share. Chalrms~ Eiushore stated that he was ~ot as cancerned about the ~hree units between lucky's and Northc~ate be~cause thay cfo abut other apartment unTts, but if Mrs. Olsen's and her neiqhbor's prcperty are lncluded, he felt the single-family homes deserve the protection of tha antstory units. Commissloner Fierbst stated there is a Pianntnq Co~+~missien pol icy which atates there must be 20 feQt be Meen multiple-family end singte•famtiy areas and each proJact must be reviawed individually. Joe1 fick stated if the direction to the stsff ts to include the lats on tha east sida of Cttron~ ataff cen prepsre a third ~~ibft tc Inciude those tots. 11 /2/ 81 ; :~. \ 1 % MINUTES. 11NA11EIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISS10~1~ NQVEMBER 2~ 1981 81•696 J~ck Whito ~tetad kschnici+ily that doss not maet the letter oi the lsw, but daes meet the spt ~rit of tha lsw end thosre s~me people would b• ~atified who live within 300 feet of the =ubJect propertY for tha Ctty Councl) hea~tng~ end he would h+~ve no obJactlan to proceeding in this matter. ACTION: Comrnissloner I~erb~t ofPerod ~ motlon~ se~ondcd by Commisstoner Ktng .~nd A'~TT~ GARRIEO~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon has reviewed the propoaai for a Gene~el Pl~n Amendment to considar ultimate proposals of ultimeta land uses an the west : ide of Cilron Stre,et north of La Verne Street and the north side of Northg~to L~nA an the e~s t s i de of CI t ran Strest end doos therefo~e recemmend to tha City Caunctl that ~n CIR Nsqat iv~ f~cl+~ratlon be n~proved on th~ bsais that there would b. no significant indivi dus) or cumulattve adve+rsa enviro~rn~ntal lmpact due to the epproval of thts Negetive Uocla~etton; th~t no se~sitive envf~~nmental impacts ere involvod In the praposal; that ths Inttial Study suhmitted by the petltioner i~dlca~~s no signiflcent tndtvidual ar cumulative adv~rse 0nvir~rt~ntsl impacts; and thet th~ Negatlve Daclarstto~ sub~tanttating the f~~going fl~dings is on file In tho Cit~~ of Anaheim Plenning Oepa~tment. Cammtss toner Flerbst offerod Rc9olutlan lio. PC81-238 and moved for Its pasaaqe and adoptto~n that the Anehelm Clty Plenning Commission does hareby rAconrnend to the Ctty Caunci 1 thet GPA N0. 1Gg ~ Exh ibt! A~ os modifled to inciude the properties on both sides of Cltron Street from La V4rne to ~iorthgate Lane be approved. On ro) 1 call , the foregoing resolutlon ++as pASSed by the fol lc~wine~ vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; aARNES~ NOES: COnMIS514NER5: NONE ABSENT : COMMI SS I ONERS ; NONE I TEM NO, 1 REP 5 ND RECOMIf NDATI ONS BOUAS ~ DUSHORE ~ FRY ~ HER~iST ~ itl NG ~ McSURNEY The fo11a~-Ing Reports and Reeaonnendatlon~ steff reports were preservted but not read: A. ADANDO~IMENT N0. S1-BA - Request from Beam Oevelo~x+~nt Campany to abtmdon a port on o Canyon . rn Road located en the south side of tanyon ~im Road, west of Serrano AvQnue. It was nated an e~:vi ronmental review of the proposed indicates it to be Getegorically Exe~npL from the requlrements of filing an EIR. ACTION: Commfsslone~ King affered a motto~~ seconded by Commissioner Bouas bn OTION CARRIEO, that the Anaheim City Aldnn(nq Coawnission does hrreby recortNne~d to the Ci ty Cou~ci 1 that Absndone+ent No. F~1-8A be approved as rewmMended by the City Engtn~er. 11/2181 F; ..~ MINUTES, ANAHEiM CIT~' PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 2~ 1981 81-69+7 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. Ib - Requast for te~Mination from Junn M. c ntyre or property ocste et 515 South Narbor Boulev~rd. AC~ TION: Commissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC81-234 and moved for its pass~ge ~+nd adoptton thst tho Anahelm City Pl~~ntno Co~nmigston doas hereby t~rminata Conditlonel Use Permit No. 1F50, 0~ m11 cal) ~ the foreqoing resolutlon was p~+ssed by the fol lawlnq vote: AYE5 : COMMI SS ( ONE RS : BARNES ~ I~OUAS ~ gt15Hf1RE ~ FRY ~ li~RBST ~ Y.1 NR ~ McBURNEY NAES : COMMI SS I ONE RS : N~NE At35ENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOr~E t. CONDITiONAL t1SE PERMIT N0. 224 - Request for terminatlon fram P~ter J. Va entt or prope~ty ocAted at 2b2W-I West 9~11 Road (Namaya Restaurent) . AC~TIQt_I: Cammisstonor King offered Rosolution No. PC81-24Q and moved for its passage and ~doption that the Anaheim CitY P1~-nninq CoRmission doea hereby tcrmtnate Conditional Use Permtt No. 221~. On roli call~ the fo~egoing resolutlon was ~assed by the f~ila+-ng vote: AYES: COMMISSIOt1ERS: BARIJES, BOUAS~ DUSNARC, FRY~ IiERB;T, KINC~ McBURNEY NOES: COMMISSI~NERS: NONE ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: NONE D. GONDIT1qt~AL USE PERMIT N0. 1 24 - R~quest fnr o retroective extensl~n of t me ram J. Reymon r ges or ~ropr.rty located .~t 17~i3 west Lir~coln Avenue. The Commission hriefty discussad the fact thet cnndic~ans of tti~ r,cmdltianal use ~ermit are not betng met and asked that str~Ff notl~~r the pett~io.~:~~ that eondttions must be complied wlth befo~e an extonaior+ af time wlil be grantR~ i n Jenuary ~ 1982. AC_TI _: ~halrman Bushore offcred a motion~ seca~ded by Cormilssinner Hc~bst and MOT14N. ~;,kRlf.p~ that the Anaheim City Plan~ing Comrissfon dc~es hereby yranL a 2-year r~troac'_Ive e~ctension of timu to expire on January ;~ 1982, an~, does hereby dlrect ~i~~f ta notify the petitlo~er that cor~d3tlons must be met before an oxtans Sa!t of t ime wi i l be gr~ented i n January, igb2. E. VARIANCE k0. 3~ - Request from Anthony Gouvela for terminatlon of Varisnce No. ~ or property located at B37 South aeach 8aulevard. AC,_ TION: Commissione~ King offered Resotutlon No. pC81-2~1 and moved for It~ passage and adoptlo~ that tl~e Mah~im Ctty Planning Commission ds~es hereby terminate Verience No. 3155. O~ rol l cal l~ the foreqoing resol~tton wes ~assed bY the following vote: AYES: GOMMISSlOFIFRS; BA(WES~ BOUAS~ BUSNORE~ FRV, HERBST~ KINf, McBURNEY NOES: COMMISS I ONFRS ; NONE ABSENT: CQMMI5S I ONERS : NOHE 11/2/61 MINUTES, ANAt~EIM CITY PLqNNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 2~ 1g81 81-6g8 F. SANTA ANA CA~~YON ACCESS POINT STUQY - Request for App~va) ot speciftc plans rom C. obert Lan~s et b on~ nc.~ praperty awn~rs~ fo~ p mperty located at the eouthweste~ly corner of Sents Ana Canyon Road end Fafrmorit Doulev~rd. This matter wss dtacussed and acted upon immedtately foltowinc~ the pubilc hearing (n connectio~ wlth Item No. 14 Inasmuch as they pertain to the s~me proJect. Normen Resmussen~ ~pral~enttng C. Robert Langsiet and Sons~ (nc., e~e~lAlned the parking r~qul~ements are for 3A2 s~acea and they are proposing :77 end th~t they had orl~~inally lndicated na resteurant o~ n~dtcri uses are contemptated, but with adec~uat~ parktng provicled, those piens may change. Ne ndded they woufd also ltke the hours ~f apesr~tton d~leted. Comnissioner Ilerbst polnted out bl l roof-maunted ~qut~ment musk bc incor~oreted tnto the roof destc~n end thet gcreening would not be adequate. ACTIOrJ : Comml ss lonor Ilerbst of fered e mot ion ~ sec~nded hy Commt sa toner o~u s and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does he~eby approve s~eclFic plans labeled Exhibit Nos. 1 thro~,qh 9~ provideci~ hawev~r~ that prfor ta (ssuance of e hulldin~ nermit. the n~chltcctural d~slgn for 8uildtng D snd the hlstarical PeraltA Adc~be shn11 be approved by the Orange County Illstor(cA1 Commissic~n~ and treAtment af all mechantcal equlpment shall be approved by the Plenning ~epartrn~nt and ali rc~of-mounted equipment shAll be lncorporoted int~ the roof d~s(~n and be approved by the Planning Department; and the desic~n af any benk drive-through lane shal) be approvad hy the Tra~fflc Engtneer; ~nd that the hours ~f deltvery sh~lt be ~estricted to 7:OA a.m, to 1~:00 ~.m. G. CLASS 1 INDUSTRIAL kASTf. TRANSFER STATfON - Presentatl~n by representatives rom Orange County Environmentel Hanac~~!n~nt 1lqency. 8ob kusby~ Chief of Pubiic Pro,iects, EMA Envlronmental Analysi~~ ;ylvia Salenius~ Di~ector of Environniental Studles~ PRC Taups ProJect Manager for the industrlal waste transfe~ statlon~ Dr. ~lvtn Franks~ Cnolnee~lnq Environ~nenta! Geology Consultant former Chief Geologist for the Celifornia 41~ter Resources Control 8oard and who also assisted in the preparation of the EIR. Ray Rhoades~ Interim Pr~gram Manager for GSA Waste Manaqen~ent Pr~gram and Fred Voss~ Manager of GSA Admtntstrrtive Servitex were present. Mr. Rusby stated they want comments fram the Ctty of Anaheim on the adequacy of Environmentel Impact Report No. 269 whl~~h was pre~ared on five sites r+htch could possibly b~ used for a Clbss 1 Industria) Waste Transfar Stotlon; that they want to knaw If the report addressed al) the things that s hould be addressed; if ~nnough tnfornbtton Nas provided on the ltems covcred a nd were the Im~acts of the transfer station sufficiently mltigated. Ne s teted they wi l) be hapPY ta ~esc~o~d to ai l written con~ments o~ the E nvironmenta) Impect Roport and th~t the Qubifc revl~ perlod ended on October 19th and was extended to Ibvember 3rd (mistakenly satd October 3rd), and if cemrt,ent~ are not receiv~d by tortarrow~ fdove~nber 3rd, It is fMA p~licy to ~espond to any comments rece i ved up ur,t 1 1 the t lme the. document i s taken to the 9oard of Supe~visors far certtficatton. N~" R~skry explained tn Octaber 1~9~~~ the Doerd of Supe rvisors directed the C.~l~c~r's General Sarvlces Agency to prepere a study of the feasib~lity of 11/1'/$1 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NINUTES~ NQVEMBER 2, 1981 81-699 devoloping a Class 1 Industrie) Waste Trdnsfer ~tatton beceuse it was felt the County waa facing a problem handling Industrle) weste; that in ~p~il 1980~ the report wat presented to the Doard which Indieated such ~ feciltty wes fa~sible end needed in the County; thet the Baard ~ppreved the rrport and selected fiva rocanmended altes for possihle t~ansf~r station use and directed EMA to prepere ~n envlrenmental tmpact repc~rt on those five sitea. He presented a siide showing the lecAt~on of the flve pr~posed sttes a~d noted Sites 20~ 21 and 5 e~e located in the City of Anahelm ~nd sttes 1F and 17 are in the City of Tustin. Ne explAlned 27 sites were r.x~mtned utiitsing the c~tteria devel~ped by the ~eneral Services Agency which Included thet the sites be 3 to 5 scres in size, have access for larg~ transfer vehicies close to tha free~+~y system~ that the site be rceson~hly level, and (ndustrielly zoned, and heve accea~s to sewer iines. Ne stated th~ preferred location wouid be in or close to elthr.r Santa Anr~, Costa Masa~ Irvine or the llnahelm/Futlerton ~~ee; nnd thet these five Areas w~re selccted because they ere close to wher~ most of the industrtel west~ is generAted in the County. Ile emphasized thst the pruposed transfer statlon would provtde for the tempo~ary storage of Ciass 1 waste ond all waste would be teken ta nn approv~d Class 1~ sanitary lAndfill far disposal. fle stated it is the Ccunty's thlnklnq et this tlme that the trnnsfCr stAtien would be develapad and operated by privatc indusCrv and that oamershlp of the feclltty h~s not been dete~mined. Ile stated therc arr only two Class 1 Ir-ndfills existinq In Southern Californla~ one bcing FiKK whlch ts 28 m(i~s from Oren~e County and that C i ty i s propos i ng that tl~~ cnmers of dKK come up with a phasr-out proqram and that th~ other slte Is in Casmalia tn Santa Barbara County wh t ch i s 1 ~~0 ml 1 es awsy. Ile s tat~d there t s anot~ier s i te at M.ettlemans Hills whtch is 215 mlles from Orange Coimty and tts life expectancy ts not known. Ho statr.d (n 198Q there were slx sites In Southern California and all but two have been closed. Fle stated theyr belicve smali producers of Industrial wast~ are durnping thr waste down th~ drAln or it is being Illegelly dumped on the land beceuse of the distance to the dts~osal sltes end~ in fact~ the sanitatlan districts of Orargc Cou~ty hAVe experienced an tncrease in the level of heavy rr~tols In the sewage. He stated tt ts thetr hope the proposed transfcr stetlon would hcln corrett that situation by provlding a close-by place wh~~e materlal can he temporarily st~red and treeted. Mr. Rusby stated aftcr thls hearing the ertvironmrntel tm~nact report will be scheduled for a hearing before .*.he Or~ng~e County t'lnnning Cormission probably tn the middlr. of NovembQr and then the re~nrt wlll be presented to the drange County Bc~ard of Supervisors whQ will fineily maike a determtnation as to its adequacy and that the f.a~eral Services Agency will also make reconmendatians at thac time as to ~rhether ~r not to go aheaA wlth the proJect. Sytvla Salentus explained Cr. Fr.inks ::~s Involvtd (n wrtting tfie reoulatlons for thi~ ~;pe faclltty for Ca!tfornia ena assistad them In the development af a p~~~iotype transfer stati~~n which had a very extens(ve fall-safe deslgn. She euplatned It (ncluded a c`.nubte liner system with a berm nround lt to protcct it from storm water f 1~~ ~ end there are rt~nitortng welis be~eath the system to pick up any seepec,~c: chro~gh the frtillty should an accidential spitl occu~. A slide was presented showing the pr~toty~e. She explained the asphalt lin~r~ a thtck lnye~• of clay destgned to provide a second level of p~otection in casa of aerthquakes, atc., and the pilings which would qo down to solid ground designad !or the ~Id dump site in Anah~lm in order to 11/2/81 r `, ~ MINUTES~ ANAfIE1M CI1'Y PLANNING COMMISStON, NINUT~S~ NOVEMBER 2. 19a1 8~'7~~ provtde a solid suppo~t for the stor~ge tanks. 5he pal~ted out storm we~ter sto~ege ares and noted that any storm water cnllected on the stte would be te~tod before being di~charged. A sitda waa presented of a stmil~r fscility in Ssn Olego ahowing the visual impact. Slides were elso p~~sented of the flv~e individusl prc~p~sed sites. the first balnc~ the ~tewkirk Dump Site~ whtch ts owned by the County~ locotad 1~ Anaheim which w~s ~bandonded in 1958 snd noted there is subatanti~l stttlinc~ at th~t locstion and meth+~ne ~as generatton problems and that the zoning ls Residential/Agricuttural and the Generel i~lrn Is deslgneted ope~ sn~ce and it ts located Immedtatety AdJecent ta the spreading baaln for qroundwater rech~rge used by the flrange County Water District ~,ith exlating residentiel developrr~nt south and Industrial ereas to the no~th. The next slide shawed Sttes 1F~ And 17 which are lacAted (n the City of 7ustin. just east of the tbw~rt Freeway~ west of the Marine Corps hcticopter base~ in an existing industrlal area and au~round+ed on sl) stdes by industrial uses. The next slide shawed Site 2~ I~cated in the City of Anahelm whlch was land conslder~d by the Neville Chemic+~l Compeny off Winston Raad as e possibte exponslon are~ for their facility which is currently In egriculturr~l uses ~+nd is zoned Resideneial/Agriculturxl and Genera) Planned for indust~ial nnd ts Q.7 acres in slze. The next sltde showed slte 21 located In Anahetm close to the Santa 11na River wfilch ls owned hy the City and is a cle~n ftiled disposal stte and is Generat Planncd for open space and (s current'~~ zoned Residentiai/Agrtcultura) which was alsa used as a barrow site ar~., is currently a IArgc pit with st~nding waCar and is loc:ated adJacent to the Orange Free.w+ay on the City hc,und~ry. She revi~w+ed the environmant~l im~act assessment n~+trix shewinq the neqatlve and posttivn imp~cts of each site which is inciuded in the env4ronnrental tmpect report. She nated all sites are b+~stcaliv le~i. excrpt $~tes 21 and y have settling which would he a m~jor orohlcm. A flood mi~Q wes p~~sent~d and it was noted tl~at Sites 5 and 21 are subject to -nalor fl~x+ding ~and 'tfi~se sfCes are irmxdiately ad}acent to the Santa Ana River and are c~otenti~lly subJect to the 100-year flood And there would be surface w~tr.r and qround water contaminatic+n~ and both sit~s ore within the forehay oE groundwat~r rccharge areas and Stte 20 is right on the edge of thE forebr~y. Transportation would also be a prohlem with Site 2~ becausG af access ruads. Alr quAllty ~t Site 21 wouid be a p~oblen+ if An acctd~nt would happcn at the site end toxic gas was released. She noted studies were ccm ducted as to the directton the gas would bla~r durtng the day and during the night; that there would bc a biology impact at both Sites 5 and 21 witfi flora A~d faune dls~la~cement; th~+t S{te 5 does not have water and electrlcal 11nes ta the sitc; that there would be a pu~lic health and safety impact at all three sites in Anaheim; and that noise would I~e an impact at 5ite 5. She !~tatad cost ranking for actualiy im~leme~ting Che faciltties was conducted including land acquisitlon and mitlgatton; that Site 21 +aould be the least expensive. She noted Site 17 is probsbly out of the picture in terms of cost becau~e there has been constructi~n on tht~t slte. The en ira~mente) acccptability on Stte th and 17 ranked equa! and next would be Sltes 25 and 21. She nated Sites 25 and 21 enviro~mental acceptability ratinc~ ts prtmarily due to their proximity to the graundwster recherge area. Bob Cross. 2201 East winston Road~ stated his office is ac.ro~s the strfet from Site 20 and asked for a definition td Class 1 lndustrial Waste. 11/2/81 ~, ~ : 'r ) MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CIT1- Pt,ANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEM9ER 2~ 1981 81•~A1 Sylvi~ 5slenlu~ axpleined Cla~s 1 w~stes ~re those wsstes deemed as hsxs~dous~ such as waste f rom printed circuit f~brtcatora~ wsste containing cy~naml de ~ exc. Dr. Franks st+~ted he ts e registered and certifled geoloc~tst snd explalned hssardous westes a~e eny materisls ilsted hy the State or Fecieral Cove~nment that could cause adverse hun~n effects end thos~ ceuld be cercinogenetic~ c~use burns~ ceuse physiclal Impairmnnt. could be spent alkailze solutions~ acid from s refl~ery~ materlel frnm a circuit hoard processor~ chrane from chrome plating ~utomobi le shops ~ etc. Ile expleinaci there a~e hh matert~+ls conside~ed on the tist ef ~xtremeiY haza~daus wsste end that those take spect~) handling ~nd a transfer statlon would heve an o~tion of eccepting either )ust harardous or axtremely hazardous waste t~nd the operator msy hsve Lo process the e xtranely hazardous westc before dispasing of It. lie stated the statc- And federel regulatlons have chAnged stnce the work ~gan on this report end It Is requirad that cyanide be oxidixed~ and thet P whtch coutd anly be taken t~ the Cornetlla Slte now has te he destroyed And the tranafer statlon would hAVe to etther treat the waate or refuse it. Mr. Cro~s agkeJ tf the tanks would be fiberell~ss slmtiar ta those shawn on the ~.iic~.~s end Dr. Frnnks oxplal~ed tt would deDend on the contractor~ but ;'••~~ could hsve f tbergl~ss ~ gtainless steel , etc. Mr. Cross asked about the double liner and Or. Frenks stated there wauld be impervious asnhalt on top and bQlaw that w~uld he a gravel sub-drAin with tiles to coliect anything that goes through the ashhelt to e sump and below that would be n 3-foot clay lt~er constructed of clays that nre compatlbte wiCh any waste so tl,ere would be no de wmpositlo~ of the c1Ay; and tf there is a leek~it wnuld go to the g~avel coljector and then doam to the sump" for recycling untlt they could find tha leak and there would never be any head o~ the battom iiner. He stated to gat anything through that ~+aterial, the~o has L~ be a driving farco and there would be no drivinq force because Che g~ave) dratns would carry any teakage through the asphait down to the sumQ and the minutc It ~s picked up tn the sump. there would be a shut down of operatlons untll the leak was found and rdpalred. Mr. Cross asked why the two sltes next to the river are less desirable if the potentlal for leakag~ does nr~t ~xtst. Or. Franks explatned the matn problem witt~ those sites is that they ar~ located Nithin the 10~-year flood area of the river and the dikes +~rould have to be hiqher; and there is the potcntiat vf a storm th~t ts in excess of the standard proJect flood. Chalrman Bushore ex~lafned the Plannirg Commission will not meke a dectsinn on this project and/or report and that he had allowed the questions to go on because that information will be heipful to the Planning Commtsston. Bob Cross stat~d he has a small multl-tenant industrial complex rtght across the street from Site 20 a~d !t is a good complex with nice clientele and has 50 tenants; and that they ar~ al) concernad and he felt the value of his prop~~ty woutd decresse if thls site was approved. Ne pointed out there a~e ape~trr~enCs and mobi lehomes lo~atrd ~OA feet to the no~th af the property a~d b00 feet ta the east of the p~~°pertY end he felt Site 20 would be a poor pla~ce for anythiny of this natu~e. 11/2/81 l ;- ~~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CiTY PLAIINING COMMISSION~ NOVENBER ~~ 1981 81-107. Mtchael Todd atated he ropresents the fi~m which cantrol• a~proxinutely 2Q acros adJacsnt to Stte 21. -le :tsted they would like to rAapond to the EIR but wa~o rrot made awa ro of thts p roposed pro)ect unt11 three daya ega and he has not hsd an opportunity to get a co~y ~f the report. Ne cla~ified he undarstood th~t comnents ceuld be mede until the Board ot Supervieor~' hearing and asked who he should respond to snd who would make !he uttimeta decision o~ the site. ChafrmAn aushore explained the County he~ pre-r,nptive ~fghts ~ver the Ctty. Jack Whitn~ Assistant City Attornoy~ state~~ if tha prap~rty Is a County- operatsd faciltty. the County vrauld hav: pre-ert~-tive righLs and steted he Is not really familiar with the regulat!ons, but as a generat rule~ the Caunty on County-a~ned and opereted frcititles, would not be subJect to City zoni~c~ l~wa; hawever~ there muy be addltianel factors that would allow privately- ope~ated facillties the same right. Thera was a rnsponse frcxn the ~udtence~ thAt this would be a privately- operated fac( 11 ty. Mr. Todd stated he essumod since it wouid be p~ivately-operated, c~at City approva) would be rQquir~d, whether it be In Tusttn or Anaheim, ,~~c~. Whtte indicated as far aa he is aware~ that is correct. Bob Rusby stated comments can he ~»ade on tfie environrt~ental Irnpact feport u~ti l the middle of Oecer-~er~ when this matt~r goea to the Ar~+nqe County Boerd of Supervlso~s. He steted it ts his understandtnq that the County cauld qo ahead end develop atransferstatton on Site Ma. '~ sirce ic is already owned by the County. Chairman Bushore patntod out that Site No. 5 is designPted on the Anaheim General Plan for open s~ace. Jack 1Jhite stotcd thet is a County-aw~ed pro~erty and thep :ould go ahead wtth develapment without Ctty ~pprov~l and notecf that is th~e anly site of the five which is CountY c~wned. Commtssione~ Barne~ stated she is very c~ncorncd ahout the wete~ supply. Uan ~dmonds~ ib682 M~esa Drive, Vliis Park~ stated he owns property ad,Jacent t~ Site 21 and he was co~oerned ahout haw the transfer station would smeli. Qr. Franks explained a properly ot~erat~ed facOlity woutd not have an ador which would aFfect nearby areas because ~verythir.g is contained within the tanks, but tharo are safety valves on top of the ianks and (n case of a~ adverse rea~tio~, there couid be some gas escape, hut it wouid be inf~quent. Commissioner Mr.durnoy askad how long th~ mate~ial would be ~t the station before it is transfer~ed and Dr. Franks exptained same materlals are there loss than two days; that smell loads come in and as sao~ as they have a large loed, It is pumped out and hauled off and the only time thero wauld be any delay would be durin~ a rat~ storm end both 9KK and Kettlema~s Htlls sites wera shut down for several days. 1~e stated thts would pe~tain to tens 11 /Z/81 ,~,~ "~j 3 MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY pLAh'NINC COIIMISSION. NOVEP~ER 2~ 1q81 81-~03 af milllons of c~allons of flutd per yee~ and th~t this slte would h~ve three or fou~ sma11 3A~OOA gallcx~ tenks. Commisstaner Fry esked if Ciass 1 waste tncluded atomtc or hydrogen waste and Dr, Franks repiied it Is aqal~st the lew te dispose of ti~ose type wastes in Californle. ~litabeth ~k al, rep~esenttng Nolly Wade Lewis who avns ~dJ~cent G acres on the northwest side of Stte No. 5• stated she got a copy of the repo~t last Friday but hes not read it all as yet end the one thin~ thet seeew~~ most pe~tinent in connectian wtth 51te 5 was the fect that the land Is subJect to substantiot settlement and there Is a signlficant threat to human heelth if ground water is contaminsted and that site seems most conducive to ground water contamination. She stated one Issue brought up in thetr presentatlon was the cost of implnmentetion for t~nd acquisltion and mlttc~ation whtch rAnked the fives sites wtth Stte No. 5 rr+nktng number Four and aaked tf the Caunty or the City dtd docid~ to expond that much money for Stte 5, would there be a guarantee that there wouldn't be any groundwster co~taminetton because she did not think that any artaunt of mitlg~tlon will insure that the gmund will nc~t continue to sectle. Dr. Franks stated actually tf the dump site has leachate noing through it~ it is already cor,tAminattng the groundwater and the site built ~~ top of the dump would have to scetp off some of the matertAls~ leve) off the site and Antictpate the settlement that would take pla~e and slope the d~atns so it would never heve a)cyw spat and the drain system wouid have to be manitored to make sure tl~ere Is never a ieak and that ts one of the reasons for the htgh cost for that s~te; that the land is frce, but the enqineering to prevent contamtnation of graundwater ts very expensive and he did n~t think there is any way except p~!tttng an in~ervlous clay cap on top of th~s dump to prevent the contaminatlo~~ tnat is naw taktng place. Chalrman Sushore asked if any bortngs were donc at the Newklrk Dump 51te to determtne If it is adequete snd if it was found that site ts already leaking tnto the ~+ater supnly. Or. Franks replied there are some oid Water Depa~tment reports which indtcate it was an oid gravei pit and they Just started throwtnq garbac~e in tt and there is no liner under it; that tt was a burning dump and then became a santtary lendf111 whith means they mIx dlrt wlth the garbage; and there ts differenttal settlement with puddics of water and these puddles are actuAlly percolating dawn th rough the garbage and addtng to the recharge of the g roundwatef basin. tle ~tated there are regulations at the State leve) that ~equire a closure plan for all disposat sttes~ and this is one that was closed long before those regulations l~ecame e~fective. Chairman Bushore asked if the envi~onmental impact report actually addressed the possthle leakage into the water suppiy and Dr. Franks ~apli~d it did rwt address it directly~ but thst site does heve the low spots and the water ~erCoiating in~o ft~ but the report did not cover the affect of the existtng dtsposa) site on the groundwater bastn. Chairman Bushore repiied he did not know how the Board of Supervisars could approve this ~eport because that wouid have a significant effect on the r.nt1 re envi ronment. 11/2/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CiTY PIANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 2~ 1g$1 81-704 0~. Franks roAlled if ths transfer :Ito wes bu11t~ the site wauld be leveled snd the Infilt~ation problems that are now on the slte would be correct~d. Ms. Saientous expieinod it is eatimated that site Is NO t~ 50-feet deep. She stated the nsture of the contami~etlon that ts occu~ring on thst site now wa= not an issue of the environn~nt~l impact report. alkhough they dealt with It to tha extent that th~y know there (s somethln~ ltka that happening thero naw because thero was no llner in that ald facility and vl~tually e11 o1d sttes built an stmlla~~ meterlal are leaching same klnd of leachate through them tnto whetever water body Is beneath them; that this report was designed to focus really on the environmental (mpact diff~rences between im~i4rrbnting a transfe~ factllty at elther of the ftve sttes, so thet specific ls~ue is not dl~ectly relevant to the analysis. She stated the placement of thts ty pe facillty on the top af the ald landfill would probably mitlgate some of the extsting leachate probl~ms which are occurri ng. 8ob Rusby stated the County's General Servlces Agency is responsible for landfills and the ~MA acts as a consultant to prepnre the EIR; howevar~ the acting program mAnac,~c~.r for GSA Weste Managemo~t ts present. Chal~man 9ushore asked how the County could g~ on studytng thfs and Justify sPending thousands and thousands of doliars far a report that daesn't even say how it is going te affect the weter supply~ brcause there ts a potentlal hazard no matter how ~light. Dob Rusby stated the particu~ar project addressed here (s ~he transfer site and they ar~ trylnc~ to pr~vide a facillty to tat:e care of hazardous wastes. Chatrman 8ushore asked hav they could kecn looking at these th~ee s(tes in Anaheim which are tn the 100-ysar storm flood plain. t1r. Rusby stated tl~at is indirectly rel~ted~ but that is not the subJect ~f this envtronmentAl tmpact report. I1e stated if the Commtsston is unhappy and belteves there is sont sort of contamination going on~ that they sh~uld let the Board of Supervisars know. Commissioner Barnes read a resolutton from the Board of Directors of the Arange County Water Oistrict opposing the locations~ particularly Site Nos. 5. 20 and 21 because of the groundwater basin and alsa they disagreed that the clay and asphalt liners would be adequate to prevent the precolation of sptlled hazardaus ltquid wsste into the groundwater brst~. She referrGd to the black dots on the mnt~ix prese~ted and stated it wa~ apparent that the sites in Anaheim had many more largc black dots, meaning there wers mo~e significant adverse tmpacts. Uob Rusby explained they l~ad made this same presentatton to the City of Tustin on October 2. 1981~ and that they were no more favorable tha~ thts Commission. Commissioner Barnes st+~ted she is in favor of a transfer statfon and asked if aii 27 sttes studiQd were over thE ground-water basin. Mr. Rusby explained th+~t they were only charged with looking at these five particular sites. 11/2/8i , MINUTES~ ANAl1EtM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, ~InVf.MBER 2~ 1981 81-7~5 Ch~irrt-~ 8u~hore stated the EMA ~hauld hmve ~eperted bsck to the Bo~~d of Su~e rvisora long ago tho! some of thasa site~ are not adequ~te and the patentlal has not even bee~ eddressed in the envlro~mental tmpact report. Ne ststed he felt this is )ust a super bureaucratic waste of dallers and there w111 be even a further wast~ of mcney fa~ the City to litigate agalnst the County of Orange in con)unccion wlth pc~ssible settien-ent because af the potentlel impact~ even with the sltghtest loak. ile stated he fel! to go ahead with the study Is Just unhellevAble. Commisslone~ Elarnes stated there are t~ossihly sites in Anahelm that would be suitable for such a transfer st~tior- if (t would not endanger the water supplY~ andgh~would not he opposedbeceuse the fiiciltty Is nAeded. Commisstoner Ilerbst atateJ most of the water fQr O~ange County is percol8ted in this eree and he staxed he thought the Cortxnis~ton should make a recommendation to the Clty C~uncil that they recortrne~nd dental to the Board of Supervisors. Thomas Pradetto~ Q31 South MarJa~ Street~ Anahetm~ stnted he livea in the City of Anahelin and lives within 2 miles of thc three sltes in Anaheim and is the manager of flevllle Cl~em(cal CompAny~ 2?.A1 East Cerrttos Street which owns Site No. 20. 11a stated after Ilstenin~ to the expertise, he had loc~ked at th~ Chemical and industria) News a~d felt that maybe tha experts do not have the right ansa-er and read the followtng statement: "A recent news wire study from Washington D. C. indtcated that EPA had goef~d. It released s ilst of thirty~four citics as having the most polluted streams in the country snd the Hgency itself criticized the methods its own scientists used and said the data was questlo~able~ nottng 1~•year old data had been used which might not reflect current conditions". Ne noted thls proJect was startad two yea~s ago a~d he felt it is just enother unnecassary step in the disposal of waste. IIe refer~ed to anothe~ arttcle in the same literature which states thnt the chemical tndu~try in t~~e next five years wi11 spend ten miilion doilars in waste disposal and stated the chemtcal Industry has handled this problem and are spending A ~Ot of money and he felt if they have handted it fCr the pest four years in a much better msnner than even tl~e transfe~ station wtll handle it~ that they could continue. Ne stat~~d it will take a knowlc:dgable group of tndividuals to run the transfer station because you cannot mix chamicals without knowing ~rhat you are doing and he felt just bringing forth a studY does not prove th~t this station is needed. Bob Cross stated tt seems the whole determinatlon of the sitos wes their proximity to the use which is a transportatton oroblem rather than the othe~ considerations. -~e stated t~e dld not see any sites that were out where the so(1 is clay and the ground Is tmpervtous to wate~ and it seemed all the sites were clustered around the central core of use and maybe the transportation is not the key issue. Bob Rusby stated Sites 16 and 17 are in Tusti~, next to the Irvtne Industrial complex which generates ;0$ of the hazardous wsste i~ this CountY. Ne stated this meeti~g is to study the environmental imp~cts of the f ive site+s w:i~ch ware selected by the Doard of Supervisors. Ray Rhoades~ inte rim manaqor of the Orange Caunty Waste M~agement Program~ stated tfiis study has baen going or~ for over two years and that he was appoi~ted to this program Just s few mc~ths ago when the Board of 11/2/S1 MINUTES~ ANAI~EIM CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 2~ 1981 81-7A6 Supervisors decided to ~ut al) the waate progr~m problems Int~ one prog~em office. IIa stetad a con~ultant should be retained ~~ study ali th~ 6o~rd's opttons in ~11 waate matters including toxtc and hazerdaus waste, non- sawereble waste~ solid waste~ landitlls, ctc. He at~tad the test `ew days and m~nths have hrought many changes et the StAte level; thet the d~ard of Supervisorsl+asan ltem on their ~genda for tomo~row'3 meeting to select a consultAnt to do a study for wastc management; that the question has crme up whether or not this study caming up on temorrov+'s e~end~ woutd nat be in conflict with this environmental impact rep~rt. Fle i~cate•' ap~erently the Uoard of Supervlsors ls feeling that there Is a conflict end that they should ga throuc,~h this study proposed tomarrow prior to makinq a fint+l decision. He stated today Supervlsor Ralph Clark, who represents thts erea, dlstriGuted a mcma to tha Baard rtembers in whlch hc potnts out the~e have been merry changes in State law ve ry recentlv. some of them very signtficant and it Is posslble the State wlll ~re-empt thc whole: matter which could chan~e the whole comrlex af what ts haprening at dKK~ Kettlemans and al) the sites; and thot Supervtsor Cl~rk has asked the llo~rd Mertbers wHen they select a cansu) tant to rr~ke i t~ part of the contract that the whole nu~tter bo re~studied in view of the new laws to detprmine whether or not a trAnsfer station ts actually needed and to look agaln nt the sit~ crtteria. He stated if the Board accepts the rPquest~ findl options would probably go b~fore Lhe Qoard I~y next July and tn th~ mcantime he did not know whether or not a ftnal dncision wouid he m~de on this environmental impact repo~t. ~~~ stated he wanted to let evPryone knaw that there could be some maJor ch~nges in the directlon of thts study. Ray Auerb ch~ Water Engineering Manager for the City of Anaheim, stated he w as dict~ed a ltttle hy some allegations that the matertal in tha landfill at the Newkirk Dump Stte was causinQ degradAtian of the graund water and he did nat believe there is eny evidencr. io that eff~ct. He stated he wanted to essure the Pl~~nning Commission that City stAff a~d consult~nts m~nitor the ,gr~ndwater ~~i other water sources constantly, as does the Orange County Weter Oistrict and that those reports a~e gtven to the State Ilealth Departmont. F~e stated he knAws of no indication thst there has been anY dedragatien of the g roundwater quality due xo that dump site and Water Engineering staff does not sec tht+t as a prohlem a~t thts tir~e; that obviously there Is wacer which seeps through that stte and cioes get lnto the g~oundwater, but there is no (ndPcation of any p~oblems. f~e stated they did c~mment to the County on the envtronnrentAl impact r~port and their comments have been what was seen from t~~e Ora~c,~± County Nater Distrtct and that is they re~lly do not feel thls transfer statton located in the forebay portton of the ground~~ater hasin ts the best location. Mr. Rhoades stated there has been an inferenc;e that old landfills ar~ causing tivater prnbiems, but he did not belteve that is so in any nf the identified 91 sites throughout the Cou~ty which have heen closed. He stated there was an inference that ponding and puddling causes water ta gn down Into the groundwate r basin. Ne stated presentlY when they conclude any la~dfill~ it ts filled with a Grown so that any settitng will not create puddling, and that with the kin~s of raln in Southern Caiifornia, there wouid have to be a puddie the size of the whole landfill to get water percolating dawn ta the groundwatcr in en amount that would cause a leachate problGm. He stated there is a constant m~nitor an the water and there is no pollution in the water system~ except the one in 1luntington Baach which is why the ~oard cooperated in hav~ng that stte evacuated. He stated the~e 11/2/81 f MINUTES~ ANA~IEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ NOVEMOER 2~ 19$1 81- ~A~ is a maJor conce~n for in w~ter pollutlon of all of these 91 ~ttes snd th~t the City and County are monitoring those and he would llke to dtspell any tnfe~once that there ts ~ ;,roblem. Chalrman ~ushore stated (t aounds 11ke betwee~ the City and the County they are on top of the situation; th~t he is still am~sed that the Cotmty is aven considering such a stte at such a loc~tlon. Cammtssluner ~lerbst stated he felt~ after heering these carrnents, the Plenntng Commission shouid m~ke a rQCOmnendAtt~n to the City Counctl~ tn w rtting~ tht~t Sites 5, 20 and 21~ in Anahetm~ should not be considered because this is the wind~~ to the u~derg round water storage throughout ell of Orange County end atl three Af these sttes are (n thet area. fle atated he was here in 1~138 and saw that aree covered with 3 to 5 feet of wate~ and thet the Army Corps of Engineers has st~ted that the Santa Anr Rlver ts tl~e worst fiood area In tha United States r~nd they admit that it would toke 2A years to correct tt and th~t thts area is su~pttble t~ the 100-year fiood which would flood out practically al) the area elong the Se~te Ana aiver. I~e stated a statlon on this stte would be detrime~tal to the whale a~ea~ to all of Orange County, tn fact~ and if it is gaing to be buf it, it should be on a higMer ground some,wihere. Fie stated he also felt that Anaheim's industrfal ~~operty ts limt~ed and none of tt should be taken off the tax rolis, if this faciltty is qofne~ to be County owned. Ile stated he did not feel any gamble should be taken wtth lmpervious materlals here and th~t the City Council should notify the County 6oard of Supervisors that all three of these sites should be denied. ACTION: Commlsstoncr lierbst offered e motian~ seconded by Commisstoner Fry an IOtI CARRlED U~~ANIMOUSLY~ that the Anehclm City P'ldnr~ing Commission does hereby recommend to the L'tty Council that they recamnend denia) to the Orange County Board of Supervisors of the n roposed Ciess 1 Industrial Waste Transf~r Statton Site Nos. 5~ 20 and 21 which are loc~ted in the Clty of Anaheim un the basis that thts area is the window to all the undtrg round water Storege throughout Orange County, and that tha U. S. Army Corp of Engtneers has Indicated that the Santa Ane Rfver is the worst flood area in the Un(ted States and the ereas are ail susceptlbie to e 100-year flood; ~nd such a transfer station could be hezard~us to al) o~f Orange County and also on the basis that Anahelm's tndustrtal area is very limtted end shouid not be taken off the tax rolis if this weuid heconx~ Count~-owned property. N, PLAI~NING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO PARKS ArID RECREATIC~ri CoHMISSION - Comm ss oner Barnes state she as serve as t e representat ve to t e PArks and Recreation Commisslan for 2-1/2 years and Offered a moti4n~ seconded by Comm~ssioner Bo ues and MOTION CARRIEb. thet ChaTrman 6ushore serve in this capactty for a period of one year. ADJOURNMENT There being no Further business~ Commisstoner Kinc~ offered a motion, seconded by Commtssioner Bouas and MQTION CARRIED~ that the meettn9 be adJourned. ~ fie meettn9 was adjo~~~ned bt 7:20 p.m. Rsspectfutly submitted~ ~ -~°~~~~.; , ~ Edtth l. Ha~rts~ Secretary `''~*;,._ E~.H:Im Maheim Ctty ^lenrtl~g Commiaston _._ .. ~.______.___