Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/01/20REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING The tegular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Co;nmission was called to order by Chairwoman La Claire at 10:00 a.m., January 20, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quotum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:35 p.m. PRESENT: Chairwoman: La Claire Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Lawicki, Messe, McBurney ABSENT: Commissioner: None ALSO PRESEN'P: Annika Santalahti Assi.tant Director for Zoning Malcolm Slaughter Deputy City Attorney Jay Titus Office Engineer Paul Singer Traffic Engineer Gceg Hastings Associate Planner John Poole Code Enforcement Superviso[ Kendra Morries Assistant Planner tdith Harzis Planning Commission Secretary I1~M NU. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMII N0. 2738 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EUCLID STREET BAP'PIST CHURCH OF ANAEiEIM, INC.~ 1408 S. Enclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802, ATTN: CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER. AGF:NT: HOPE UNIVERSITY, P.O. Box 4818, Anaheim, CA 92602, ATTN: GEORGE NEWPIAN, SR. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acres, located at the riortheast corner of Buer~a Vista Avenue and Eucl.id Street, 1408 South Euclid Street (Euclid Street Baptist .:s.~~sch). To permit Hope ~iversity, an elementary school, a pre-school, and to construct a 2-story, 8-unit housing £acility in conjunction with a church with waive:s of (a) tequired setback of playgcound area, (b) min. number of parking spaces, (c) max. fence height adjacent to Euclid Street and (d) max. structural height adjacent to single-family zoning. Continued from the meetings of November 25, 1985, and January 6, 1986. Chair~ioman La Clai~e explained the public hearing has been closed on this matter and the action today will be Commission's vote on the proposed resolution. 86-52 1/20/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 86-53 Kendta Morries, Assistant Planner, read the pcoposed conditions of the proposed eesolution. Commissionec Messe asked that the word 'eliminated' be changed in Condition No. 26 on Page 8, and it was suggested the wordiny be changed to "cemoved from the site'. Commissioner Herbst asked about closure of the driveway at Edda Lane, Condition No. 5. He added it was Commission's intent to have that access closed at the end of this semester, subject to the Traffic Engineer's approval. Kendra Morries tesponded a sentence can be added that the driveway closuce issue applies to both Euclid Street and Edda Lane, and that Edda Lane shall be closed aC t~_ end of tCi~ SAttorney,osuggestedr than July 1, 1y86. Malcolm SlaughEer, Depuky y that condition be amended with an addition that the plans shall be submitted to and approved by the CiEy Traffic Engineec. Commissionez Bouas asked abo~t the waivers pointin9 out the waivecs were not really discussed at the last meeting. She c;arified the housing units will not be constructed until the church and school ace relocated and indicated she is particularly concerned about the structural height waiver. Kendca Mocries responded to Commissioner Bouas that waiver (b) pertains to the proposed height of the housing units which are located 22 feet from single-family zoned property; however, that is on subject property. Commissioner Herbst stated when the chucch and schools are celocated, the packing waivec, cequired setback for the playground and maximum fence height waiver will not be necessary and suggested those be limited to the 3-year period. Malcolm Slaughter responded that those thcee waivers can be granted for a 3-year time peciod. Commissioner Herbst asked that that be added to the cesolution. ACTION: Commissionec Herbst offered a motion, saconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit Hope University (a s~e°school,tand9toted mentally retarded adults), an elementary school, a p construct a 2-stocy, 8-unit housing facility in conjunction wit~ound, existing church, and with waivers of requiced setback foc playg minimium number ot parking spaces, maximum fence height and maximum structural height adjacent to sin9le-family zoning on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acres, located at the northeast corner of Buena Vista Avenue and Euclid Street, and :urthec described as 1408 South Euclid Street (Euclid Street Baptist Church); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consideced the Negative Declaration together with any commelts ceceived during the public revi.ew process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissione~ McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby 1/20/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION JANUARY 20 1986 86-54 grant waivers (a), (c) and (d) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as si2e, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Cotle deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classificacio~. in the vicinity and granting waivec (b) on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting af the parking waiver under Lhe conditions imposed, ~f any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the cit;.zens of the City of Anaheim; and further that waivers (a), (b) and (c) be granted for a peciod of three years, to expire July 1, 1989. Commissioner Hecbst oLYered Resolution No. PC86-17 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2738, in part, oursuant to Anaheim t4unicipal Code Sections 16.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations as amended. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BUUAS~ FRY, H~RBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSbNT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 2 EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATZON (READV.) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 204, RECLASSIFICATION NO 85-66-15, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERI4IT NO. 2726 (READV.) ~CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2727 (READV ) AND RE(~UEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 2c,_2d, 2e, and 2f in CONJUNCTION WITH GPk N0. 2U4 PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES, 2312 S. Fremont, Alhambra, 91dU3. AGENT: ED STRUTHERS, 721 N. Euclid, Y307, Anaheim, CA 92&O1, i'. A. Jones 6 Assoc., 485 E. 17th St, ~608, Costa Mesa, 92627. Property described as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.6 acres located at the northwest cocner of eall Road and Walnut Street, 891 South Walnut Street (Walnut Manor). To consider alternate proposals of ultimate land use, including, but not limited to low density residential, low medium density residential and medium density reside~tial designation. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 oz a less intense zone. To permit a 3-story, 134-unit affordable senior citizens 'affordable" apartment complex with waiver of rtiinimum building site area per dwelling unit and a 99-bed skilled nursing facility in conjunetion with the existing seniors retirement facility . 1/20/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 20, 1°86 86-55 Continued from the meeting of October 28, and Novembec "L5, 1985 Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission noting this is a property owner initiated General Plan Amendment requested by the Planning Commission to consider alternate proposals of ultimate land use, including, but not limited to low density residential, low medium density residential ana medium density residential designation on an area of approximately 10.2 acres located at the no[thwest corner of Ball Road and Walnut Street. He stated Exhibit A is the applicant's request. Gerald Bushore, 721 N. Euclid, Suite 201, Anaheim, explained the easterly poction of the property is currently developed with what he thought is the oldest senior citizen facility in Anaheim and for many years they have intended to develop the property to its maximum; that the southerly one-half ~f the westerly portion of the property is for the proposed 99-bed convalescent hospital, with the 134-unit seniur citizen housing ptoject to the rear. He stated these are two pieces of property now which will be made into thtee separate properties fot financing purposes; that counting the 95 beds of convalescent care and the other intermediate and congcegate ^are facilities, thece is a total of 407 units proposed and dividing that by 10.2 acres, the true density for the whole property is 39.9 units pet acre, and subtraccing the diffPrent things which are not really senior citizen housing, there would be a much lower figure; and that the~e are special circumstances on that property and he felt i.t should be 9ranted because this facility will give a person total control over how they want to live the cest of their lives. Mr. Sushore referred to Page 2-j of the staff report which indicates that the ]34 one-bedroom units de not have kitchen facilities; however, they do have kitchen f.acilities and that is shown on the plan; that Page 2-i, Item No. 25, indicates the structure height is proFosed at 15 feet and it is actually 9 feet. Kendra Morries pointed out che plans show 15 feet from the finished grade to the top of the roof. Barry Jones, T.A. Jones and Associates, architects, a85 E. 17th Street, Costa Mesa, stated they redesigned the whole project and have one story within the first 70 feet to lessen the impact to the single-family residential area to the north. He referred to the profile drawing showing the one-story within the 70 feet and two story beyond that, and within 150 feet of single-family r.esidential, there would be two-story structures and the one story will be a maximum height of 9 feet, and explained the 9 feet is rneasured from the finished floor level to the top of the plate line and this will he a flat roof. He noted that the second-story section would have a tile toof which is beyond the 70 feet. Mr. Bushore stated they are proposing a tiered project and that is probably what they should have done from the beginning. Claude Senefeld, acchitect for California Lutheran Homes, stated he would question the conditions requiring the dedication of the right-oF-way along two streets and noted a condition of the reclassification cequires dedication pcior to introduction of ordinance rezoning the property, and conditions of the conditional use permit require dedication within one year. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO~iEU::iSION JANUARY 20 1986 86-56 Kendra Morries stated that condition appears in both the reclassification and conditional use permit and the reclassification applies to the whole property and compliance of the condition is required prior to the introduction of an ordinance, but it has also been placed in Conditional Use Permit No. 2727, more as in informational matte~, to let the applicant know it is on the prooerty and if the reclassification is completea before the one year period, :t will be cequired at t'it time; however, if tney do not comalete the reclassification within the ~ne year, the City would still like to have the dedication made within the one year. Mr. Bushore ~tated a Certificate of Need is required from the State of Califo=nia for the 99-bed convalescent home and the.t deadline is coming up in the near future and he realizes the Commission has no problem with the convalescent home, but they are running out of time and he would like to have this apptoved as soon as possible so they d~ not have to reapply for that certific~te. TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claire statea it seems that all the •~tions have been answered due l•o the fact that thece is no opposi~. ::resent from the neighb~rl~oud and chan9ing the configuration of ti, •:ildings lessens the impact cn the neighborhood. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, requested Condition No. 4 of the reclassification, be modified to read: "That as required by ::ection 19.U4.U80.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the owner of subject property shall either post a faithful perfocmance bond with the City Engineer to guarantee the relocation and ceconstruction of the existi;-! street. im~rovements to their ultimate location along Ball Road and Walnut Street, or pay to the City of Anaheim a sum eyual to the cost of relocating said improvements, as determined by the City Engineec". ACTIUN: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner souas and MOTION CARRIED that tl:a Anah~im City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to change the general plan designation to low-density residential, law medi.um de~isity residential, medium density residential designations and to reclassi£y subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone to the RP1-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to permit a 134-unit senior citizen affordable apactment complex under authority of Govecnment Code Section 65915 with waiver of ~ainimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum stcuctural height and to permit a 99-bed skilled nursing facility in conjunction with the existing senior citizen retirement facility on a rectangu:arly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.6 acres located at the notthwest corner of ~~11 Road and Walnut Street, having approximate ftontages of 620 feet on the north side of Sall F<oad and 631 feet on the west side of Walnut Street and further described as 891 S. Walnut Street (Walnut Manor); and does hereby approve the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finaing on the basis of the Initial Study and any com,~ents received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environmenL-. 1/20/SF i 86-57 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY k'LANNING COMMISSZON, JANUARY 20 1986 Commissicner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-18 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve General Plan Amendment No. 204, Land Use Element. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-19 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant Reclassification No. 85-86-35 subject to interdepartmPntal Committee recommendations, including modification to Condition No. 4. 0~: cull call. the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner He~bst and MO~ION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis chat there ace special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, togography, location and surroundings which do not apply to othec ident.ically zoned property in the szme vicinity; and that strict application cf che Zoning Co~3e deprives the property oI privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Fry offeced Resolution No. PC66-20 and moved for its passage and adoption thak the Anaheim City Planning Commission does h2reby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2726 pursuant to Anaheim t4unicipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Conunittee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYSS: BUUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissionec Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-21 and moved for its passage and. adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss~on does heceby grant Conditional ~.~~E Permit No. 2727 pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thtough 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepaztmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the focegoing cesolution was passed by the ~'~llowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNb'Y, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NUNE 1/ZO/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSIOr JANUARY 20 1986 86-58 Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommen~ to the City Council that ki~ey consider Reclassification No. 85-86-15, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2726 and 2727, in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 204. Commissioner Bushoce thanked the Commission for their consideration especially, pertaining to the density, and ~tated he would like to request this matter be set before the City Council for public heacing as soon as possible. Kendra Morcies stated the petitioner would have to check with the City Clerk's Office since they set the public hearing matters for City Council. ITEM NO. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAR.~TION RECLASSIFZCATION Nn. 85-86-14 AND VARZANCE N0. 3518 PUBLIC HEARZNG. OWNERS: DOROTHY LEE MACDONALB, 925 S. Webster Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 and THOMAS CHARLES CONWAY, 917 S. Webster Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: BLASH MOMENY, 25283 Cabot Rd., ~205, Laguna Hills, 92653. P~operty is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.87 acre, 917 and 925 South Webster Avenue. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waivecs of maximum fence height at:d maximum structucal height to construct a 25-unit apartment building. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be contir.ued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 3, 1986, at the request of the petitioner in order to readvertise to include an additional waiver necessitated b~ revised plans submitted by the petitioner. ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3519 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ARTHUR J. 5 BARBARA C. POY7ELL, 513 S. Webster Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: HUGO VAZQUEZ, 613 S. Live Oak, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,313 Square feet, 613 South Webster Avenue. Waivecs of maximum structural height, maximum site coverage, minimum landscaped setback and minimum cecreational-leisure acea to constcuct a 3-story, 4-unit apartment complex. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the st~aff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jerry Drukin, 1280 E. Fluwez, Anaheim, eaplained this plan was redesigned and the configuration of the units has been changed itom fouc 2-bedcoom 1/20/86 86-59 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON JANUARY 20 1986 units to three 1-bedroom units and a bachelor unit a~.d one parking space was eliminated and the building was moved forwacd to the 15-foot setback line and the f[ont setback waiver was eliminated, thereby cequiring only two variances. He explained the open stairway is counted against the lot coverage, so there is still a 3-stoty building within 15~ feet of single-family zoning. Bill Phelps, 1259 N. Batavia, Orange, stated he did not like seeing a 3-story project on Webstec Street because that area has been ptotected for 25 years and as a developer he has turned many clients away because he did not think there was anyway even a 2-story project would be approved. He stated he hoped the Commission would consider that all up and down the stteet, there is 1-story development to the 150-foot setback and he could not see a 3-sto~y project going into that area. Mr. Drukin stated there are 2-1/2 stocy projects all along that intedaout some of them are in excess of 150 feet, but some are not, and p the property they are facing is not looking into the backyard, but is facing the front yard of the property accoss the street. He stated immediately to the north is a 2-1/2 story project. THE PUBLIC HEARINC WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Hecbst stated he thought this project is just too much development for this small parcel, 60 foot by 80 foot, and it is not compatible with the area and the Commission has asked that the project be redesigned, but the building is the same. He stated he would not vote for a ptoject like this in that area. Mr. Drukin stated the density does not exceed the Code. He stated for this small a site, they have tried to meet as many development standards as they could and the only majo~ issue is the three story and there is no complete living unit on the third floor. Commissioner Herbst stated allowing a three-story project in that area would be sett.ing a bad precedent and it has not been done ir. Anaheim befote. Mr. Drukin stated a two-story project would still require a variance. Commissioner Herbst asked if the petitioner would like a continuance to redesign the project to something other than a thcee story and noted the Commission has allowed some two-story projects. Commissionec Fry stated 4 units on this size lot is too much, as far as the Planning Commission is concerned. After confecri~~g with his client, Mr. Drukin asked if the Commission would consider the project if ur,:~ of ti.: units was considered affordable with Commissioners Bouas and Fry indicating they would not vote for it. Mr. Drukin asked fot a vote on the oroject as submitted. 1/20/86 86-60 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 ACTION: Comnissionet Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has ceviewed the proposal to const[uct a three-story, 4-unit apartment complex with waivers of maximum stcuctural height and maximum site coverage on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,313 square fe~~, having a fcontage of apptoximately 60 feet on the west side of Webster Avenue and further described as 613 South Webster Avenue; and does heceby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration togethec with any comments received during the public review process and furthec fir.ding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received tnificant effect onbthential evidence that the ptoject will have a sig er,vironment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-22 and moved for its passage and adoption that che Anaheim City Planning Commission do?s hereby deny Variance No. 3515 on the basis that there ace no special ci~locationeand applicable to the pcoPerty such as size, shape, topography, in the surroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned property same vicinity; and that stcict applicatied bf other~pr pe[tiesainsthet deprive the propecty of pcivileges enjoy Y identical zone and classification in the vicinity• the following vote: On roll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attocney, presented the wcitten right to avueal the Planning Commissio,n's decision within 22 days to the City Council. IrE~M _Np, 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUZREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NG. 2745 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: THE PRESBYTERY OF LOS ANGFLESLOS/Ang1e0D OA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ HAWAII 1~01 Wilshite Bouleva[d, 90017, ATTN: A. W. GARRI5BLed,ACAN92621~WP~ PeLtYLdescribedCasPal 2~8 S. Urange Aven~e~ Suite 207, roximately 3.89 acces rectangularly-shaped parcel of la~~ consisting of app 2580 located at the southeast cornec of Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, W. Orange Avenue (St. Paul's Presbytecian Church). To permit a 51-unit (reduced to 40 subsequent to advectisemensiteearea and citizen's apartment complex with waivers of minimum building maximum structucal height. There ~ ~ seventeen pecsons indicating their pcesence in favoc of the subjec :quest and although the staff report was not read, it is refecced ~~ ana . je a pact of the minutes. Dazwin Manuel, a9ent, explained the height of the project is two story rather than three as originally subm~tted and l•he numbet of units has been 1/20/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 20~ 1986 86-61 reduced from 51 to 40. He referred to the request for height limitation and explained they have presented the plans to the residents directly behind subject pcoperty and they have indicated they do not object to the 16-foot setback. He stated the property to the east is developed with 2 or 2-1/2 story apartments. Regarding the requirement for necessary secvices for senior citizens within acceptable distance, he stated subsequent to the report furnished to the Commission, they have learned some of the facilities are closec than originally indicated. Pastor Halva, 50 Lincoln Court, Buena Park, stated they have attempted to make good use of this property and now are happy to present this proposal for senioc citizPn's housing and they feel it is a needed service. He stated this church was the original TLC (Transportation, Lunch, and Counseling) site with 150 seniors thece on a daily basis and they feel this use would 4e compatible and harmonious with their goals. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ommissionec Herbst asked the General Plan designation of the RS-A-43,000 property adjacent to the south. Kendra Morries responded the General Plan designates that property for low medium density residential land uses. Chairwoman La Claire stated she and Commissioner Lawicki visited several senior citizen complexes, both apactments and condominiums, realizing the need for this type facility, and talked with the seniors and found out what their needs are and added she thougl~t it was nice to see a project like this coming before the Commission. ACTION: Commissionec McHUrney offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTZON CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 40-unit senior citizen's apart~ent complex with waiver of maximum structural height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.89 acres located at the soucheast cotner of Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue and further described as 2580 W. Orange A~~enue (St. Paul's Presbyterian Church); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received dueing the public review process and further findin9 on the basis of the Initial Study and any cumments rece:ved that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviroi~ment. Commissioner McBucney o£feced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRZED that the Anaheim City Plannxng Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code reyuirement on the basis that there are special ciccumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and s~rruundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; ar.~ chat ~tcict ap~~ication of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. 1/20/86 86-62 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 Commissioner McBurney offered ~esolution No. PC86-23 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Canditional Use Permit No. 2749 pu:~uant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.03Q through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM .NO. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 207 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE, 666 Bakec Street, #263, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. AGENT: VIC PELOQUIN, 3445 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Propecty bounded by Santa Ana Canyon Road on the north, Royal Oak Road on the east, Nohl Ranch Road on the south and Nohl Can}on Road on the west. The trails proposed for deletion include the entire Nohl Ranch Trail, extending from Santa Ana Canyon Road between Peralta Hills Drive and Nohl Canyon Road to the Lakeview Tcail; the portion of the Four Cornecs Trail extending fcom the Lakeview Trail to Royal Oak Road between Honeywood Lane and Nohl Ranch Road; and the portion of the Lakeview Trail extending fcom Peralta 6ills Drive to Nohl Ranch Road whe~e it intersects with Meats Avenue. The tcails proposed Yoz addition include a trail adjacent to the east side of Royal oak Road, extending from Crescent Drive to Nohl Ranch R~ad; and adjacent to the south side of Nohl Ranch Road extending from Royal Oak Road to Meats Avenue. There were five pecsons indicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest an~ although the staff report was not read, it is refecced to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 ad.~p~ing a Conflict of Interest Code fo~ the Planning Commission and Gove.,~T,cr~t. Code Section 3625, et seq., in that the agent is his landlord and ~.•ucsuant to the provisions o` the above Codes, declared to the Chairm~n that he was wit.hdrawing from the. hearing in co:~nection witl~ Gene,al Plan Amendment No. 2G7, and would not take part in either the discussion oc the voting theceon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. The[eupon Commissionet Mess~ left the Council Chamber. Greg Hastings, Associate Plannet, pLesented the staff report indicating this is a pzoperty owner initiated cequest for the General Plan Amendment 1/20/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 86-63 to the Riding and Hiking Trai].s portion of the Environmental Resource and Management Element, including the deletion of the Nohl Ranch Trail ar,d portions of the Lakeview and Four Corners Trails and addition of tcail segments adjacent to Royal oak Road and Nohl Ranch Road. Vic Peloquin, 3445 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, developer of t}~e proposed subdivision which the trails would bisect, explained they have agreed to supply the trails, but upon reviewing the sikuation with staff and the Parks and Recreation Department, it was pointed out the inadequacy of the design and the location. He stated the trails requested for deletion would never be developed and that the trails are not e].iminated entirely, but celocated to a be more efficiently used. Pat Neylan, 250 Ocange Acre, Anaheim, stated he lives adjacent to this property. He stated the neighbors are not necessarily opposed to the action requested today, but do not understand the total impact on their propecty. He stated the pcoperty behind them was rezoned recently from 1-acr? lots to 1/2-acre lots and a subdivision was approved and neither he nor any of his neighbors were given notice of that hearing and when they received the card fo~ this hearing regard:ng the trails, they came in to see what was going on only to find out about the rezoning and tract map which 1~ave already been approved. He stated it is significant because none of the people adjacent to the pcoperty were notified and it will have a major impact on their property with water run-off, grading, etc. He stated they thought the 1-acre lots would remai~ as 1-acre lots and in just the last few years, he has built a very expensive home. He stated they were not 9iven the opportunity to give the?.r input. He stated when the property above was developed, there were majoc flooding probiems through his property and his neighbor's propecty and they do not know what the impact of this new p~oject will be on their properties. He stated he did not know what the financial impacts would be and presented a petition signed by 13 property ownecs in opposition. He stated they do not feel they know enough about this project to make an intelligent decision and ace not trying to impede development capriciously. He added they have always known thece was one acre aevelopment planned for that area and the trails provided an additional buffec zone and that has been substantially changed and with the trails being deleted, it would bring the setback even closec to their property; and that thece are substantial grades behind his home which ~:~ould be impacted. He stated about 2 years ago, the owner of this property changed the drainage by gcading the drainage ditch. He added the property owners feel a little betrayed, because two blocks ef property owners were not notified and they do not kn~w whether it was done accidentally or intentionally and are very upset and would like to have this hearing postponed out of courtesy because of the ecror so they can address their attorneys to see what theic rights are. He explained they were told by the Planning Depar.tment staff that the hearing was advectised in the newspaper and posted on the proYerty and that is all the City is really required to do, but they ate very upset about this and would like this hearing delayed so the pcopecty ownets in this acea could find out what the impacts would be on their property. 1/20/66 v ~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANOARY 20 1986 86-64 Vic Peloquin stated the questions and concerns of the neighbors might be alleviated if they understood that the 40 acres of 43,000-square foot lots will be developed into 41 units and that in some cases the lots are approximately 3/4 of an acce and in some cases the lots would be 1-1/2 or 1-3/4 acres which gives them lots in excess of ?/4 of an acre in most instances. He added being a cesident in Peralta Hills for the last .five years on Chrisalta, he is very concerned regarding the environment and financial impact of this subdivisian on the surrounding communities. Ile stated they have proposed to provide a gate-guarded community with access oEf Nohl Ranch Road with estate-sized lots which will enhance all the ptoperties in the surrounding areas and the majority of the lots abutting Peralta Hills are 3/4 to 1 acre. He stated they have met with the ~ngineering Department to alleviate the fears regarding flooding and the additional water d~ainage and probably 7/8 of the er.tire 40 acres will now be drained through street improvements and grading the lots toward the street to the storm dcain system which is already installed, and that will eliminate about 7/8 uf the entire water flow across the property into the c:ity sewer dcain system and the remaining 1/B would be slope water ~djacent to their pcoperty. He stated the slope drainage will be designed hy the engineers to drain into concrete channels and will drain off-site to the storm drains or natural water course. He stated there is a buffer between the start of theic slopes and the back of their propecty line which they will be constcuctir~g and they have to allow 15 feet befoce the slope can even be built. He stated property values will be kept up and these will be large homes, approximately 5,000 square feet or above. Mr. Peloquin stated approval by the Planning Commission today of these horse trails to be deleted wi~l not affect their concerns regarding the sut~division and postponement of this hearing would have no bearing on their concern. He stated he would be glad to meet with the 14 homeowners and show them the proposal and the CC6Rs. He stated he did not know of any opposition to the subdivision until today. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D. Responding to Chaitwoman La Claire, AnniY.a SanL-alahti, Assistanl- Dicector for Zoning, explained she reviewed the mailing list, and pointed out these mailing lists ace done by the computer and the accessor`s parcel numbers assigne~ by a staff inember and apparently two streets wece totally missed. She stated there were about 12 to 20 names which were omitted and it appears to have been a mistake, and it appears thece were some similar numbers on the property in question and the stafE member saw what appeared to be the same numbers and thought they had alr.eady written the right sequence. She stated 110 notices wece sent out and staff did not notice that there was less than should have been expected; however, the opposition is coccect in that they did not get notices. Chaicwoman La Claire stated it i~ true that the City of Anaheim is only requiced to post the property and advertise in the newspaper, but the notices are sent to property ownecs within 300 feet, in additian. She stated the Plannin9 Commission takes very secious the promises made to people in Peralta Hills. She stated she lived there for many years herself and she is really concerned about the drainage. etc. She stated 1/20/86 ! MINUTES, ANAYEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 20~_1986 86-65 the tract has already been approved and the Commission looked at it very hacd to mal,: sure it would not impact the area and were delighted to see 1/2-acre development pcoposed instead of condominiums, and felt a gate-guarded community of 1/2 acre lots with 41 homes offered the area the best possible development. She stated representatives from Peralta Hills were notified and wece in favor of this development. She stated the Commission is reviewing the horse trails issue today and the problem is that most of them are not hooked up and there are even walls and carports built over some of them. She stated the Meats horse trail was never developed and the City of Orange has never developed their trails. Mr. Neylan stated it is very strange that the applicant nas largec than 1-acte parcels pcop~sed closer to where he lives and smaller lots closer to where the opposition lives. He stated they will be discussing their rights with their Counsel and there are other l-hings involved, which they can hopetully file suit on, which have happened in the past, and if a mistake was made, even though a lot of people in the area feel it was intentional and there is a conspiracy, he felt by continuing this matter, it would give them an cpportunity to meet with the applicant to address some of the problems such as drainage and maybe some of their other fears could be alleviated. He stated 208 of the people did not get a notification and rhis is ar, opportunity foc the Commission to pustpone this hearin9 and added he is not certain they are even oppesing this request, but this would be a "good-faith' gesture to give them something to talk to the developer about to resolve thei~ fears. He responded they have not talked to the developer to date, but tiave talked to the peuple selling the property about some fence line adju~tments, etc. Chaicwoman La Claire stated this is just the horse 'rails is~ue a~~ she did not think it would hurt anything to postpone this matter for two weeks so they can get together to discuss the project. She apologized foc the error and added there was no in:ention on anyone's part to leave out the ptoperty uwners and she would like this hearing postponed for two weeks so the neighbors can meet with tha develope~ to talk about all the issues and noted the tract has already been approved. Commissioner McBUCney asked if continuing this would impede the building of the subdivision, Kendra Morries stated she was not awacP that two weeks would make any significant diffe:ence. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission has talked about- meeting with the Parl:s and Recreacion Department regarding the horse trails and stated he would like to see a report on that issue since there are a lot of questions as to where they can be developed, etc. and noted Santa Ana Canynn Road is going to be a 6-lar.e road in tt~e futu-~ which would eliminate that horse trail. Helen Cuctis, 777 Peralta Hills Drive, stated she has been a representative of tne Peralta Hills area on che Parks and Recreation Trails Committee and they realize there will nevec be trails there and the area has not developed as a horse area, but they are trying to preserve 1/20/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 86-66 the ones they have and noted her p[operty backs up to the Nohl Ranch Tcail, but it has been blocked at both ends. She stated she thought it would be fine for the developec to meet with the homeowners and answer their questions, but postpcning the trails issue would not accomplish anything. ACTIUN: Commissioner McBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRTED (COmmissioner Messe absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 6, 1986, in order far the homeowners to neet with the developer. Commissione~ McBurney asked about those people who were not notified and whether they would be notified of this meeting. Kendra Morries stated those people were notified of the issue of the horse trails, but not the tract. Chairwoman La ~laire stated she felt this continuance would sE~~~~ :~ purpose, but wiil give the oppositio^ a chance to learn more about che pcoject and talk to the devPloper, and the only thing to be discussed at that meetiny will be the traiis issue since thc tract has been approved, She added the Commission did everything possibie to safeguard the Peralta Hills asea. Commissioner Messe ceturned to Che mEeting. Commissionec Serbst asked tt~at a meetin9 be atranged with the Parks ana Recreation Depa:tment ca aisc~ss the tcails. Greg Hastings explained l•he Packs and Recceation Depo~tment is currenl•ly stud}ing the horse tcails system in the Canyon Area and will be meetang with the Trails Committee; ho~ever, that could tak~ a few munths to determine the feasibility of additional trails, e~c. ITEM NO. 7 EIR CATEGOkICAL EXE[dPT10N-CLASS 5 HND VARIANCE NO. 3528 PUBLZC HEARING. OWNERS: BENJAMIN C. AND WILMA S. Q. LEE, 1764 N. Azure Street, Anaheim, CA 92807. ~ropecty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appzoximately 5,667 aquare feet, 1764 Azure street. Waivers of maximum lot coverage and maximum number of bedrooms to construct an addition to a single-family residence~ Thete was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referred to snd made a part of the minutes. Ben Lee, owner, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC ~EARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Planning Directoc or his author.ized cepcesentakive has determined that the proposed project falls Withi.n the definition of 1/20/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~.JMKISSION, J?~NUAR° 20, 1986 _ 86-67 Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as detinea li1 'i:ie State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically e~:~s~gt from the cequirement to pcepare a^ ~IR. ACTION: Commissionec Herbst off:ered Resolution No. PC86-24 an: moeed for its passage and adoption that che Anahei~ '~ity Plannir.y Commi:~-~ion ~oes heceby grant Vaci~nce No. _~~:8 on the 4a_i~ that theze are s~r;al circu~~~stances epp]ic,:tile to tT,e propeity s~ch as size, shape, *'pogcaptiy, location and sucrour.::?ngs whi:.Y, .:~ not apply to ot:her identicali.~ znn~`? property in the sv.me vicinity; :~n~] `.hat strict app: ication of the :.~nirig Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed hy other propecties in the identical zone and classification in the vici~ity and subj?~ct to Intecdepactment.al Cormittee recommendaci.:r~. On roil call, the foregoing resolution wa: passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ PIESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attocney, presented the written rig'~t to appeal the Fl~niing Commission'a decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 8 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEM:'i'lU%~-_ CI+ASS 3 AND ~ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2754 PUBLIC' I7BexING• OWNERS: CEN~RAL CHURCH OF CHRIST OF ANAHEIM, 1590 W. Ball Road, Anaheim~ ~A ~~~-'~?: 1+TTN: G. B. STANLEY. Property desccibed as an an ircegularly-shaped parcel of lai~d consisting of appruxsmate.ly 1.7b ~~cres, 159U W. eall Road (Central Chusch oi Christ of Ananeim). To permit a residential trailer in ~:onjunct:.~n wit;~ an ex~.sting church. These was no or.e indicatin~ ~<<°ic ~resence ir~ oppositic^ to subject request and althoug.~ the .~tafi reFc~rt was not rez.d, it is referred to attd made a~art of the mini~tes. Pastor G. Stanley, was ptesE~nt to answer any q~.:estions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representati.:~ has determined that the proposed p[oject falls within the defi^.-ticn of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defi.ned i.n the State Environmenta.~ Impact Repuct Guidelines and is, thecefcce, c.ategor?cally exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissionec Fry offered Resolu.:ion No. P~S6-25 and n:oved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Cit.y P1a~lnir~ ~ommissiua does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2754 putsuant te :naheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.U3.030.035 and subjeat ~~ Interdepartmental Committee cecommendations. 1/20/86 B6-68 !;'.NUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLA~NING COMMISSION, JANUA;iY 10, 198~: pn roll call, the foregoing i~solution w~s~ p~ Ss^~' by the following ~,rote: AYES: •40UAS, ::=°_,. HERBS'!'~ LA CLAIiiB,. Lil'~7::inI~ MC ~!1F.NF.V, NES::E NOES: NONti ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slau,y;atnr, Dep~?-Y ~'ity Atto~ney, presented the wtitten right to appeal the P:lanning Commis~ion's decis.i~,r~ within 22 :3ays to the City Council. ITEM NU. 9 EZR NEG~TIVE ~E~LARATTnN kE~LASSIFICATION 1v0. 85-86-18 AND VARIANCE NO. 3:i31 PUBLIC HEARING„ OWNERS: HERBERT E. 6 EUNICE G. GRIMM AND PAUL A. 5 EJ~'!`1N~. P. LOHR, 2229 E. Meats l~ve., Ocange, CA 92667. AGENi: 4lEL'TERN D?',CIFIC PROPERTIES, FRED E. HAk':MAN, JR. - General Partne:, P.O. box ~370-3i9, San'.:a Ana, CA 92704. Pccgerty described as a _*ectangularl~t-shaped para^1 of land conc•isEing ~:,i approximacely 1.'. a~.eces, havin9 a froi~i.,ge uf appror.imately 35C .fe,~t on the north '.de of Lin~c.~ln Avenue, approx:macely 205 feet east of the ce..t~rline of ~a~gnolia Avenue, RS-A-'!3,OU0 t~ RM-1200 or a i?ss intensP ?^~~• Waivers of minim~<~ stcuctural se*_~ack and minimum rear yard setback to construct a 3a-unze apartment complex. There was nc one intlicat:ng thei~ pre~e~ce in opposition to sut,ject request and although the s*.afE cep~rt was not read, it is reL::;zed to and made a part of the minute:.• Bill Uhl, archite::t, wes pcesent to ant;wer any questio[is. THE PUBLIC HEAitING 6JA" CLOSBD. ACTION• Ccmmiss~cner Fry offered a;!otion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED th~t A~aheim Ci*_y Plsnning Commission has reviewed the pruposal to reclassify sut~~~:ct ptope.:ty fr~;:n the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone to the ',~::-120U (Reside.n.~ial, Multiple-Eami2y) 2on~~ to construct a 34-unir_ apartment complex ~itb waiver .^f minimum structural setback, minimm: *2ar yar.d setback on a rectangulari~+-shaped parcel of land cunsisting of appcoximately 1.2 aczes, having a E:ontaye of 350 fee•:. on the notth side of Lincoln Avenue; and does hereb,y apr~ove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has cons:idered the Neyu~ive Declaration together :.~ith any comments cecei.'-ed durin~3 the public re^iew p~ocess and f::rther findin~~ on the basis of the initia! St~dy and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the pruject will have a signifi.,^ant effect on the environment. Comn~issioner Ery offeced Resolution No. PC86-26 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassificati.on No. 85-86-18 subject to interdepartmental Committee c ecommeridat ions . 1/20/86 MINUTES ANAhEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 86-69 On coll call, the foregoing resolutior. was passed by the ~ollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONB ABStiNT: t~ONE Malcolm Slauyhter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Ylanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-27 and moved fot its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Vaciance No. 3ti~:i cn the basis that there are special circumstances applicable tu the property such as size, shape, to~ography, 2ocation and surroundings Which do not apply to othec identic~~lly zoned property in the same vicinity; and that stcict application of the zoning Code deprives the property of p~ivileges enjoyed by other pcoperties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental ~ommittee recommendations. On rull call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC EURNEY~ MESSE NUES: NUNE ABSENT: NONE Ma1co:Lm Slaughter, lleputy City Attorney, pr2sented the written right to apFcal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council, i'PEM i:(:• 10 EIR I~EGATIVE DECLARATION WAiVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDI~'iONAL USB PERMST N0. 2755 4UBLIC: HEARING. OwNE:.~: hELLEDGER A. MIMS, 1310 Red Gum Street, Anaheim, C~: 928U6. Property ~°scribed ~s a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consist_ing of approximately 0.50 acre, 1310 Nc:th Red Gum Stceet. To p?rmit a mobilehome us~~d f~c testing, demonstration and display of re.iated mobilehome product;; with Maivers of minimum number of parking snaces, There was na one _ndicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Helledger A. Mims, owner, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBL'iC HEAkING WAS CLOSED. Co:nmissioner Messe asked if the Fire Depactment has any opposition to this request. Kendra Morries responded they did not exp~ess any opposition. lj 20/86 86-70 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~OMH=SSION JANUAP.Y 20 1986 ACTION: ~ommissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MO'tION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has re:~iewed the oroposa2 to pe~mit a mobilehome used foc testing, d_monsttation and display of related mobilehome produr,ts wi~h waivers of minimuan numaer of parking spaces on a re~tangularly-snaped pascel of land consisting of approximately 0.50 acre, having a frontage of approximately 110 feet ~n the east side of Red Gum Str.eet and furthec described as 1310 North Rrd Gum Street; and does heieby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding t•hat it has consideted the Negative Declaration together with any comnents received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial ~tudy and any comments received that there is no substanti33 evidence that the projec*_ will have a significant effect on the envi~onment. Commissioner McBUrney offered a motion, seconded by ~ommissi.oner Hecbst and MOTION CARRIEU that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waive: of the Cude requirement on the basis that the parkinu Naiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adve~sely affect any adjoining land u~es and gcant.n3 of the parking waivec undec thE •~r.n~itions impesed, if any, will not be detrimenta] r.o the Qeace, health, saEety ~~~d gP^°ral welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner McEUCney offered Resolutian No. PC86-28 and mov~d for its Y} passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does he~eb : w= ~onditional Use Pecmit No. 2755 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 th~ough 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On [oll call, the focegoing ~esolutior. was pass2d by the following vote: AYBS: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NO[i~ ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 daya to the City Council. ITEM N0. 11 EIR NEGA~IVE DECLARATION AND CONDITZONAI~ USE PERMIT Na. 2753 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JSF PROPERTIES, Ei AL, c/o F. Fascenelli, 12655 Garden Grove Soulevard, Suite 502, Garden Grove, CA 92~43. AGEN:S: KEN NISHIMOTO, 732 N. Lake Ave., Suil•e 203, Pasadena, CA 91104, ROSS GORGONE, 150 S. E1 Molino Ave., S~tite 100, Pasadena, CA 91101 and JANICE RANNICK, 1201 Dove St., Suite 300, Newport Beach, CA 9266U. Property described as an icceyularly-shaped parcel of ].and consisting of approximately ~.55 acre, located at the southwest corner of Pacifico Avenue and Santa Cruz Street, 950 East Pacifico Avenue. To pecmit the constcuction of a post office in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone. 1/20/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 20~ 1986 8~-71 Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Janice Rannick, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Rannick stated they would agcee with the proposed conditions. ACTION: Commi.ssioner d~ecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION ~ARRIED that the Anaheim -ity Planning ~ommission has reviewed the proposal to permit co~struction of a post office in the ML Zone on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistirg of appruximately 0.59 acre located at the southwest corner of Pacifico Avenue and Santa Cruz Street and further describea as 950 East Pacifico Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it t~as consideced the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis oP the Initial SL-~idy and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence tr.at the project will have a significant effect on the environmento Commissioner Herbst offeced Resolut:~:a No. PC86-29 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does herPby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2753 p~csuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thrcugh 18.0?.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committec recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~~ote: AYES: BUUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOEE: NONE ABSENT: NULJE I•talcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the C~ty Council. ITEM. N0. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86_-1~ ilAi~«R OF CODE REQUIREME~IT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2750 FUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: S.S.P. PR~PERTIES, c~o JOHN SCHANTZ, ET AL, 20100 Brookhu~st, Huntington Beach, CA 92646. AG£NT: J.P. KAPP, 15892 Pasadena Ave., Tustin, CA 92680. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 2.93 acres located southeast of the intersection of the Rivetside Freeway and Impecial Highway. RS-A-43,000(SC) to CL(SC) or a].ess intense zone. To permit a 42-foot high, 183-unit motel in the CL(SC) Zo~e with waivers of minimum structural setback, minimum landscaped setback, maximum structural height and reouired site screening. 1/20/86 MINuTES, ANAhBIM CZTY PLAIiNING CO~~ISSION, _~nNUARY 20, 1986 86-72 There was no one indicatiny their presence in opposition to s~bj2c~ request and although the staff report was riot read, it is xefe[red to and ma~e a ra:t cf ~he minetzs. Alene Kapp, agent, stated they will increase the landscaped setback along Impecial to match the setback in the adjacent shopping center. She asked that Condition No. 3 be modified to incl~de the definition of a motor hotel/motel which does not include a public restaurant and that the last sentence of Condition No. 3 be modified to read: 'FUture application for removal of the covenant shall be subject to a public hearin~ and approval of a specific development plans." She stated there wapid be no air conditioning units protruding from the building ~nd there ~ill. be no blank exterior walls. THE PUBLTC qEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commisszonec Herbst, Kendra Morries stateo the p:oject before the Planning Commission is a very specific project basec~ on submitted plans and the Tcaffic Engineer's recommendation for a~~pcoval is contingent upon development to those specific plans and she woul~ be concerned that the applicant feels that future revisio~s to the plans would be acceptable without any public hearing and asked the applicant to explain thQ reasons for the request. Ms. Kapp stated she was not sure what the differential is between a hotel and motel and in some definitions, the number of rooms determines whether it is a motel or hotel. Kendra Morries stated typically Planning staff makes the determination and a motel is the more traditional motor court with exterior entrances, no meeting room, no public restaurants, etc., and a hotel has intecior access and may have banquet and meeting rooms, public restaurants, etc. Ms. Kapp stated they will not have a restaucant, but will have a small meeti:,g room, as shown on the plans. She suggested maybe it could be defined as a motoc hotel. Chairwoman LaClaire suggested leaving it the way it is and if there was a problem in the future, clarification can be made because our definition of motels is consistent with the plans submitted. Commissionec Herbst asked how the stipulation can be handled about the landscaped setback. Ms. Kapp stated they have proposed a 5-foot landscaped strip, however, in a meeting with the adjacent property owner, they agreed to increase that landscaping to match the landscaping in front of the Foxfire restaurant. Kendca Morries state~) the Code requires 20 feet and the applicant has requested a reduction to 5 feet and noted the property does not have frontage on Imperial H~~hway. Concerning the structural height waiver in the Scenic ~orridor, Kendra Morries refer:ed to Paragraph 17 of the staff report which refers to other waiver~~ granted. 1/20/86 86-73 ' MINUT~S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOiV JANUARY 20 1986 It was clari~ied the building will h~~re a tile coof and t•here will be no coof-mounted equipment. Jai iitus, Office Engibeeamendeddtohincludelan additionalrsentenceathatnal use petmit, Page 12-g rior to issuance of building •said securiuacantee constcuctiontcompletion pcior to occupancy. petmits to g A~TION: Commissionec Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner g=y and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to reclassify subject property fcom the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential, Ag[icultural, Scenic Corridor OZonearo 2one to the CL(SC) ,Comaercial, Limited, Scenic Corridor Overlay) permit a 42-foot high, 183-unit motel with waivecs of minimum structural setback, minimum landscaped setback and m3shapedspaccelLOf landhconsisting cequired site screening on an irregulacly- of approximately 2•93 acres located southeast of the intersrove thef the Rivecside Freeway and Imperial Hi9that,itnhasoconsideredath? Negative Negative Declacation upon finding the public review Declacation together with any comments received duting pcocess and futther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that r_hete is no substantial evidence that the p[oject will have a signiYicant eYfect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PCSb-30 and moved fot its pa~sage and adoption that the Rnaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 85-96-7 subject to inte~departmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWZCKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissione~ Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant waivet of Code ~equirement on the ba:>is tsuchtasLSizee shapealtopography, circumstances applicable to the P~~PELty 1 to other iden`_ically zoned location and surroundings which do not app Y property in the same vicinity; and thaeSSenjoyedPbylothecnProPertiesnin9 Code depcives the p~opecty of ptivileq the identical zone and classification in eLiallasnstipulatedsto bytthee landscaped buffer shall be 15 feet on imp petitionet at the public hearing and ~ubject to Intetdepartmental Committee recommendations. Concerning the block wall alon9 tne fceeway, Ms. Kapp stated they pcopose tn retain t.he existing chain link fer~ce and it will be landscaped. Commissionec Herbst offeted Resolution No• plannin aCommossionodoesSheceby passage and adoption that the Anaheim City 9 grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2750 Pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code 1/20/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 8~-74 Sections 18.03.030.030 through 1&.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the fotegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABS~NT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtet, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decis.'.on within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 13 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO[i AND CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2756 PUBLIC HEARING. Gwi~rR$; ORANGE COUNTY STEEL SALVAGE~ INC.~ 3200 E. Frontera Street, Anaheim, CA 92806, ATTN: GEORGE ADAMS. Pcoperty described as a rectangularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres located approximately 200 feet south of the centerline of Fronteca Stceet and approximately 1700 feet east of the centecline of Glassell Street, described as 3200 East Fcontera Street (Otange County Steel Salvage). To retain the retention of temporacy outdoor storage of shcedder waste, disnantled automobiles, a traveling overhead crane, and other materials and equipment associated with petitioner's recycling operation located to the north and west of subject property. There was no one indicating theic presence ir. opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of. interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Governmsnt Code Section 3625, et seq., in that the petitioner is a customec of his and pursuant to the provisions of the 3bove Codes, declaced to the Chairman that he was withdrawin9 from the heacing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2756, and would not take part in eithec the discussion o[ the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Messe left the Council Chamber at 2:10 p.m. Philip Anthony, 2157 Pacific Avenue, Costa Mesa, cepresenting the Orange County Steel Salvage Incorporated, stated this request involves a 5-acre parcel which is actually part of the land purchased from the County and the request is for a temporacy use petmit for storage purposes. He stated they tealize this request is complicated by a number of outstanding obligations on the adjoining property, as well as the shreddec waste matecial which has accumulated in connection with the recycling center and some of which is on subject property. He stated since they were last before the Planning Commission,theze has been some changes in the ownetship of the proPerty where the recycling center is, as well as the 1/20/86 MINUlES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 86-75 adjoining prope~ties, and for the first time the owner of the recycling center, in addition to having acquired the County landfill site, has entered into esccow to purchase the propecty where the recycling center is located and just recently closed escrow to acquire the property immediately to the west where the Lincoln Materials yard is located. He stated as of today, almost all of the reauired coad improvements has'•been completed and that they have put in a nPW water line and a new fire hydcants and the curbs and guttecs requiced and the street lights are just about to be put in and electrical lines are in and within the next one or two days, the poles will be installed. Concerning the shcedder waste pile, he stated that has been a very difficult problem for the operator of the recycling center and they have been caught by a change in State ce9ulations and to the best of their knawledge, there is no place to legally dump that material at the present time, shoct of trying to take it to Arizona, which is questionable, or taking it into Mexico and they do not think that is a reasonable option and ace trying to follow the rules of the new State law reflected in SB976 which is cucrently in the process of trying to establish a way to take this waste into landfills within reasonable vicinities of recycling centers; and that at the present time that pcocess is still underway and a number of landfills in Orange County and nearby has.been designated as shcedder wasl-e disposal sites, but there are two additional steps, the first for the Department of Health Services to make a finding based on intormation provided to them, that tne shredder waste is indeed safe to go into landfills and he believes they have the data to do that and it should be accomplished soon; ar.d the second step is for the Regional Water ~uality Control Board to determine what the waste disposal requirements are for each particular landfill and, hopefully, when that is accomplished, there will be a place to take this matecial and they intend to dispose of it lawfully and as quickly as possible. He stated they believe they are doing all they can to find a place to take this waste and would like to have this permit for temporary storage for at least one year. James McNally, Program Manager, Toxic Substances Control Division, California Department oi Health Ser.vices, 107 S. Broadway, Rcom 7011, Los Angeies, explained he was asked to appeac today on behalf of the Code Enforcement Office to discuss the findings of a recent inspection at the O~ange County Steel Salvage operation. He explained tests wece conducted on material known as 'auto shtedder waste' or "fluff' which is tY~e material piling up and is the pcimary waste product of the auto shredding operation. He stated an inspection was conducted October 21, 1485, and samples wece taken near the auto shredder pile and three samples of the waste itselY wece taken and the results indicate that the auto shredder waste, particularly at this facility, is hazardous with respect to 'lead°, both soluble lead and total lead; that the State standard for total lead in waste is 1000 parts per million which means any waste which contains 1000 part per million or gceater is consideced hazardous and has to be managed as a hazardous waste. He stated there is a recent amendment to the Health and Safety Code which does state for purposes of disposal, there are some landfills designated to receive auto shredder waste and some are currently being examined to see if they williin fact, accept auto-shredder waste. He stated of the three samples taken from the waste 1/20/86 s6-~a MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAt3NING COMMISSION• JANUARY 20 1986 pile, 5700, 3700 and 3300 parts per million were found, with the State standard being 1G00 parts pec million; that the solubility tests which examines lead which pethaps would be leached showed it is 5 parts per million and in the other samples, thece was 130, 130 and 120 parts per million, s~ all three would be conside~ed hazardous. Mr. McNally stated this is not new infocmation and the auto shredder operators have been aware of this and there was state-wide notification which went out in March 1983. Mr. McNally stated in addition to being hazardous with respect to lead, significant concentcations of zinc and ccpper were found; that the State limit for total zinc for what is consideredhad 6e5002d12~0001and 2o700rts per million and of the samples taken, they parts pec million; howevec, all three would still be considered hazardous with :espect to soluble zinc. He stated the state standard is 250 parts per million and the samples showed 910, 880 and 360 parts pec million, so all three would be considered hazardous for solid zinc. He stated the third test was foc copper and the State limit is 2500 parts per million and the samples were 18U0, 4500 and 920 so the second sample would be considered hazardous with respect to total copper and no soluble copper was detected. He stated in addition to heavy metals, they Salsoetestedaforstos and found less than 18 in the samples. He stated they polychlocinated biphenyals (PCB) and the State standard for PCB in a solid waste is 50 pacts per million or milligrams per kilograms and the samples indicted that all three samples would be considered hazardous with respect to PCB with 63, 95 and 85 milograms per kilogram. He stated because PCBs have not been generally associated with auto shredder waste and have not usually been included in the discussions, they have decided to attempt to take more samples in order to get a determir.ation as to Whneedtmorenot the waste is, in fact, hazardous with respect to PCB and they samplings to obtain a statistical basis foc declacing it hazardous. He added it would also affect the ultimate disposal if, in fact, the entire pile is considered hazardous and it will probably require some negotiations to see whether it will be acceptable to go to the Would above-mentioned landfills. He stated with additional samples, they make a deteemination with respect to PCBs that regardless of the outcome of that test, it is still ronsidered hazardous with respect to the lead concentrations. Ne stated he has 9iven copies of the test results and the repoct to the Code Enforcement Officers. Philip Anthony stated they wece aware these tests were being made, but have not seen the results themselves and have just heard them. He stated there is nothing ceally new in this information and undet cectain rules this material is considered hazatdous; however, their problem is they have no place to take it and would welcome Mr. MeNally telling them where they can take it; that they are trying to follow the laws and, unfortunately, they do not know the answer to the shtedder waste disposal problem at this time. He slated they do have some people present who havuestionsealHeg with this pioblem on a daily basis who could answer any q stated they have been reseacching evecy lead they have heacd of and have 1/20/86 A6-77 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JAt:~ARY 20 1985 talked with the landfill representat:ves in Imperial County and to people who claim to have found ways to capsulate it and make the contamursuesthe away. He stated at the moment, theit best hope seems to be to p one possibility in Imperial County and to continue following the proceduces described in the Senate Bill. He stated it is the responsibility of the Depactment of Health Services to give them a repoct based on the information collected as to whether or not this material is conside~=safe to rut it in.landfill. He stated in a landfill under prescribed conditions, other people in the department have said that is the way it should be. He stated aftec the Department of Health Services gives theic report, they will be looking to the Regional Water Contcol Board to tell them exactly wtiat the disposal requiremen~s are in each particulac landfill, and hopefully, at that point r.nece will be a place to take it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claire stated she was on the Commission when this o*_iginally came before the Plannin9 Commission and the Commission was vecy concerned at that time and put certain contcols on the use because of their concern for perhaps hazardous waste, and also that it could get out of contro~ and since that time, this applicant has been back many times and the Commission has worked diligently trying to get him to do those things he was supposed to have done to meet the conditions of the ociginal conditional use permit and to date this Commission has really had no cooperation from this applicant; that thece are still things on the ori9inal conditional use permit which have not been met and originally the applicant was supposed to store nothing above the height of the fence, including equipment, and that has been violated so many times, it is laughable, and now there is a pile of hazardous waste that is as tall as a 2-story building and it is pcobably endangering the whale water supply of Orange County and the applicant is now asking for another conditional use permit. She stated there is no way she would ever vote for a conditional use pecmit for this applicant again and she cannot believe that he continues to shred the automobiles when he knows th•~ze is a probier with disposal. She stated she understands that this operation has bcnn investigated since 1983, and the applicant was sent a ietter in 1983, and he knew about this problem since then. She stated she has been on tnis Commission fo~ 11 years and this is the most 'flagzant abuse' she has ever seen. Commissionex Herbst asked how many times the Code Enforcement Officers has; been out to this site because of violations of the Code. Juhn Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated over the last year, they have been to this facility numerous times and they have met with representatives from the opecation, but he was not sure how many. Commissioner Herbst stated he was also on the Commission when this ociginally came in, when this opetation ~oved fcom downtown Anaheim to this location, and the Commission was very adamant and strict rules and cegulations wete imposed on the use, including that thece was to be nothin9 stoted above the fence line and now there is a large crane which can be seen for miles dowci the fceeway and he did not think the applicant 1/20/86 86-78 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION JA27UARY 20 1986 has any intention cf complyin9 with the conditions of the conditional use pecmit. xe stated i.. believes the health, safety and welfare of the community is involved and this site is located over the undecground watec supply and that acea is the settling basin for most of Orange County's water and this contaminated material is right over it. He stated the applicant should get rid of that material as soon as possiblena~henwaste allowed to wreck any more automobiles and keep piling it up pile. He added he wished the applicant licanteknows whatehethas been rep~esentative, because he feels the app doing and has not been abiding by the rules. He added he is ready to act on this cequest. ~hair.woman La Claice stated everybody in the audience should know abo~t this p~oblem and get involved because it is a very importaalllofuourowater Anaheim and all of Orange County and could be endangering supply. George Adams, 3200 Frontera, Anaheim, applicant, indicated he is present arid would like to speak on several of the issues. Chairwoman La Claire reopened the public hearing. George Adams stated there have been several problems in the past and there is a continuing problem with the shreddec waste; that he could probably justify everything that has hapgenedWi~h theelandlordWeetcdonH~fstated the economic reasons, some for strategy biggest pcoblem, h~weveardin tcurbsrandegutters,afireehydcantshawatera problem. He stated reg 9 lines, etc. those probabis theulhaveVbeened nennow andttheoe aceCbasically but the important thing Y three concerns which need to be addressed. He referred to the crane and stated the original pe~mit did indicat~ thece would be nothing above the fen~e and there are two things above the fence right now and that is the pile of waste and the crane. Commissionec Herbst pointed out there is also a building in the middle of the ptopecty which is above tandfwase• F1~. Adams stated the crane is not being used on that. property simply erected there in order to be put in its proper place over the sh~edder and it has been moved about 75 feet to date and the crane will be located over the shredder and is a piece of equipment to facilitate the feeding of the cars into the shteddec to make that operation more efficient. He stated it will not be used on the 5 acces, but was erected thete because it takes 3 to 4 months to erect and it could not be erected over the shtedder without shutting it down. He stated the auto dismantlin9 is a small part o£ theit business and is r.ot whece they get all their automobile bodies from. He stated they have been operating a dismantling business since 1973, and will be the first to admit that the business has changed and in the pasaC~seare~beingemass~ptoducedcinlother business, but now the foreign car p countries and it is cheaper to buy the part than to take it off another vehicle, so they have adjusted their business because of declining ~ales. Concesning auto shteddet waste, Mr. Adams explained the Wash~edded; that by-product f~om automobiles and refrigecators after being there are no chemical processes done and there are no other items added 1/20/86 86-79 MINUTE~ ANAHGIFI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 and it is simply a physical reduction in the size of the material which is done by large hammers rotated at a high cate of speed eo cut the car bodies, refcigeratots, washing machines, etc. into smalle~ pieces and those pieces ate then magnetically separated, and that if those items are not ceduced in size, the same items are taken straight to the landfill and not shredded into smalle~ pieces and that the shredding leaves a 108 residue which is considered as hazardous waste. He stated this is the only place in the world where shredded waste cannot be taken to a landfill and even in northern California, the waste can be taken to the landfills. 13e stated the people in Los Angeles have decided to take their waste to Arizona and the location is less than 1 mile from the Colorado River and it is dumped above gcound and any :ain o~ water run-off brings it to the civer and the majority of the state of California's water is from the Colo[ado River. He stated Dr. Liu in the Sta:e Health Depattment is Cesponsible for enfoccing the law and is at the Health Services office in Sacramento and intcoduced the law and knows all that is coblemeandnnotea`°ZCauselof the industry is part of the solution to the p pcoblem. He stated if the waste is below 150 parts pec million of soluble lead, he would be al~owed to dispose of it in a Class 3 landfill and his waste tested at 130, 13~ and 120 which isFbelow the haoe imLlementedLa Liu has gCanted a variance in the past. He s~ated they P tough extraction program to get theic level down and cla=ified the star~dard is 5 parts pet million, but Dr. Liu has issued a variance about 1 year ago for 150 paets pet million and added he has a copy of that which he can provide. Commissiunec Lawicki stated he does not like interim situations and that is not a proven fact. Mr. Adams stated until the State Health Department has had a chance to study the situation and detecmine whether the lead is teally endangering the ground water, he would noorbedaSB976dbecause the of the waste. He stated the Health Department supp safest and best way to dispose of the waste is in a Class 3 landfill and Dr. Liu has gone on cecotd as saying that it has not been taken to a Class 3 landfill because the Water Board rejected that idea because they have not had a chance to make their own studies, even thedgantengineering firm Department did make studies. He stated they employ by the name of Patel which the Scate of Califocnia uses for theic studies and they conducted a study based on the lead and made the determination that the~e was a 2008 safety factor in taking it directly to the landfill. He statQd it seems the Water Board has taken an asbitrary position and has not done the studies and they a~Les9etting`whipsawed and Health Department and Watec Boacd and feel they yo-yoed between the two agencies. Chaicwoman La Claire stated the commland thelfactethatwthespetitionerwhas has happened on the subject propecty continued since 1973, to thumb his nose at what the Commission has asked him to do. She asked why the waste is stacked high,ex than the fencelied why thece is equipment highec than the fence and why he has not comp still with all the conditions, pointing out the sprinklers and landscapin9 are not in. Sne stated since the petitioner knows ~~here is no place to 1/20/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 20, 1986 86-80 dump this waste, she would like to know why he is continuing to pile it up and why he has erected a towec so he can shred more. Mr. Adams stated they are not trying to shced more, but to shred more efficiently. He refezred to the Chairwoman's con~ent that she thought this was an example of the "grossest negligenre" she had evec seen in all her years on the Commi~sion and stated he could unde:stand what she is saying and, in fact, since the operator is still going when he knows he has a waste which he cannot get ~id of, it would seem like gross negligence, but looking at the other side o~ the coin, he has two choices, to either shut down the operation or keep going, and certainly by continuing they have checked out every avenue they can tu try and comply with the ocdinances and shutting down would cause them to go bankrupt. He stated they purchased the shredder in 1979. Chairwoman La Claire stated she does not remember seeing that big crane until cecently. Mt. Adams stated that is a new piece of equipment to make the £eeding of the shredder easiec and the shredder was actually installed in 1980 and when the notice came saying that the law says that the waste was hazardous, they did not allow any place for disposal, and now they have hazardous waste and no place to take it. He stated they have wocked with the state on this problem by trying to get the law changed and have studies done, etc. He stated his entice family is involved with this business and shutt~ng down this operation would mean bankruptcy and he is going to try to stay in business. Commissioner Herbst stated th petitioner is not considering the position he has put this City in and t„ey have endangered the health, safety and welfare of all of Orange County with this opecation and if putting this operation out of business is necessary to save the citizens, that is what will have to happen. Mr. Adams stated if the Health Depactment falt they wece endangering the people of this City, they would have acted before now, but they are trying to put the burden on the City. Commissioner Hecbst stated the Commission granted the petitioner a permit to have the wcecking yard, under certain conditions, and over the years the petitionec has not lived up to the conditions and has violated the conditions time after time and he has been notified of those violations and has ignoced them and has put the City in the position of putting the burden back on the petitionet. He stated he would recommend denial of this conditional use permit requested today and also would recommend that the other permits be reviewed for revocation in otder to get all the answers. He stated when the original permit was granted, the storage above the fence line was very impartant because that is the entrance to the City of Anaheim, and now there are two big cranes above the fence and two big piles of waste matecials above the Eence and the petitioner knew he was violating the permit and is continuing to do it. Mr. Adams stated they discussed the eiection of the crane with the Code Bnforcement Officer, 5usan Tulley, and it was her feeling that a piece of equipment such as a crane would not need a pecmit. 1/20/86 86-81 MIDIUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 C:ommissioner Herbst stated the permit states that nothing was to be exposed above the fence line and that was included, in writing in the original conditional use permit. Mr. Adams stated c~mments were made at that meeting regarding the crane and Mr. Farano repcesenting him at the time, stated they would be willing to even paint +_he ctanes, but the booms on every crane has<been abo~e the fence line. He: stated the Health pepartment has not detecmined that the waste is a danger to the water. Chaicwoman La Claire asked what Health Department the petitioner is tefer~ing to and Mc. Adams responded it would be the State Health Depactment in Sacramento and that is whece Dr. Liu is located. Chairwoman La Claice clacified that the local watec distr.~ict has not studied this issue. Mr. Adams stated the water district is concerned about lead and the migration of lead in the waste. He explz~ined the only way lead becomes soluble is if it is in an acid and that it will not generate an acidic environment unless it is in a landfil.l or some othe~ trash. He stated lead itself is not soluble as long as it is stoced above the ground, and is not in an environment to generate acid and cannot migrate and the danger to the watec level is not t~lece. He stated the waste is stored over an old landfill so t:~e lead would have to get through 60 feet of trash and t~„ Health Department has yet to make a detecmination that this waste is hazardous and the best place foc it is in the Class 3 landfill. Chairwoman La Claire stated all that has nothing to do with the existing CUP and where the trash is located now. She stated if a homeowner allowed trash to collect in his yard in violation of Zoning Codes and used the excuse that he did not know where to dump it or did not have the money to take it to the dump, he would not get t~way with it. She stated the petitioner should look at what he is d~~ing and examine his thinking because the citizens need to be protec:ted and it is obvious because nothing has been complied with ovec t}~e yeacs, that the City cannot believe what this petitioner says. Jim McNally stated at the present time in southern California, the landfills are being examined by the ~~ater Board and have not been designated as landfills whece waste ~ould be disposed of and there are two Class 4 landfills serving southern California (Casmelia and Kettleman City) and in addition, there are landfills in northern California which will accept auto shredder waste and those ace the only alternatives in the State of California. Commissione~ Hecbst asked if waste such as thistatedbwhecePit canabelass 3 landfill in no~thern Califocnia. Mr. McNally dumped is a determination made by the individual watec b~o~thisnp int. He opetatocs of the landfills usually have pcevented it up explained a Class 4 landfill will accept toxic waste and Classes 2 and 3 landfills accept trash and gacbage and furthec a Class 3 landfill will accept conccete and things iike that, based on the local watei board's approval, and the final decision is up to the individual landfill operator. 1/20/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 86-82 Commissioner Bouas asked if it is tcue that Dr. Liu from the Health Department has said it was not as ha2ardous as it has been indicated. Mr. McNally responded that Dr. Liu has never said the waste is not hazardous; but that he may have said it is nat as hazardous as other hazardous waste, and, in fact, he is the person who made the determination that the waste is l~azardous and he has not changed his mind. ;missioner Bouas asked about the comment that the waste ~ould go into a Class 3 landfill. Mr. McNally stated if the landfill has a capacity for the materisl and it is engineered propecly and the detecminacion was made that landfill could accept the waste, that it vould be acceptable. He stated it is the department's decision, based only on the lead that it is hazardous, but that some landfills with a clay liner could accept it; and that the Health Department could not order an individual landfill apecator to accept the waste nor can the Regional Water Board. Commissioner Bouas asked if someone in California decided to put in a landfi'_1 with the clay base, would it be approved to receive this type waste. Mr. McNaulty staked he is awate of a landfill in Imperial County which is being considered and it has been listed by the Water Board as a potential site and he has been in communicetion with the representatives and with some improvements, it could accept auto shredder waste. Commissioner Bouas asked if Mr. Mtt~ally thought the Imperial County site would be acceptable. He stated he was just informed by a representative that it is in the works. Commissioner Bouas stated if a site is not found, she did not know how the material could be moved. Commissioner La Claire stated it is the responsibility of the person who made the money fcom it in the first place to dispose of it. Commissionec Bouas asked exactly how many of the conditions have not been complied with. It was noted on Page 13-b of tne staEf report several violations have been listed. Kendta Morries pointed out the conditions listed in the staff report were those conditions not complied with at the time the staff report was printed and she has not heard any testimony to indicate those conditions have been complied with yet. ACTION: Co;nmissioner Herbst r,zfered a motion, seconded by Chaicwaman La Clai~e and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Messe absent) tt~at the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain the temporary outdoor storage of shcedder w~ste, dismantled automobiles, a traveling overY.ead ccane and othec materials and equipment associated with an existing zecycling operation located to the nocth and west of subject property located or. a rectangulazly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acces, located approximately 200 feet south of the centerline of Frontera Street and 700 feet ~3st of the cente~line of Glassell Street and further desc~ibed as 3200 E. Fcontera (Orange County Steel Salvage); and does hereby disapprove the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments xeceiv~d during the public review process and £urther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any commentis received that there is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effecl- on the environment. 1/20/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COP7HISSION, JANUARY 20, 1986 __86-83 Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-32 and moved for its passage ar,d adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2756 on the basis that the request is for the exansion of an existing recycling operation which was permitted under authorization of a conditional use permit located to the north and west of subject property and the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of approval celating to the existing use and the use appeacs to have a substantial pile of shredder waste which is considered hazardous and is a threat to the public health, safety and welfare and that the screening issue and illegal retail activities have not been resolved. On roll call, the foregoing resoZution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BUUAS~ EkY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWZCKI, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MESSE Commissioner Herbst ofEered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that all zunin9 actions granted in conr,ection with this property be set for ceview at a public hearing to consider revocation based on the threat to the public's health, safety and welface. Chairwoman La Claire stated she did not remember any time, as a City Planning Commis~ioner, when the Cit} has had to review a permit for all of the actions on a property and she felt this is a very important issue. Commissioner Herbst stated the health, safety and welfare of the community are the most important issues to be considered i~ this situation. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Chief Building Inspector has indicated there has been no building pecmits issued fcr the cranz and a building permit would be required before it is placed in its permanent location and the petitioner should be aware of that and also, that the actions of the Plannin9 Commission will become final unless appealed within 22 days. RECESSED: 3:10 p.m. RECONVENEU: 3:20 p.m. Comtrissioner Me~se returned ta the meeting. ITEM NO. 14 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. SENIOR ~ITIZEN CUNDOMINIUMS - Request from State-Wide Developers, Znc., that the City consider Senior Citizen's Residential ~ondominiums under the development standards for Senior Citizen's Apartments. Continued from the meeting of Januacy 6, 1986. Kendra Morries explained the staff report simply puts the reyuirements pertaining to unit size and parking space for senior citizen apartments, standard apartments and condominiums in writing for the Plannin9 Commission's conv::~ieti:e. An,iiKa Santalahti asked 1/20/86 86-84 MINUTES ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 if the Commission wants to suggest to the City Council that they sheuld either expand the existing ordinance to include condominiums, or should additional parking spaces be required and unit sizes be larger. Chairwoman La Claire stated she and Commissioner Lawicki toured some of the senior citizen's apartment complexes and condominiums and she would like to suggest that if the units are going to be built for seniot citizens to be sold, they should be larger than an apartment. Kendra Morties stated the floor size foc senior citizen apartment cequirements is 400 square feet for a bachelo~ unit, 550 square feet for 1-bedroom and 70~ square feet foc a 2-bedroom. Chairwoman La Claire stated a senio~ citizen buying a unit needs a little more coom than 400 square feet and a bachelor unit should be 450 square feet and 1-bedroom unit should be 550 squara feet. Commissioner Herbst stated some of the senioc citizen projects do not have bacheloz units and he would like to see some differences between condominiums and cegular apartments. Chairwoman La Claire referred to a pcoject which she had visited which was ceally very livable and a 1-bedroom unir. was SU6 square feet. She stated she would like to see the size of the units stay down so the affocdability can be offeced and 550 square feet fot 1-bedreom is not really that bad. Commissioner t9esse stated thece should be a difference so the Commission will not be deluged with requests foc cunversions from apartments to condominiums. Chairwoman La Claire stated if the bachelor units are at least 450 squace feet, standard apartment units with bacheloc units could be conve~ted, but senior citizen units cuuld not be converted and that would include almosl- every project in the City. She added she did not care if regular apartments are converted foc senior citizens. Commissioner Herbst suggested leaving 1-bedrooms at 550 square feet, but requiring 1 parking space rather than .8 with .8 space required for bachelots, one for 1-bedroom and 1.6 for 2-bedrooms and he felt the 2-bedcooms should be at least 700 square feet. Annika Santalahti clarified that the Commission's discussion seems to sug9est that they would recommend to the City Council that senior citizen's condominium size requirements should be 450 square feet for a bachelot unit with .B parking spaces requiced, 550 square feet for 1-bedroom with 1 parking space cequiced, and 700 square feet for a 2-bedroom unit with l.b spaces required. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim Citf Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the senioc citizen ordinance standards should be 450 square feet for a bachelor unit with .8 parking spaces, 550 square feet fur a 1-bed~oom unit with 1 parkin9 space and 700 square feet for a 2-bedroom unit with ~.b pa~king spaces required. 1/20/86 86-85 MZNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20 1986 g, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10971 - Request from Presley of Southern California foc waiver of City of Anaheim Hillside Grading Ordiaance as it relates to location of mariufactured slopes within residential lots and within the tcact boundary of Tract ~o. 10971. AC~ION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUtney and MO~ION CARRIED that the Anaheim ~ovalPofnreques~mforsion does hereby recommend to the City Council app waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance as it relates to the location of manufactured slopes within residential lots and within the tcact boundary of Tract No. 10971. ~, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2541 - Request fLOm McKellar Development, for apptoval of specific plans for Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Kendra Morries explained the ~evised plans make this project less intense in terms of squace footage and ~ioLapto~ectdhad twogh3-story the one previously approved; that the p buildings and one, 4-story building and this project pcoposes all 3-stozy buildings and the parking is provided in both grade 2eve1 parking and one subtecranean parking garage an~ the previous plan had all the parking at gcade level and the most signzficant fact is that the pcevious project had a total of 196,200 square feet and this project would have 160,200 square feet which is a substantial reduction in the amount of square footage. ACTION: Commissionec Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTIC~N CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does he~eby approve specific plans foc Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 previuusly reviewed undec Conditi~~nal Use Permit No. 2541. ADJOURNFIL'NT: Commissioner Fcy offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the mP•°ting be adjouzned. The meetin9 was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~, ,~ y~,~.~. Edith L. Hacris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission EHL:lm 0164m 1/20/86