Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/03/28~: MI:~:?TES' CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING C~?MI;5ION Date: March 28, 1:?~ Tne regular mE•eting of the City of Anaheim Planni::q Commission was called to order ai 10:00 a.m., by the Chairman in the C,:incil Chambers, a quorum bein3 present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on toda.y's agenda. RECE&S: 11:45 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:40 p.m. COMMISSIO:?ERS PRESEN'P: Chairman Messe Ltouas, Baydscun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, 'derbst McE rney COMMISSTONERS D.SSEN:Y: NONE ALS:,~ PRESENT: Joel Fick Annika Santalahti Joseph Fletcher Arthur L. Daw Debbie Vagts Debbie Faak Lisa Stipkovich Greg Hastings Mary McCloskey Eric Harrison Edith Harris Planning Director Zoning Admiristrato- Dep~:ty City Attorney De~,~:ty City Engineer Housing Operations Coordinator Associate Traffic Engineer Asst. Exec. Director Community Development Senior Planner Senior Planner Assistant Planner Planning Commission Secretary AGENDA POS'i?N~,: A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 9:30 a.m., March 25, 1988, inside the display case located in tlee toyer of the Counci~i Chambsxs, and also in the outsifle display kiosk. Publisred: Anaheim Bul;~atin - N.arch 18, 1988. PUBL7C INPUT: Chairman bSe.sse explained that a` the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will. be allowed to speak as 'stems of interest which are wiL'hi;n the juri.c~iiccion of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items.. 0901p 88-345 3/28/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARSH 28 1988 88-346 ITEM N0. 1._-_CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 227 INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. LOCATION: Area generally bounded by La Palma Avenue to the north, the Union Pacific Railway on the east, Cypress Street to the south and Anaheim Boulevard to the west (excluding the area bounded by Wilhelmira Street, Sabina street, Sycamore Street and the Union Pacific Railway). A General Plan Amendment to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing redesignation from Medium Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential. There were 75 people indicating their presence in favor of subject request, and 8 people in opposition, and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made apart of the minutes. Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, stated this is a Planning Commission initiated GPA to consider amendment to the Laad TJse Element of the General Plan, to redesignate th:, study area from the current medium-density residential designation to low-medium density; that the study area comprises approximately 95.6 acres and is generally bounded by Anaheim Boulevard to the west, Cypress Street to the south, the Union Pacific Railroad to the east and LaPalma Avene to the north. She stated it does exclude the area bounded by Wilhelmina Street to the north, Sabina Street to the west, Sycamore Street to the south and the Union Pacific Railroad to the east, which is already primarily developed with apartments. Ms. McCloskey stated on November 18, 1987, the Central City Neighborhood Council submitted the results of a general plan and zoning survey which they conducted basically to consider redesignation of the General Plan to low-medium and s reclassification of most of the parcels to RM-2400. She explained the survey results, base3 oa a 34~ response rate, indicated that approximately 85~ of tY.e respondents would favor a general plan amendment and reclassification of the subject area. She pointed out there is a map on the wall which corresponds to the survey. Mary McCloskey stated the study area currently contains approximately 610 lots, with approximately 966 dwelling units, and approximately 50~, or 306 lots, are zoned RM-1200; 41~ or 252 lots, are zoned RM-2400; 4~ or 25 lots, a:e 3aned RS-7200; 7~ or 10 lots are zoned CG; the remainder are ML, CL or PDC; and in addition, there are two vacant parcels, three churches, and a mar:cet within the subject study area. She stated access to the study area is currently provided via Anaheim Boulevard, LaPalma Avenue, and Lincoln Avenue. f-ne stated the existing general plan designation of medium density would allow up to 36 dwelling units per gross acre, which is a potential maximum of 3,442 units, and that number of units would generate an average maximum of 29,257 daily traffic trips. She noted Exhibit A, for low-medium density, if implemented by the RM-2400 zone, Would allow a maximum of 18 dwelling units per gross acre or a maximum potential of 1721 units which would result in approximately 14,629 average daily trips. 3/28/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1x88 88-347 Ms. McCloskey indicated various City departments had reviewed the proposed general plan amendment and none had indicated the need for additional facilities and that this would really be a less intense use. She stated also, the Housing Division indicates that the lower density designation would have no affect on the Community Development Block Grant Program currently underway in the study area. She said staff had reviewed the initial study and found that there would be no significant environmental impacts and, therefore, would recommend that a negative declaration be approved. Ms. McCloskey stated staff would recommend that the Planning Commission determine whether the current general plan designation of medium density residential is appropriate for the study area or whether the land use designation should be amended to low medium density, as shown on Exhibit A, or any other combination they might prefer, and if the Planning Commission should choose to redesignate the subject study area, it is recommended that they direct staff to initiate reclassification proceedings to reclassify the study area to a zone that would reflect and implement the adopted general plan designations. She pointed out, as shown on the map, there is an area already zoned RS-7200, which is less intense than the 'RDl-2400, and there are three areas zoned PDC, which are already reclassified. Keith Oelson, 321 N. Philadelphia, Central City Neighborhood Council Chai:.man 1988, thanked the Commission for giving them the opportunity to do the survey. He stated he believed it addressed an issue that is very much a concern of the citizens right now. Eie presented the response cards from the survey which was done independent of the Central City Neighborhood Council survey, by a local group called the Anaheim Neighborhood Association. He explained they surveyed residents in and around the affected area, and this particular survey indicated there is a great deal of concern about w5at happens to these kinds of neighborhooQs and a general feeling that there needs to be some support given. He presented a latter t~ the Central City Neighborhood Council from the Anaheim Policemen's Association supporting this general plan amendment and stated he feels this is a positive step for the neighborhood. Keith Pepper, 817 N. Lemon, on the Board of Central City Neighborhood Council, submitted a letter from Terry Young, who works for J-2 Marketing Services, dealing with the survey process. He staled the process has gone on for over a year, and the initial mailing was in June, 1987, followed in August by a second mailing, and between August and September, they attempted to make personal ccntact with the owners who had not previously respoad~ed. He explained, in addition, the Neighborhood Council newsletter was mailed monthly to over 300 property owners describing the process and encouraging responses. He stated they also delivered flyers to each property owner in ~:he area inviting them to attend the Central City meet>;g last Saturday. Concerning the significance of the survey, Mr. Pepper explained in the fast municipal election in the City, only 15~ of the registered voters voted; and normally, 1-1/2 to 3 percent response is achieved in a direct mail survey such as this; however, with their efforts they achieved 34~ response, with 84~ of those in favor of the change. He added he believes this demonstrates that there is a tremendous pride of ownership in this particular section of town 3/28/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt9~ISSION..MARCH 28. 2988 88-348 and there is also a tremendous concern voiced that the Cit1 not have another Chevy Chase or Lynn Jeffrey area, which would be the potential situation, if the properties are developed lot by lot. Mr. Pepper stated this general plan amendment and, hopefully, subsequent reclassification, provides the City with an opportunity to implement several of the strategies in Visicn 2000, which were geared towards maintaining the integrity of the neighborhoods. He stated it has taken over a year to conduct this survey, but they are confident of the results. OPPOSITION• Horentio H. Fernandez, 318 E. Wilhelmina Street, Anaheim, stated he was not aware of any survey, except for a letter, and an article which he studied two weeks ago and he is in favor of low-medium density. Chairman Meese noted this testimony is in favor of the general plan amendment and Mr. Fernandez said he wants no apartments. Mustafo Bustami, 725 Brea Canyon Road, Walnut, stated he owns two properties in the area and was not surveyed nor asked his opinion. He stated he had read the staff report and that he did not think the 35~ response is sufficient, and there are still 45~ of the property owners whose opinion should be considered. He stated he thought the City should conduct a survey and this meeting reconsidered. He stated the time that was given between the time the letter from the City went out to the property owners and this meeting was very short and that he just happened to learn about the meeting through another person. He asked that the Commission postpone a decision until further mailouts are made and everybody in the area has been questioned. Larry King, 218 S. Lorette Street, stated he is representing Vivian Eagelbrecht who owns the property at 311 Mills Drive, a property purchased with the intention of using the RM-1200 zoning for retirement income. He stated she wants to proceed with development of the property at this time. He noted the area north of Mills Drive, between Millo and La Palma, is heavily involved in apartments under construction or already constructed and that he believed this is rather a poor time to create an inverse condemnation situation and the City would be leaving itself vide open for liability because there are many property owners is the area who have been paying tsxes as this property with the potential for developing it for many years; and that he believes the 35~ response is not sufficient. Phil Smith, 314 N. Pauline Street, said he was concerned with the 65~ that did uat respond. He stated he is in favor of neighborhoods and understands the plight of people who wish to maintain their homes there, but that most of these homes are quite old and in the future, when they are less favorable to live in and their heirs are occupying the property, his primary interest is in the value of the property being reduced in half by this change. He stated ~4e would like the item debate& further in order to understand it better. Steve Shirley, owner, 915 N. Emily, indicated he was one of the people not notified and that he had no input into any survey. He stated he believes that it takes two years before the County gets around to changing names and 3/28/88 MIL E~ ANAHEIM CITSC PLANNING COMMISSION, MASH 28 1988 88-349 addresses of new property owners; and that a large rortion of th:s area is rental property and tenants got the survey forms. He stated he did not like the development that is going oa there right now, but that he is concerned that 65~ of the people have not been heard from. He stated Yte is alao concerned about those people who have property which has to be rehabilitated at great cost and their ability to get a loan. He stated he felt putting a single-family dwelling back on one of these lots is not feasible and that the owners should really have the option of letting a developer come in and purchase rwo or three of. the parcels and build something that is acceptable to the people who live there. Isabel Lopez, 713 N. Bolling, stated she was one of the people not notified, and that she is in favor of the downzoning, but is not in favor of apartments in the area. Dennis Diaz, 502 E. Adele S 306 N. Sabina, states he sees this as good for the community and the developers, but wanted to know what happens to the property values. Laura Laaksonen, 2115 Carnegie Lane, Redondo Beach, CA, owner of property at 211 ti. Olive, stated in Redondo Beach where she lives now, there are many condominiums and that property values have increased. She also stated she was not contacted in the survey and that she has owned the property since 1972 and lived at the same address for six years. Sill Parnell, 115 E. North Street, owner since 1970, asked the Commission not to issue any more RM-1200 permits until this matter has been resolved. Chairman Messe stated that is not xithia Commission's jurisdiction, and if someone wishes to build an apartment project under RM-1200 designation without waivers, they would not have to come before the Commission, and could just build it by right. Mr. Parnell noted that most of the people present in opposition do not live in the area and haven't lived there in years. REBUTTAL• Reith Pepper stated the City is required to notify property owners 300 feet of the actual area and that his group had 600 parcels to survey within the area, and they could not go outside the actual study area. He stated some of the other people were not notified because the documents that were supplied by the City were from the 1987 tax assessor rolls, which would have been the property owners through 1986: and that property owners who had ac~iired property within the last two years would not have been on the !.ist and that is why they went out to the actual properties. He stated as far as Mr. Bustami is concerned, the Commission denied his project on North Philadelphia Street where he was proposing an RM-1200 project and that he had discussed what was going on with Mr. Bustami at length. Mr. Pepper pointed out north of Mills Street, as can be seen from the land use map, is single-family houses and as noted in the staff report, only 7~ of the 600 parcels is the entire survey area are developed xith anything higher than the RM-2400 designation. He answered the gentleman who referred to the 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CIT't PLANNING COMMISS19N MARCH 28 1988 88-35Q___ liability and inverse condemnation on the part of the City, and stated this has already been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office, and the City would not be involved and this is not subjecting them to any kind of liability. Mr. Pepper staged two homes, one at 1002 W. North Street and one at 817 W. North Street, were demolished and rebuilt with single-family homes and sold without ever having a sign put up within the last two years. He stated the reference to cutting property values in half applies only to the land value for development purposes. He stated as far as receiving loans on a property, any property left to deteriorate will have trouble getting a loan, but that he did not see getting a Loan a problem. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Feldhaus stated there seams to be some confusion regarding medium versus low-medium density and wanted to clarify that the area now allows, under the medium density, 36 dwelling units to the acre, and if this change takes place, it will allox only 18 dwelling units per acre. He stated there has been reference to redevelopment, and that this area is not in a redevelopment area. He addressed some remarks made about restricting apartments saying he thought that down grading the density would discourage high density apartments; and that he did not see how this could bring the property values down, and thought it would only stabilize or enhance the property values. Commissioner Herbst stated when talking about low-medium density, that also includes lesser densities such as RM-5000 and RM-3000 which allows 14 units to the acre, so that does give property owners some flexibility. Commissioner Boydstun stated she did not realize there were those houses on North Street which were RS-7200, and asked if they could be left as they are. Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, replied they would be excluded from the potential reclassification proceedings. Chairman Meese asked if those residences would be aoa-conforming within the zone. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, replied that they would not be non-conforming if the property was not rezoned, and they would be in conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner Feldhaus noted the Commission has been approving a lot apartments along the south side of La Palma undv• the RM-1200 zone. He asked if those would be incorporated into the RM-24(,.1 zc.,~e, and if that means ao more of that density, and Commissioner Bouas noted thxit area has been eliminated, and stays at RM-2400. Commissioner Carusillo noted there was a concern among the people that the survey was not extensive enough. He asked about how many people were reached within the 600-foot area. Mr. Pepper stated they had sent out a mailer to all registered property owners, as given to them by the City in June. He stated they sent another letter in August and a member of the organization contacted all on-site proprty owners which had not been heard from, if gossible. 3/28/88 MI ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988_ 88-351 Mr. Pepper responded to Commissioner Souas that he had used the tax assessor's list provided by the City. Mary McCloskey responded to Commissioner Bouas that if the Committee used the list in June, it would have been the previous year's tax roll, which has been updated once and she explained the City notified the property owners off the current tax rolls, and that some properties could have changed hands since the survey. Commissioner Carusillo inquired if Mr. Pepper felt he had contacted the majority of property owners whose properties are currently zoned RM-2400 and Mr. Pepper indicated he had made contact with all of them, or attempted to make contact with all. Chairman Messe asked for an estimate of the number contacted of the 600 residential lots in the area. Mr. Pepper stated he had contacted all of 600 property owners, most of them twice, a few three times, and this last week again hand delivered a survey form to each property within the entire area. Mr. Pepper pointed out that about 4 years ago whr.•n this issue vas first considered, there was about 65~ off-site owners hnd that he is pleased to learn as a result of this survey that it is now over 65i on-site owners, and the trend seems to be continuing because this is very affordable housing. Mr. Pepper responded to Commissioner Carusillo that he felt he had contacted the majority of the owners. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he thought it would be hard to discredit the survey and that it was very extensive and thorough, and he did not know what else a group could do. Commissioner Boydstun noted there would be a certain number of people who probably got the notice and did not care, and did not pay attention to it. Mr. Pepper stated they had contacted a marketing representative to find out if there was a particular significance to the numbers and found that normally they expect about 1 1/2 to 3~ response rate and over 34~ was received from this survey. Commissioner Herbst inquired about the parking area behind Anaheim Boulevard. Mary McCloskey indicated those properties are zoned PDC which does allow RM-1200 development, and they have not discussed how they might accomodate that, but she understands there is probably oaiy about three other parcels outside the downtown area that are zoned PDC. She suggested possibly changing the PDC zone to allow RM-2400 or less intense developments vs. the RM-1200. She stated the City could do a code amendment for all parcels within the City nox zoned PDC. She stated staff could look at those and tell Commission where they are at and then determine whether they wanted to do a blanket code amendment covering all parcels. Commissioner Herbst stated the main concern here is the fact that we know Anaheim Boulevard is going to be widened and when it does, there are some commercial properties along there which are going to be quite shallow and they are going to need parking, and the Commission does not want to take it away from them. 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-352 Commissioner Messe asked when the reclassification would be presented if the GPA passes. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated advertisement could be mailed out this week for the nest meeting if Planning Commission approves this and he felt there would probably not be enough time to consider the PDC question, but that it could be taken to the next meeting because staff would want to make contact with each person owning the PDC property. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they could just amend the RM-2400 for that area and not have to go through the code change and just add the PDC on to that specific street. Greg Hastings stated he felt the quickest and easiest solution would be to amend the code to allox RM-2400 in the PDC zone. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing a redesignation from the current Medium Density Residential designation to low-medium density residential on a study area consisting of approximately 95.6 acres generally bounded by Anaheim Boulevard to the vest, Cypress Street to the south, the Union Pacific Railway to the east and La Palma Avenue to the north, excluding the area bounded by alilhelmina Street to the north, Sabina Street to the west, Sycamore Street to the south and the Union Pacific Railway to the east, and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with nay comments received during the public review process and further finding oa the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution PCBB-83 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 227, Exhibit A, redesignatiaq subject area to Low-Medium Density Residential. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, PELDHAUS, HEABST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSEI7T: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City staff to process a reclassification, currently zoned RS-7200, and the area completed. seconded by Commissioner McHuraey and Planning Commission does hereby direct excluding the area oa North Street zoned PDC until such time as a study is RECESS: 2:50 p.m. RECONVENED 3:00 p.m. 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAREIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-353 _ ITEM N0. 2. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE N0. 374 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Luis Gonzales S Maria Dejesus Gonzales, 240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801; AGEttTS: Dennis Diamond/Hugo Vazquez, 2240 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801; LOCATION: 426 N. Claudina Street. Request: Waivers of (a) required coverage of parking spaces and (b) maximum structural height to construct a 3-story, 4-unit apartment building. Continued from meeting of February 1, 1988. There were seven (7) people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, 619 S. Live Oak Drive, stated based on the action just taken on Item No. 1, he is withdrawing his application, and will be proceeding with the projects, designing the product to meet code requirements. TI N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the applicant's request to withdraw Item Nos. 2 and 3 from the agenda. ITEM NO 3 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE N0. 3750. PUBLIC HEARIt7G: OWNERS: Dennis Diamond b Sandra Diamond, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801; AGENT: Hugo Vazquez, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801; LOCATION: 524 N. Olive Street. Request: Waivers of la) :aaximum site coverage, (b) minimum recreational/leisure area and (c) permitted access for parking to construct a 4-unit apartment building. Continued from meeting of February 1, 1988. There was one person indicating her presence is opposition to subject request and although the staff report vas not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, 619 S. Live Oak Drive, stated based oa the action taken on Item No. 1, he is withdrawing his application and will be proceeding with the projects, designing the product to code requirements. TI N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the applicant's request to withdraw the Petition for Variance No. 3750. 3/28/88 ~f MIttTE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1~ 1988 88-354 ITEM NO 4 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• RECLASSIFICATION NO 87-68-44 AND VARIANCE N0. 3771 atTBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Testa Alma Emma Boswell, C/0 Thomas Ronald Boswell, 2033 Park Ridge, Norco, CA 91760 and Mary Plicer_, 19811 Burleigh, Yorba Linda, CA 92686. AGEtIT: Magdy Hanna, 4000 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 680, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: 2011 and 2017 West Ball Road. Request: RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage to construct a 3-story, 30-unit "affordable" apartment complex. Chairman Messe indicated the applicant has made a request to continue this matter to April 11, 1988. There were thirteen (13) people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to hear from the people who are present, and added he did not feel it is right to bring these people out and then at the last minute request a continuance. QppOSITION: Don Haiker, 939 S. Agate, stated he had already met with the developer and in- formed them of the history on this p1'operty and noted their proposal is for more than what was rejected by the Commission and the Cizy Council previously He said he did not think it is fair to keep dragging the opposition out of work to appear oa this matter; however, if the matter is to be continued, he would ask that it be continued and not scheduled until after 5:00 p.m. Mr. Marshall, applicant, stated the reason for this request is to redesign the project. He stated they discovered some things at the meeting with the neighborhood which they were not aware of previously, and they had not been able to get the redesign done in time to submit it for this meeting. He stated they would rather not briaq a project that they agree is not appropriate, and would like the opportunity to redesign it and briaq it back. Chairman Messe asked if Mr. Marshall realized that the drawings and redesign would have to be into the Planning Department by Friday, April 1, 1988, in order to be heard at that next meeting. Mr. Marshall stated he understood and that they had been working on the plans but could not get anything changed for this meeting, and they would like a two-week continuance. Chairman Messe asked that the motion for continuance include that the Item be heard after 5:00 p.m• 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-355 ~TIOtI: Commissioner Houas offered a motion seconded by Commissoner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of Reclassification No. 87-88-44 and Variance No. 3771 be continued to the meeting of April 22, 1988, at the request of the petitioner and further that the matter not be heard before 5:00 p.m. ITEM N0. 5 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION VARIANCE NO 3773• SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL N0. 88-01. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: Trider Corporation, 12 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660; AGENT: Gary McCann, 12 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660. PROPERTY LOCATION: 270 S. Mohler Drive. Request: Waiver of maximum structural height to construct 11 single-family residential units (7 exceeding maximum structural height). Request approval for removal of 11 specimen trees. There were 17 people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Gary McCann, with Trider Corporation, stated that they would like to build eleven (11) luxury, single-family homes off Mohler and Yorkshire Circle, and that the homes would range from 2952 square feet to 3407 square feet, and were designed by an award winning architect, Aaron Hisinian. He explained the three plans as Plan I, a single-story house, and Plans 2 and 3, two-story houses, and that all plans have rollup garage doors. He stated they are having a problem with the two-story houses exceeding the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone's restriction at 25 feet, but that they do fall within the RS/HS-22,000 zoning requirement, which is 30 feet; and that they ezceed that with their chimneys only. He indicated Plan 2 is 28 feet 11 inches high to the peak of the house and Plan 3 is 28 feet 5 inches to the peak of the house, with the chimneys extending two to three feet beyond that. Mr. McCann responded to Commissioner Messe that the peaks of the houses also exceed the code. Mr. McCann referred to the landscape plan and stated the property would be plushly landscaped, and maintained by an association, with approzimately 287 trees to be planted oa the project. He stated he is asking for a variance on the height of the buildings to achieve the luxury homes and stay within the square footage that is approximately the soma as the adjacent neighborhoods. He said he believed the height of their two stories conform with the adjacent two-story residences and that he believed those houses exceed 25 feet. Mr. McCann stated regarding the specimen tree removal, that are 11 Eucalyptus trees which are along the property line which they could trim and leave by redoing their drainage system, which has already keen approved by the City, but that the neighbors on the side the property are in favor of getting rid of the Eucalyptus trees, and that he plans to replace them with a generous amount of specimen trees. 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 1988 88-356 Chairman Messe asked about the drainage ditch along the east boundary. Mr. McCann indicated there is a 4-foot 3raisage ditch along there and any time trees are disturbed, they might live for a couple of months, but eventually they would die and they would like to remove them and plant new trees. OPPOSITION: Mitzi Ozaki, 340 Timken Road, submitted a petition with approximately 60 signatures in opposition to Variance No. 3773. She stated the hill and canyon area is a beautiful area enjoyed by visitors to the area, as well as the residents. She noted in 1970 the City Counr_il in Resolution No. 70R-283, indicated "WHEREAS, the residents of the Peralta Hills and Santa Ana Canyon area, also known as the Mohler Annexation area, were assured, subsequent to annexation, that L•his area of Anaheim will be maintained as the finest low-density residential area in the City and it shall be the duty of the City to retain the residential integrity of the Peralta Hills and Canyon area in accordance with the land use policies that have been established in the General Plan." She stated the City further recognized the valuable resource of the area is 1971 when it declared the area as a Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, and the purpose was to implement local governmental agency action to protect the scenic appearance of the corridor ezemplified by three primary features: the rolling terrain, winding river and the Eucalyptus windbreaks. She stated the Trider Corporation in its massive grading of the 7-acre site, and the request for structural height waiver and to remove the Eucalyptus wind row will at once eliminate the rolling terrain, the views of the winding river and the Eucalyptus windbreak. She stated such a request is not in keeping with the Mohler area standards. Ms. Ozaki stated a:istiuq homes in the area with similar lot sizes and terrain have complied with the Scenic Corridor Building and Zoniaq Codes. She stated she believes there is no hardship for granting this request. She noted since the 1970 resolution was passed by the Council, both the Planning Commission and the City Council have traditionally upheld the integrity of the area. Ms. Ozaki stated subject property is in the original Mohler Annexation area and all of the homes are zoned RS HS 22,000, or half acre; that Trider's propased homes will average about 3,000 square feet and existing homes in the arEla range up to 7,000 square feet or more and waivers for height certainly do not; add to the total square footage. She stated, additionally, the ezistinq h!~~nnes on Mohler Drive, built within the code limits, are not considered to be high end products. She stated over the weekend she received a flyer from an area realtor on a home that is approximately 1000 feet away from the subject property which sold for 5730,000, and presented the flyer for Commission's review. Ms„ Ozaki read a letter from a resident who was not able to attend, Bernadette Palle, 301 S. Yorkshire, indicating opposition and stating they would be adversely affected by Variance No. 3773 should it be granted, and that the development would tax the already overused Mohler Drive and would cause a further erosion of rural Orange County. 3/28/88 MIWTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-357 Mrs. Simpson, 241 S. Wildan Road,stated she and her neighbors feel very effected by the project, and that t,;iey would be affected more if the Commission gives permission to exceed the maximum structural height. She stated the developer knew prior to the planning and construction what the code limits were and should not have started the project and then try to make changes that will devalue the properties aad affect the neighbors more. She noted the developers do not live in the aroa and after the project is finished and the homes are sold, they will begone and the residents who want to stay them will. have last something they had originally. John Curry, representing the property oa E. Marcella Lane, north of the project, stated he is repr2sent.ing himself and his family l2 brothers and a father, all who live and own property t2iere), ar:d that they lead built their houses in conformance with the 25-foot code and that they feel Trider should be able to meet the code as well. He stated he does not want to set a precedent for other people to start building taller houses in the area and they are opposed to granting the height variance. Paul Simpson, 241 S. Wildan, stated his basic complaint is the elevation, and explained he looked at the plans :last weak and lh.e prints were marked up to 33 feet and noted each time he looks at 'them, the height changes. He submitted a picture from the back of his house showing that it v,ould affect his view. Dirck Bedford, 251 Country Hill Road President of the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Association, stated they believe continuing to grant variances as the area develops will only create problems and that they are opposed to the variances. Terry Chin, 261 Wildan, stated he agrees with the other speakers and voices his opposition to adopting the height variance. He stated he lives directly behind the referNnced trees and has not been asked whether or not Y,e would like to have the trees removed. He added he would like to voice his opposition because the trees are not interferring with the construction that is in progress or obstruc*_ing the views of the proposed houses. He stated he wanted to inform Commission that the trees do serve an important ecological function as a home to animals is the area, which contributes much to the country life in the Mohler area. Chairman Meese asked Mr. Chin if the trees directly overhang his back yard, and Mr. Chin replied they do on the east side. Daniel McNamee, 320 Timken, stated the developer has brought up a number of points substantiating his claim for a height variance, two of which are financial burden and denial of property rights. He asked if anyone had submitted hard evidence to support those claims, and if not those are unsubstantiated claims at this time. He noted the property in question is quite similar to two other lots which were reviewed in DecP~sber and January, and both of those were denied variances and held to a maximu.~ of 25 feet, and that both claims were reviewed and denied by City Council. He stated there was a resolution initiated by Councilxoman Raywood and passed unanimously saying that the strict enforcement of the code in that area would be adhered 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-358 to. He referred to the windbreak oa the eastern boundary of the property, and stated there is a possibility of the developer killing the trees in the development of the property. He added he does not believe the removal of the trees is necessary and that his property has more trees than anyone in the Mohler Drive area and it is a burden he maintai~:s and they are a benefit to everyone there. He stated he believes the developer should maintain the trees for the benefit of the community. Kermit Thompson, 230 wildan Road, stated he is opposed for the same reasons as everyone else. Mr. Thompson responded to Chairman Messe that his back yard is not next to the trees. Ms. Ozaki stated she believes most of the people had not seen the request for the specimen tree removal which indicates the reasons for removal are the trees general health and condition and that they are in danger of falling and are so weakened by age, disease, storms, fire, etc. as to be a danger to persons or property. She stated that is not true and all of the trees are healthy. Sonja Grewal, speaking on behalf of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, 6312 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, stated in talking with some of their members who live in the area and in researching the file, they noted the tentative tract map before the Commission today differs from the one approved in June 1986, not in the number of lots, but in the way the lots are configured. She stated that was not mentioned as background in the staff report and she wanted to point it out. She stated the change was apparently made in August 1987, through a request from the builder for a waiver of the hillside grading ordinance as it applies to lot lines and slopes, and referre3 to the Planning Commission minutes and tT.e September 29 City Council minutes. She stated the Engineer's recommendation did not mention any change in the way the lots were placed, and only referred to the drainage problems and nothing was mentioned that two of the lots were substantially changed. She noted the xay two of the lots were shifted makes a difference to the existing residents, and that was accomplished without submitting a revised tentative tract map for a Planning Commission he~I•~ng which might have alerted the residents to problems resulting from the reconfiguration; and that the apparent acceptance of the new plan, via the waiver of the hillside grading ordinance, has also led to the request for the removal of specimen trees. Ms. Grewal stated the applicants could not wait for this Commission to act on the specimen tree removal request, and oaei California Pepper tree was in the way and they have already removed it. She stated the rationale for she original changing of the lot locations is the same as the one being used to justify the height waiver and that is that they have this product, so the City has to set aside their standards so they can put develop it. She noted the developer admits there is ao hardship on the land, and his hardship is the Scenic Corridor. She stated the specialness he is capitalizing on with the tract is what he wants to set aside, and the City has put in a great deal of time and effort in formulating the Canyon Area General Plan, supporting it with specific ordinances and that it troubles them when time after time developers come to the City tc set aside ordinances for their own convenience. She asked that the unnecessary waivers be denied. 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 28, 1988 88-359 Alan Trider, 12 Corporate Plaza, stated they have been developing in the area and the City of Anaheim for many years and they are not a developer who leaves the area and they are very involved is the community. He noted they are building some of the finest luxury homes in the area which conform to the zoning and they are not accustomed to going against what the people in the area desire. He stated the area is half graded, and they have a grading permit and a storm drain permit; and that they are replacing 11 trees with over 200 trees. He stated he feels the general location of their development impacts in a positive nature the value of the residential neighborhood, anri noted the winding road up Mohler is in need of repair and they will be repairing half tha*_ road making it a more attractive conforming area with a homeowners association, and the new residents will be paying almost 5200 a month just for the support and maintenance of the slope and trees that will be placed there. He stated the one Pepper tree that was removed was in the right of way and it was in their conditions of approval to be removed so they could grade. Mr. Trider said he would like to work with the people, but that when they had the plans developed, they checked the City's height restriction and found that it was 30 feet. He pointed out to the residents that the homes are not that high since the height includes the chimney. He added he felt they were not going against the neighborhood, but conforming and the plans are very expensive and to modify them to a lesser pitch would deter from the value and the architectural aesthetics of the neighborhood and had he known ahead of time, something could have been done, but at this point, they are in plan check and it would be impossible to go back without a new set of plans which would develop into a hardship. He introduced Jack Tarr, Engineer, to address the grading and how it may impact the area. Jack Tarr, Hunsacker and Associates, 3 Hughes, Irvine, noted the one thing that may be of interest, strictly from a grading standpoint, is that more than half the lots are lower than what the original grade was and overall, it would set the house lower. He referred to the ezhibit on the wall and pointed out the two section drawings snow the property in a north/south direction and running parallel with Mohler Drive, with the solid line representing the natural grade and the broken line representing the designed grade. Commissioner McBurney stated there are no existing contours shown on the grading plan which the Commission has. Mr. McCann stated when he found out about the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, he had the architect drop the roof to a 5 and 12 pitch, and the City has an Administrative Adjustment procedure, and he could make an adjustment to 10~ or less of the 25 feet, which would permit 27 feet 4 inches to the top of the chimuey, and he has made this plan to 27 feet 4 inches to r.he ridge of the roof with the chimney protruding two feet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner MaBurney asked staff if any height variances have been granted in the Mohler Drive area. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated he knew of two which were heard by the Zoning Administrator, but he did not recall the outcome, and thought one was denied. 3/28/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM C.'.•TY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-360 Commissioner Carusillo stated recently two Jots to the east were denied height variances and that he truly felt there was a hardship involved on those two lots but that he sees no hardship here, and there is no basis for granting this request, ez,:ept economic. He stated one property recently sold, conforming to the 25 feet, in excess of 5709,000, and that he also knew that one of the projects that was denied was for a structure of about 5,000 square feet and had a value of over a half million dollars. Commissioner Boydstun asked if Mr. Trider had developed anything in the Scenic Corridor and he stated he had not. Commissioner Carusillo stated the trees have been there for many years and he was concerned about removing them and replacing them with other specimen trees that may take many years to get half that height, and if there is no real need, he would strongly suggest leaving them there. He asked if the plan called for widening or realigning Mohler Drive. Debbie Fank, Associate Traffic Engineer, stated the plans do not call for realigning, but that they would h2 improving one side. She stated they had already posted bonds to improva their side from the centerline. Mr. McCann stated when they got involved in the project, they sent a letter to the City asking that they participate in improving the entire Mohler Drive on both sides along their property, and the City replied they did not think it was bad enough at that time, and, therefore, they would be responsible for widening beyond the centerline of the street approximately 4 - 6 feet, but that they will be putting in curb and gutter amd improving Mohler Drive on their half of the street. Commissioner Carusillo stated his major concern is traffic safety for those five homes that have access right on Mohler Drive. Mr. McCann noted there are turnarounds in eac2~ driveway. Commissioner Carusillo asked about Lot No. 1, at the bottommost portion of the development, explaining he thought exiting to turn right or left would be a hazard because there is a blind curve about 30 - 50 feet away. He stated traffic comes down that road pretty fast and often goes through the stop sign. He stated he was concerned about Lots 1, 8, 9, 10 and 11 exiting onto Mohler and is both areas, there is a blind curve. Mr. McCann stated the traffic was addressed at the last Planning Commission meeting and they have put the turnarounds is the driveways so they do not have to back out onto Mohler. Commissioner Carusillo stated that he was concerned about pulling out in a normal fashion, and not being able to see the cars coming west down Mohler Dzi.ve and that he would like to see a study or maybe some alteration of that ingress and egress for those five driveways and would like to see staff give some more thought to the safety aspect of that access. Chairman Messe stated he agreed with the applicant that this is in keeping with what was agreed upon originally; however, he would like to know, as indicated by Ms. Grewal, about a change in the lot configuration and if the Commissicn is actually looking at a new tract map. Mr. McCann responded basically, they are building what was approved by the City, and as far as he 3/28/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI027 MARCH 28 1988 88-361 knew, if any changes were made, they were in conformance with the approved tract map. Chairman Messe asked staff to respond to *.hat question and to have Engineering review the plans submitted today to see if they were in conformance with the original tract map approval. Commissioner Herbst asked if the trees had been inspected by a tree surgeon. Mr. McCaun stated they had not, and that the pepper tree that was removed, was in their path and they had received prior approval to remove it. ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Souas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct 11 single-family residences with waiver of maximum structural height on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.3 acres, located on the north side of Mohler Drive and further described as 270 S. Mohler Drive; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received. during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Comissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-84 and moved for its passage and adoption that Y.he Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3773 on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that st*ict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: BOYDSTUN ASSENT: HONE Joe Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Specimen Tree Removal No. 88-01, on the basis that a reasonable and practical developnent of the property on which the trees are located does not require removal of the trees whose removal is sought; that the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect of forestation will not be materially r•°fected by the proposed removal; and that regard for safety of persons or property does not require the removal. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McHurney and MOTION CARRIED that the review of the Specific Plan be continued to the meeting of April 11, 1988. 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANAING COMMISSION MARCH 28. 1988 88-362 ITEM NO 6 - CEGA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2992. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Gail Vary and Muriel V. Vary, 1616 S. Euclid, q14, Anaheim, CA 92802; AGENT: Leonard Joe Chaidez, 721 N. Morse Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92703. PROPERTY LOCATION: 507 S. Lemon Street. Request: To permit a contractor's storage yard with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) required screening adjacent to residential zone, (c) required enclosure of outdoor uses. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Wolfe, 477 E. First, Tustin, referred to Condition No. 4 concerning gates and explained he had discussed that with the Traffic Engineer and thought it would be permitted as long as it is left open during business hours. Debbie Fank, Assistant Traffic Engineer, stated in order to meet Code standards, the gate would have to be moved back, and the developer has sai3 they would keep it open during working hours and that is acceptable. Mr. Wolfe referred to Condition No. 2 regarding street lighting fees and stated he was told by the owner that he had paid the fees. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated if they can provide a receipt, staff will be glad to put that information into the file. Mr. Wolfe asked the amount of the street lighting fees, and Mr. Hastings responded it is 56.00 per frontage foot on bath streets. Responding to the petitioner, Debbie Fank ezplained the traffic signal assessment fee relates to the difference based oa the new use of space. She added she thought that fee would be about 5100. Concerning Condition No. 5, Mr. Wolfe stated he would be concerned about commercial trash trucks damaging the parking lot. Mr. Hastings explained they can work out a solution with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Wolfe stated this will be a landscape contractor's storage yard and the equipment will consist of 3 chipper trucks, 3 aerial trucks, 2 pick-up trucks, 1 flatbed dump truck, 1 small bobcat tractor and 2 stump grinders. Commissioner Bouas stated she was concerned about slatting in the fence. She stated she recognizes that the site was ised for storage of recreational vehicles and was not slatted to prevent thefts and that one of the conditions was for a wall which was never built. She agreed a xall is not necessary but felt slatting should be provided because of the equipment. 3/28/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARru za_ long 88-363 Commissioner Carusillo agreed and Mr. Wolfe stated they did check around the neighborhood to see what would be appropriate and saw chain-link fences without slats. Commissioner Boydstun stated we are trying to clean up the industrial area and slatting would be more appropriate, especially with the big trucks and equipment. Commissioner Herbst stated going from a storage yard for recreational vehicles to a contractor's storage yard is quite a bit different. Mr. Wolfe stated he did include photographs of the equipment and there is a 5-foot landscaped area. Commissioner Herbst stated that should be 25 feet wide and there is room for a compromise. Commissioner Boydstun noted the staff report indicates no landscaping is proposed. Debbie Fank stated the Traffic Engineer concern was visibility and five feet would be acceptable. Mr. Wolfe stated he thought there would be more visibility without slatting. TI N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey and MOTION CAP.RIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a contractor's storage yard with waivers of minimum landscaped setback, required screening adjacent to a residential zone, and required enclosure of outdoor uses on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 0.56 acre located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and Lemon Street; and further described as 506 S. Lemon Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner IIouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver (a) in part, requiring 5 feet of landscaping with low-growing shrubs on both Santa Ana Street and Lemon Street, and granting waivers (a) and (b) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property suc:i as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the 2oninq Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and denying waiver (c) requiring that wooden slats be provided in the chain link fencing on the north, east and west property lines on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable tc the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property is the same vicinity that would justify granting of the waiver not to provide the slatting in the fonce; and that strict application of the Zoning Code dogs not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. 3/28/88 ZIINVTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-364 Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution PC88-85 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2992, pursuant to Anaheir.. Municipal Code 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to a stipulation by the applicant that the gate across the driveway shall be left open during working hours, and subject to interdepartmental Conrnittee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO 7 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT; ('n*:~TTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2993. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: Atlantic Richfield Corporation, 17315 Studebaker Rd., Artesia, CA 90702-6411; AGENT: W.F. Reynolds, 24785 Lagrima, Mission Viejo, CA 92692. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1037 West Ball Road. Request: To permit the expansion of as existing convenience market with gasoline sales with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Wallace R. Davis indicated the existing use will be maintained. He also explained the building is only 1203 square feet and is a typically small area and this particular corner is a busy area and warrants additional storage space. He stated he is requesting to add 752 square feet to the 1203 square feet, fe.r a total gross area of about 1955 feet. He stated that is smaller than the average convenience market for an AM/PM operation, and referred to the one on Brookhurst and Crescent, which was recently approved by the City, and is a total of 2300 square feet, and another example on Lincoln and Gilbert which was approved 2 - 3 years ago, and is a total of 2500 square feet, which is the average size. Mr. Davis stated after extensive discussions staff suggested sixteen conditions, which are acceptable to the applicant, except the one which requires closing a driveway. He explained there are presently three driveways on the site, two on Ball and one on West Street, and that Condition No. 3 calls for removal of the easterly driveway and the applicant requests that this condition not be imposed. He stated if the easterly driveway was closed, then the driver of the vehicle would have to go onto the premises on the western driveway and make a turn and be facing the opposite direction in order to get to the three islands, and once they were through with their gasoline or grocery purchases, they would have to make a U-turn inside to get back to the westerly driveway, or they would have to drive all the way to the back of the 3/28/88 .. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINr rQMMISSION, MARS 28 1988 88-3~6 that are not compatible with the zoning requirements and he believed this is totally overbuilding the site. He stated he is not in favor of granting any waivers and thought they need more parking. Mr. Reynolds stated the space they are adding is not additional retail floor space, and is strictly for storage. He stated they will be utilizing an area on the property which is basically not utilized at this time, and it just ends up being a place for trash to blow in, and a place where people can park cars that shouldn't be parked on the property. He stated they do not prepare any foods on the premises, and that the foods are brought in and heated only by convection ovens. Commissioner McBurney stated he disagreed with Mr. Reynolds, and felt nay time storage is added to a facility, it is added for the product, and if they are adding product, which in this instance is a product that is going to be heated, it should be considered as as addition to the facility, whether it is called storage or something else. He stated they will still be selling a product that is really not part of a service station facility; and that they are asking to be allowed to add a food service and not be required to comply with restaurant requirements and he felt any time they are serving food, it should be considered a restaurant. Commissioner Carus_llo asked if more parking spaces could be provided if they reduced the size of the proposed addition. Mr. Reynolds stated they had originally submitted a plan last year for a 500-square foot addition, and the Planning staff asked them to increase the size. Commissioner Carusillo stated the Commission seems to think there is inadequate parking; and that while he agrees with Mr. Reynolds that the addition is mainly in the storage area, he would agree that more parking is probably required. He stated he felt decreasing the size of the addition and increasing the number of parking spaces, perhaps might mitigate the problem. Mr. Reynolds stated if they decreased the size of the addition, they could possibly have one more parking space. Commissioner Boydstun noted there were four parking places oa the old glans where the two parking spaces are by the air hose, and they have cut that in half, plus they have lost the one at the back of the building. Mr. Reynolds noted they have also added to the side. He stated they are proposing nine parking spaces and asking for a waiver of 2 spaces. Mr. Reynolds responded to Commissioner Bouas thst they usually have two employees on duty, plus the owner of the business who is in and out. Chairman Messe agreed closure of the eastern driveway would play havoc with the facility and thought it would be a bad situation for cirulation. Commissioner McBurney agreed. Chairman Messe stated however, that he also agreed that if Mr. Reynolds was coming before the Commissioner several weeks from today, when the revised parking code for this type facility is in place, there would not be a waiver from 11 to 9 spaces, but a waiver from 16 - 9 spaces because Commission has recommended adding five spaces for the fast food business. 3/28/88 MINUTES A]7AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 26 1988 88-365 premises, and go out on Ball Road. He also pointed out that is the nearby area there are numerous recreational vehicles facilities and he felt an RV coming onto the property would have a difficult time and that he believed that would also create an almost impossible situation with the tanker trucks that come in. Mr. Davis referred to the traffic report which indicates that closure of any driveway may make vehicular internal circulations difficult: by imposing additional unnecessary movements oa site users, indicating the closure of the driveway would make a more dangerous situation. Mr. Davis requested also that Condition No. 9 regarding the right to sell beer and wine be removed because there has been a license on that site since 1982 and it has been operating and they are not requesting nay change in the use. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Chairman Messe questioned the traffic report, stating his copy starts on Page 11 and that Mr. Davis was quoting from Page 7, and asked what the first 10 pages contained. Mr. Davis produced an extra copy of the traffic report. He stated the traffic study had the apparent concurrence of the City Traffic Engineer and they were allowed to have 9 parking spaces rather than 10-1/2 or 11. Chairman Messe stated Mr. Davis had indicated other convenience markets were 2300 - 2500 square feet and asked how big the lot sizes were for those facilities. Bill Reynolds, with Atlantic Richfield Company, stated the lot sizes on their AM/PMs vary from as small as 8,000 square feet to 34,000 square feet, and the average is somewhere in the neighborhood of 17,000 to 18,000 square feet on the lot for a 2400-square foot building with 2 - 3 pump islands. Mr. Reynolds stated he thought this lot size was 14,810 square feet. Commissioner Boydstun stated the plans show the air and water for the cars on the west side, and aske3 hox it would be usable if there were two cars parked there. Mr. Reynolds stated very seldom do they have cars parking oa the west side of the property and he would assume it would continue to be that way. He added if those spaces are used, they are usually occupied for a mazimum of 2 minutes. Commissioner Boydstun inquired about the handicap parking and how the trash truck would get in. Mr. Reynolds stated they had discussed that with Planning staff and would alleviate that situation by relocating the trash enclosure somewhere else on the property. Commissioner Herbst stated he believed the expansion on this parcel is too much; and that AM/PMs have gone into fast food service, and into hot food requirements. He stated the parking requirements for fast food and other types of restaurants are a great deal higher, and this a request to increase the -ire of the building, and add fast food capabilities with a reduction in parklnq. He stated he thought AM/PM is getting totally out of line with the concept of what a service station site should bo, and they keep adding uses 3/28/88 -- -g MIt7~'TES ANAREIM CITY PLANNING COMDtISSION. MARCH 28 1988 88-36T ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has considered the proposal to permit expansion of an existing convenience market with gasoline sales with waiver of minimum number of psrkiaq spaces oa an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzi.r.~ately 0.34 acre located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and West Street, and further described as 1037 W. Ball Road (ARCO AM/PM); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with nay comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is ao substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED for the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny the request for waiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking variance would cause an increase in traffic congestion is the immediate vicinity and adversely affect adjoining land use; and further on the basis that the proposed amended parking ordinance currently being considered will require 5 additional parking spaces where fast food service is included in a convenience market, and that parking world be inadequate for this facility. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC 88-86 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit Ho. 2993 on the basis that it would be overbuilding the site and is not in keeping with the current zoning and would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDH".'lS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: 270NE ABSENT: NONE Joe Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO 8 - C.QA NEGATIVE DECrARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2995. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Chevy Chase Anaheim Partners, 200 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Subject property consists of approximately 15 acres located south of the 91 (Riverside Freeway), north of Romneya Drive, west of Manzanita Park and east of Patrick Henry Elementary School. Request: To permit approzimately 15 acres of existing apartments to be rehabilitated as a planned residential development with waivers of (a) type, size and screening of carports, (b) minimum setbacks adjacent to streets. There were three persons indicating their presence is opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not road, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 3/28/88 «* MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCH 28 198$ 88-368 Commissioner McBurney 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 Government Code Section 3625, et seq., is that his employer is one of the partners invo~ved in this rehabilitation and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Item No. 8 oa the Agenda, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of L-he Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner McBurney left the Council Chamber. Mark Hepp, 318 Jade Avenue, Placentia, architect for the project, indicated the landscape architects are also present and thanked staff for their help on the project. He stated the buildings are approximately 30 years of age, and some are in a state of disrepair and that there are parking problems in the area; and that trash is also a tremendous problem. He presented a photograph showing the appearance of the site. He stated there is also a tremendous demand on city services in this area such as the Building Department, Police Department, etc. Mr. Hepp stated they attempted in the design to provide the people living there with privacy which is not now available, and they have no place to store things such as toys, bikes, etc. and the tc .ants could not even own a barbeque, unless they operated it inside their apartment. He stated the property presently is like a motel, and everyone has to walk by the other person's front window; and that many of the garages have garage doors falling apart, and they have attempted to remove those and create new carports. He stated they tried to create an openness is the whole site, not only a totally fresh approach but an approach that would be an asset to the community and a help to the Police Department as far as being able to drive through the site and view what is going on there. He stated they have gutted the apartments and put in all new cabinets, plumbing fiztures, and new appliances, adding appliances they never had before, and they are upgrading the entire site, and putting money into the project but are also attempting to attract the type of client that takes pride in their home and living space. Mr. Hepp noted trash bias are sitting out in the streets in the photograph and stated many times they are overflowing. He stated they have completely redone the trash enclosures and added 3 to 4 times as many trash bins. He stated they attempted to correct the landscaping and are going to completely relandscape the entire six blocks, and that they are creating new areas of playground for the children, which they presently do not have, and are rehabilitating the two pools and creating new spas adjacent to the pools. Mr. Hopp pointed out the exhibits which show what they envisioned by the total upgrading of the site and stated this would be carried throughout the entire project. He indicated they would have new entrance walls coming off Romneya, with areas of enriched concrete as an embelishmeat. He also noted the overall widths of the existing garages are substandard, and they have created new carports out in front, away from the building, creating an openness. He explained patios were created with light, ventilation, and storage made available, and noted they are putting the sidewalk completely against the curb, allowing additional landscaping to provide greenbelts. He stated they 3/28/88 t~i.~i'''YS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28. 1988_ 88-369 have eliminated the possibility of people climbing out onto the roofs by moving the carports away from the buildings, and by creating patios, they have an encroachment wherein they came closer than the required setback. Mr. Hepp stated they utilized every piece of open ground they could to create new parking, and have increased the present parking level to 189 over what they presently have, and that is oa-site parking. OPPOSITION• Steve Paczko, owner of a 4-unit apartment oa 1227 N. Robin, stated he is not opposing the project; however, he is cpposing the manner in which the project has been handled. He stated for several years there had apparently been negotiations between the builder and the City of Anaheim in trying to redevelop this so-called "blighted area", the Chevy Chase area; and that both his wife and he have been through rough times and have upgraded their property when they felt their tenants were happy to live there and did not want to move. He stated he wanted to bring to Commission's attention that there were legal negotiations going on between the Redevelopment Agency and his attorney and they are trying to use the eminent domain procedure in order to acquire his property; and even though this issue may not belong at this podium, eminent domain has bees hanging over them for the past six months at least. He stated up until this point, they have not been approached to sell the property the right way, and have bees harrassed, and their tenants have bees harrassed. He stated also that all the demolished buildings are bringing the property values down, so the negotiations do not reflect the market price nor the actual property value of their units. Chairman Messr agreed that this is not the proper forum to discuss some of these issues. Mr. Paczko stated he wanted to bring to Commission's attention that while the work has been g:;ing on, there has been destructiea and retaliation has been taking place. He stated his tenants are being threatened about how long they can stay there and whether they would have to move or not. He stated they talked to the superintendent about a five-foot easement along his property, and pointed out his property is not owned by this developer. He stated granting these improvements and allowing the building permits for this developer may be done, but the Commission should not make the assumption that the City does own his property. He stated there is a lot of traffic on Robin Street and suggested road bumps to slow traffic dower. He stated also the responsibility for problems of overcrowding and the trash rests on the owners and their carelessness; and that he has not had that kind of problem, and he has had no problem or objections from the Health Department or anyone else. Mr. Paczko stated it is up to the City to enforce density problems, and by so doing would relieve the area of overcrowding, traffic and trash problems. Olga Paczko, 6281 Nexberry Drive, co-owner of property located on Robin Street, stated this is a Redevelopment project, and no attempt has been made 3/28/88 NUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-370 _ to comply with the redevelopment law is that if an agency intends to continue the use of an existing building, the owner must first be given the opportunity to agree to participate is the redevelopment project. She stated they had not been given any opportunity to agree to comply with the requirements of the project. She stated they had received notification from the City of Anaheim that their property was going to be condemned and that is all she received. She stated she had tried to find out from Lisa Stipkovich, Asst. Executive Director, Community Redevelopment, what the plan was all about and she stated she was never told an agreement was signed. She stated they had tried to upgrade their property, etc. and they wanted to stay owners of the property, and that someone had come onto their property, and removed mail boxes and caused other damage. Chairman Messe informed Mrs. Paczko that although her concerns may be legitimate, those are not items the Commission can deal xith here today. He informed her that her property had been specifically eliminated from this request. Commissioner Carusillo told Mrs. Paczko he believed the Commission will address some of the concerns she has and Chairman Messe responded to ter objection to Commission approving anything regarding her property, that the Commission understands her concerns. Ria Clawson, 1042 Chevy Chase, stated she is in favor of the whole thing because she has been seeing the problem for the past nine years. She stated she is happy to see them tearing down the carports in front of the apartments because people do walk oa them, and children play oa them, and that is dangerous.. She stinted her concern at this time is whether there would be a wall or partition between the homes and the apartments. She skated now that the developer has come is and is rehabilitating this area, she will stay in her home; but if it was not for the redevelopment, they would probably have sold their property and relocated. Mr. Hepp stated the six-block project would become a one-lot subdivision, separated only by public streets; and that he did not feel traffic would be increased, and the amount of parking increase in the project will decrease off-site parking on the streets. He stated some of the sidewalks were in disrepair and would be replaced throughout the entire project; that the project will be fenced entirely, not only along the freeway, but all the perimeter of the entire project. He stated at present, there is a six-foot high wooden fence. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there could be a block wall along the single-family residences. Mr. Hepp responded that cost is a very strong consideration in redeveloping the project, and there is a point of negative return. Commissioner Boydstun stated with everything new that is being put in, she thought a block wall is required. Terrence Berry, 200 No. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Managing General Partner of the Karcher-Barry Company, developer, stated a study was conducted which indicated that the sound level along the freeway was over the decimal reading acceptable to a single family area, and in working with the City Planning and 3/28/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCH 28. 1988 88-371 Engineering Departments and the State of California Department of Transportation, it was determined that the south side and north side of the 91 Freeway, in future years, would be designated for a sound wall. He stated, however, during the interim, they had budgeted a 6-foot high wooden fence, even though it xas not. required, just to mitigate somewhat the fumes and gasoline coming in from the freeway. He stated also, until they found out it was necessary to file this application today, none of the fencing as proposed was required, and was something they wanted to do for marketing purposes along the freeway and also on the westerly side of the project, as it backs onto the single-family property. Ae explained the wooden fence presently proposed is probably $8 to $9 a foot, whereas, a block wall would be S30 a foot. He stated if Commission felt strongly that they needed the block wall along the westerly side, then they would need to look at the budget for the optional wooden fence along the freeway. THE PUBLIC FIEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo made a statement to Mr. and Mrs. Paczko that the overall concern with tZ:.e project is to clear up what is obvious blight within the project now. He ais~, asked staff to clear up confusion as to whether or not the Paczko property is part of the project. Lisa Stipkovich, Ezecutive Director, Community Development, stated the Paczko property was specifically exempt from consideration regarding this Conditional Use Permit and that Commission is not approving nay Conditional Use Permits or variances for that particular property. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the P=.czkos were saying they had been receiving notices of eminent domain from the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Stipkovich stated that is a whole separate issue and has nothing to do with the matter before the Commission. She stated there has been eminent domain proceedings started on properties that are exempted from the plan. She staked they are currently in condemnation proceedings. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if it is correct that an owner of the five properties outside the project would be allowed an opportunity to participate and noted the Paczkos indicated they were not given that opportunity. Ms. Stipkovich said she believed Mrs. Paczko was referring to the Redevelopment law which requires owner participation and she was commenting on the fact that there was no opportunity for owner participation is this particular project. Ms. Stipkovich stated this is not a Redevelopment project, but it is a Rousing Authority project. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he felt the block wall would end up being cheaper in the long run because of maintenance. Commissioner Herbst stated his concern is the variance from the parking requirements. He asked staff actually how many street parking places were involved. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated there are 148 street parking spaces, so it would be 553 plus 148 on the street. Commissioner Herbst stated that xould still be departing considerably from the City's parking 3/28/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITSt PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-372 requirements; and he is concerned that they will be uaderparked and the overflow will be in front of the private residences. Commissioner Herbst st;:,ted we should be looking for some way of controlling the number of cars each resident will be allowed. Greg Hastings stated that for the federally-funded Section 8 housing and other subsidized programs, the City is prohibited or constrained by federal regulations from adding new conditions such as controlling the number of cars a participant may have. Fie stat^d there might be some provision wherein the Commission might impose as a condition of the developer's contract or lease that the tenants be restricted to a certain number of cars; however, the City would be relying upon the developer to enforce that, and it would not be an ordinance which the City could enforce. Commissioner Herbst also noted they are constructing eight new units on this parcel, which means they are impacting the number of dwellings there and there is a substantial decrease in the required parking. He asked what the parking for the new units will be. Mr. Hastings replied they are providing 2-1/2 spaces per unit. Chairman Messe stated he thought they were increasing parking by some 41~ and that this i~ ~ shabilitation project and they are improving parking somewhat: Commissioner Herbst stated he realized that probably with this rehabilitation, it is hopt3 the population density will go down by having some sort of control over the dumber of people living in these apartments. Lisa Stipovich stated the Commission was given some additional conditions this morning and one of those conditions, No. 16, indicates the property owner shall prepare end record a subordinative covenant limiting occupancy of each apartment unit to no more than two persons, other than children under the age of 2, per bedroom, except where authorized by the Anaheim Housing Authority. She stated they did intend to enforce that, not only through the City requirements but through the Housiaq Authority staff where the City is subsidizing units. She stated their projections indicate there will be a substantial reduction of people occupying the area. Chairman Messe asked Ms. Stipkovich if l0i of the units are going to go to very low income families, and if there isn't more of a likelihood that those families would not be a 2-car or 3-car family. She replied in her experience it would appear the households tend to be a single woman with children (people receiving Section 8 subsidies). Commissioner Herbst asked that staff look into the concern regarding storage of cars. He noted sometimes people in this income level have an automobile that is not functional and it sits there, but they get another vehicle, and then would be occupying another parking space. He stated he belioved they might put something is the lease restricting the tenants from storing cars that are non-operational. Chairman Messe noted that was a matter for Code Enforcement as well. Chairman Messe aske3 Mr. Hepp if he was axare of the additional conditions, Kos. 15 through 18, and Mr. Hepp responded he was. Commissioner Boydstun asked if Condition No. 16 applied to the whole complez and was assured that it did. 3/Z8/88 MINUTES, ANAF~EIM,~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCH 28, 1988 88-373 Mr. Hepp stated when they recomputed the parking for the hearing today, they did delete 20 parking stalls for the five lots not being considered today and stated on-street parking was not taken into consideration in the calculations. He stated regarding the fence, that it is easier to replace a portion of a wooden fence, especially with graffiti on it, than a concrete block wall, because once you start painting it, you have to paint the whole thing. Commissioner Boydstun stated the only place she was concerned about the block wall was adjacent to the four lots where the project abuts single-family residences. She felt that would give those four houses a buffer. Commissioner Bouas asked if there would be in-house management and Ms. Stipkovich indicated one of the conditions was that there was to be adequate on-site management and that the management had to be approved by the Housing Authority. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Meese and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit approximately 15 acres of existing apartments to be rehabilitated as a "Planned Residential Development" xith waivers of ty~~, size and screening of carports and minimum setback adjacent to streets on approximately 15 acres located south of the 91 (Riverside) freeway, north of Romneya Drive, west of Manzaaita Park and east of Patrick Henry Elementary School; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substaxitial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoniaq Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-87 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2995,pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations and stipulations of the applicant, and exempting the five properties located at 1227 N. Robin, 1015 W. Brewster Avenue, 931 W. Chevy Chase Drive, 916 W. Bluejay Lane and 916 W. Robin Place, and subject to the developer providing 6-foot high block walls adjacent to the south and west property lines abutting single-family residential areas. 3/28/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINI•,SOMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-374 Greg Hastings informed Chairman Messe that Condition No. 10, which requires substantial conformance with Plans 1 through 22, should be modified since three exhibits have been added recently, so the condition should read Exhibit Nos. 1 through 25. Commissioner Herbst added that change to the resolution. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCBURNEY Joe Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the xritten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner McBurney returned to the meeting. ITEM N0. 9. - EIR NO 283 (PREV CERTIFIED); DEVELQPMENT AGREEMENT N0. 88-01. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: Richar3 Wallace et al, c/o The Register, 625 No. Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92711; AGENT: Elfend and Associates, 1151 Dove Street, Suite 130, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: Property is approximately 325 acres generally located southeast of the southerly terminus of Weir Canyon Road and southwest of Santa Ana Canyon Road, on the southeast by Oak Hills Ranch and on the southwest by the Highlands at Anaheim Hills and further described as Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch). Request: Proposed Agreement for Planning Commission/City Council consideration which would further govern the implementation of the previously-approved Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan. There were two people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. AND ITEM NO 10 - EIR NO 273 (PREV. c'FRTIFIED); DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 88-02. OWNERS: Presley of Southern California, 17991 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714; AGENT: Elfend and Associates, 1511 Dove, Suite 130, Newport Reach, CA 92660; LOCATION: Property is approzimately 816 acres generally located north of Canyon Rim Road and east of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the north by the East Hills Planned Community, on the east by Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) and Oak Hills Ranch, on the southeast by the Irvine Company property, on the west by the original Anaheim Hills Planned Community and further described as The Highlands at Anaheim Hills. Request. Proposed Agreement for Planning Commission/City Council consideration which would further govern the implementation of the previously-approved The Highlands of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan. 3!28!88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CON"~fISSION MARCH 28 1988 BS-375 There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject requests and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, presented the staff reports for Items 9 and 10 and explained the City has received applications from Woodcrest, developer of the Sycamore Canyon project, and Presley Companies, developer for The Highlands at Anaheim Hills, requesting a hearing before the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the City Council relative to the proposed Development Agreements. Ms. McCloskey stated the major provision of the agreement is that both developers are required to either construct and/or financially participate is numerous on- and off-site public improvements and insure the provision of necessary public services; that while necessitated by the approved development, many of the improvements and services are of community-wide benefit and will need to be provided in the early stages of development. She stated the Sycamore Canyon developer will be constructing the on-site portions of Serrano Avenue and Weir Canyon Road, with the Highlands project developer constructing the on-site portions of Serrano Avenue; that both parties will participate in widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the restriping of the eastbound off-ramp from the 91 Freeway at Weir Canyon; that both will be constructing other oa-site and areawide circulation improvements as detailed in the Specific Plans; both will be participating in the cost of a permanent police substation, including an in-kind land contribution by the Sycamore Canyon project; both will be providing public park acreage, 6.6 acres for Sycamore Canyon and 5 acres for Highlands and each will be providing a system of pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails; that the Sycamore Canyon project is providing 133 acres of open space including the two public parks and The Highlands project is providing 292 acres of open space including one park; that each will participate in the cost of reconstructing Fire Station No. 9 and reimbursement to the East Hills developer of a proportionate share of the cost of constructing Fire Station No. 10, and that The High]ands does include an in-kind land contribution is that regard; that the Sycamore Canyon project will be providing a 4,000,000-gallon water storage reservoir, with a 2,000,000 gallon reservoir being provided by The Highlands and each will have permanent booster pumping stations and other water system improvements; both will be providing sewer, gas, electric, telephone and drainage facilities; and both will be participating in the cost of providing an off-site street maintenance facility; and participating in the cost of an off-site liLrary facility. Ms. McCloskey stated the Agreements, as proposed, are the product of extensive negotiations between members of City staff and the Developer, and represent a significant contribution by the Developer in guaranteeing, enhancing and acceYeratinq different provisions of public facilities. She stated the Sycamore Canyon project developer will be constructing the entire portion of the Weir Canyon/Serrano Avenue connection located within the project from the existing terminus of Weir Canyon Road to the proposed Weir Canyon/Serrano Avenue intersection to the project's southern boundary prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit in the 3/28/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNILIG COMMISSION, MARCH 28, 1988 88-376 project. She stated as the conditions are presently written, this will provide for an advanced construction schedule. She stated The Highlands project developer will construct the entire portion of Serrano Avenue located within the Highlands project prior to and as a condition of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the `..first residential unit in the project; provided, however, there is one link from "S" Street to their easterly boundary adjoining the Oak Hills Ranch which will be deferred to either the Oak Hills developer or the City is concurrently grading the adjacent park because that portion will really go nowhere until Oak Hills Ranch develops and if it was graded ahead of time, it would cause a drainage problem. She stated if that section is deferred, the developer will post a cash bond or other immediately drawable security to secure the future construction when needed; and that this will provide an advanced construction schedule over what they are currently conditioned to do. Ms. McCloskey stated both developers will be participating in the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate six-lane configuration between Imperial Highway and Bauer Ranch and the restriping of the off-ramp; that the developers have agreed to pay to the City a fee equal to 5600 per residential unit for a total of 5671,400 for the Sycamore project and 51,288,000 for the Highlands project; that each developer will pay one-half of that fee no later than the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit in their project; that the balance of the fee will be bonded for at the first certificate of occupancy and paid at the later of 10 days prior to the dates for the bids for construction of the actual widening project, or one year after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit in the project; and that the fees will be subject to inflatioaery adjustments, as will all the fees to be discussed. Concerning the police substation site, Ms. McCloskey stated the Sycamore Canyon developer has agreed to grade the police substation site, provide all necessary utilities to the site prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy and in the event their in-kind land contribution doesn't cover their fair share, they will be paying the difference on a pro rata basis for each building permit is a set amount of 5327 per residential unit or 57,421 per commercial acre, with the entire amount being paid no later than the issuance of t2ie certificate of occupancy for the first residential wait in the project; that currently the developer is just required through the conditioning to enter into an agreement to pay their proportionate share with dedication being a condition of Parcel Map No. 87-210 which is their financial parcel map; that payment of the fee was going to be determined by a Police Protection Facilities Plan and the Development Agreement process will advance the payment of fees and provide an amount certain which is consistent with the Police Protection Facilities Plan now being drafted for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. Ms. McCloskey stated The Highlands project developer will be paying the City the same 5327 per residential unit and 57,421 per commercial acre for the police substation site in the same manner just described since they don't have an in-kind land contribution. 3!28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-377 She stated for the street maintenance facilities, both developers have agreed to pay a proportionate share of the costs of constructing an off-site facility at a rate of 830 per residential unit, subject to the inflation adjustment and that will be paid on a pro rata basis for each building permit issued, with the entire amount due prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project. She stated the term of the Sycamore Canyon agreement is eight (8) years and The Highlands project is tea (10) years, with a provision for a two-year extension, and in both cases they will commence grading operations with the latest date being December 31, 1988, and commencement of both projects for the first residential unit would be December 31, 1989. She added the Sycamore Canyon Development Agreement provides that the 650th residential unit be commenced five years after the e`.fective date of the Agreement, with The Highlands being that the 800th residential unit be commenced in five years. She stated both Agreements contain a review, amendment and cancellation process. She stated Environmental Impact Report Nos. 273 and 283 were previously certified by the City Council in conjunction with the Specific Plan approvals; that the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with each of the projects were addressed through that certification project and no additional impacts would result from the approval or execution of these Development Agreements. She stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that Environmental Impact Report Nos. 273 and 283, previously certified by City Council for the projects are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation fur these Agreements. She stated pursuant to the Procedures Resolution both developers have demoastratod eligibility to enter into these Agreements and that the Agreements meet the criteria set forth; and that staff would suggest that the Planning Co~unission make a determination that the proposed Agreements are consistent with the General Plan, compatible with the uses as authorized in and the regulations prescribed for the applicable zoning districts, compatible with the orderly development of property in the surrounding area and not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general wolfare of the City, and recommend to the City Council that the Agreements be approved and entered into by the City with the developers. Frank Elfend, agent, explained the developers and their attorney are present to answer any questions. He thanked Mary McCloskey and Joel Fick of the Planning Department and Joseph Fletcher of the City Attorney's Office for their cooperation. He stated they feel with these Development Agreements, the City, the developer and the community will benefit from the provisions for public infrastructure improvements at an earlier date; that normally public improvements are provided on an as-needed basis to only meet the requirements of that phase of the project, but with these agreements, both developers have agreed to provide several essential public improvements at an earlier date to facilitate enhanced areawide levels of service for police protection, fire protection and traffic circulation; that they will insure the City that the 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 28, 1988 88-378 parks will be developed, the open space will be provided and the project and areawide water needs will be met and the remaining 121 conditions of approval will be implemented. Mr. Elfend stated the Development Agreements will provide construction of the entire portion of Serrano Avenue on both projects and the cost to Woodcrest to construct that street earlier than required by the present conditions is 52.1 million and the cost to Presley would be about 51.6 million. He stated the Development Agreements will assist the City in widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road from Imperial Highway to the Bauer Ranch and restripinq of the eastbound off-ramp from the 91 Freeway at Weir Canyon Road, and the cost to Woodcrest is approximately 5671,000 and to Presley the cost is approximately 51.3 million. He stated before the first home is occupied on the Woodcrest project, they will provide the City a fully graded police substation site, with all necessary utilities stubbed to the property at a cost to Woodcrest in excess of 1/2 million dollars, and Presley will participate with their fair share basis at a cost of approximately 5770,000. He stated both developers have agreed to provide approximately 5100,000 in proportionate share costs for the construction of a street maintenance center on the Oak Hills project before a single home is occupied. He stated although the Baldwin Company has not yet submitted their Development Agreement, he assumed they will have the same requirements. Mr. Elfend stated the Agreements require that the developers of Sycamore and The Highlands are required to accelerate public improvements at a cost of 58 million and before a single home is occupied, both Woodcrest and Presley would have made an investment in the projects in excess of 570 million, and for Presley to build out the remainder of the project, there will be an additional 577 million. John Stanek, Vice President, Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, 5500 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, stated they are not opposed to these Development Agreements, but would like to clarify that when the Bauer Ranch was approved, they were obligated to provide certain public facilities as provided for in the Public Facilities Plan. He stated these Development Agreements have not been reviewed by them and they just wanted to make sure of any future impact on the Bauer Ranch. He stated the staff reports indicate costs will be assigned to Highlands, Oak Y.ills and Sycamore Canyon developers, and any undeveloped property located within the study area from Imperial Highway to Weir Canyon Road, and asked if that applies to the Bauer Ranch properties and added if it does, that is not consistent with what they agreed to previously with the City relative to the Bauer Ranch development. He stated the only other issue is the timing of the advancement of fees under the Development Agreements, and the main question is that they are subject to reimbursement under their previous agreements with the City of Anaheim and would like to clarify whether they will be receiving their reimbursements prior to advancement of any other fees. 3/28/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 28, 1988 88-379 Floyd L. Farano, Attorney, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, representing the Taubman Company, stated they wanted to congratulate Mr. Elfend and members of the staff because they think these two projects will be a credit to the City of Anaheim. He stated as in the case of Kaufman and Broad, they have a question and referred to Paragraph No. 1 on page 4 of the Item No. 9 of the staff report. He stated it is their impression that the Taubman Company was approved as a part of the Sauer Ranch approval and was a beneficiary of the approval by the City Council of a Public Facilities Plan in 1983 and later amended in 1983; therefore, it is their impression that any further exactions from the Taubman Company or Kaufman and Broad, for that matter, would not be forthcoming under this arrangement and the study area that is proposed in the staff report. He stated as soon as the City assures them that they are not included and their public improvements are covered by the Public Facilities Plan of 1983, they will be happy and would strongly urge the Commission and Council to approve these worthwhile projects. Sally Smith, 7370 E. Rite Drive, in the Stonegate tract, stated their tract is immediately adjacent to The Highlands and she has just recently learned about The Highlands because they did not get any notices about the project, and after inquiring of her neighbors, she found none of them had been informed that this project was even proposed; and that they have a problem and feed it is imperative that they discuss this with the Council and of immediate consideration to the entire area is the traffic situation. She stated they understand the Presley Company has agreed to first pave the area now considered to be an extension of Serrano, but she thought what has perhaps not been taken into consideration or to what extent the Commission has thought this through, but with just the small project they had around Knoll Ranch Lske recently, there were safety problems and explained there are walking and jogging paths which the people use, and she was almost killed by heavily-loaded trucks with rocks coming down the slopes at 45 mph and not being cautious. She stated she foresees a tremendous problem with all the children who live in the area and the danger that will result and felt the Commission should consider that no project such as this should be permitted to progress until they have the access from Weir Canyon where there is presently no construction. Ms. Smith stated if she had understood that this was going to be considered for zoning, she and several other people xould have come forth and at least discussed this with the developers and the Council as to what would be the best advantage to the entire community. She stated. she sees where they have been allowed much Higher density than all the surrounding area and also she was not aware that there was apparently as agreement to consistently have zoning that permitted higher density along the perimeters of Deer Canyon which is inconsistent with all the other construction and will be a permanent blight on the green trails by having high density along the perimeter. She stated feels at least along that area which would be open to the public for perpetuity, the Commission and Council should consider rescinding the permission to have such high density at least where the greenbelts would be so that it would be protected and not considered blight which the City Council has agreed with the builders to allow in as area that should remain very scenic and very private and should not have homes that will consistently be grouped together in such tight profusion which can be seen from Deer Canyon. 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 28 1988 88-380 She added the high density might also contribute to a water runoff problem and that she was not sure what might happen to the canyon floor and it could be very costly to the City if something has to be done in the future to alleviate the water runoff problems that are more than likely going to occur. She stated she felt that it certainly should be considered that since this is a very large project, the fencing along the perimeters facing the greenbelts should certainly be consistent and open so that they continue to have a canyon they can be proud of as being apart of both the city and the county. Kathleen McIntyre, 7300 E. Rite Drive, stated she was concerned with The Highlands project and that her main concern is the traffic and also whether the construction trucks would use Canyon Rim to Serrano or start at Weir Canyon and go up. She stated she is concerned because they have a very quiet residential area and even though Canyon Rim is a main access road, it is still very quiet and there are only about two times during the day when there is any traffic. She stated she would like to know the cost of the new homes and the date the project will be starting and when it will be finished. Frank Elfend stated the hearing today is to consider the Development Agreements for the Sycamore Canyon and The Highlands projects and any questions regarding how a condition on this ranch affects another property owner is a separate issue. P.e stated these are conditions that were included in the approval documentation. He stated the purpose of this hearing is to evaluate the Development Agreements, and the agreement is to accelerate public improvements. He stated they have been involved in this project for about four years and that both developers have agreed to provide the eztension of Serrano with their first unit, and he thought also Oak Fiills will be required to provide it with their first unit because that is what their conditions impose, and it is the intent of the City to have that road in when development occurs in that area. He also pointed out the number of units that were approved in the Specific Plan approzimately two years ago for The Highlands is actually less than the maximum number of units permitted; and also that there vas an area which was retained, referred to as Herbst Hill, and an area south of Serrano Avenue which will be preserved as open space. He stated the higher density development in this project is internal to the site, leaving a single-family interface adjacent to the open area and that over 40i of the site is open space. Concerning the fencing issue, he explained they have spent time with staff in providing the appropriate fencing to preserve views and that information is in the Specific Plan. He stated construction traffic is intended to use the temporary access through the Sycamore Canyon project and unless it has changed, there will be no construction vehicles going up and down. He stated that was an important concern to the City Traffic Engineer. He added he thought the cost of the new homes would vary from 5160,000 to 5250,000 or 5300,000, and it is the intent of both developers to have something for sale on that property sometime next year. He added he thought the developers have plans for something like 200 to 300 units per year, and that depends on the market. 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-381 Chairman Messe stated there was a question about the water runoff and that was well addressed in the EIR and Specific Plan. Commissioner Carusillo asked if Serrano will be connected through from Canyon Rim to Weir Canyon, with the full connection. Mr. Elfend stated each developer have agreed that when they occupy their first unit, the road will go to their property line; that the Oak Hills developer had committed previously that they would provide that section as well, and that is the way their condition reads currently on their Planned Community. Commissioner Carusillo asked if it is staff's understanding that Serrano will connect immediately before they start. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated at the City Council hearings when all the ranches were being considered, effectively the "then owner" of the Oak Hills Ranch indicated that as Boca as the grading operations commenced on the other ranches, that the Serrano connection would be initiated, making a through road, and now that roadway has been advanced on these two projects. Mr. Fick stated currently the City is negotiating and has had discussions with the Baldwin Company on the Oak Hills Ranch as well and when that Agreement is finalized, it is the City's intention that, as represented in these two 'Development Agreements, prior to occupancy of the first unit, the City wants to see the road there, and right now if either of the ranches initiate construction, per the agreements before the Commission, their on-site roads will be bonded for and completed prior to occupancy of their first unit and the present conditions of approval alone for the Oak Hills Ranch require the roadway construction oa that property as well. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated if Oak Hills delays their project, Serrano will not be put through. Mr. Fick responded if the Baldwin Company did not proceed and if they did not comply with their present conditions of approval, the roadway through-connection would not be constructed until the number of units on the Sycamore Canyon and Presley projects reached the number of units specified in their conditions of approval. Mr. Elfend clarified the number is 600 for Sycamore and 400 for The Highlands. He added Mr. Fick's statement is correct and that the conditions of approval apparently state that when the twa ranches do move forward, the Oak Hills developer indicated at prior public hearings, they would come forth and implement that road. Commissioner Herbst referred to the Specific Plan and stated he knows there has been some changes and those changes are not reflected in the Specific Plan, such to the grading oa the park site, etc. and the Specific Plan does not reflect some of the drawings the Commission saw. He stated if the Development Agreement is to be approved in accordance with the Specific Plan, those changes should be included. He clarified he is talking about the Highlands project specifically. Commissioner Herbst asked about. the lot sizes. Mr. Elfend stated the lot size issue has been resolved through subsequent tentative map process? that the issue of the park/school site has been resolved. Fie added he understands the 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-38' concern and his interpretation would be that the entire public hearing process would, is fact, be a part of the Specific Plan as it relates to the conditions of approval. He stated the Parks Department still has the subsequent approval on the park site issue and the tentative maps were submitted four to six weeks ago. He stated he thought another page could be added to clarify those changes, and that information can be included with the package that goes to the City Council. Commissioner Herbst stated his concern is that maybe they would sell the property and somebody else reading the reports could get the wrong interpretation. Commissioner Carusillo stated he understands that, r:.s a part of the Agreement, the City can at anytime impose a condition that would affect the public's safety or welfare. Mr. Fick stated effectively the Development Agreement process under the state statutes really allows for almost any provisions to be incorporated in the Development Agreement. Commissioner Carusillo stated a good point was made about construction traffic and that should be expressly prohibited so they come in from the Sycamore Caayoa. Commissioner Herbst stated he was surprised there was no opposition at the original hearings from the Stonegate homeowners and assumed they are within 300 feet of the project, but not one person attended the public hearings. Joel Fick stated staff is trying to check the conditions of approval to address the -3uestioa raised by Commissioner Carusillo and members of the audience about construction traffic. He stated he recalled that construction traffic was discussed extensively, and he thought there were some stipulations about not allowing construction traffic through Canyon Rim. Commissioner Herbst agreed with the opposition that when they were repairing the dam, there was truck traffic with trucks pulling loads of sand and gravel and it was Suite a problem. He stated he thought the Commission had come to a decision that all truck traffic would be prohibited on Canyon Rim Road. Mr. Elfead stated there is a temporary access road that has to be provided for Fire Station No. 10 in conjunction with the start of the grading of the site, and that was also the road they indicated would be utilized to avoid having construction vehicles on the streets. Commissioner Herbst stated they recognize there will be quite a lot of heavy equipment when they start grading and he did not want to see any of it going down Canyon Rim Road. Commissioner McBurney asked if the questions regarding reimbursement have been answered. Joel Fick stated first is the reimbursement for Fire Station No. 10 and both agreements require that both property owners xill, in fact, reimburse Raufman and Broad for Fire Station No. 10; and that staff has been working 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARSH 28 1988 88-383 with R b B and all of the property owners to finalize the Reimbursement Agreement for that facility and it is his understanding based upon discussions with R b B, the ranch owners and the Taubman Company that everyone is about to reach final agreement on the reimbursement provisions and staff plans to take that reimbursement provision to the City Council. He stated this Agreement today says that these property owners will reimburse Kaufman and Broad for v.:'r,atever the reimbursement provisions are which are established by the City s~ouncil when they are adopted. Mr. Fick stated the second issue is the traffic study and when the ranches were before both the Planning Commission and City Council, there was extensive discussion about the Serrano/Weir Canyon connections and when it was finally sorted out, the Council did establish the boundary of the study area as Esperanza Road or Orangethorpe Avenue on the north, Imperial Highway on the west, Weir Canyon Road on the east, but including the ranches, and the city limits on the south. He added the best that he can address that question today is that the study has been initiated and a contract has been awarded for the study and the Engineering Department took a report to the City Council. He stated he thought the contract was awarded to P b D Technology and the purpose of the study is to determine what are the improvements needed and what are the costs of the improvements and who should pay. He stated he cannot tell the Commission whether Taubman is or is not going to pay today or what their amount is going to be because that is not subject to the Agreements before the Commission. He stated they are, however, included in the area to be studied. Chairman Messe asked if these developers are relieved of their costs of those studies. Mr. Fick responded that is correct by participating and the sums in these Development Agreements are well beyond the anticipated participation by the ranch owners and the negotiation process in that regard was very carefully reviewed by the Engineering Department, the City Engineer and the Traffic Engineer and with all the studies not yet completed, staff feels comfortable that these amounts are beyond what the study findings would be. Chairman Messe referred to the Highlands Development Agreement, page 12, paragraph 2.15 which indicates that this Agreement in the Specific Plan established maximum and minimum characteristics for the height and floor areas of each of the permitted buildings, as well as illustrative product, site design criteria, and setbacks for the permitted buildings, and asked what the Development Agreement has to do with those items. Joseph Fletcher stated some Development Agreements will include that and, in fact, some of the language in the state law authorizing Development Agreements provides that the Agreement should address maximum heights, building areas, square footages, etc., and this paragraph tells us we are meeting that provision of the state law by referencing what the Specific Plan established, and we are not deviating in any way from the Specific Plan. Chairman Messe referred to Page 17, Paragraph 5 regarding permitted land uses. Mr. Fletcher responded that would be almost the same response. 3128188 MI27UTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1988 88-384 Chairman Messe referred to page 21 regarding the construction of Serrano Avenue on-site from "B" Street to the easterly boundary of the project adjoining Oak Hills, and referred to the circulation map in the Specific Plan and pointed out "B" Street doesn't even connect with Serrano. Mr. Elfend stated he thought the intent of that is essentiall],r to provide for cooperative grading between the developer of the Oak Hills project and that Presley has agreed to post the appropriate security to make sure that when that ranch moves forward, which they assume will occur at the same time, that improvement will be made. He stated the difficulty of extending Serrano all the way to the boundary of the Highlands, however, is that you cannot grade it without grading on someone else's property and if that happens, the second part of the conditions would apply. Chairman Messe stated he is referring to the wording "that portion of Serrano Avenue on site from B Street to the easterly boundary" and Mr. Fletcher replied that they identify a street as "B" Street on one of their circulation plans. Chairman Messe stated the map shows those two streets parallel each other and the references to t:he Specific Plan says, "as approved by the City Council" and this is net what was approved. Mr. Elfend stated they could provide a new exhibit to clarify the street. Chairman Messe stated if all the latest documentation could be mentioned in the Development Agreement, he could go along with it. Joseph Fletcher stated there is one slight change in both Agreements and in the Sycamore Agreement it is Section 24.2, pages 45 an 46 which has been slightly modified and the same section of the Highlands Agreement has been modified and explained they currently have a provision addressing how they are going to share attorney's fees if any entity challenges the Agreements and the City's intention is to change that so that they simply share any attorney fees equally. He stated the Agreements currently provide that they share the fees "if" and now it reads th:,t if both parties are ordered to pay attorney's fes, they will be split equally and the same thing if either one of the two parties are required to pay attorney's fees. Joel Fick suggested a new exhibit which actually shows xhat "B" Street is and also that a restriction be included prohibiting construction traffic on Canyon Rim Road should be included. ANION ON ITEM N0. 9. Comm~.ssioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-88 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 283 is adequate as required environmental documentation for Development Agreement No. 88-01. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: SOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 3/28/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~cT^u MARCH 28 1988 88-385 Commissioner Aouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-89 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the developer has demonstrated eligibility to enter into Development Agreement No. 88-01 on the basis that the project shall occupy at least fifty (50) acrs (site encompasses 325 acres) upon completion; that upon completion the project shall result in the construction of at least two hundred fifty (250) dwelling units (1,119 units approved); and that the project shall be constructed in phases over an anticipated period of not less than five (5) years, (8 years proposed). On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC 88-90 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning COmm15S1Jn does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim introduce and adopt an ordiance to adopt Development Agreement No. 88-01 on the basis that the project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Anaheim; that the project is compatible with the uses authorized is and the regulations prescribeP~ for in the applicable zoning district; that the project is compatible with the orderly development of the property in the surrounding area; and that the project is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and further that a exhibit shall be provided showing all the adopted changes as approved by the City Council for Specific Plan No. 88-01, including streets, and that a restriction shall be imposed that there shall be no construction traffic on Canyon Rim Road. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ACTIONS ON_ITEM N0. 1 Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-91 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dees hereby determine that previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 273 is adequate to serve as required environmental documentation for Development Ageement No. 88-02. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE 3/28/88 MINSITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C029+fISST~N MARCH 28 1986 88-386 Commissioner Souas offered Resolution No. PC 88-92 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the developer has demonstrated eligibility to enter into Development Agreement No. BB-02 with the City of Anaheim on the basis that the project shall occupy at least fifty (50) acres (site encompasses approximately 816 acres) upon completion; that upon completion the project shall result in the construction of at least two hundred fifty (250) dwelling units (2,147 units approved); and that the project shall be constructed in phases over an anticipated period of not less than five (5) years (10 years proposed). On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner McSurney offered Resolution No. PC88-93 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereY,y recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim introduce and adopt an ordinance to adopt Development Agreement No. 88-02 on th;, basis that the project is consistent with the Geaer.al Plan of the City of Anaheim; that the project is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for in the applicable zoning district; that the project is compatible with the orderly development of property in the surrounding area; and that the project is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and further that an exhibit shall be provided showing the adopted changes as approved by the City Council for Speciefic Plan No. 87-01, including streets, and that a restriction shall be imposed prohibiting construction traffic on Canyon Rim Road. On roil call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: SOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ITEM NO 11 REPORTS AND RECOl~CfENDATIONS A. EVALUATION OF CURRENT CODE RFOUIREMENTS FOR THE PROVISION OF RECREATION LEISURE AREA IN MULTIPLE-FAMILY ReSIDENTIAL ZONES Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained this request originally came from the Planning Commission and staff did review the recreation area standards for. multiple-family residential projects and also did a survey of other cities and the results are in the staff report and there are recommenations on Pages 6 and 7 of the report. Responding to Chairman Messe, Greg Hastings stated the open space is differentiated from recreational space in that open space is the area remaining after the building is on the property and the recreational area is considered as the usable area which normally takes out the driveways and sidewalk3. 3/28!88 2~INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 28, 1986 88-~87 ~hairmaa Messe asked if staff considered counting the area on top of the parking decks and Mr. Hastings stated in the past that area has been counted, if it is usable. He pointed out it has been only oa rare occasions that the area on top of the parking structure has been presented to staff in such a manner that it could be considered usable. Commissioner Herbst stated he was the one who requested this information because there has bees a concern that the recreational _*r~vas allowed have not really be usable and the staff has done a good job making that distinction. Commissioner Herb^t asked how staff makes the determination that an area is usable when they look at the plans. Mr. Hastings responded that staff cu=rently does not count areas for recreational space unless it is shown on the plans for that purpose and many times the plans do not show what type of landscaping is proposed and what the area is supposed to be used for. Chairman Messe asked about the recommendation for the submittal of. an irrigation and landscape plan prepared under the direction o£ a licensed landscape architect. Commissioner Bouas stated she thought that is a good idea. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated there may be instances where such a plan is ao*_ necessary and we would not want to codify that in every instance they have to submit a plan prepared by a landscape architect, but right now there is no direction provided as to what is to be included and in certain instances staff would not know what the intended use of an area might be and that is something that can be looked at in the preparation of the draft ordinance and better defined. Commissioner Carusillo stated there was a project recently before the Commission with a concrete roof over subterranean parking which was not being used and thought that could be landscaped and used as recreational area. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby instruct staff to draft as ordinance considering potential amendments to the RM-3000, RM-2400 and RM-1200 Zones to require a minimum dimension of 10 feet for common open receational-leisure area, and that it be contiguous with and designed as an integral part of the common open area; that all area used in calculating common recreational-leisure area have no slopes greater than 56 in conformance with parks standards; to specifically exclude the use of the following areas as part of the required recreational-leisure area: front and/or street setback areas, driveway areas, parking areas, utility areas and trash storage and pickup areas; to permit encroachments into areas to be used in the calculation of required recreation-leisure area only where a 7-foot, 6-inch minimum height clearance is maintained (in conformance with the Uniform Building Code); and to require the submittal of a landscape and irrigation plan, prepared under L•he direction of a licensed landscape architect, for all required open space and common open recreational-leisure area. 3/28/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MA~i~B, 1988 68-388 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1515 - Request for termination from R. S. Minnick on property located at 150 West Orangethorpe Avenue. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-94 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1515. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution xas passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC HURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE C. VARIANCE N0. 3563 - Request for retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval in connection with Variance No. 3563. Request from Linda Horning of Kaufman and Broad, on property located north and west of the intersection of Bauer Road and Monte Vista Road. A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a one-year extension of time, retroactive to May 28, 1987, fur Variance No. 3563, to expire on May 28, 1988. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2602 - Request to amend Condition No. 11 of City Council Resolution No. 84R-393 pertaining to the restriction of aonambulatory persons only, is conjunction with a 40-bed board and care facility. Robert Lavoie, 910 West 17th Street, Santa Ana, stated they first got approval for this use in 1984 and at that time there was a lot of opposition from the neigbbors who were concerned about property values and seeing people wandering through the neighborhood, etc., and that the applicants circulated a petition to the most vocal neighbors and they have signed it in favor of this modification. He stated the original conditional use permit provided that the patients had to be noaambulatory; however, rie thought the surrounding neighbors now know that the condition of the persons in this home is not one where they are violent, and the neighbors are satisfied with what is going on there and do not object to the modification of this conditional use permit. He stated the history of that particular home in that neighborhood deserves the modification deleting the restriction of nonambulatory persons. Greg Hastings stated this matter was not advertised and is before the Commission for a recommendation to the City Council si.:ce they took final action. Chairman Messe stated the petition signed by 21 of the neighbors in favor of this request should be made a part of the record to be sure that the City Council is made aware of it. 3/28/88 MZhJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCA 28. 1988 88-389 A TI Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council, following a public hearing, amend Condition No. 11 of City Council Resolution No. 845-393 to read as follows: "That use of the property shall be limited to, and it shall be a violation of this permit for the State (or County) license for this facility to become less restricted than for use as, a board and care facility for developmentally disabled, ambulatory and nonambulatory persons between 16 and 65 years of age." E. P~POSED CONDITION TO BE INCLUD~FD IN PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS REQjJIRING DISCLOSURE OF OVERCROWDED SCHOOLS TO FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS. At their March 14, 1988, meeting, Commissioner Carusillo asked staff to consider implementation of a condition in Planning Commission resolutions granting multiple-family residential developments that purchasers, renters, or lessees of the units be advised of overcrowded schools. This matte: was included on the March 28, 1988, Planning Commission agenda for their consideration and action. A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby instruct staff to implement the following condition in all Planning Commission resolutions granting multiple-family residential developments: "That the neighborhood school's ability to accommodate the projected increase in enrollment be determined, and if applicable, the developer notify prespective tenants, buyers, or lessee's in writing prior to any contract Y.hat their children might be bused to a school other than the neighborhood school." F. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TO DISCUSS MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. At their meeting of March 14, 1988, the Planning Commissioners indicated a desire to suggest a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss multiple-family residential development. Staff included this matter on the Commission's March 28, 1988, agenda for action. Commissioner Bouas stated since the Commission is receiving so many petitions for apartment projects, she would like to hear the City Council's thinking as it relates to apartments because she has heard that they have indicated that maybe we should be looking at changing the ordinances and considering more condominiums. Commissioner Carusillo stated he would like to discuss strip commercial centers and convenience markets in the Disneyland area and possible restrictions so it will present a better picture to the tourists. 3/28/88 MIt7FTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMt.(ISSION MARSH 28 1988 88-390 Commissioner Feldhaus stated the City Council did request staff to bring them a report and that a Code Amendment has been proposed and Chairman Messe stated the Planning Commission should be brought up to date on the current changes. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Council consider scheduling a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss multiple-familly residential developments, particularly in the downtown area. G. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 10982 (REVISION NO 1) - Request for review of specific plans from Linda Horniaq, Kaufman and Broad, Inc., on property located south and west of the intersection of Sauer Ranch. John Stanek, Vice President, Raufman and Broad of Southern California, 5500 East Santa Ana Can}'on Road, Anaheim, explained this is a revised plan addressing 15 single-family residential units in the Bauer Ranch.. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained the height of the buildings exceed the 25-foot height limitation by 2-1/2 feet and would qualify for an Administrative Adjustment, and an application was received today for an Administrative Adjustment and if this is approved, it will be contingent upon that approval. He explained the Admnistratiave Adjustment procedure permits variances of 10~ or less. Commissioner Mc Burney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus that the reque~r. be approved. Commissioner Carusillo asked if approval of this request would be giving the Commission's blessing to the adjustment indirectly. Commissioner Herbst asked the purpose of this variance, noting a similar request was denied today. Greg Hastings explained this is actually the first request received that is within the 10~ allowed for the administrative adjustment procedure. He explained that procedure was approved about a year ago as one of the Zoning Administrator respoasitilities; and that notices are mailed to property owners within 300 feet and if there is no opposition, it is approved, but if there is opposition, there would be a hearing before the City Council. Commissioner Herbst stated he is not in favor of granting a blanket approval for a height waiver, and the maximum height for the Scenic Corridor is 25 feet. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he did not realize what this really involved when he seconded the motion. 3/28/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28 1986 88-'--~ Chairman Messe asked if the Administrative Adjustment is done at a public hearing and Mr. Hastings responded there is no public hearing unless there is written opposition, in which case there would be a public hearing before the City Council. Commissioner Herbst stated he could go along with it i£ it involved one or two structures, but this is for 35 structures and that would be a blanket approval and with the opposition we have had recently from the homeowners in the hill and canyon area, it has been very specifically stated that the maximum height of 25 feet should be adhered to. He stated this should be a Planning Commission hearing, with the homeowners being given the opportunity to speak in opposition. He added he thought it is a big enough problem that the neighbors should be made aware of what is going on. Chairman Messe asked if the plan involved every one of the 15 units having a deviation. Mr. Stanek responded he was not sure at this time. Joel Fick suggested continuing this item to the next meeting and having the applicant• present the plans to the Commission so they can see how many units are involved and how much the variance is oa each one. Commissioner Carusillo stated he is is favor of denying the request and wants to stay consistent with what his views have been all along, that there be no deviations without a hardship being demonstrated, other than economic. Commissioner McBurney and Chairman Messe suggested continuing the matter in order for the applicant to present the pleas. A TI N: Commissioner McBurney withdrew his motion to approve the specific plans and Commissioner Feldhaus withdrew his second to the motion. A TI N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MUTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of April 11, 1988, in order for the applicant to submit plans for the Planning Commission's review. Commissioner Carusillo stated he did not know how much vacant land there is that might be adversely affected. It was noted this property is right above the proposed shopping center. Regarding future plans for the proposed shopping center,Mr. Stanek stated there are no plans as yet, but the previous hearing regarding the Development Agreements did pope some questions that need to be resolved; and that they have been in a lot of negotiations with Taubman and some issues have just been resolved. 3/28/88 t MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 1988 88-392 Joel Fick stated the Planning Department, Engineering Department and City Attorney's Office had an exploratory meeting last week oa a Development Agreement with Taubman, as well. H. LAND USE STATUS REPORT FOR EUCLID STREET BETWEEN CRIS AVENUE AND RATELLA AVE~7{ZE_ Report submitted for information only. No action was taken. ADJOURNMENT• The meeting was adjourned to Monday, 10:00 A.M., April 4, 1988, Council Chambers, for a work session with Redevelopment regarding design criteria for residential development is downtown Froject Area Alpha. Greg Hastings pointed out a tour is planned for the following Monday to look at some of the "affordable" housing projects, including one or two senior citizen housing projects. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission N0901p 3/28/88