Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/08/15 }. RErfn av ~.: rrrxr [lF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLA~tNG COMMISSION Date: August 15, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Cortanission was called to order at 10:00 a.m., August 15, 1988, by the Chairman in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Bouas Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Nerbst, McBurney, Messe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Jonl Fick Mac Slaughter Arthur L. Daw Paul Siaqer Gzeg Hastings Mary McCloskey Linda Rios Della Files Debbie Vagts Eric Harrison Pamela Starnes Planning Director Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Traffic Engineer Senior Planner Senioz Planner Assistant Planner Assistant Planner Housing Operations Coordinator Assistant Planner Planning Department Executive Secretary AGENDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m., August 12, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin - August 5, 2988 SJHLIC INPUT: Chairwoman Houas explained at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. 0114m ... -- ~.,~ J .~ ,I..,. ,.,,+,,.rceTnx AUGUST 15 1988 88-2 The Commission discussed the continuance of Item No. 20 - H and that matter was continued to September 26, 1988. (See item No. 20. - A). IT NO 1 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT: CONDITIONAL US PERMIT NO 3028• WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY N0. 543 p~TBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: GILBERT MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP 925 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA 92804; AGENT: S b M DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, P.O. Bez 3868, Mission Viejo, CA 92690; LOCATION: 925 S Gilbert Street Request: To permit a 3-story, 31-unit Senior Citizen apartment building with waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum front setback and permitted encroachments and (d) minimum recreation/leisure area. Continued from the meetings of July 6, 1988 and August 1, 1986. There were sir persons 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 Boydstun 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., in that applicant is her son and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that she was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3028, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Boydstun left the Council Chamber. Mr. Boydstun, of S b M Development Corporation,. P.O. Boz 3868, Mission Viejo, CA, stated that since the last meeting he had met with several of the neighbors and had addressed their concerns. He noted the changes they had made since the last meeting were, deletion of three units from the top floor, which would make this a 28-unit building. He said they had taken the third floor balconies and turned them to face east and west, instead of north, t:~at way they will not be visually impacting the neighbor's yards. He said by taking the three units off of the building, they had lowered their density and that enabled them to come up with a redesigfled parking garage. Ae said the landscape plans give a nice buffer zone 'between the project and the RS-7200 lots. He said both neighbors that owned the properties immediately to the north, indicated they would like to have as 8-foot xall along the perimeter there, which they were more than willing to do. He said that would give them more privacy. He noted they had deleted their pedestrian access way onto Bruce Street, nor several reasons. He .said that neighbors oa Bruce Street felt the people would come into the complex, park there, then that would be putting more traffic: into the neighborhpod. He said the second reason was that the high school, was a couple of blac'ka away and a lot of students travel 08/15/88 vTiarrroe ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988, 88-3 that area on their way home, and if there were a pedestrian access xay they might be cutting through the complez to save the quarter block in distance. Mr, Boydstun stated that on the Bruce Street side they would like to put a steel fence in that would eliminate the opportunity for any graffiti to be written there. He said that on their second set of plans the architect had indicated that the area where they had removed the three unity on the third floor, xould become recreation and leisure area. He said they had decided that would not be a good idea because that xould put people up at the third level, which xould again be a visual intrusion on the neighborhood, therefore, he noted that as as error on those plans. Mr. Boydstun said they still contend that this is a good project for the neighborhood; it is xell designed; he said (referring to the color rendering on exhibit) it is an attractive looking building that he believed would 'be an asset over what is on the property nox. He noted it xas conveniently located for all the services that are required for senior housing and they had really done some nice things xith the landscaping. He said the landscaping materials they had used were of the fast-growing variety, predominantly carrot wood trees that come is 24 inch bores; they rill be about 9 to 11 feet high and 4 to 5 feet in diameter when they are planted and they are quick groxing trees. He said they were also using coral gum trees of the eucalyptus variety and some multi-trunk trees. He said the pictures that were at the top of the board (exhibit) zero taken from an elevation of 28 feet from the existing roof; the planter that is put is on the north side virtually will create a barrier between the line of sight and the back yards of the neighbors directly to the north. He said they had tried to come in with large plantings now so that it xould create less of an impact on the neighborhood and be more attractive rhea the project is finished. He said he felt the project would fit in with the neighborhood. He noted there xere a lot worse us+as for the land. Proponent: George Behnam, 1240 North Van Buren, Anaheim, stated, regarding the three stories, that this parcel could be developed as commercial and they xould be entitled to put three stories or more and there rould be the same problem of visual intrusion. He said he preferred to put something like the senior citizen project, which he felt would serve the community better than commercial. He also noted that a commercial building would have more parking which xould create more traffic impact than what the proposed project would. OPPOSITION• Catherine Smith, xho resides at 921 South Gilbert, said she is also a part oxner of the property across the street from the project on the corner of Gilbert and Bell, 9581 Ball Road. She stated she xas not against senior housing, bsr_ the particular location that had been chosen for this project she felt xas inappropriate. She noted there xas a problem of getting in and out of those driveways at that particular point, because it xas so close to the stop light; also, there xas only a single lane that could be used for ingress and egress. She stated the angle of the drivexay was so steep that if you did not go out eztremely slox, the car xould bottom out, and many times she had 08/15/88 C t. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-4 been forced to pull right out into traffic, stopping the traffic that was going north and south, to be able to get out of her driveway. She said she felt an entrance on Bruce Street would be the answer. Her other concerns were the parking situation and traffic, which is dangerous. She was also opposed to a three story building next to a single family dwelling. June Jessen, 913 South Gilbert, indicated she had come down on Tuesday and left papers for the Planning Commission with some petitions in objection to the three story unit, not because it is a senior citizen unit. She noted that it was a dangerous traffic situation, not only in getting out of her driveway but she had been hit trying to turn into her driveway. She said to put another unit there without an ezit or entrance on Bruce Street, she felt would create a problem. She noted that she did represent some of the neighbors that were not there and they were against the three story unit; they felt that would be an intolerable situation. Dr. Clark Smith stated he was a part owner of a medical clinic that was right acr;,ss the street from the proposed project. He said he had been there for 17 years and the traffic problem went back about that far. He said almost out of self defense a few years ago they bought the corner lot so they could have ingress off of Ball Road into the medical clinic; patients used to have to come around and turn into the alleyway to gain entrance to the clinic. He stated this new project would create a worse traffic problem there. He said there is a retirement center across the street from this project which was proposed as a three story project but the neighbors adjacent to it were against the three stories and they built it as a two story project. He was against the increased population density. He said it was unfair to the neighborhood and the tenants that would be living is the project. Dr. Mayo Go, stated she practiced across the street at 9581 Ball Road. She was against the three story building because of the traffic that it would produce. She felt a three story building would be putting too many people there. Mary Shook, said she was a 30-year resident oa Gilbert Street and was well aware of the traffic, etc. that the other people had discussed. She stated her main concern, besides the three story building which she xas against, had to do with the safety of the seniors who would be living there, with access in and out on Gilbert Street. There was a large accident and injury record for that corner and with the building being built so close to the corner, and access only on Gilbert Street, it would create a safety problem. Alez Go, 9351 Aillview, Anaheim, said he was speaking against the project because he felt it was too big for the lot allowed, even according to the ordinance and bonus, etc. He said the surrounding area was only two story and he did not see why the developer could not limit his project to two story. He also noted the traffic problem and parking problems which would be caused by visitors. Ha said he was also concerned about the safety of the seniors that would be living there, that it xould not be fair to the senior citizens. REBUTTAL• 08/15/88 _... .. ..~.~.....J.-...~._.....c=..::w.:wtw~s,~:>.V.iYFl.\'+~NSiYI~~+]': `s_~,.:.. l 1M ~ S MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST 15, 1988. 88-5 Mr. Boydstun said that these were the same comments they had received during their meetings with the public. He noted traffic seemed to be the biggest concern and second was access, then the three stories. He said with the ever increasing cost of land and availability, the density will naturally start to rise and when that occurs you go up in height. He said the people oa Gilbert would like to see the entrance on Bruce and vis versa. He said he did not know how they could pacify bot:~, sides. He agreed that traffic was a problem, as most intersections in Anaheim are at rush hour. He said that with seniors you usually have less is and out activity than with a regular apartment building or a commercial building. He said he believed that with this particular building, with the number of parking spots that are required, they were demonstrating that there was not as much vehicle traffic in a senior complex as there was in other developments. He said they had allowed enough parking and he did not believe that would be a problem. He noted that Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, had indicated he felt there was no negative impact on the traffic by the entrance being on Gilbert; after looking at the situation, Mr. Boydstun felt that Gilbert entrance was the best solution. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEB. Questions from the Commission: Chairwoman Bouas asked Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, what kind of record he might have of the accidents at Gilbert and Ball. Mr. Singer said they get copies of all accident reports; however, he could not get a summary for her immediately aince research had to be done. He said he was not even able, at this moment, to ezpress an opinion about the number of accidents involved. He said he would like to inform Commission that, individually, apartments of this nature do not cause undue impact on the streets; it is only cu:rulatively that these type apartment complezes impact streets or critical intersections. Commissioner Herbst noted this piece of property was zoned commercial and he realized they di:3 have some buildings there now, but They could put a fairly good sized commercial development there, probably similar to the size of the building that is there. He asked what a commercial building being built there, with supposedly no variances and not coming before the Planning Commission, what height could it be built at, and what would be the difference is the traffic problem. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, said the height requirement would be identical, that requires 2 feet of setback for every 1 foot of buildiny height, from the single family dwelling. A commercial building could be built at that site, at the same height. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that as far as traffic impact was concerned, a multiple residential dwelling unit generates 8 trips per unit is a 24-hour period, as opposed to a commercial development which generates approximately 35 trips per thousand square feet. A dwelling unit generates a lot less traffic than a commercial unit of comparable size. 06/15/88 ~,.~. Commissioner Herbst stated this was something they would have to consider because it is a commercial piece of proporty and could be developed commercially without coming before the Commission. Mr. Singer stated the only difference was that a residential unit impacts peak hour traffic to a somewhat greater degree than a commercial unit does. But, a senior unit does not generate any appreciable peak hour impact. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Boydstua, when he made reference to the third floor, if he was going to eliminate units there. Mr. Boydstua stated they eliminated three units oa the third floor. Commissioner Herbst asked how many units they had on the third floor. Mr. Boydstua said they had two to the north side and five to the south side. Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Boydstua to go over the orientation of t1~e third floor units, as far as their windows, balconies, etc. Mr. Boydstua said, originally, they had the balconies facing to the north; it was suggested, and they agreed, to turn the balconies so they xill face east and west. He said that way them would not be a balcony an the third floor to the north side. He said the plans depict it as facing north. Commissioner Herbst asked, in reference to the 8-foot wall along the north, would they still put that is and Mr. Boydstua said they would. Commissioner Messe asked, on the third story, what the treatment of windows were on the north side. iKr. AoydStun said there would be one window is each unit. He said they could put a louver over the ezterior so that it would not visually impact into the neighborhood. Commissione: Messe said that nor the third story did no qo clear across the building and Mr. Boydstua agreed that it did not. Commissioner Messe asked hpusinq what type of agreement did they have on affordable. Debbie Vagts, Housing Operations Coordinator, said they would have 9 units at very low income rents, which are 5414 for one bedroom. Comnissioaer Feldhaus said that most of the people oa the waiting list, seniors, were 62 years-of-age or more, asking Ms. Vagts to confirm phis. Ms. Vagts said that 90i of her waiting list were seniors 62 or over. Commissioner Feldhaus said that kind of obviates the t~bility to drive too much, xhich elicited some disagreement. 08/15/88 ;:, MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-7 Commissioner Carusillo said he had a coacerct about the traffic oa Gilbert, in regard to senior's safety. He said he thought the whole situation could be mitigated by addressing the density sad traffic concern and lowering the project to two stories, sad perhaps reconsidering the entrance and ezit on Bruce Street. Commissioner Feldhaus said they had some problem with the people on Bruce Street wanting it to be put on Gilbert, at the last hearing. Commissioner Carusillo stated that they have to make a decision as to what is safer for the citizens of Anaheim and his view, having a little ezperience in that area, was that it might be a little safer and not that restrictive to consider Bruce Street. He said he also wanted to remind people, in talking about density and how that is overused in this City and, even with the bonus, they were looking at a 40~ greater density for the 28 unit request. He said he felt it could be done with 20 units, at two stories, which should make some of the other concerns minimal. Commissioner Herbst asked what if they had both entries, Bruce and Gilbert. Commissioner Carusillo asked if there was a need for both and Mr. Herbst said he did not know if there was, it was just a question to consider. Commissioner Carusillo said that it seemed that Gilbert was not as wide a street and the traffic on it was pretty severe. Mr. Singor said that just changing the entrance to go to a. residential street really did not change anything other than taking the turn movement onto Roanne Street, and then onto Ball Road. He noted that Sall Road obviously was a far busier street than Gilbert; therefore, any entrances or ezits on Gilbert would probably have less impact. He said he thought it was a trade off and frankly Ball Road was busier than Gilbert. Commissioner Herbst said if they delete too much, and not allow them the mazimum growth oa `.his property, the developer will probably develop it with some type of commercial, such as put another medical center there. Commissioner Carusillo said he doubted iY., if that were a more viable program that would be under consideration right now. Commissioner Herbst stated it was realistic and he could not see nay use, based upon his knowledge of other senior complezes, where there is a lighter use and impact on a neighborhood. He said inasmuch as they had deleted the height waiver, the front setback and the recreation, the only thing they had left, which they had allowed all over the City in the senior citizen complezes, was the site area per dwelling unit waiver - 1200 square feet vs. 712. He said that Council had reduced that in practically every senior citizen complez they had. Be felt this was the lightest use they could probably get there; the State mandates that they allow density, up to 25i, then the Council has another density that they allow, so they are meeting the maximum requirement on density that is allowed in this particular area; the only variance they have left is a technical one. OB/15/88 ~Y INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ai1~~ST 15 1988 88-8 Commissioner McBuraey said the traffic, the trips, would be a lot less than what is anticipated because there is a percentage of seniors that do not move around that much, or they prefer walking rather than taking a car out every half hour. Ae agrees with Mr. Berbst that it is a less intense use and probably suitable for this area. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the medical building next to the project had a driveway that' went out onto Bruce and Mr. Boydstun said it did not. Chairwoman Bouas said with the school children, etc. she felt it was better not to have an entrance onto Bruce Street. Mr. Boydstun said he thought it would be a better, safer environment for the seniors. Commissioner Carusillo asked about closing Gilbert and opening up Bruce. Commissioner McBuraey noted that was a major issue that was dealt with originally, that was why applicant had redesigned the project and shut off that entrance at Bruce so they would not have that circulation through the residential area. Commissioner Carusillo said he was for the project but felt the third floor was not necessary and questioned the safety aspect of the traffic eziting onto Gilbert. Commissioner Messe said he felt the reorientation of that third floor had helped his thinking a little bit; it is more acceptable, it does not go across the whole xidth of the building anymore and the balconies and patios had been reoriented. He said he had one more question about the affordable. Were the 9 units to be for very low income families? Ms. Vagts said they were, for 30 years. gCTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent because of a conflict of interest) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 3-story, 28-unit Senior Citizen apartment building with waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, mazimum structural height, minimum front setback and permitted encroachments an& minimum recreation/leisure area oa a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57 acre, having approximate frontages of 120 feet on the zest side of Gilbert Street and 120 feet oa the east side of Bruce Street, being located approzimately 300 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and further described as 925 South Gilbert 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 :arther finding oa the basis of th] Initial Study and any comments received that mere is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 08/15/88 t, ~jj,R'*''*4S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONII+IISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-4 Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent due to a conflict of interest) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waiver of code requirement (a) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dORB hereby approve waiver of City Council Policy No. 543. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-213 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3028, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to stipulations and Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOYDSTUN ABSTAINING: CARUSILLO, oa the basis he felt the project could be aligned to mitigate some concerns he had, such as height, density, and egress/ingress to project. Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEh, NO 2 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE NO 3816 COMMISSIONER BOYDSTUN RETUR27ED TO THE MEETING. PUBLIC HEA_AING: OWNERS: EDITH A. JONES, 318 S. Helena Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, ARNOLD 0. HOLMVICR AND COLEEN J. HOLMVICR, 214 W. Hampshire, Anaheim, CA 92805 ISAAC DICRERSON FARISS, 1585 Lullaby Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802; AGENT: TERRY AND NIROLS COMPANY, 4 Upper Newport Plaza Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: 318-322 and 326 S. Helena Street Request: To construct a 3-story, 15-unit apartment complex with waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) mazimum building height, (c) mazimum site coverage, (d) minimum structural setback, (e) permitted encroachment into front yard and (f) mazimum fence height. Continued from the meeting of July 18, 1988. There were no persons 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. 08/15/88 ~SINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 BB-10 PRE ENTATION• Lon Nikols, 4 Upper Newport Plaza, Suite 103, Newport Beach, stated his intent was to build a project that they were going to hold and live with for a long time in the City of Anaheim. He stated it would be a pride of ownership, high quality development and they wanted to attract good tenants because they would have to live with them. He said they were building all townhouse units which would feel more like homes than most rental property. Mr. Nikols said he would 'like to clarify a misunderstanding from the last meeting. He stated originally they had designed a 15 unit project because the land they were buying conformed to a 15-unit project; through the Planning Commission's review process, they learned that they were to give land for street dedication purposes on both sides of the project, because they were on a corner ant that took them from an almost exactly 15-unit project down to a 13.9 unit project, which rounds down to a 13 unit project. He stated they had six variance requests, some of which were minor but were additions to the utility of the property. He said today he was requesting a 13-unit project, all townhouses, ranging from 980 to 1390 square feet of livable area. Ae said they had eliminated four variance requests; the minimum site area per dwelling unit has gone now, after dedication, from 1112 square feet per unit to 1279, it is an RM-1200 zone; the balconies no longer encroach into the front yard setback; the +garage slab setback, which they had requested to qo to zero lot line on one portion of the garage for turning radius, they had relinquished that request; they no longer are requesting a fence height variance along the corner. He said they are requesting the variance for site coverage, where the permitted coverage is 55i they want 70i and also the height variance of three stories from two stories. Mr. Nikols said, on the site coverage, it was just not practical to buy land and build multi-family and meet 55l. He said they are finding that with all RM-1200x, as with the three story development across from them. He said they focus on the quality of life, which they were trying to provide. He said all of their units had full width of the unit balconies, which are 5 to 7 feet deep. He said tenants could really live on that, that was part of their livable space. He said they were looking at homes, townhomes, that have private usable space. He indicated the building is T-shaped, which gives some ventilation and light is the courtyard. They have provided a sun deck and Jacuzzi. He said they had provided some things in the landscape plan that they thought would make a nice eavlronment. Be noted by reducing the units by two they were able to include more parking spaces, which will be available for non-tenant type use, for off-street parking. He sL•ated the height would be consistent with the area. He noted that currently under construction was a 3-story apartment complex across from them. He said across Elm, on the south of them, was a single family use which he had personal knowledge was in escrow, with plans being drawn for multi-family apartments there. Mr. Nikols said, to mitigate the size of a 3-story building visually they had taken a couple of steps; one was by using stucco, not just oa the living area but all the way down; the landscape plan calls for bermiaq up, to take the scale down; and he indicated he believed a gable roof is more attractive than 08/15/88 taINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-11-- a flat roof. Addressing the concern of shade projected onto neighboring properties, Mr. Nikols stated that would be minimal. Mr. Nikols said they were building a quality project, they would be around a long time and they wanted a good working relationship with the City of Anaheim and the Planning Commission; he wanted to work with the concerns of the Commission and the realities that he had to deal with. He noted this piece of property was unusual, with an unusual hardship burden to it, inasmuch as ":hey were on the corner and dedicating street on botY, sides. This had cut bsck square footage and given them the requirement of building streets, gutters, curb, sidewalk, underground utilities and bringing sewer from Harbor, etc., on a 13-unit project. He said he was requesting the variances because they could not develop the property without them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Nikols if he had read the staff report regarding; Item No. 5 of the Conditions, and Mr. Nikols said he had. Mr. Nikols said they know that on the opposite corner from them there is a 22-unit, 3-story project going up and they were going to be required to bring sewer in from Harbor. They were hoping to piggy back oa that, taking it from Harbor, hopefully, to the center of the street so they would only have to come 150 feet. He said if they ended up having to come all the xay from Harbor, they would have to rethink the matter. Commissioner Herbst and Chairwoman Bouas commented they thought applicant had done an ezcelleat job. Commissioner Feldhaus asked Mr. Nikols if he was the agent for the developer and Mr. Nikols responded that he was one of the principals, the developer was the Terry and Nikols Development Company, a California general partnership of Charles L. Terry, Sr., and himself. Mr. Feldhaus asked if they intended to keep the units or sell them and Mr. Nikols stated they intended to keep them. ~.~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 3-story, 15-unit apartment complez with waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum building height, mazimum site coverage, minimum structural setback, permitted encroachment into front yard and maximum fence height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 0.38 acre located at the northeast corner of Elm Street and Helena Street, having approzimate frontages of 133 feet on the north side of Elm Street, 135 feet oa the east side of Aeleaa Street, and further described as 318, 322 and 326 S. Helena Street and does hereby approve 08/15/88 ~.. artc'tiST ~ 5 1988 88-12 - vrT~r rr~t pLy~7NING C0 TS ION E the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative comments received during the public review and any comments Declaration together with any process and further finding on the basis of the initial Stu y ro ect will have a received that there is no substantial evidence that the P j significant effect on the environment. assn a and Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 214 and moved for its p planning Commission does hereby GRANT variance adoption that the Anaheim City ecial circumstances applicable to the location and surroundings which do No. 3816, on the basis that. there are sp and that property such as size, shape, topography, in the same vicinity: not apply to other identically zoned property rivileges strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of p enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations including stipulations by the applicant that he will reduce the number of units to a 13-unit apartment complex xith waivers of mazimum building height and mrximum site coverage only,. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, 8OYDSTU27. CARUSILLO, £ELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 c;ays to the City Cod cil. V Ate- THRIFTY OIL COMPANY. 10000 Lakewood Boulevard, pttgr TC HE RING. OWNER: Downey, CA 90240; AGENT: TAIT AND ASSOCIATES, P.O. Boz 4429, Orange, 92613; LOCATION: '800~~11 Road Request: To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales. Continued from the meeting of July 18, 1988• There was one person indicating her presence is opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made apart of the minutes. cuFCFNTATION: Steve Tarkoff, of Tait and Associates, 800 North Echoff, Orange, said he was before Commission about a month ago and since that time they had made a couple of revisions to the site Plan• He said he noticed that the Revigdditional submittal had been re-revised due to a new ordinance requiring parking, and he had with him a rendordinancet4946~.edHe stated he had gone ovex additional parking, as required by roblem with those. He said the the proposed conditions and did not have any p 08/15/88 ~xTrrFS sNAHEIM CITY PLANNIITG COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-12 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 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 No. 214 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3816, 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 Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification is the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations including stipulations by the applicant that he will reduce the number of units to a 13-unit apartment complex with waivors of maximum building height and maximum site coverage only,. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AlESs BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, AERHST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. TTFfA NO 3 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3033 pyar.Tr REARING: OWNER: THRIFTY OIL COMPANY, 10000 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, CA 90240; AGENT: TAZT AND ASSOCIATES, P.O. Sox 4429, Orange, CA 92613; LOCATION: ?800 W Ball Road Request: To permit a convenience market xith gasoline sales. Continued from the meeting of July 18, 1988. There was one person indicating her presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff roport was not read, it is referrrsd to and made a part of the minutes. PRESENTATION• Steve Tarkoff, of Tait and Associates, 800 North Echoff, Orange, said he was before Commission about a month ago and since that time they had made a couple of revisions to the site plan. He said he noticed that the Revision 1 submittal had been re-revised due to a new ordinance requiring additional parking, and he had with him a rendition that showed the site with the additional parking, as required by Ordinance 4945. He stated he had gone over the proposed conditions and did not have any problem with those. He said the 08/15/88 ~, ~ 1 only item of contention, which was brought up last time, was possible stacking at the gas pumps onto the street so they had removed a large portion of the pump island and placed the gas dispensers as far as possible from the street without requiring the demolition reconstruction of the canopy. OPPOSITION• Maureen Powell, 2860 West Hall, Apartment B-1, Anaheim, stated she opposed this project because there were already too many convenience stores in the area and the one they are wanting to put in now would be a 24-hour market and that would bring more traffic into the neighborhood. She said the project was so close to Beach Boulevard, she felt this would be too hazardous to everyone in the area with the traffic problem. Ms. Powell noted there are three convenience stores in the area already, one more just weal in. REBUTTAL• Steve Tarkoff said he wanted to make a point, before Mr. Fancher spoke, that they are not requesting beer and wine oa this site. Bill Fancher, Tait Associates, 800 Echoff, Orange, stated that he did not feel the nature of his business would bring more traffic into the neighborhood. Re said the way the business works was that they simply tap the ezistinq traffic flow; the cars that go by daily they hope to pull in and they stop now to get gas. He noted, additionally, that they are open 24 hours at the present time as a self-serve gas station. He said the station needs repair, they could take care of the station, clean it up and add some landscaping to make it a more attractive site, but they have to come up with the money some how. He noted the nature of the service station business today, to keep gas prices low, simply means they have to combine tvo uses or find a better ray to get more dollars per investment dollar. He said by the time they comply with the environmental regulations for underground storage, land cost, development cost, operating costs, and gasoline they simply could not make enough to operate at the current gas prices; therefore, they need the combined uses. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Boydstun said in the morning meeting they had discussed making the driveway oa the west side 10 feet wider; she asked Mr. Tarkoff if he would agree to that. Mr. Tarkoff said they could do that if it was all right with the Traffic Engineer; they could expand the Ball Road driveway is a westerly direction. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he would like to address the xhole problem. He said he believed the pumps should be relocated in order not to create a problem oa the surface street. He said if there was going to be another use on this property he said it behooved the developer to relocate the ramps in such a manner as to make traffic on the street safe. He said he 08/15/88 ~?~'~'xa, _ _ "'MUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-14 could see there would be a backup caused by those pumps being that close to the street. He said he was not in favor of making the driveway any larger; he believed the driveway was adequately large enough to provide access onto the property, but he believed the improvements on the property were located in an improper location. He said he thought the answer was not that there was anything wrong with the driveway or its location, it was the pumps that were in the wrong place. Commissioner Herbst said he agreed with Mr. Singer and had brought this to their attention at the last meeting, that this would be and has been a problem; that those particular pumps could be located at as angle, and is a different location, which would create through traffic from one driveway to the other; he believed that was the only way he would be in favor of this project, because of the traff.c problem on Ball Road. Mr. Tarkoff said he had tried placing some sort of arrangement where they could go diagonally across the corner with the pump islands, as -with the other two Circle R's that had been approved where they had a corner cut off with a center island for the attendant that gave him a good 90 to 100 degree view of the site; but the problem with this project is the rectangular-shaped store places the attendant towards one side and his view is limited when customers get too far from directly in front of the store. He said they tried stacking two pumps one behind the other, and because of the people coming in to pay, the view was getting pretty close to the edge of the envelope. Fire Department requirements are that the attendant be able to view all gas pumping operations. Commissioner Herbst stated perhaps they could redesign the store where the attendant would be sitting in a different location. He said he felt they had an unsafe condition because the location of the pumps would necessitate backing onto Ball Road, and it behooved applicant tc correct the situation. He said they are putting another use on the property and by doing so they were creating a lot more traffic coming in and out of the business. He said if they relocate the pumps they would have no problem. Chairwoman Souas asked xhy Mr. Singer was opposed to xideninq the driveway. Mr. Singer replied that if they had a 40 foot driveway, with 10 foot curb radius returns on both sides, they would have a net 60 foot driveway and if they increased that by 10 more feet they would have 70 feet and that is larger than almost any street. Commissioner Carusillo said then the problem was not xith widening the driveway but with the potential stacking up and causing a hazard on Ball Road. Mr. Singer said that was correct. He said a second car would probably stop on the sidewalk to wait for the pump and that was the key issue here. He said if there were a car at the pump and another car queueing behind him, he was most likely intruding into the sidewalk. Mr. Tarkoff said there was only going to be one dispenser on each island. 08/15/88 :.~ Mr. Carusillo said there seemed to be a big concern with the public safety here and perhaps the applicant would be wise to realign those pumps and create more space to the street, by putting them south and more towards the east. Mr. Tarkoff said they were at their limit to the south because of the requirement between the back of the parking spaces and the pump islands. Mr. Singer stated he could show applicant how it could be redesigned; other stations have done it in the past. He said you would take the building and put it at an angle, put pumps at a 45~ angle, put the driveways at the eztreme ends and they would have a nice easy flow through with perfect parking on both sides and an orderly traffic flow, He said they had had several service stations that had been reconstructed in this manner with ao problem whatsoever. Mr. Tarkoff said he did not know if they could do that with the parking places required, it would use up much more land. Commissioner McBurney said he concurred with the rest of the Commissioners, that it could be redesigned with a much smoother flow. He would prefer that they redesign the site plan to reflect these changes and asked if he would like a continuance to do so. Mr. Tarkoff said he believed they would take a continuance and make an attempt to redesign. ~~~ Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 29, 1988, to allow a redesign of the pleas by applicant. BEM NO 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 273 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED): ~~p~^'ING TEh.ATTV'r TRACT NO 12700 (REVISION NO 1) AND SITE PLAN piJBLIC HEARING: OWNER: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Attn: Al Uman, 17991 Mitchell South, Irvine, CA 92714; AGENT: ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: Subject property is described as an irregularly-shaped property consisting of approximately 66.9 acres generally located northeasterly of the intersection of Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue. Request: Petitioner requests approval of revised plans to add eight residential units and four lots to the previously-approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 12700 sad Site Plaa to establish a 66.9 ac., 9-lot (plus one open space lot), 232-unit residential air-space condominium (SP87-1) subdivision. There were no persons 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. 08/15/88 a ,~ , .. <- ~(INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-16 PRESENTATION• Frank Elfend, 4675 MacArthur court, Suite 660, Newport Seac2t, stated his company was the Planning Consultant for the Highlands Project. He expressed his sincere appreciation to staff, for their assistance in processing his request. Mr. Elfend addressed the Conditions, stating he wanted to provide clarification and/or deletions where necessary. He noted the items he was about to address had been discussed with the Planning Department and that Linda Rios would be able to indicate her acknowledgement of the same. Mr. Elfend stated what they were trying to do was where S:hey had met those conditions, either by the Development Agreement which has been approved for the project, or by subsequent submittal of information which had been accepted by the City, he preferred they not be included as conditions of approval on this tract. Mr. Elfend stated that Condition No. 2 had been satisfied. He said that Condition Nos. 7 and 8 had been satisfied through the Development Agreement; he requested those be deleted. He said Condition No. 12 had been satisfied via the Development Agreement. He stated Condition No. 31 had been satisfied via the provision of information to staff and he requested that be deleted. He said Condition No. 39 had been satisfied by the Development Agreement; Condition No. 40, xhich in essence ties some of those conditions which he had requested be deleted, therefore it xould also be deleted. He said Condition No. 68, that covenant had been submitted about sir months ago and he requested that condition be deleted; that covenant had been recorded. He said the only other comment they had was oa Condition No. 79. He xould like Yhat clarified, and he added as a general comment, that for any condition that had been provided subsequent to the approval of the Specific Plan and Aevelopment Agreement, they would comply with those conditions as they do not conflict with the ezistinq and adopted rules at that time. He noted, for ezample, if the City were to adopt a subsequent standard, than the standards which were enforced at the time the Specific Plan approval was approved via the Development Agreement would be the standards they xould utilize for the purposes of the project. Commissioner Carusillo asked Mr. Elfend what he was saying there. Mr. Elfend said ho thought that what they were stating xas that, for example, the City may have adopted some new ordinances subsequent to the approval of their Development Agreement and/or Specific Plaa. The Development Agreement incorporates the Specific Plaa as what's called the existing rules; they have some conditions down there which say that they shall comply with a certain design detail, for example; well to the eztent that that design detail was in place when their Development Agreement xas approved, as included in their Specific Plan, they would comply xith it to the eztent that it was a new standard which had been adopted subsequent to the approval of the Development Agreement, then xe would again rely back on xhat was approved during their Specific Plan. 08/15/88 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PL.a~.dING COMMISSION *T7rTTC~r i S ~ cgg 88-17__ Commissioner Carusillo noted Mr. Elfend had mentioned Condition No. 79. Mr. Elfend said, nc, that vas not No. 79, he was sorry, he just made that as a general statement. As far as No. 74 goes, what he would like to do xas to clarify that. He said when the Development Agreement came before this Planning Commission, although it was not a part of the conditions of approval, they requested that the earth moving and heavy construction equipment utilize a temporary access road for construction; the purpose of that condition was to keep, again, the earth moving and heavy construction equipment off of Serrano and Canyon Rim Road and that is hopefully what is occurring, that has been indicated to all the individuals who are working on the project. He said the way Condition No. 79 was worded, that is starts out with construction traffic or equipment access, Chey would just like to make sure that construction traffic does not mean possibly the individual who is painting the house who drives up to the site from that area, that he is not included in that restriction, and that the temporary access road really has been for earth moving and heavy construction equipment and they just wanted to clarify that for the public record. Commissioner Carusillo said he believed the intent was far the heavy equipment and not the painters half-ton trucks. Mr. Elfend said that was correct and they just wanted to clarify that for the public record. He said above and beyond that they had no further comments; if there were questions of either himself, the developer, or the project engineer, they were there to answer any questions Commission might have. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner McBurney asked, regarding the eztra lots applicant xas requesting be added to this Tract 12700, what was their dispensation? Mr. Elfend said there were actually two lots that had bees added to the Tentative Map, he verified that this morning witks his ongineer. He said those two lots had been added really for the purposes of either as open space easement or open space easement for future dedication to the County of Orange; in either case the added lots xdre for open space, there was no intent to provide any future residential uses within those areas. He said the other lots had been provided just for facing purposes. Commissioner McBurney stated he just wanted to clarify, for the record, that that was erectly their disposition. He said he did not want to grant some more lots with the intent, or the outside possibility of coming back to add some more units. He said he wanted to make sure that they would be dedicated to the county. Mr. Elfend said either they would be dedicated to the county or they would remain in permanent open space since they are currently negotiating with the county it was not totally clear what areas they would or would not take. He 08/15/88 ~. ".~} INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COtdMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-18 said he thought what was important to the City is that they remain as open space and that was what the intent was. Commissioner Messe said he would like to confirm with staff that those items that Mr. Elfend indicated had been satisfied and could be deleted from these conditions, are in truth satisfied. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated that Linda Rios would answer that question. He said that one thing he might offer to the Commission, since the property would be zoned a certain way and they had ezpressed interest that that be open space, he said there may be some type of a document, that the project owner could work with the City Attorney's Office to actually record against the property to ensure that that xould remain as an open space lot, when it is transferred to the County of Orange. He said if the Commission would like to incorporate that, as a condition of approval, they could add that at the time the resolution is offered. Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, said they had reviowed all of the amendments to the conditions requested by Mr. Elfend and are in agreement with them. She said she had two other conditions she would like to amend: Condition No. 67, on Page 12, to state that these would be Ezhibit Nos. 5 - 19 and Revision No. 1 to Ezhibit Nos. 1 - 4; Condition no. 73 to state that prior to final tract map approval private street entry ways "A-A" and "0-0" shall be designed according to Ezhibit Nos. 18 and 19. Commissioner Messe asked Linda Rios if all the other items that Mr. Elfend had discussed had been satisfied. Ms. Rios said they had, or they were covered by the Development Agreement. Commissioner Messe asked if there were any objection to changing Condition No. 79 to indicate that this would be earth moving and heavy construction equipment. Commissioners Herbst and Bouas said they believed that was the intent. Mr. Elfend said he ranted to comment on what Mr. Fick said, that when the area which is provided over to the county is legally provided, there will be an agreement which will specifically designate that area to be permanent open space, so that would be provided at that time as well. Commissioner Herbst, addressing Mr. Elfend, said he xanted to clear up the grading that was going on out there. Be said last Saturday, all day long, they had four great big bulldozers on the top of the highest peak, working on bringing that peak down. He noted that according to the information he had, that this peak was only going to be graded oa one side and not come down from the top, but they have been coming down from the top and Bob Simpson, City Manager, whom he had contacted because he was concerned about it, went out there last Saturday and talked to somebody. He said they called him back and said that whole hill was coming down 149 feet. He said this was the area that was confusing, that applicant's drawing here shows that it was not coming down 08/15/88 'iNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-19 on the back side but still they are taking it off the top, which is going to reduce the size of that hill. Mr. Herbst asked Mr. Elfend what was going on out there. Mr. Elfend said he would try to answer that the best he could and he thought to the extent that the project engineer was present he could answer that much better, because he (Elfend) was not out in the field and was not a member of the Presley Company so he could not really speak for the grading out on the site, other than what he understood from reviewing the same information that Commission had. He said he would bring it back a little bit because he thought there was a little bit of a historical perspective that would be helpful is terms of understanding what is happening in that area, that Mr. Herbst pointed that out to him earlier as being the highest point on The Highlands Project site. Commissioner Herbst noted it was one of the highest points in Anaheim Hills. Mr. Elfend said back three or four years ago when they were preparing the Specific Plan for The Highlands, they had several meetings with the County of Orange for tho purposes of preserving that area, because that area was within the view shed of the future Weir Canyon Regional Park, they had negotiated an agreement with the county, at that time, which allowed them to actually grade the top of that hill which Mr. Herbst had described, to grade that down and then the back cut from that cut and he was just estimating that cut was probably...it is in the Specific Plan is fact, he believed on Ezhibit 13...showinq again about a 50 to 100 foot cut in that area. He said whaa the property was subsequently purchased the grading in that general vicinity was modified, and rather than actually cutting that hill down, what they did was just cut the face of it - or back cut it - so that from the Weir Canyon side there would be no visual effect and, in fact, that whole... and would he preserved and there would actually be less grading in that area. He said that was the peak he believed was out there. He said there vas also a ridge that came down along that peak and that area was being graded, that area xas so designated in the previous information which was submitted and approved by this Planning Commission and City Council. He said he asked the project engineer again before today's hearing about what is the average cut is that area, or what are the average grades, and they spoke earlier about in that one area that Mr. Aerbst xas looking at was about 90 to 100 feet, depending upon where you stand, it would basically go up somewhat but would go dower as it relates to going to the ends where the daylight line is; but it you were looking at that one peak, that one major peak, what should be happening out there should be what is on the plan and he thought that ii'...he could not answer above and beyond that, other than the information that was provided to him, but that area that is being graded, yes is being graded, was an area that he told them was going to be graded several years ago, as well as several months ago, and that is what the plan provides for. Commissioner Herbst stated that all he was saying was, the peak he was talking about, there were four great big bulldozers up there Saturday that worked all day cutting that hill down. 08/15/88 ~.. ~{ ~, MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 80-20 Mr. Elfend said he did not know where the dozers were, but if they were on top then they were not on the area that they had looked at this morning. Commissioner Herbst stated they were on the top of that peak and he had a picture showing one up there. Mr. Elfend said what he should do is, subsequent to the hearing today, was they ought to discuss that either with us. Commissioner Herbst said he wanted to find out what they were doing. Mr. Elfend said he would ask the engineer if he could answer that or a representative from Presley, is terms of ezactly what is occurring in that area right now. Commissioner Herbst said, in other words, we show a peak that is not to be cut down butst is being cut down. Mr. Elfend said he suspected it was that ridge that was next to that peak, but nonetheless he believed Mr. Herbst should have an answer. Al Umaa, 17991 Mitchell South, Irvine, said, unfortunately, he was not sure he• had as answer for Mr. Herbst. He said, likewise, he was not out there on a weekly basis overseeing the grading operation. Hut, it was his understanding that the tallest peak out there was not being graded on and if Mr. Herbst saw a tractor or two up there, they should check on that. Mr. Uman said he would only speculate at this point, if Mr. Herbst saw a tractor or two up there it was not to bring the top of the hill down. He said it may have been to start the face cut to push dirt off, but the plan clearly - the mass grading plan, as well as this Tentative Tract - does not sh9w the tallest peak out there to be cut down. He said it shows the grading to go up to the face of that peak, right to the face of it, but it does not show it to be lowered. Commissioner Herbst said you could see them, they were up there with four bulldozers pushing dirt right off the top and you could see it coming all down and that was what got him concerned and he got hold of Bob Simpson, who went out there then called him back on the telephone, and they informed Mr. Herbst that that hill was coming down 149 feet. He said he did not see how that could be a mistake, they were working out there at the time. Mr. Uman said this plan does not call for that to happen. Commissioner Herbst said that it didn't, but they were out there cutting it down just the same. Mr. Uman said he had better qo check to see if it was still there. Commissioner Herbst said he would like to ask, regarding our contour grading ordinance, he did not see any contouring out there in some of the areas they (applicant) were working on. 08/15/88 ~_, _ _~ MIh ES ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-21._ Mr. Uman said he would have to refer that to Dave Hoyle, the designer oa the site, he had designed the plans and basically had the approvals and permits for the grading and he believed he could address that. David A. Boyle, 2098 South Grand, Santa Ana, stated that as far as the contour grading ordinance goes the tract was designed to provide undulating slopes and that was reviewed carefully by the City Engineer's Office and a grading permit had been issued in accordance with that. He asked if he could be given some specifics. Commissioner Herbst said it may be a little early to look at it right now, because they may have to do a lot more work, but what he saw out there did not look like contour grading that they had approved in the City Ordinance for the City of Anaheim at the present time. Mr. Boyle said they were looking at the Canyon removals and the landslide removals and what is was saying was, that it is not yet done. Commissioner Herbst asked about along Canyon Rim Road. Mr. Boyle said Canyon Rim Road was reviewed by the Parks Department, Planning Department, Engineering Department, very carefully, and Mr. Herbst also was out there twice, and it was being graded ezactly in accordance with the approved plan. Commissioner Herbst said the thing he was looking at, is looking at contour grading, was that it did not look like it conforms with what they had been getting in the past. He said it might have been approved, but he did not approve grading plans he just looked at what xas there after the fact and he was one of the ones that was involved with getting contour grading in the canyons in the first place and that was why he was concerned about it; they want the hills to look like hills, not just straight cuts when they get through. Commissioner McBurney asked if, once they achieved their elevations, would they be going back in and then doing their contouring to relate to that ordinance. He said, in other words, they were looking for no flat faces and in the contour grading there ara no flat faces. Ae said there were some 2 to 1 and 5 to 1 that appeared to be pretty flat; they just want to make sure that those things undulate rather than be just flat. Mr. Uman said, is answer to the question, ao they are not going to go back and regrade it; they were going to grade the contour grading that was approved on the mass grading plan, as part of the original grading, as soon as they get done with it. He said in some cases the flat slope, it may be flat from toe to top other than the benches that are in there that make it undulate but horizontally or• longitudinally along the slope it has either a big curve is it or a series of curves in it. Commissioner Herbst said he believed they should take a look at it, because if it is not done right, it is in violation of our code and ordinance in Anaheim 08/15/88 ~:r oc auauFTM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988. ~88-2Z ~11 Hills. He said he had been opposed to some of the grading out there every since they started; he thought there was too much moving of dirt and they were winding up with flat lands instead of the hill and canyon area they started with and he thought that this was sn area that they would be looking at much closer, and the grading plans, instead of looking at tract maps first they need to look at grading plans first to know what those hills are going to wind up looking like. Mr. Elfend said they were going to continue to process applications through the City consistent with the regulations and codes, pursuant to their Development Agreement, so they will continue to proceed in a manner which is provided by the approvals they have. He said above and beyond that they had ao other comments. Chairwoman Bouas said she felt that when they really get out there and into it, and see it when they are through with it, it certainly would be the way it was supposed to be. Mr. Elfend said he thought one thing in laying out a course, that is just the way it is, when you grade a site it just does not osed soil andawhencitsistall is just the way it is. You grade and there is exp finished, and he knew it was the intent of the Presley Company to provide a finished product out there and have ik landscaped the way that it was committed; hopefully, later on when that happens Commissioner Herbst xill feel better about it. Commissioner Herbst said that when he saw them taking 150 feet off the top of a hill that was there for centuries, it bothered him. He said the Hill and Canyon General Plan states they are supposed to be working around the hills, not flattening them out. Mr. Elfend said Mr. Herbst had made his point quite clear at that time, and the project was approved. Commissioner Carusillo said he did not want to be technical on Condition No. 79 but he thought just to leave it at heavy duty or earth moving equipment was too vague. Commissioner McHurney said pick-up trucks and automobiles were allowed but no larger. Commissioner Carusillo said that was his concern, he believed they should put in some restrictions so they do not encourage other traffic. He said they should say what is heavy duty and what is earth moving. Mr. Elfend said what they had indicated was earth moving and heavy construction equipment. Commissioner Carusillo said, in his view, what they are limiting it to is 4-wheel vehicles, half-ton pick-ups and the like, rather than the cement trucks, etc. 08/15/88 ~~ K is 1488 88-23 u. NOTES ANAHEIM ITSC PLAN.' IIN OM:'I ION AUG SU T Mr. Elfend said a cement truck, if they were doing a single family house in that area would probably use those roads anyway. He said the contractors on the site have instructions to use that temporary access road which is provided and clearly keeps all the traffic off that intersection, hopefully. Joel Fick, stated he had a couple of quick cro isions of the1Developmntvein that the City is bound or not bound on troy Sion, which is a proviso of the Agreement, the same holds true on this p the best Development Agreement for the Presley Company and for thehtthrobablyt have this as an attachmentlve waslthatbheltho ghtJitdwould be very difficult to commentary he could q~ willndefinesprettp clearlyfthatctherinteat istforesmalltvehicleslthat areg doing repairs or maintenance on the site, such as painting. individual contractors, things Like that; he thought it was quite clear that was really the intention. The intent of what they were trying to do was preserve the safety of traffic on the road. Mrttenfancalllfrom Commissioner2iMcBurneyeoraeveneatltimesvBobcSimpson ord g° who had said there were really some large vehicles up Councilman Fred Hunter, there, and was that the way it should be, and they automatically either note y Presley or they have them call Presley directly, so he thought it had worked pretty well to date. Cossioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the ~~rcvallof revised plansltoladd eight residential petitioner's request for apPreviously-approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. units and four lots to the p 12700 and Site Plaa (Revision No. 1) to establish a 66.9 acre, 10- o , 232-unit residential air-space coadominiumo~imately 66..91acresagenerally irregularly-shaped site consisting of app located northeasterly of the intersection of Canyon Rim Road and erran hlands at Avenue and further described as Development Area 12 of The Hig Anaheim Hills Specific Previously certified bytthe1City Councilmon Juael23, Impact Report 270. 273 • P 1987, for the Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan• TentatgvetTractsNo~. as the required environmental documentation for Vesting 12700 (Revision Ho. 1) and Site Plan (Revision No. 1). CommiNsCoAnRRIEDothatuthefAnahexm City PlanningdCommissionldoesnherebyufind that MOTIO and improvement, is the proposed subdivision, together with its design ursuant to Government Code consistent with the City of Anaheim GenervOVelTent tive Map of Tract No. 12700 Section 56473.5; and does, therefore, aPP (Revision 1) for a 66.9 acre, 10-lot, 232-unit residential air-space condominium subdivision subject to the following conditions, including modifications and additions: (See attached conditions pages 1 through 13) 08/15/88 ~: =N-i'CES A_~IA_~EIh, CITY PL1~~.i7ING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-23 Mr. Elfend said a cement truck, if they were doing a single family house in that area would probably use those roads anyway. He said the contractors on the site have instructions to use that temporary access road which is provided and clearly keeps all the traffic off that intersection, hopefully. Joel Fick, stated he had a couple of quick comments, one is in the same vein that the City is bound or not bound oa the provisions of the Development Agreement, the same holds true on this provision, which is a proviso of the Development Agreement for the Presley Company and for the others that have this as an attachment on their exhibit. Ae said he thought probably the best commentary he could give was that he thought it would be very difficult to define the specific type of truck or user, but the minT:tes of this meeting x311 define pretty clearly that the intent is for small vehicles that are doing repairs or maintenance oa the site, such as painting, individual contractors, things like that; he thought it was quite clear that was really the intention. The intent of what they ware trying to do was preserve the safety of traffic on the road. Mr. Elfend said, in instances where there has been large vehicles, he had gotten a call from Commissioner McBurney or even at times Bob Simpson or Councilman Fred Hunter, who had said there were really some large vehicles up there, and was that the xay it should be, and they automatically either notify Presley or they have them call Presley directly, so he thought it had worked pretty well to date. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Meese and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the petitioner's request for approval of revised plans to add eight residential units and four lots to the previously-approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 12700 and Site Plan (Revision No. 1) to establish a 66.9 acre, 10-lot, 232-unit residential air-space condominium (SP87-1) subdivision on an irregularly-shaped site consisting of approzimately 66.9 acres generally located northeasterly of the intersection of Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue and further described as Development Area 12 of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan had does hereby determine that Environmental Impact Report No. 273, previously certified by the City Council on Juae 23, 1987, for the Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plaa, is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12700 (Revision No. 1) and Site Plan (Revision No. 1). Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 12700 (Revision 1) for a 66.9 acre, 10-lot, 232-unit residential air-space condominium subdivision subject to the following conditions, including modifications and additions: (See attached conditions pages 1 through 13) 08/15/88 _ AMY ~.3 ~J1~ ~lX -. ~,~ ~.. ~ t i ~^I 1 ~ xn ~~.t Staff Report to the Planning Commission August 15, 1986 Item No. 4 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY D1:•PARTMENTS ACTING AS A_N TNTFRDEPARTMENTAL CO~A(ITTrE AND ARE RECOMMENDED FOR A)~OPTION BY THE PLJ~NNING COMMISSION IN THE EVENT THAT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACTCT NO. 12700 (REVISION N0. 1) AHD SIT$ PLAN (REVISION N0. 1) ARE APPROVEL`. (NOTE: rnxnTTTnNC AnnPTFO IN CONJUNC?ION WITH SP87 1 (SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS ORDINANCE NO 4861) ARE FOLLOWED BY THE CONDITION NUMBER SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCE] . 1. That prior to the submittal of the final tract map, the property owner/doveloper shall mako provisions for design foatures that conserve water such as controlled irrigation systems which employ drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, end automatic systems that minimize runoff and evaporation, and use of mulch on top of soil to improve eater holding capacity of public landscaped areas; end, use of zeriscape and drought-tolerant species for landscaping. Plana indicating ouch conservation measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Vtilitiee Department. (/14) 2. hat in conju ction rith a mittal of t e first fine tract or pa cal map within the boundari of SP87-1, th property er/develop r shall subm't ~~Q/ plans d lineatinq ro ray access the Highly a from Tire tatioa No. via Serrano venues and, re Station 10 via a mporary eme ency vehicu ar access ro thiough Syc ore Canyon formerly Wal ace Ranch). Such plans shall be t the satisfac ion of the~C ty.Fire.Chie and the.Ci Engineer. (A70) '.5' ~; ,• 7?;~ `- .4 }A4 . *1 ~~`~ •,a .~; z.: ! ,.5,`~ Y ~° Page 1 ~ -.l.{.L.f~J t ~ ' 1. ~• ~ V i.d r+- ~~ .~ ,` i ~ i ~ r= '-` • - .~.~ y.Y -ice ~t~' 3. That in conjunction with the submittal of the first final tract or parcel map within the bouadariea of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide the City with proof of an easement across Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) for a temporary emergency vehicular access road; said temporary access road shall be constructed to provide emergency vehicular access to the Highlands development from Fire Station /l0 prior to the placement of eay combustible materials on eay parcel in the Highlands project. Said temporary emergency vehicular access road shall be demolished and removed upon the construction and opening to tra~fic of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection through Sycamore Canyon (formerly F7allace Ranch) and the Oak Hills Ranch. Prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide a performance bond, letter of credit,•or cash in a form sad amount approved by the City to secure the above obligatioaa. (~f95) 4. Prior to the approval of the first final tract map ar parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, a study shell be concluded by as independent third party acceptable to the City and the property owner/developer defining the most appropriate financial meehaniam(a) (e.q., assessment districtta)) to assure the project generates revenues (easeasmeat revenues) to meet the assigned costs of City services (operetioas end maintenance) oa a year by year basis. Final decision for establishing such financial mechanism(s) will be that of the City Council. Such mechaaiam(a) shall be formed to generate assessment revenues sufficient to recover any variances between revenues to the City generated by project development sad assigned City costs to service the project. The City shall have the right to monitor said revenues and costs. Anauel assessment reveauea shall not ezceed an amount aecasaary to offset the yearly difference between coats associated with said project and the revenues generated therefrom together with the Highland's estimated proportionate share of additional off-site revenues generated by the project (e.q. regional ahoppiaq center revonuea to City); and, whoa the assessment revenues reach equilibrium with allocated coats and recovery of any prior unfunded coats for two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The costa for avid studies associated with determining the moat appropriate financial mechaaism(a) shall be borne by the owner/developer by means o! reimbursement to the City prior to said first final tract or parcel map approval. (I11)' i 5. That bonding for construction of the required water system improvements shall be furnished is conjunction with the `final map. (1211 j ) y~,.. '~~4 ~ #` a )',~ 1! ~i - . 'cif ~\ ~ J. .. t' ~.~ / S\ 1AA '~ r;^ _ ` .h • ;S d = i' y ~ . '., 1 :- [ Page. 2 ~. 1 x `rt ~ ~ y ~ f <. ~ yT 'Ei ' d r ` rat , 4?.it, :~ -. " f C ~• 1 " . , '~ ~. 6. Thet the rater supply ayatem ahall.be funded sad constructed in accordance rith the Water Utility's Rates, Rules sad Regulations as provided below: (a) The developer shall iaatall the aecoadary system improvements. (b) Funds for construction of the pump stations sad reaervoira shall be advanced by the developer through the payment of special facilities fees as provided for in Rule 15-H. (c) Primary mains shall be installed by the City with funds provided by the Developer in the form of primary acreage fees as provided for in . Rule 15-A. (d) The necessary•fiaaacial arrangements for construction of the special facilities and required primary main fees shall be made prior to the final tract mep approval. (N22) 7 That pri r to approv 1 of the fi at final tr ct or parcel map within the bo ndaries of P87-1, the roperty ore r/~eveloper shall enter 'nto as ~~ ag emoat with he City of aheim Libr ry Depertme t to provid the Highlands pro rtionate ah re of costs for provisi a of a libr ry facility to be located oa t Bauer Ran. (East Hill ). Written proof of ae d egreemeat hall be furni ed to the aaainq Dep tment and ject to a royal by th Library Direct r sad City ttoraey'a 0 ice. (N26 B. Tha prior to a royal of t e first fin tract or reel map wi hie the boundaria of SP87-1, the propert owner/deve per shall ter into as \ agreement ith the Cit of Anaheim Police Depa tment to pr vide its V proportion a share of oats to the City for pr vision of a off-site v antellite p ice facili to nerve a easterly ortioa of t e City. Wrs tea roof of sai agreement all be fur shed to the Planning as Police D partmeats a d shall'be object to a novel by th Police De rtment and 'ty At orney's Otf ce. (N27) 9. That prior to final tract map approval, plena ahnll be submitted to the Police and Fire Departments for review sad approval for defensible apace concepts and safety feaSurea (i.e. acceaa, visibility, aurveillaace, etc.). (N28) 30. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide documentation, .in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition of easemeata for any public facility (including but not limited to rater, electrical, aewars, drainage) that will be necessary to cross the Oak Hills Ranch, Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch), or adjacent properties to the north of the Highlands in order to nerve the needs of the Highlands, as required by tho City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager. Land or eaaemente shall be acquired and dedicated .to the City at the sole ezpense of the property ornar/developer.: (N30);c~~.:::~~" -~ . ~'~ ~,t eCsFr ~, ~ ^~ " .... .. i Page 3 i•; :. ,. ~` _ :_ r ~ .~ _,: .,'.. ' ~: r~~ 11. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim the Highlands' proportionate share of the cost for providing public facilities and utilities (including afire station sad storm drain facilities) which facilities and utilities ere located is the Bauer Reach (East Hills) but will also serve the Highlands. Said funds shall be used to reimburse Raufmaa and Hroad (the developer of the Hauer Raa.~h) far the Highlands proportionate share of said facilities sad utilities. Said A:asta shall be determined by reimbursement agreements administered by the i:ity. (R31) 12. That riot to ap oval o! th first fins tract or p cal map wit in the boundaries f SP87-1, a property caner/devel er shall a er into an \ agreement v th the City of Anaheim aiatenaace apartment t provide it ~-p, roportionat share of t e costs to he City for rovisioa o as ofi-sit V" a rest mainte once facili y to serve he easterly portion of a city as de ermined by he Directo of Mainteaa ce. writte proof of a id agreemen sh 1 be fuzai ed to the aaniag Depa tment and t e Maintenaa a Department and hall be s 'act to app oval by the aiateneace apartment a d City Atto ey's Offic (Y32) 13. That prior to approval of the final map, n financial mechanism, acceptable to and approved by the City, for meinteaaace of private streets shall be established at the ezpense of the owner/developer. (135) 14. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer systems within the tract parcel or boundaries, for review and approval by the City Engineer. The sever system for the project shall be funded, constructed and maintained is accordance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. (137) 15. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map for Develogmeat Arena 11 sad 12, the owner/developer shall provide the City with evidence of compliance with the Orange County Sanitation District Master Plaa sad that all requirements of the Orange County Sanitation District, including sane:atioa (if deemed necessary by the Orange County Sanitation District), have been complied with. (/38) 16. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the location, phasing, bonding and details of the sewer facilities shall be determined by street configurations, lot layouts, gravity floe and a subsequent sever study to be performed Dy the property owner/developer and submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Acceptability of the proposed connection to the City's ezistinq sewer system at Caayoa Rim Rosd shall be determined by the City Engineer. (A39) 17. That, prior to the epprovnl of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer shall provide as irrevocable offer to dedicate 5 acres of parkland at a site location acceptable to the City and its local park site criteria, adjacent to the elementary school site, in the vicinity of Serrnao Aveaus end. Caayoa Rim Road. The dedication offer ahall,alao provide thaf'the park site be graded flat (5~ slope or leas). (142) _ ~ r 'r~ Page 4 • , ~~ ' '• ;+. _ ~•~- - ~,_ 18. That the Four Corners Trail shall be maintained by n spacial maiatenaace district or other financial mechaaiam acceptable to sad approved by the City, and established at the ezpease of the owner/developer, nrio•: to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. (p47) 19. Prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, that reasonable laadacnpinq, including irrigation facilities, shall be designed, financed and installed by the developer in the uncemeated portions of the perkwaya along nay arterial highway. Tha responsibility for maintenance of said landaceping shell be fiaaaced through a special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall be established at the ezpease of the. owner/developer. (I.ra0) 20. That prior to the first final tract or parcel map approval within the boundaries of SP87-1, the petitioner ahnll make proviaioa, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for laadseeping and maiatenaace of the elopes rithin and/or created by the development of thin property and for the maiatenaace of Deer Canyon. (N51) 21. That if landscape maiateaance is to be fiaaaced through a Homeowner's Associntioa, which association has been found to be acceptable to the City of Anaheim, the over of subject property shall ezecute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to (1) maintain the lnndsceped portion of parkways of nay arterial street parkways adjacent to Associntioa maintained elopes sad/or common ereaa, sad all median islaada installed in conjunction with said subdivision ezcept those located within arterial streets; (2) indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless fez damages resulting therefrom; end (3) maintain liability insurance for said parkways and median islands naming the City as an additional insured. The form of acid covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and shall be recorded concurrently with the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. The developer oL each tract or parcel shell improve cad maintain the hereinabove described parkways and median islands, including providing the above specified insurance, until each time ea the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore na hereinabove provided. The developer shall post a bond is as amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance of the developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to cad approved by the City Attoraey'a Office prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the bouadariea of SPt/7-1. (/52) 22. That the developer shall advance prior to final tract map approval a non-refundable fee for lots ea determined by the Public Utilities Department. The developer shell also provide and coaatruct all necessary trench, backfill, conduit sad manholes, vaults, haadholea sad bozea per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulntiona. (/55) 23. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer ahnll provide grading, newer, water, storm drain and street • improvement plans for;,reviaw sad approval-by the Pub lic Utilities Department ao that Utilities' facilities plans are designed and coordinated with site development. (/58) ~ ;, J ' ~~ - ~. ~ ,~, t,,.. 2. F - : i- x ~~~t~ ~ t• . c• { m.. ~ Page 5 .` . ;~ b ,~ t 1 ~ r • _ . • .. ... - ~ t ~ - _-_-_ _____._.~_.__._ 4 F' • ~~ ~ 24. That prior to approval of the first final parcel or tract map within the boundaries of SP87-1, a feasibility study of the developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted to address the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium sad environmental concerns within the drainage basin. In eddition, the study shall address the maiateaaace coats associated xith the facilities. Said study shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of construction sad final design, including erosion control meeaurea in the upper reach o! the ayatem, shall be is conformance with the findings of said study. Said study shall be approved by the City Engineer sad reviewed by the Director of Perks, Recreation and Community Services, California Department of P'iah and Game end the County Environmental Management l~geacy. (161) 25. That prior to the approval of the final tract map, bonding for the Master Plan Facilities and in-tract improvements shall be provided. (166) 26. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, a special maiateaaace district or other funding mecheaism acceptable to sad approved by the, City shell be established at the ezpense of the owner/developer for the meiatenance of all open or natural channel storm drain facilities both on- sad off-site necessitated by the Highlands development. (169) 27. That prior to epproval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shell submit n final grading plan prepared by a civil engineer based on recommendations of a aoila engineer sad ea eagiaeerinq geologist subsequent to completion of detailed soils sad geologic investigations for each subdivision map area. Site-specific geotechaical atudiea shall provide specific feasible recommendations for mitigation of leadslides, slope stabilization, liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate draiaa nad subdraiaa in the area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and shall be subject to a grading permit. (/8p) 28. That prior to tho epproval o! the first final tract or parcel map xithin the boundaries of SP87-1, the oxaer/developer of the Highlands shall prepare a comprehensive biological restoration and enhancement plea. as described is EIR Ho. 273 nad nhoxn oa E:habit 29 of the Specific Plaa, the plan proposes a program of planting, salvage, drainage enhancement and habitat restoration to achieve stabilization of the Deer Canyon Araiaage, enhance woodland habitat and compensate for tree losses. Thin program nad related details shall be finalised during the subsequent permit procesaea with the Department of Fish and Game prior to the approval of the final roadway design plan, nad shall also be subject to reviex by the City Engineer and the County of Orange and reviex and epproval by the Director of Parka, Recreation and Community Services. (188) 29. That the developer shall widen Imperial Highway by one additional northbound lane from Santa Ane Canyon Road to Route 91 prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 401st residential unit within the boundaries of SP87-1. Said obligation shall De secured by_a performance bond, letter of credit, or other form.of.aecurity in an 'amount and form approved by the City L ~'' ~ . -~ ~ . -. f ;~ ~ s .~; ~~ - Page 6 ~; s `., ~~•. r- ~ prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. To the s~tent the developer/owner may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for establishment of reimbursement agreements or heaefit districts. Costs associated with the establishment of nay such districts shall be at the ezpense of the owner/developer. (p90) 30. The following conditi~~an apply to the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Roau~ connection between Canyon Rim Roed sad the Bauer Ranch. (a) The owner/developer of the Highlands Project shall post security in as amount sad form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map oa the Highlands Project to quarentee construction of Serrano Avenue from its eziating terminus at Caayoa Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highleads Project as xall as for one-half of the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Reach) prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project, or when grading commences on the Oak Hills Ranch, xhichever comes first. The owner/developer of the Oak Hills Ranch shall post similar security in as amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map oa the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue within their property as well as for one-half of the construction of the Serrano Aveaue!Weir Caayoa Road connection within Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) within the acme time frame as set forth above. (b) Ia the event the Oak Hills Ranch fails to post security as set forth is (a) above, the owner/developer of the Highleads Project may post security in as amount sad form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or percal map on the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue from its eziating terminus at Caayoa Rim Rond to the easterly bouadar~p of the Highlands Project as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue rithin the Oak Hills Ranch prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project or when grading commences on Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace keach}, xhichever comes first, provided that the owner/developer of Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Reach) posts similar security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map oa the Highlands Project to quarentee the coaatructioa of Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road within their property as well es for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within the Onk Hills Ranch within the same time lrame as eat forth above. (c) In the event that neither the owner/developer of the Oak Hills Rnaeh nor the oxner/developer of Sycamore Caayoa (formerly Wallace Ranch) poets the security as provided in (a) and (b) above, the property owner/developer of the Highlands Project shall, prior to approval of the first final tract map or parcel map oa the Highlands Project, post n security in en amount and form approved by the City to guarantee the coaatructioa of Serrano Avenue from the eziating terminus at Canyon Rim Roed to the easterly boundary of the Highland project sad that prior to iaauanco of the building permit for `{• .. ^i't page 7 ~. the 401st residential unit, the developer shall provide as off-site access road to Santa Ana Canyon Road via the proposed route to the north, or through Sycamore Caayoa (formerly Wallace Ranch) (vin Weir Canyon Road) or by the widoaiag of Fairmont Boulevard (from Caayoa Rim Road to Santa Ana Canyon Road) at its ultimate circulation designation. To the extent pezmittod by law, the City Council shall establish reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to the Highlands Project and either the Oak Hills Ranch or Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Reach) for the coat o! conetructioa within the third ranch na provided in (a) and (b) above. Coate aasocieted with tho establishment of nay such districts shall be at the ezpenae of the Highlands Project owner/developer. (/91) \ That pri to the app val of the irat final act map wit is the `'`0`2'- b ndaries of 87-1, the p party owner developer a 11 agree to construct ~~~ bus bays as des d necessary y the Oranq County Tren it District (OCTD) sad the ity Traffic agineer at cost to th City. Writ ea proof of said agree ant shall be furnished to the Plaania Department. (/96) 32. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall submit a phasing plea for both traffic aignalization sad roadway conetructioa in the Highlands to the City Traffic Engineer for hie review sad epprovnl. (A97) 33. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall coordinate the construction schedule, alignment nad developer responsibilities for nay roafl construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate property orraer. (p98) 34. That prior to epprovnl of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of 87-1, the property owner/developer shall, in cooperation with the City of Anaheim nad Orange County Transit District, prepare a coordinated study to ezemine methods of implementing a Traaaportatioa Systems Management program with specific guidelines indicating atzategiea to reduce the amount of trips and increase the amount of non-vehicular transportation. Strategies may include, transit service, park and ride turnouts, carpool and vaapool facilities), bikeways, nad other trnaaportatioa demand management strategies applicable to the development site. (A99) 35. That prior to final tract map approval, street names ahnll be approved by the City Planning Department. (/103) 36. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, tho general elignmoat of the Highlands road system shall be submitted for review nad approval by the City, and prior to approval of each final tract or parcel map within.the boundaries of SP87-1, the engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City_Engineer.. (f109)' Page 8 •~.T ' i~i~n .. . ~~ 37. That for on-site roadways and traffic signals, bonding shall be furnished as part of in-tract improvements prior. to the approval of the final tract map. Bonding for any off-site road eztenaioa, shall be furnished prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP67-1. (N110) 38. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer shall submit a viable action plan subject to review sad approval by the Planning Commission assuring the timely construction of improvements identified as follows: (a) Eztens:oa of Serrano avenue into the City of Orange to provide regional access through the City of Orange into Anaheim. (b) Eztension of Imperial Righway to Loma to join ezistiaq Loma Stroet is the City of Orange. (N112) \ 3 That pri r to the ap royal of th first fin tract or arcel map 'thin \~Cf'a th boundaries of SP87-1, he develops shall pay for sad the City shall e M res oasible fo conducting study to termine a inaaciel pl n for ~JC~1 cir lntioa imp vements li ted below. Said study hall deter ne the cos of the provementa end assign hose coats among the Hi hlnnds, Oa Hills and Sycam re Canyon ( ormerly Wal ece Ranch)i any uadeve ped parcel of lead locate within the study arse rom Imperi Highway t Weir Caayo Road and from t southerly ity limits o Orangeth rpe Avenue, sad iaclud g all of Sycamor Canyon (fo erly Walla Ranch) as Oak Hills ancheaJ as the City. T e findiagn f the study shoving pr portionete hara of co t distribut oa, shall b come bindin upon the velopmeats and shall b paid for at the ti of issues o! buildin permits. roportiona a share wil be determined based on i ct on Sant Ana Canyon Road: (a 3iiden Snn a Ana Caayo Roed to it ultimate iz-lane afiquratio betweea`Imp rial Highwa :and the B er Ranch ( sat Hills) i provementa. (b) estripe the seetbound o f-rr~np from the 91 Fre ay at Weir Caa on Road to ovide one r ght-turn le a and one o tional le! -turn end righ -turn lane. (N113) 40. at prior to approval of the first f al tract o parcel ma within the `~ bounds iea of SP87- the oblig tiona of th developer s set fort in ',~?~J\ Coaditi a Nos. 7, 8, 12, and 31 hell be sec red by a pe formance b nd, lotter V of credi or other orm of secur ty is an em uat and fo epproved y the City. Sa d security hall be pro ded and app oval there by the Ci y required atemporaaeo s with the proval of a y agreemen creating s ch obligation or at the ti a ouch obli etion other iae is eat lfahed. ( 20) 41. That the owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for implementation of the xater system to the City in conjunction with streets, and through eeaements at the time of final tract map recordation. The reservoir sites ahall.be dedicated with.the.fiaal map, or rhea required by the City. U 20) - - .• Page 9 ,'.; • ~ -. (~ 42. That prior to recordation of the tract map, the orner/developer shall record a covenant requiring the seller to provide the purchaser of each residential dwelling with rritten information concerning Anaheim Municipal Code tiection 14.32.500 pertaining to "Perking restricted to facilitate street sweeping." Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. (/34) 43. That all facilities ahnll be located within public rights-of-way and eaaemeata dedicated with the recordation o! the final map. The conduit system with associated concrete manholes and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or capacitors shall be is metal cabinets mounted above ground on concrete pads. (M57) , 44. That prior to the recordation of the first liaal tract or parcel map within the boundaries. of SP67-l, the property oxaer/developer shall fee-dedicate 129 acres rithia Arena II and YII (Weir Canyon viewshed) to the County of Orange for permanent open apace. (-87) 45. That the orner/developer shell dedicate the lend for the public street system for public use with the recordation of the final tract map. (p108) 46. That prior to the eppcoval of the final map, vehicular access rights to ell arterial highways within or adjacent to subject tract, ezcept at street openiaga, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 47. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each aubdivisioa thereof shall be submitted is tentative form for approval. 48. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be installed if permanent street name aigas have not been installed. 49. That grading, excavation, end all other construction activities shall be conducted in ouch a manner ao as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm rater originating from or flowing through this project. 50. That all private streets shall be developed is accordance with the Highlands Specific Plan, including installation of street name signs. 51. That all lots rithia subject tract shall be nerved by underground utilities. 52. That prior to final tract map approval, transmission sad terminal storage fees shall be paid to the Water Utility Division by the orter/developer in accordance with Rule 15C of the Wntez Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 53. That prior to final tract ~~ap approval, special facilities fees shall be paid to the Water Utility Diviaioa by the orner/developer in accordance with Rule iSB of the Water::Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. _ . ai ... '.~/. ti /~ 54. That prior to final building end zoning inspections, "No parking for street sweeping" signs shall be installed ns required by the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division and in accordance with specifications on file with said division. 5~. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, end a letter addressed to the - developer'a title company authorizing recordetioa thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shell then be filed. and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 56. That all public streets adjacent to the blue border o! the tract shall be fully included within the L•ract. 57. That all sanitary aewarn located within a private street ayntem shall be maintained by the property owners is accordance with the requirements of Condition No. 13 58. That street lighting facilities along Serrano Avenue shall be installed as required by the Util.''_iea General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, nad that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or each, is as amount and form aatiafactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the aatintactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. This is in the event that Serrano Avenue in included within the blue border of the tract. 59. That prior to recordetioa of the first final tract or parcel map gaining access from Caayoa Rim Road, the owner/developer shall post security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, is nn amount nad form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee reconstruction of the median inland on Canyon Rim Rond to the aatisfnction of the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 60. That prior to approval of the final tract map, that an adequate cul-de-anc or hammer head ba shown on the tract for "V-V" Street to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. (and 0-0 Street) 61. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of the Highlands project that the owner/developer shall irrevocably offer. to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, the 78-foot wide right-of-xay required for the construction of Serrano Avenue from its existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highlands project. ' ~ ~; ,' ' Y; ,; ' .•k j ~~Page 11 ~'> ~r 4 ~ .,~ +. ti ` ~;r;- . r} r 62. That prior to issuance of a buildiaq permit, the appropriate major thorougY~fare and bridge fee ahnll be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as specified is the Major Thoroughfare and Hridqe Fee Program for the Foothill/Eaatera Transportation Corridor, es approved by City Council Resolution No. 85R-423. 63. That prior to issuance of a buildiaq permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shell be paid to the City of Anaheim is compliance with Condition No. 89 of Ordinance No. 4861. 64. That prior to iaauence of a buildiaq permit, the appropriate fees due for primary, secondary and fire protection shall be paid to the Water Utility Dfviaioa by the owner/developer is accordance with Rules 15A sad 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 65. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required end determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 66, Prior to the approval of any final tract map, parcel map or improvement plea for any development within the area of the 408 waits, a bond shall be posted with the City of Anaheim quarantesiaq the construction of the permanent newer connectioaa. This bond shall remain is effect until the completion sad acceptance of said newer. Further that the permanent connection to the City's newer ayatem shall be for a mazimum of 73 unite sad the temporary connection ahnll be for a mnzimum of nn additional 408 unite. 2~ 67. That subject propbrty shall be developed substantially is accordance with plans nad specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Ezhibit Nos. -3+1--}~-. and Revision No. 1 to Exh i 1, i t Nos . 1 and 7: y 5-i9 68. Prior t or in coajuactio with recordati of the fin tract map, the weer/develops of subject props ty shall ezecu and record covenant is a \u~ f m approved by he City Attorne egainat the a tiro propert acknowledging the those coaditi s of approval a forth is Ord ante No. 48 which P\ ~~r requi completion o certain tneka o er than those a wired h J~a~\ 4 pri to either U1/'A'7" eubmiea a or approval f the first ten live or fiaa arcel or tr ct map are tied to s d map far purp ea of carrying ut completio of tho purp es of 1, \f1 the Specifi Plan. Aa}• con lion referenci the first entative/fin 1) ~ ~C ~\ tract or part map shall for a purposes o this covenaa mean the fi st (tentative/fiaa } tract or parts within the bduadaries of 5 67-1. 69. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted is conjunction with SP87-1 (Specific Plaa for the Highlenda at Anaheim Hills-Ordinance No. 4861). 70. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the eateat that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal 2oaiag Code sad nay other applicable City regulations. Approval does not include nay action or fiadiaga as ,to compliance or approval of the regueat regarding any other.applicaDle ordinance,:regulation or__requirameat. > .', t ~. ; .3 t ~. ~, ..... ~ .. ~ _ ~ b _ .~ ;, Page 12 r .. 71. Prior to or in conjunction with recordation of the final tract map, the owner/developer of subject proprty shall ezecute end record a covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney, egaiaet the entire property, acknowledging that Condition Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 57, 63, 64, and 65, above-mentioned are tied to said map for purpoaea of carrying out completion of the purposes of the Specific Plan. 72. No final map shall be recorded until those portions of the area proposed for development by the tentative erect map and encumbered with open space easements to the Couty of Orange have been ezchanged with the County for other open space areas so as to release .:he parcels for development. 'J 73. That prior to final tract map e~pprovel, privato street entryway "A-A" '~lv ~it'(1!' 6i-tfyw~i~ "O-0•" .--.rr..~. . ' 5h411 be des~9r+ed nccar-d~^~ •tb EX hi b i d N O S• 18 ~+'+d t 9 74. That Serrano Avenue shell be improved with a sidewalk eztendinq from the curb and gutter to the right-of-way line. 75. That any waiver from the City of Anaheim's Hillside Grading Ordinance shall bo processed in acccordence with Section 17.06.290 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 76. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation of street name signs. Plana for the private street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall ba submitted to the eui,ldinq Division for approval and included with the building plane prior to the issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which provide primary access and/or circulation within the project.) (8100) 77. That roll-up garege doors shall be installed and maintained for all buildings with less than a 25-foot garage setback. 78. That gates aha12 not be installed acroae any driveway or private street in a meaner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Snstallation of any gates ahsll conform to Engineering Standard Plnn No. 402-and their location shall be subject to the review and approval of the City. Traffic Engineer. ea,r'-}4. rnovin9 or heavy h2aVy ~e~5__1 79. That/construction traffic or quipment access shall be provided from X ~~((WWOO another sourco than the a:istinq Serrano Avenue or Canyon Rim Road. 0~ 80. That the legal property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an agreement in a form to. be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete the public improvements ,required as conditions of this map at the owner's expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map..and is not to bessubordiaate to any recorded encumbrance egaiaet the ~'. property. .... . ~~aa ~ a~ ~-n,~i- Pr10r;'~ o~~`in c6~nune'h~ wi-i~• recar'd or the siincl • ~'YAC+ m ~ . ~ M1p~}, a c o.re n a~-1-.=:,i r- 'a ~io r nn ;°-P'PfoYe~~,~~~"~'~~ C'~;h~,.'A'tt'Orn- • ,s~1 be recdreled designo-l-in~C ., . Oppen S~ce,` Lo Nos . '7~ 8,, 9 cF t/~s~in Ten+a'tive "Troe~ au. t2'lOo . ~ ~ Lt2evision `No y7. ns perQe-li~l~~,oPer space lat3t , Page 13 ~~ ~I Mii~~iE° ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 ,1988 88-24 ITEM N0. 5. - ENVI$ONMENTAL I*~aCT REPORT NO 293b~• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO• 3053 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: BHZRHU PATEL AND PUSHPA PATEL, 650 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; AGENT: FARANO AND RIEVIET, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805; LOCATION: 201 West Ratella Avenue Request: To construct a 12-story, 148-foot high, 384-room hotel. There were no persons 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. PRESENTATION• Tom Rieviet, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, said they represented Mr. and Mrs. Patel, the owners of the above-referenced project. He said the proposed project was an all suites hotel containing 384 rooms, with 218,540 square feet. Be said there would be ao retail uses, ao eating facilities, it is located in the CR 2one, and it was approximately 1.5 acres of land on the northwest corner of Ratella and zeyn. Mr. Rieviet said the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.48.050.070 provides for building of structures in the CR 2one ezceediaq TS feet in height by Conditional Use Permit, and that is why they were before the Commission this date. He said the height of this hotel would be 148.3 feet above grade and is well within the Anaheim height standard guideline map for this area. He noted there will be a 5-level parking structure which would provide 326 parking spaces and code only requires 317. He said accompanying the Conditional Use Permit was an Environmental Impact Report 293, which fully addressed all environmental concerns and mitigation measures. He said it was his clients intention to build a first class hotel, which would add to the aesthetics of the CR area and would blend well with other CR uses presently ezistinq and planned for the future, in that area. Mr. Rieviet stated that Condition No. 13 had been discussed with the Electrical Department, who had a subsequent discussion with Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, and they indicated that this condition could be deleted because they are already required, in Condition No. 10, to install street lights along those two streets. He requested that Condition No. 13 be deleted. Mr. Rieviet said that Condition No. 11, which required that property be served by underground utilities which they were willing to have imposed; however, the remainder of the condition dealt with providing that the poxer poles that currently ezist on the property also be placed underground. He said that, upon, subsequent consultation with the Electrical Department and confirmed through Greg Hastings, this portion of Condition No. 11 could also be deleted. Mr. Rieviet said a primary concern of the canditioas that had been imposed was Condition No. 20 regarding the installation of a right turn only lane on south bound Halter Street at the intersection of Halter and Ratella. He said they 08/15/88 ?' b. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 15. 1988. 88-25 had discussions with the Traffic Engineer and had presented an alternative, or modified condition. He stated Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, had consultations with the City Engineer and could probably address this in more detail. He said it was basically their position that while they agreed they had some impact in this area, their concern was the extent of off-site street improvements they had to install for intersections that they are not even immediately adjacent to. He said they would only generate approximately 16~ of the total right hand turn lane traffic during peak hours. He said they were proposing, and Paul Singer had agreed, that they would only be responsible for a 300 foot long right hand turn lane, whereas the critical intersection plan for this area envisions a 600 foot long lane; nonetheless, they were concerned about only paying their fair sharp of this particular improvement. He said they did meet prior to this meeting and proposed an alternative that would basically read as follows: That as required by the City Traffic Engineer, a right turn only lane not to exceed 300 feet for south bound traffic shall be constructed at the intersection of Ratella Avenue and Haster Street, or security in the form of a certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash in as amount and form satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be postEd with the City to cover the cost of the street improvement. He said this was basically what Mr. Singer had indicated the City Engineer's Office would be willing to accept; however, they were still concerned is regard to whether or not the critical intersection plan for this particular intersection, as well as others, had not been formally adopted; so they had some concern as to how the funding for all this additional critical intersection work would in fact be accomplished. He noted that while they would like to have this project proceed, with a condition that was acceptable, they did want to express their concern to make sure that they only need to pay their proportionate share for that right turn lane. He said, with that is mind, they would propose that they still have something installed in this condition that would make it so they would only have to pay a proportionate share, as determined by some type of benefit cost allocation study that might be done for this right turn only lane to determine who is really benefiting and who is not. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, said he would like Commission to understand, number one, that this had nothing to do with critical intersection, it was merely a mitigation for traffic to this particular development. He noted that at the present time the intersection of Ratella and Haster was in excess of capacity and in order to be able to build this hotel at the location indicated, the intersection of Haster and Ratella had to be brought down to Level D in order to be in compliance with CEQA. He said to accomplish this, instead of doing several improvements to this intersection, they had discussed making one simple improvement which was 1/2 of a right turn lane. He said it was not just the traffic then that was going to this particular project on this right turn lane, but all of the traffic that is impacting Haster and Ratella would have that added capacity to make various other turns because the time that is saved for right turns can also be assigned to the other 08/15/88 z~ ., p. MINUTES, ANI~RF.TI.f rrTV pLjLNNrur COMMIccTnx aTTrTiCT 15 1988 88-26 approaches as demanded by this project. He said there were numerous other movements that were generated by this particular project at that particular intersection, but they were asking only for 1/2 of the right turn pocket that would be impacting that intersection, in order to increase capacity. Mr. Singer said, in order to accomplish this, they had come up with a compromise with the condition that was suggested by Mr. Rieviet and he said staff's revised condition reads as follows: That as required by the City Traffic Engineer a right turn only lane, not to exceed 300 feet, for south bound traffic shall be constructed at the intersection of Ratella and Haster Street, or security in the form of a certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be posted with the City, to cover the project's cost. He said since this requires acquisition of right-of-way, rather than tho developer having to be responsible for acquisition of that right-of-way, the City will do so then the developer will pay for that acquisition. He said they had to understand that those are all the trips that are assigned to Haster and Ratella, or all of the trips to this particular development that are generated by the development and attributable to the east of the project and eventually winding up at Haster and Ratella. Commissioner Messe asked what the northern most property line was that would take them to the right turn lane. Mr. Singer said that it was to the commercial laundry. He said he believed they had already dedicated 12 feet toward the critical intersection standard. Mr. Messe noted that during this morning's meeting he had said, how could they qo oa approving projects when they had no critical intersection plan in place as yet, xhen they have no redevelopment plea for Ratella in place, and they go on approving items. He said he felt this was a very good development, one certainly the City would need with the expansion of the convention center, etc., but they are impacting traffic, no doubt about it, and without mitigation of that traffic he said he could not vote for this Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Herbst said he believed the Council's hearing was tomorrow, oa the critical intersection, and Mr. Siaqer said it was. Mr. Singer said that in a way that did have something to do with this, but if the critical intersection program was or vas not adopted, it would not mske any difference to this particular development. Commissioner Carusillo said they had heard from Debbie Fank, a month or two ago, that that particular intersection was pretty stacked up now, and with the addition of this building it would have a further negative impact. He asked what the projected ground breaking time was on the project. Tim Levin, with the architectural firm, said they envisioned that ground breaking would occur early in the new year, at the latest by the end of January. He said they would then be looking at approzimately 11 months construction period - December 1989 for construction completion. 08/15/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 27 Mr. Carusillo asked about the condition for the right turn, when that xould need to be satisfied. Mr. Singer said the intent was to have the right turn in place prior to occupancy. Mr. Carusillo said he agreed with Mr. Masse, he xas kind of up in the air on this, the project was a good one, one the City could use, but to just add to the woes of that impacted intersection without any relief in sight caused him some concern. Mr. Herbst said, if for some reason the Council did not adopt the Critical Intersection Program, what would they do; traffic would ask the City to condemn the corner to enlarge the street. Mr. Singer said there were two alternatives, one was to install the right turn lane or equivalently widen the street, and two was to not build the project. He said the fact is that this intersection is is excess of capacity so, even by CEQA requirements, it could not be built unless that capacity is relieved. Commissioner Feldhaus asked who and when would the other 300 feet be taken care of; was it going to do them any good to put up the 300 feet now. Mr. Singer said yes, that it would. Mr. Carusillo asked if the creation of that right turn would mitigate that portion of the impact that the hotel would have on that intersection. Mr. Singer said maybe not quite, but close enough. Chairwoman Bouas asked if they were talking 16i and Mr. Singer said, no, they were actually talking abcut substantially more than 16• He said 16! of the traffic was making that right turn, but by alleviating traffic through the installation of the right turn, they free up some time for all the other movement. Mr. Singer said that would be a proportionate distribution of the added capacity throughout the entire intersection. Mr. Feldhaus oaken iE Mr. Singer felt a 300 foot right turn lane would bring it up to a service level of D. Mr. Singer said probably not, but it would go a long way towards it. He said if that brought this intersection all the way to D it would cost a lot more than making a right turn lane. He said he was just suggesting this as a compromise. Chairwoman Bouas asked if there were any kitchens in the project and Mr. Levin stated there were not. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there were any food facilities in the hotel at all and Mr. Levis stated there was not, not ever a restaurant. 08/15/88 ~ti}: '~J} MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~QMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-28 Mr. Feldhaus asked if there were anything planned is house for any type of food, even if it happened to be a convenience or fast food carry out. Mr. Levin said there was a small sundry area, it was literally that, if they forget a shaver, toothpaste, etc., for persons using the hotel. He said there were no sandwiches or anything. He said potentially there could be coffee and donuts is the morning for the guests, which would be brought in from the outside and not prepared on the premises. Mr. Meese said the: would not bring any additional traffic in, which was the concern. Mr. Meese asked Mr. Singer about the circulation of the hotel itself. He noted there would be an entrance on 2eyn but they felt that most of the entering and exiting would be done on Ratella. Mr. Singer said there would be a median island throughout the length of Ratella between Harbor and Raster. He said there would be no left turn except at intersections and the only intersection that would have a left turn would be Clementine. Mr. Meese said a car exiting the hotel, on the Zeyn driveway, could come south on Zeyn and turn left. Mr. Singer said was no median in there at this time, but they are going to place one there. He said that was a condition on the Riviera development. Mr. Herbst said that if this project goes in first and there is no median there, then they could make a left had turn there and Mr. Singer said that was correct. Mr. Feldhaus asked what the p.m. peak hour was and Mr. Singer said that was the highest afternoon peak hour, which was probably between 4:30 to 5:30 but that could move around. Mr. Singer said a peak hour was not necessarily one hour; a peak hour in Anaheim at these locations usually eztends to three hours when the highest amount of trr.°fic goes through, but peak hour as defined is usually the highest 60 consecutive minutes. Mr. Singer said if an intersection runs is excess of capacity it has less ability to handle traffic, because all traffic then has to start from a standing start as opposed to as intersection that operates at capacity where vehicles actually travel through the intersection. Mr. Feldhaus said if that occurred would he take away the U-turn that is there and force a left turn; Mr. Singer said that was possible. Mr. Herbst said he•knew CalTrans had quite as improvement on Ratella and asked if that would have any impact on this area. 08/15/88 ~? ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-29 Mr. Singer said that would have a profound effect. Mr. Herbst asked if they were going to change the whole concept of the Ratella on and off ramps. Mr. Singer said they would be somewhat relocated, simply due to the widening. He said there would be also two parallel couplets running on either side of I-5 and substantial redesign in the ramps themselves but none of these plans are going to in any way affect the intersection of Ratella and Raster. Mr. Herbst said he wanted to get into some specifics regarding the compromise with the developer. He asked if they had asked him to post a bond. Mr. Singer said, no, it was a cash deposit because the work had to be paid for. He said they had made a cost estimate of X244,000. He said he had discussed this with Mr. Rieviet, and tk.ey would make an independent study and probably come up with a less amount. Mr. Herbst said if they take the cash deposit from these people, when would the City widen that street. Mr. Singer said the City could take the deposit then the developer could, in fact, use that money to do the widening; then the City could also proceed with the deposit to acquire the right-of-way that has not to date been obtained. He said, is either case, the improvements have to take place prior to occupancy. Mr. Masse said that has to be specifically the case, he could not vote for this without that being prior to occupancy. Mr. Feldhaus asked if that money xould he earmarked specifically for that, and Mr. Singer said it would. Mr. Herbst said he was bothered, looking at the properties they were going to condemn and take away from, the effect it would have on their business. He said he could see a lot more money than 5250,000 involved. Mr. Singer said that had already been calculated into this money. He said there was 5110,000 for physical improvements, he noted he was doing this from memory, and 550,000 for the purchase of right-of-way and 560,000 for damages, loss of business, etc. Mr. Masse said it looked like the liquor store on the corner had already been dedicated. Mr. Singer said that would be the least amount of damage, but he was not sure if there had been any dedications, if there had then obviously that would cost much less. He said he believed the laundry had dedicated. Mr. Singer said he believed their cost estimate was on the high side but it did include right-of-way acquisition, construction, and damages to adjacent businesses. 08/15/88 e ~M!' a ~~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988. 88-30 Mr. Feldhaus said he understood that Mr. Rieviet said they wanted to be able to put up a certificate of deposit. Mr. Rieviet said they had agreed, up to this point, to an alternative to putting in the actual right had turn lane, which would be payment of some sort of security, either a certificate of deposit, cash, or letter of credit. He said where they were in disagreement right now, if they have one, was how much should they have to put up; should they only pay a proportionate share. He noted the Traffic Engineer is saying they should have to put up the full cost of a 300 foot right hand turn lane, which is half of a total right hand turn lane. He said they agree they should have to contribute something but it was their contention that they should have to contribute a proportionate amount. Mr. Messe noted that they were also impacting other areas, not just this one area, but other areas in that circulation and they were disregarding that by only addressing this one intersection. Ae asked if applicant would like to address all the intersections he would be impacting. Mr. Singer said if applicant wanted to discuss a proportionate share then they should address all of the intersections impacted; he said Mr. Rieviet would quickly find out that this was probably the lesser. of the evils. Mr. Singer said they still have to understand that capacity has to be reduced to level D before the first car goes on from this development. Mr. Feldhaus asked if they were going to set a dollar amount to this and Mr. Singer said he preferred not to because they are talking about a specific mitigating improvement. He said it was to the developers benefit not to put a dollar amount oa there because staff's cost estimate, since it was done in a rough manner was probably oa the high side. Mr. Feldhaus asked about the undergrounding of the utilities and applicant's objections to Condition No. 11. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, said tie had a conversation xith Electrical Engineering and they were asking, at this point, that the service to this particular building be underground to the eziting power pole, rather khan have the power poles that are ezisting out along Ratella brought into as underground system. Mr. Messe said that they were not ready, that was under study, but they were not going to underground just one section of this, it was not feasible. Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated this condition would appear to require just that, and that was what Mr. Rieviet was asking to delete. Mr. Messe said he had no problem with that. Mr. Slaughter said they would be deleting everything after the first comma in Condition No. ll...that in addition, etc... 08/15/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988. 88-31 a TI Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, after considering Draft EIR No. 293 for the proposed Ratella Avenue Notel and reviewing evidence, both written and oral, presented for Draft EIR No. 293, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR No. 293 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State and City Guidelines; EIR No. 293 does not identify any impacts which are considered unavoidable, adverse in nature, and not be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance; and, therefore, the Planning Commission hereby certifies EIR No. 293. Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. 215 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3053, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations with modification of Condition No. 11, to read "that subject property shall be served by underground utilities;" with the added condition that the property owner would provide a statement that they would not contest the formation of an assessment district or such other funding mechanisms as may be utilized by the City in arranging for the payment of the undergroundinq of utilities is the Ratella commercial recreational area and that said statement shall be recorded against the property; with deletion of Condition No. I3; removal of number 20 from Condition No. 23 and insertion of number 20 into Condition No. 22, and that Condition No. 20 will read as follows: That as required by the City Traffic Engineer a right turn only lane, not to exceed. 300 feet, for south bound traffic shall be constructed at the intersection of Ratella and Haster Street; or security in the form of a certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be posted with the City, to cover the project's cost 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 Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to a>peal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Additional Discussion: Mr. Slaughter said this was getting a little confusing. He said he had heard the suggestion that we require the developer to pay his fair share and that could be, whatever percentage they choose as fair for this developer means the balance has to come from somewhere. He said he also had heard the. Commissioner's say they want the improvements installed before the occupancy of the building. He said his question was if the developer pays his fair 08/15/88 fn- ~ ~~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION AUCitcT 15 1988 88 32 share, is ready to finish the building, then the other portion of the fair share does not exist, what then happens. Mr. Messe said it was his understanding that the developer was installing the 300 feet, not a fair share. Mr. Rieviet said they had agreed to the 300 feet. Mr. Feldhaus said he did not want the applicant to pay more than his fair share, that applicant thinks he has a 16~ impact and Mr. Singer said, no, he had a lot more. Mr. Singer said, yes, applicant does. Mr. Singer said this is the problem: In order to build this hotel, you would have to bring several intersections down to the service level of D; what staff is basically saying is that bringing this intersection down to service Level D by the improvement of the right turn lane, this constitutes a fair share of the development's traffic impact. Mr. Messe said this was what the EIR said was a mitigation measure also. Mr. Carusillo asked Mr. Kieviet if he had a problem with that and Mr. Rieviet replied he did not, ezcept in regard to Commissioner Messe's comment about wanting the improvement in place prior to occupancy. He said the whole purpose in their effort in negotiating with the City Engineer's Office was to have an alternative, that either they would put is it place or put up money. He noted that if they put up money then it was the City's responsibility to put it in. Mr. Rieviet said he was hesitant to suggest or propose that a condition that the actual right-of-way had to be installed prior to occupancy, if they put up money. Mr. Singer said they way to get that is, if they get the cash in hand at the time of the issuance of the building permit, then if the developer does not want to undertake the improvement the City xill have to take it on. Mr. Messe said that means now there would be a condition on the City. Mr. Singer said the condition, as indicated and he read before, was going to serve the purpose because they would, in a timely way, install the improvements; hopefully, before occupancy. Chairwoman Bouas said they had just put in that it had to be done by the time of ocev;~ancy and if it was just hopeful that it was dose, they would not be able to occupy their building if the City did not get it completed. Mr. Singer said if Commission were to place such a condition on it, i.e., prior to occupancy, then the developer would be responsible for putting the improvements in and that would be putting the City into a pretty difficult situation, he was not too sure they could abide by that. He said they xere trying to cooperate with the developer. Mr. Rieviet said apparently the City staff initially wrote up the condition to say that a right turn only lane shall be constructed. He said their 08/15/88 rf MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION nrrGUST 15 1968 88-33 preference was they did not want to have to get involved is trying to condemn this property on behalf of the City, etc., and try to construct it themselves, their preference was to pay the City then be done with, satisfy this condition. Mr. Carusillo asked if there was any problem with that and could the City get it done before occupancy? Mr. Singer said he had no answer to that. Mr. Feldhaus stated, therefore, he could not put that as a condition. Mr. Slaughter said the condition was what was being imposed on the developer and as it stands now, the condition recommends that prior to the final building inspections the developer was required to install the right turn lane. H! said that what was being suggested, in lieu of that condition, was imposition of a condition that the developer pay the City, which would be paid before the building permit is ise•ued and would, presumably, be moved into Condition No. 22 instead of No. 23. But, if the developer does that, the condition upon the payment of that money will be met and he would no longer be obligated to do anything; the City would be obligated, or the funds paid would be limited to a specific use but the City would not be obligated to r.~ake those improvements at any particular time, because all kinds of things can happen. Mr. Herbst ssid there were other advantages to the City in getting this hotel; Council might look at the bed tax that might: be involved and a few other incomes coming in. He said also, with the convention center being enlarged, these gentlemen want to get this k,atel going and meet some of t'ae conditions the City is going to need. He said if applicant was willing to post the money, they should delete the phrase before occupancy; that xould be the :'ity's responsibility, they would have the money, Traffic Engineer says that right turn lane is needed so let them put it in. Mr. Rieviet said he preferred that they be able to pay _. t prior to occupancy. Mr. Singer said that would be too late. Mr. Slaughter said he recommended against that because too many things could happen to developments and developers between the time they get the permit and are ready for final inspection. Mr. Herbst said they would need to get it in when they take the building permit out. Ms. Bouas said Mr. Rieviet would have to stay after the City too because they will have put up the money and they will want that right turn lane. Joel Fick, Planning Diroctor, said he triad just had a brief discussion with Electrical Utilities about Condition No. il, which addressed the undergroundinq of electrical utilities, and what Mr. Rieviet represented to Commission was correct in terms of the discussion that applicant had had with Utilities; that there is no program in place, etc. He said xhat he wanted to 08/15/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLAr,:I::.^.• rnunrTCSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-34 bring to their attention, and make very clear, was the Planning Department was working very closely with a number of the major property owners in the commercial recreational area, both along Harbor Boulevard and Ratella Avenue in farms of both signing and, in particular, electrical utilities which has bee': the overhead power lines, a major concern to the City and business community over the years. He said they plan on bringing a request for a proposal to the City Council within about a 2-month time period, to actually embark upon a specific plan to secure a consultant and specifically address the signing and undergroundinq issues. He said from his viewpoint it would be short sighted on staff's part not to recommend to Commission that this property owner, in conjunction with this development, post a bond prior to issuance of a building permit for the undergroundinq of those 12 RV lines in front of the property. He said that program was it:cniaent cad absent this property owner doing it in conjunction with the development it would mean that the cost would be born by the City or okhers. Mr. Herbst asked if Mr. Fick was planning an assessment district of some type. Mr. Fic:r .~~..~`. at this time it was too premature to tell but he could tell them that the u~.ilities Department already has a program in place, a study that was directed by the City Council several months ago. The sole intent of the study being that at the er.:i of this year to have a plan or program in place specifically to des3': with this undergroundinq issue. He said the wheels were in motion and he felt this property should be contributing as well. Mr. Fick said his recommendation would be that the property owner., prior to issuance of a budding permit and in line with the way the condition is worded now, post a bond for that undergroundinq. He said that was an amount that could be determined by the Electrical Engineering Division. Mr. Messe said that applicant had agreed not to oppose an assessment district, should that transpire, Mr. Fick said that by requ:,ring this property owner to post a bond, they would not have foreclosed the opportunity for this development paying its fair share. Mr. Herbst said that when you post a bond it is 3 continuing obligation. Ae said he knew it would cost a lot to do it and they have to start some place. However, when you ask somebody to post a bond, this 'khing could go on for 10 years. Mr. Fick said the best way he could address the issue, was to tell them it was a serious enough issue to the business community, aside from City staff, that the business community had offered to contribute 560,000 toward the study with specific concerns about the signing and undergroundinq. Flcyd Farano, speaking for the applicant, said he thought he agreed with Mr. Fick and the desirability to have undergroundinq, but he had to say that a condition as uncertain as the one they are talking about right now, really approaches on unfairness. They do not know if it is going to be done, when it will be done or how much it will cost. He said it would affect their 08/15/88 •~ r N MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-35 financing. He said to have an applicant bond for some uncertain amount for something that may or may not be done in the future was unfair and submitted to the Commission that they not impose such a condition, but as a matter of suggestion, the best way of doing this was an assessment district, which he believed should have been done a long time ago, and he certainly would suggest that his client Biqa an agreement as a condition that petitioner would not oppose the formation of an assessment district, similar to what was being done in the stadium area. Mr. Feldhaus said he had always advocated the assessment district for undergrounding to ensure that each property will receive the benefit of the assessment. He agreed with that, but he did have to say that this was not the first time the condition had appeared because they have been putting this condition for undergrounding of utilities in other projects he had seen come before the Commission. Mr. Carusillo said they were trying to make allowances for the potential of undergrounding the power lines. He asked if an assessment district would cover this concern. If Commission makes it a condition that the petitioner not oppose an assessment district, would this alleviate the concern. Mr. Ficit said that the applicant is before the Commission today, basically asking for approval of a development that is about double in size of what they could build as a matter of right, and by the Conditional Use Permit they are determining whether the lead use location and its surrounding environs are appropriate for the development as proposed. He said he knew that what he was talking to them about was somewhat premature but they were certainly not talking about totally unknown cos's. He stated the City probably should be recommending that the lines be undergrounded. He said he was confident that, even if there were a time period established for the bond to be called, the program was doing to qo ahead in a timely fashion. He said an alternative to actually doing it now is to require a bond to do it in a more efficient manner in the future, in conjunction with some of the adjacent properties that xou13 becoming in, all at one time. Mr. Slaughter said his problem with a bond was that a bond .s normally security to guarantee the performance of as obligation otherwise imposed; so when the developer, in most cases, fails to make the improvements in the time required, the City is then able to look to tl~e bonding company to say the developer did not do it, so either you do it bonding company, or we will do it and bill you for it. He said his problem with the bond in relationship to these underground utilities, which may never occur, is that he does not knave when the developer would be obligated to install them, if ever, sad when we could look to the beading company because the developer has breached his obligation. He sai~.~.f we could clarify that issue, he did not have a problem with the bond. Mr. Slaughter said tsn assessment district means simply that the City would come along and formulate a district whereby the properties themselves would be tazed to pay for the cost of putting in these improvements. 08/15/88 ~. ~z MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-36_ Mr. Messe said that may or may not be the tool used and Ms. Souas said that it was really probably the tool that they would have to use in that area. Mr. Slaughter said there were several tools available to do that but that would have nothing to do with this particular zoning matter ezcept that it would be a condition that they agree not to contest the formation of an assessment district. Mr. Herbst said this was one of the things that was in the proposed Ratella Redevelopment Program at one time. He said he did not like bonding; it has to be for a certain time period. He said there were so many properties out there already developed that would not change for many years. He said he felt if the applicant would agree, which he had indicated he would, not to oppose the formation of an assessment district, then that would be a fair way to do it. Mr. Slaughter said if the Commission was contemplating that. in lieu of a requirement for a bond, he suggested that they not limit it to an assessment district but to an assessment district or any other funding mechanism the City may determine is appropriate for undergrounding these utilities. Mr. Slaughter asked if they understood that even if they approved this without a condition an the underground utilities, it is possible the City could have a program in place even before they commence construction, in which case they would still be subject to it. Mr. Farano said it was his understanding that the agraemeat would be similar to that which is used in the stadium area, where it says that the property owner would not contest the formation of an assessment district and Mr. Slaughter wants to add..."or such other funding mechanisms as may be utilized by the City in arranging for the payment of the undergrounding." He asked Mr. Slaughter if this was correct. Mr. Slaughter said that was his recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Farano said that it would then be recorded against the property, which is the mechanism that is used in the stadium area. Mr. Farano said they would have to talk to their client about that. He would recommend it since they have used that mechanism before, and he thought it was effective and helpful to the City. RECESS: 4:20 p.m. RECONVENE: 4:30 p.m. Mr. Farano said he consulted with his client and they were agreeable to executing such a statement that they would record against the property. He said he thought, for clarity, subject to a concurrence by the City Attorney and their impression, that the client would be free to contest all other aspects of the assessment or other financing mechanism and that the only thing that applicant would not be able to contest was the actual formation of it. 08/15/88 .} MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 15. 1988. 88-37 Mr. Slaughter said that was the scenario that the stadium area has followed, if that is the Commission's desire. TI N: (repeated here for clarification) Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, after considering Draft EIR No. 293 for the proposed Ratella Avenue Hotel and reviewing evidence, both written and oral, presented for Draft EIR No. 293, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR No. 293 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State and City Guidelines; EIR No. 293 does not identify any impacts which are considered unavoidable, adverse in nature, and not fully mitigatable to a level of insignificance; and, therefore, the Planning Commission hereby certifies EIR No. 293. Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. 215 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3053, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendatiras with modification of Condition No. 11, to read "that subject property sha:tl be served by underground utilities;" with the added condition that the property owner would provide a statement that they would not contest the formation of an assessment district or such other funding mechanisms as may be utilized by the City in arranging for the payment of the undergrounding of utilities in the Ratella commercial recreational area and that said statement shall be recorded against the property; with deletion of Condition No. 13; removal of number 20 from Condition No. 23 and insertion ~f number ?(I into Condition No. 22, and that Condition No. 20 will read as follows: That as required by the City Traffic Engineer a right turn only lane, not to exceed 300 feet, for south bound traffic shall be constructed at the intersection of Ratella and Has ter Street; or security in the form of a certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be posted with the City, to cover the project's cost Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE HOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Flanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 6. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; RECLASSIFICATION N0. 88-89-08; VARIANCE N0. 3829;.WAIVER OF COUNCIL~OLICY N0. 542 PUBLIC NEARING: OWNER: AHMAD SAOJUADDINI, 1216 E. La Palma, p8, Anaheim, CA 92805; AGENT: RONALD CRCWLEY, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, CA 92635; LOCATION: 1500 West Broadwav 00/15/AS fir' ~ J' MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST 15. 1988. 88-38 Request: To construct a 2-story, 15-unit condominium complex with waivers of (a) minimum structural and parking setback adjacent to as arterial highway, (b) minimum landscape setback adjacent to single-family residential development and (c) maximum fence height adjacent to local store. There were seven persons indicating thr'3r presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the mimites. PRESENTATION• Ronald Crowley, 1700 Raiatree Road, Fullerton, said he ranted to call to Commission's attention that this was a very difficult site. It has a curved boundary, as well as having a railroad along the eastern boundary. He said the City Planners recognized this and had designated in the General Plan that this be developed ultimately as a medium density residential project, with a maximum density of 36 units per acre. He said the proposed project was far less than that and they had designed the project to have 14.5 units per acre. He said the site at present was zoned for agriculture and single family use. He said it had long since outlived its usefulness for agriculture purposes. He said the property had trees oa it which, by-in-large had all died, and the home that is on it is not repairable. He said there was actually a home and a garage with living quarters above it. He stated this is an eye sore to the community and they would like to get something is there as quickly as possible. He said there had been a project proposed for thifi site some time ago and he was aware of the opposition that some of the local residents had to the project so xhen he hired an architect to design this project, he informed him of what the objections had been. He said they had attempted to alleviate all of those that were possible. He said, in particular many of the residents objected to the possibility of having traffic onto Gilbuck Street, which is a residential street. He said all of the access rill be strictly from Broadway Avenue. Mr. Crowley said they had also incorporated a number of things that were not in the original design. He noted they had also included such things as playgrounds and a recreational/leisure area for the adults, including such things as a spa. He said he wanted to draw to their attention a couple of trivial errors in the staff report, one of which is is Item No. 12 which states that vehicular access is provided by a 25 foot wide driveway; that is incorrect, the zoning requirements are that they be 28 foot and they have designed it with that is mind. He noted on Paqe No. 6, Item No. 3, it says the vehicular access rights to Gilbuck Drive shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim; be noted there is ao vehicular access on Gilbuck and asked that this condition be stricken. Proponent: John Rrajacic, 610 Campbell Drive, Anaheim said he had owned the first two homes in tract 1561. He gave his granddaughter the home aezt door; she has three children and had lived there fnr two years. He said she loves it there and it is a nice neighborhood but t}:ey have a bad problem with that lot (subject parcel). He said there are rats and snakes in there and it was a disgrace; the sooner they put something nice is there the better. He said 08/15/88 `'--' 3 MINUTES. ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AtrrtST 1F 1988 88 3a something worse c~,uld be in there so he felt people should be glad to get something that w:ss nice. OPPOSITION• John Medlin, 1511 West Elm, said they had been there eight months ago xhen the other 15-unit condominiums had been presented. He said it seemed the owners had changed but the same people xere present here. He noted the Commission had *_urned down the previous project, it went to City Council who denied it, now they are back again. He said they thought it would be something a little different but it was basically the same project. He said it was still coming out on Broadway and it still did not fit. He said when you put that many people in such a small area, with only one ezit, there would be a problem. He said he was sure after they were built and the developers had their money, the people who bought these: units and could no longer get Qut onto Broadway in the morning to go to work, with traffic backed up past their exit, he wondered what they would do. He said they would probably come before the Commission and ask for another ezit and the only place to put one is back onto Gilbuck. He said they were not worried about having condominiums there; the lot was ugly and that is because whoever owns it let it get that way so the eaistinq condition is their condition. He said they were worried about this being there and the neighborhood having to put up with the overflow of people, cars, traffic, and all the other nuisances that come with it. He said 53 parking spots for 15 families; he did not know how many people kept two cars in the garage but if they counted, they would probably find only 2 out of 10. People do not keep their cars is the garages. There just isn't going to be enough room. He thought they should only build 10 units there to make sure there was enough room for everythi:ag. He noted the Commission and Council had said last time that it was spot zoning to put this there, and he still. feels that is the case. Michael Park, 1500 West Elm Avenue, said he was most affected by the project. He noted that last year the project was brought to them, and the neighbors had voiced opposition because of the traffic and the property devaluation. He said they hold the same opinion now. He noted they would be living there and having to struggle with all the inconveniences brought on by the project. He stated he lived right on the corner, and every time there is a meeting he is left out of the notification; he asked that his name be included. Ms. Bouas stated that he was probably not within the 300 feet and Mr. Park said that he was, he was right at the corner across from the project. , Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, said the file showed a Michael Park at 1500 West Elm, with proof of notification. He did not knox what may have happened at the Post Office. Ms. Bouas informed Mr. Park that he had been mailed a notice but evidently it had not reach~ad him. Peggy Timanus, 1571 West Elm, awed Commissioners if everyone got a copy of a letter from Walt Franklin, and the Commissioners indicated that they did. 08/15/88 ~~- 3 _~ She said that he had also submitted a map of the support that they had from the neighborhood is opposition to this project last year. She stated her real concern was the impact on the traffic on Broadway itself. She said she will point out today the same thing she did last time. She said Fairmont School and Loara Elementary School bus childr~an back and forth is the morning and afternoon. She said they had also noticed an increase in the traffic of the trains in the area, and when there is a train plus a number of school buses there in the morning, that is bad enough; but to put additional cars there was impacting the traffic in the area and would be a danger to the children. She said also, because they will want to cut the corner at Loara and Broadway, they feel that their tract is going to be used as a thoroughfare going from this particular condominium project onto Loara south to the Ball area, in order to make their lives easier, but they will be making residents .lives harder. She said they still want to see this zoned for single family residence. Orvia Barber, 1514 West Alezis Street, said there was nothing new to add czcept that one of the statements by an earlier speaker in another situation was that the quality of. life was one thing to be considered. He said they have a nice quality of life there now and their concern is for that to continue. He said the current design for 15 condominiums in that small area xas a very congested type of situation. He said they were afraid of the overspill into their area. He said he believed the quality of life for the people that would be living there, with their close proximity to the railroad track, would be questionable. He said he was also concerned about the potential that project residents would be using their street as a parking area, a thoroughfare, or whatever. REBUTTAL• Mr. Crowley stated the only comment he had was that they would not be putting anything through, it would ruin the project to put a street through onto Gilbuck Drive, so he could not imagine any condominium association doing such s thing. He said it was always possible that they could stipulate something in the CC6Rs, but he really did not think that was necessary. He stated ha had no response to the issue of traffic, he did not think this project would have a major impact. Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, noted that Mr. Crowley had indicated earlier that there was no vehicular access to Gilbuck and asked whether Mr. Crowley meant. ihrati they were not taking vehicular access, because the 'title Report would :._.W%cate that the property presently does enjoy the right of vehicular acces::t !';-om the property into Gilbuck Street. Mr. Crowley stated the way they had it designed now, there would be no access on Gilbuck. Mr. Slaughter said he believed they were talking about two different things, that Mr. Crowley was talking about whether they actually proposed to drive into and out of Gilbuck from the property and Mr. Slaughter said he was asking whether the legal right to do that eaisted. Mr. Crowley said he did believed 08/15/88 i ..-: ~..~ .. MINUTES, ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COhL`dISSIC`N. AUGUST 15. 1988. 88-41 the legal right did exist. Mr. Slaughter noted that Mr. Crowley had requested that staff delete from the staff recommendations that applicant ba required to give up that right and Mr. Slaughter said it seemed to him that they should still require that. Mr. ::roxley said if that was what it was, they would be happy to leave that ia, they had no intention of having any access to Gilbuck Street. Mr. Feldhaus noted Commission had required that the last time because of such heavy opposition from the people oa Gilbuck. Mr. Crowley said that was fine to leave Condition No. 3 as is. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. _ Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Boydstun said she would like to see it specified in the minutes that there would be NO ACCESS OF A:~iY RIND AT ANY TIME ON GILBUCR and that there xould, later, never be a walkway or gate and it is to be permanently closed. Mr. Slaughter said the condition, as presently xorded, indicates vehicular access rights shall be dedicated and that to him implies t:.at perhaps pedestrian access right is not being dedicated; he suggested that if that were the Commission's intention, tY,ey ezpaad that condition to include pedestrian access. Ms. Boydstun said she wanted it so specified. Commissioner Messe noted that was one of the things a lot of the people in opposition had been addressing; they feared that the property would be used as a thoroughfare for pedestrians. Ms. Bouas said they also feared that they xould their streets to park on and walk through, and their streets were pretty crowdod. She understood why they did not want people parxing on their streets. She said either people who lived there had an awfully lot of cars or they were not using their garages for their cars, because there were cars parked on the sidewalks, the lawns, boats were sitting nut, etc. Ms. Bouas noted cars do back up on Broadway when the train is there. She said she thought those trains were pretty regular as to the time that they come. She said she did not believe the trains kept things closed up there too long. Commissioner Herbst said what he was concerned about, xas the last hearing they had they had recommended to City Counci?. that this piece of property remain RS-5,000, which going back into history on this thing he recognized in looking at the piece of property it certainly could be subdivided into RS-5,000 foot lots. He said that evidently the developers continue to come back with an impact on the area, 15-units, looking at the plans he said he did not see a play ground although they say they have one. He said that 08/15/88 ~~ ~_ Mr~nvrrc ausAF.TM rt T}( PLANNING COMMISSION~_~"~'"ST 15 1988 88-42 definitely this place would have children and they would be playing in the driveways and the cars are parked right up neat to the fence to the siaglo family homes, which he did not think was a good idea. He said it appeared the developers could come in with something acceptable to the people out. He said recognizing that condominiums are single family to a degree, if the developer would come in with something like 10 units and come up with desirable units, 4nstead of impacting to the maximums and minimums; he felt they could develop this into condominiums that would be acceptable. He said it is RS-5,000 and could still be developed at RS-5,000; all the corners had been developed is RS-5,000. He said it could be developed in the same manner as the far end of the parcel. He noted they had just had a similar project, 15-units, which they had turned down: the Council had also turned it down, now they are right back with a very similar project, with the same problems with parking; they had not gone far enough toward settling the arguments that they had before. Commissioner Feldhaus said the last time applicant was before Commission they had more or less given them some direction in requesting and suggesting that they take away the access to Gilis:;ck; now they have redesigned the plans to do that, and had also put is landscaping all the way around the project and made a much nicer looking project; he noted they had lowered the roof line 2 to 3 feet and he did not foresee some of the problems that some of the people did. He did agree that back off of Gilbuck there was very beautifully maintained property and homes. Mr. Feldhaus stated he had stood on each corner and that from any one of those corners off of the north side of Elm Streat, or off of Gilbuck, he would much rather being looking at this condominium project than that Pepper Tree fair, the woods, and what is in there right now. Mr. Feldhaus said if there were somee concerns about the quality of life, traffic on Broadway, young children, etc., those problems could be mitigated in several different ways. He asked Mr. Siaqer about a median down the front side to prohibit right turn lanes into that area. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, asked if he meant to put a median island on Broadway, Mr. Feldhaus stated he meant prohibition going westbound on Broadway and trying to turn into the project. Mr. Singer said that was the reason why tha dri-~eway as shown was located on the far west side of the property, so that vehicles could e3iter the continuous left turn lane that is there presently and have a sale area is which to stay while making a left turn. Mr. Singer said he did rot think an island was necessary because the only way to accomplish installing an island on Broadway was to extend it all the way from Loaza to the railroad track. Mr. Feldhaus said they could go down 300 feet and make a left turn and Mr. Singer said that then you would encourage U-turns in the middle of the block and they should really be executed at the intersection that is signalized at Loara. He felt it would compound problems and he did not see that there was a specific traffic problem with occasional left turns because there was adequate storage in that continuous left turn lane to accommodate the left turning vehicles.Mr. Feldhaus asked if there were a requirement to put in sidewalks and Mr. Singer said there was, they have to go in. 08/15/88 .._ i _~'€ i •_. t iTES ANAHEIM CITX Pr sNNIxG COhIIdISSION,__~.UGUST 15. ' O°" 88-43 Comsnissir:ner Messe asked staff if they recalled the last time this came before them, in December of 1987, what the differences were between this project and the last one. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, said he did not recall the extent of the waivers; he said he believed the project was very similar to the last one with some of the buildings being rearranged and the access being different. Mr. Feldhaus asked Y,he petitioner to answer what significant changes had been made. Massoud Monshizadeh, 1524 Victoria Way, Placentia, said the main difference between this project and the other project was that all the parking they saw oa the west was common and close to the south wall so, what they had done was removed one unit to the west and totally blocked and removed all the parking and the driveway to the east, which is the south east corner. Mz. Messe noted they had two-car garages. Mr. Monshizadeh said they had the two-car garages and one and one-half extra space per unit, which makes three and one-half spaces. Ms. Bouas noted the garages had garage doors sad Mr. Moashizadeh confirmed this. Ms. Bouas noted the size of the units was very large, perhaps larger than some of the homes. Mr. Monshizadeh said the smalles'c size was about 150 square feet larger than some of the sizes that• right now exist is the tract. Mr. Feldhaus said he felt it was a much improved look than what is there now. Commissioner Carusillo said he did nit see a condition where the owner would have to notify prospective buyers as to the condition of the school, the ability to bus, etc., and asked if that should b.9 in there. Mr. Hastings said the original direction of the Commission was to only have those for apartseent buildings and this xaa a condominium, that was why it was not conditioned that way. He stated they could, however, add it to condominiums but the turnover in condominiums is less that in apartments. Ms. Bouas stated she believed if someone were buying, they would look into that a bit more than if they were renting. Mr. Carusillo asked to be told a little more about the landscaping, especially on the west and south side where the project abuts the SS-5,000. Mr. Moashizadeh said the south side, because that was single family was closed; that the next one-story they did have 20 feet wide and about 65 - 70 feet long is landscaped to the adjacent property on the south and on the west 08/15/88 R!µ 9~ ~ _ )i side, which was already shown as a green area, is about 2500 - 3000 square feet oa the west side which is big enough to nut any kind of playground for the kids, west. Mr. Carusillo asked about the northwest corner. Mr. Monshizadeh said there was about 5 feet landscape and it was indicated on the plan wh,~t kind of tress would be there. Ms. Bouas asked if he would stipulate to putting good sized trees there and Mr. Monshizadeh said be would. Mr. Monshizadeh said on the west side the neighbors had trees but nay single family does not have to do anything regarding the landscaping or keeping up but when they do have a CCSR which dictates they do have to take care of the landscaping it is better for the project. Mr. Masse asked if the Fire Department had any problem with access - ingress and ert.ress. Mr. Hastings said he believed there was a requirement for sprinklers, which is Condition No. 9. Mr. Meese asked if applicant was in agreement with that and he said he was. Mr. Feldhaus asked if there were any other conditions they had a problem with. Applicant said he did not have a problem xith them. Mr. Carusillo said he would like to add another one, if this were to be approved, that the petitioner notify the prospective buyers as to the railroad traffic, trips, the noise factor, and whatever else might be pertinent. Mr. Feldhaus noted they could put that in the CC6Rs. Mr. Monshizadeh said they have to supply to the Building Department a sound report so fast actually would be indicated, as to construction, wall, and what kind of windows would go in there. Ne said that xas one of the Building Department's requirements. Ms. Bouas said this, however, was notifying say prospective buyer that they were within 40 feet of the railroad track and relative information as to trips, noise, etc. Edr. Monshizadeh said he would do that. ACTION: Cnrcarissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Masse and MdTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify from RS-5,000 (Residential, Single-Family) to RM-3,000 08/15/88 r~~ T ,C^ 6 t MiNIlTE$. ANAHEIM CITY P'GANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST 15. 1988, 88-4,~ (Residential, Yaliiplo-(Yan:il.} an irregularly-shaped parcel of land' ccasis?,s..aq cf appro:imately l.i arcra~s caving a frontage of approzimately 21.) 1.' ~t on ti;,e south sitle of Bro_~ nip, hexing a maximum depth o:. approximately 26ti feat, being located approszSmatcly 259 feet east of the centerline of 8ilmar Street; and further describe+ as :LSt`0 West Broadway is oxder to construct a 2-st-.ary, 15-unit condominium a~mp.lr>z frith waivers of minimum structural and par!ciag setback adjacent *_~ an ar+r:erial highway, minimum landtcnpe setback ?!'.j~i,:ent. to a single-family residential development and, mazimum fence height a~i;ac~~nt to a local store, on the subject property, and does hereby approve the Nagatlve Declaration upon finciinq that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review proce3s aa:i u::ther finding ba the basis of the Initial Study and any comments r.ec•eived what there is ?a substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Feldcaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner. Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boyd~atun, Herbst, and McBurney voting NO) that the Anaheim City Planniiy Commission does hereby approve waiver of Anaheim City Council Policy No. c,~2 subject to the; condition that there is souud attenuation constructed into all of thA walls and windows of each u: it. Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. PCttB-21b and moved f^~r its passage and adoption that the Anaheim C ity P '.n,.:: a ag Camm4ssi.on ,'.oort hex•eby GRAt+T Reclassification N'o. 88-89-08 subject ~:. I:zCersiopartmental :'ommittee Recommendations, including modification of Condition No. 3 t:o inc':ude that there be no pedestrian access as well as as vehicular traffic into Gilbuck Drive, and adding a condition that prospective b+~gers be notified of the proximity of the units to 1;he railroad, the noise, and frequ+~acy of train trips. Oa roll cral.l, the f.oregoiaq resolution was passed by the following vote: AYEF: SOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MESS; NOES: HL'RBST AND MCSURNEY ABSENT: NONE Mac Slaughter, Deputy City 3~ttorzay, preset,-• 3 the written right to .appeal the Planning Commission's decis:iaa within 22 days to the f,'i,ty Council. Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. PC88-217 and moved for its passage and adoption that t,e Ar.:heim City Plaanitzq Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. .'.829 on the basis that there are snecia~l c.ircumstancos repplicable to the property such as size, shape, topogdaphy, location or surraundingr„ which do not apply to other identically zone/~. properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of tk ?,r~ninq Cade deprives the property of a~.ivileges enjoyed by other properties in `identical zoai•ug classification in th.~ vicinity, and subject to conditions and sti.pu?atio:~s.. which include that the parkway opposite the project on Gilbuck Street will be landscaped and maintaiaeCe'>y the petitioner. Ooi 15/88 ~,, '~~~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANN.(NG COMMISSION. UST 15. 1988. 88~_ Oc i'all call, <,w.;Q zcrsgoivg resolution was passed by- the following vote: I1YES: 80UAS, CARUSILLO, cELDHA?~S, MESSE N05S: dOYDST[RI, HERESY AND MCL~URNEY `BSENT: NONE Mac Slaughter, Deput.,• City Attorney, Presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commis~ion''a decision witl:ky:. 22 days to the City Council. ~'lEM N0. 7. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLA.kATION: VARIANCE N0. 3831 DUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: FUJITA CORPORATION USA, ATTN: W. G. WELLS, 101 Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA X0405; AGENT: SEABOARD ENGINEERING CO., 1100 S. Beverly Drive, M20t, 'Los Angeles, CA 90035; LOCATION: 5155 u. Hunter avenue Request: To esta .ish a 20-l at (plus 1 common lot) ~tdustrial subdivision with. v~iver of required lot frontage. There were no persons 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. PRESENTATION• George Bernhard`c., Seab~:_d 'Engineering, 1101? South Beverly Drive, 4201, L-~s Angeleu, said the staff report xas self eL~lanatory, they had read all of the conditions and xere in complete agreement with them and they wcss•e acceptable. THF'. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~ Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Cormnissianer Boydstun and M01I~.N CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the prep~sal to establish a 20-lot (plus 1 common lot) industrial subdivision with :~aiver of required lot frontage oa an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting oC approzimately 5.56 acres having a frontage of approzimately 395 feet on i:h.~v worth side of Hunter Avenue, having a mazimum depth of approzimately b5~ feet, being locat.~d approzimately 300 feet east of the centerline of Rel7ogq give and further described as 5155 E. Hunter Avenue an3 doers hereby app.:vvs the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review pr.;rcess and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantir,l evidence Lhnt the project will have a significant effect on the enviroaaent. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-218 and moved fo_ its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hR;:sby GRANT Variance No. 3831 subject to the conditions as set forth•in thre staff report on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property 08/15/88 ~~ +~ MINUT°S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-47 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 Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties is the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURPIEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appe:~~. the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO 8 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPT CLASS 3• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT• rnvnITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3040 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: MEHDI GHALBI ET AL, 913 S. Ira Court, Anaheim, CA 92804; LOCATION: o~-"~ South Tra Court Request: To construct a 640 square-foot "Granny Unit" with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There were ao persons indicating their presence in opgosition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. PRESENTATION• Colette Ellis, 3000 Madison Avenue, Fullerton, said she was representing the applicant. She said the "Granny Unit" was for her grandmother, who is very disabled but they did not want to put her in a home. She said applicant had the land, and if approved, they could put a little house in the back for her; she could still be with them, yet would have the feeling of independence. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chambers temporarily. ~~ It was noted the Planning Director or hia authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Ezemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically ezempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Commissioner McSurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Coan+cission does hereby GRANT waiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause OS/15/8d ~~ `' ~` MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-48 an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-219 and moved for its passage and adoption that Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3040, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Secti~~ns 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental CommittE~e Recommendations. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following :ote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC SURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Herbst returned to the Council Chambers. ITEM NO 9 CEOA CATErntxrrAL EXEMPTION rrnSS 3 AND 5• WAIVER OF CODE ~QUIREh'ENT CONAITIONAr USE PERMIT,:70• ~Q43 attBLIC HEARI7j~: OWNER: LIGIA DOMINGUEZ, 1223 S. Walnut Street, Anaheim, CA 92802; LOCATION: ~~~ Wa~nut Street Request: To construct a 504 square-foot "Granny Unit" with waivers of (a) minimum side yard setback, (b) minimum rear yard setback and minimum number and (c) type of parking spaces. There were no persons 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. P~FESENTATION• Mr. Dominguez, 1223 South Walnut Street, Anaheim, stated he wanted to build a "Granny Unit" for their grandmother. Ae said she had been staying with several other people, here and there; tt:ey would like to keep her at the house. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Chairwomzz Bouas asked how old the grandmother was and the reply was T2. Commissioner Feldhaus noted that they had forms poured for the driveway over there now; he asked if it was wide enough for two cars to park. 08/15/88 n MINUTES ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88-49 Mr. Dominguez said it was. He said it called for 12 feet and they have 13. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that an outside driveway, in front of a garage called for 16 feet. Mr. Dominguez said it was 13 feet at the entrance and ezteads wider and wider as it goes into the carport. Commissioner Feldhaus said what he was trying to avoid was tandem parking. Chairwoman Bouas asked how large the house was and Mr. Dominguez stated it was 3-bedrooms. Mr. Dominguez said there were two children, his wife, and himself. He stated his children ar^ 4 and 9. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the carport was wide enough to pull two cars in side by side and Mr. Dominguez said it was. Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the two gates that were across there and asked if he were planning on leaving those open. Mr. Dominguez said they were thinking about taking them off and maybe covering it up later on. He said there were two gates there now and where they are, they wanted to put a door is there that comes all the way down, like a regular garage. Paul Singer said he wanted to call Commission's attention to Paqe 3, Item No. 15, and said they do not recommend a parking waiver in residential areas. Commissioner Herbst said that was what they were trying to eliminate, by widening the driveway. Mr. Singer said he believed applicant should bring in revised plans. Commissioner Feldhaus said applicant already had plans for 16 feet wide and he had not asked to build a garage, he was just asking for a "Granny Unit". Mr. Singer noted applicant had three tandem cars parked, three or four deep. Commissioner Feldhaus said they had just approved one with the same conditions. Applicant said they only had txo vehicles but Mr. Meese noted that the code requirement was for five parking spaces, the house could be sold, etc. Mr. Singer said he would appreciate a continuance oa this so that he could work with the applicant on this. He said they could probably work something out. Chairwoman Bouas asked applicant if he minded if there were a two week continuance. 08/15/88 rt? MINUTES ANAHFIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 50 Oscar Gutierrez, stated he was helping with the building and noted that on one of the forms they had turned in to the Traffic Department, they approved the way they were going to build the driveway; that is the way they were doing it was the way it was approved. He did not see the reason for any further delay. Commissioner Feldhaus said they could build any type of driveway with parking to code but that does not mean they can put as many cars as they want on it. Mr. Carusillo clarified, saying that the Traffic Engineer was not satisfied with the present plans and felt that something could be worked out and wanted a continuance so that applicant and Traffic Engineer could get together and make this to code. Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, said the thing that concerns him about the staff report is that it specifically says there had been no parking study to justify the requested parking waiver, and as he read the code, he did not think the Commission could grant a parking waiver unless the application is accompanied by either a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer or such other study as approved by the City Engineer. Ms. Bouas said they were going to have to go back and ask for a two week continuance so applicant can meet with the Traffic Engineer. Mr. McBurney asked Mr. Singer if applicant could put one stall in the front yard, then four cars; Mr. Singer said as long as it was not is the setback they could work with it. Mr. Singer said it could be worked out and he would not require a parking waiver. He said if a waiver were required, then applicant would have to go back for a study. Most likely this will not be required. TI N: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has determined that consideration of the aforementioned matter will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 29, 1988, in order that applicant may have time to consult with the City Traffic Engineer. ITEM NO 10 - CEOA NEGATIVE DE rnunTTnx• CONDITIONAi USE PERMIT NO 3044 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: R°tJ HO YUN AND YOUNG SOOR YUN, 9252 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92644; LOCATION: 505-507-509 South Brookhurst Street Request: To permit a public dance hall with on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant. There were ao persons 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. 08/15/88 E ' ,+. ~,_ Y ... MINLrI'ES. ANAHEIM CITY T,~` """'•NG COMMISSION nnr:;icT 15 1988. 88-51 PRESENTATION• Sang Nquyn, stated on the report he read today he did not see the request for liquor on the report. He said they have a permit for the restaurant, public dance hall, and for beer only. He said they now wish to have the permit for the liquor. Chairwoman Bouas noted that was not on the application, it was for beer and win., therefore it would have to be readvertised. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, noted the application was for beer only, not even beer and wine, and if they were going to ask for a permit to sell liquor it would have to be readvertised. DTI ON Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a four week continuance of the aforemantioaed matter in order to readvertise for the liquor permit, said matter to be heard at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 12, 1988. 7TEh, NO 1~ CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3045 PtiBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: SITYNG-JIANNLINAND SHOE-YALIN, 11320 South Street, Cerritos, CA 90701; AGENT: F. EARL MELLOTT, 1035 Armando Street, Suite "S", Anaheim, CA 92806; LOCATION: i5"~ West Rate~~w avo,,,,n fChildlife Learning tenter) Request: To permit an addition to an eaistinq preschool. There was one person indicating his 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. g~ESENTATI ON Earl iSellott, 1035 Armando Street, Suite "S", Anaheim, stated he is representing the applicant. He said they were asking for a Conditional Use Permit on an eaistinq preschool for the purpose of adding two classrooms and enlarging the office. John Yaghoubi, 1782 South Carnelian Street, said his house was oa the west side of the preschool and his complaint is that, currently, he must sleep during the day but he cannot because of the children's noise. Also, in his back yard there are toys all over. He said he had talked to other neighbors who wanted to come before Commission but because of the meeting time, they could not. He said what he would really like to see was that they keep the place clean and keep the noise down. He said he had a child of his own that OBi15i88 ~- Miii ~riE~ iti.itiiEiM nr awry! nnuuTCCTnq J,TT!_TiCT l r, _ 7 CAN RR _ 52 he must look after; he did not want to have to pick up all of their kids toys. He noted that the report said the block wall should be 6-feet high and be maintained. He said on part of his back yard half of the block wall and one top row is all missing, so if they want to keep it up they should start from zero. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if Mr. Yaghoubi lived to the north and he replied that he lived on the west side, adjacent to the wall of the preschool. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Yaghoubi how many houses he xas from the corner and he replied he was the third house from Ratella. Mr. Yaghoubi said he was not against the kids, as long as they kept the place clean and orderly. REBUTTAL: Mr. Mellott said this was the first he had heard about these problems and admitted he was not sure just exactly what was oa the property line. He stated that if there is a broken down wall, he was sure his client would be happy to install whatever was necessary to mitigate the problem. He said he was sure, however, they could not keep the kids quiet; there is a playground in that area that has been there for several years, but they could do whatever is necessary to mitigate the noise. Chairwoman Bouas said that they could stagger the time and control the number of children that were in the playground at any one time. Commissioner Boydstun asked applicant if they could plant something along the wall that would have height and would help break the noise, as well as repair the wall. Mr. Mellott said they could do that. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if Mr. Mellott knew what was planned for the parcel to the east of them and Mr. Mellott said he did not; however, he knew h?s client was interested in it and he might want to buy it eapaad the school in that direction. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Chairwoman Bouas asked if they did have space to add 25 more children and the reply was yes. Mr. Mellott said there was plenty of room, it was quite underbuilt there. Ms. Bouas said they do need to take the homes into consideration, and the noise that the children make, so whatever they could do to help screen it eff so the children are not throwing things over the fence, etc., should be done. 08/15/88 ,~. -- ~ro : Y.. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST, 15, 1988 88 - 53 Mr. Mellott noted his client just recently bought the property and started the improvements, so he was sure the client would be taking care of those factors. ACTION• Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an addition to an existing preschool on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.07 acres, having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the north side of Ratella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 319 feet, being located approximately 1300 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street and further described as 1597 West Ratella Avenue (Childlife Learning Center) 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 oa the basis of the Initial Study and nay comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-220 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Ci!y Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3045, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, including a condition that the walls on the west and north side of the subject property be repaired the full length and trees planted along said walls to attenuate the noise problem, and that all other walls around the property be restored and kept in good repair. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 12. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; CONDITIQN~G USE PERMIT N0. 3046 Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that one of the principals is a customer of his and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3046, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any membAr of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Messe left the Council Chamber. 08/15/88 G 6 ~.! .., MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQ~I AUGUST 15. 1988 88 - 54 yBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: CHARLES A. BREWER AND MARILYN C. BREWER, 3630 Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 928u'S; AGENT: RICHARD DOUGLAS ROTH, 14901 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683; LOCATION: 3620 Miraloma Avenue Request: To permit an automotive repair facility. There were no persons 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. PRESENTATION• Richard Roth, 20921 Shellfish Lane, Huntington Beach, said what they proposed was to open a body shop on the existing property, which was built approzim~tely 10 years ago. He said he and the owner were going to put in excess of 550,000 worth of improvements, not structural improvements, but they understood the area was a redevelopment project and they were going to paint, relaadscape, and redo the parking on the facility. Ae said, in addition there used to be some gas tanks underground which have been removed, by permit, and at this point the only thing they wanted to discuss was Item No. 1 on the conditions, which is the redoing of the driveways. He said currently they were °;:t,e dustpan type driveways, and with a one way entrance and ezit, due to the constrictions of the building, they felt it was not necessary to make any changes for the traffic. THE PUBLIC HEARZNG WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Feldhaus said he would like to hear from the City Engineer regarding the reconstruction of the driveway. Paul Siaqer, Traffic Engineer, said he would respond to this. He said that any commercial use should have 10 foot curb radius returns; there xas ao way they could control vehicles that were coming one way into a private driveway; besides, that has nothing to do with it; the l0 foot radius curb returns facilitate faster movement of traffic from the public right-of-way onto the private street without any conflict, and that is why the curb radius returns are a requirement. He urged the Planning Commission not to amend that condition. Mr. Feldhaus asked if applicant accepted the explanation and was willing to qo along with that. Mr. Roth said he accepted the explanation, but what they are talking about are relatively few cars, under a dozen per day. He said on Tustin Avenue there were appro:imately 25,000 cars, and on Miraloma about 15,000 cars, so with the small number he did not see where they would be impacting the traffic flow in either direction. He said Tustin Avenue was wide enough at this point that a right hand turn lane could be put ia, if necessary, on the corner. He said he did not see where the amount of traffic they were going to be generating 08/15/88 k ,. p yiµ j MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 55 would have an effect oa the street. He said there was public parking allowed on the street right now so they had to be a certain distance from the curb. Mr. Singer said, at the present time, Tustin Avenue was not marked for all of the lanes it is scheduled to have and City has a specific problem on Tustin Avenue because there is a great deal of traffic 'that backs up at the P.M. peak hour that wish to get to Riverside Freeway, and the queque extends from the Riverside Freeway all the way to Orangethorpe every night. He said they need an additional travel lane but they cannot put that travel lane is until the widening of Tustin Avenue takes place, over the channel that crosses Tustin Avenue close to Orangethorpe where the constraint is only to four lanes. He said once that xidens, Tustin Avenue will be marked 6 lanes, 3 in each direction plus a center turn lane; at that time a curb lane will be in operation and, therefore, vehicles that are swinging out into the number 2 lane, in order to access driveways, are not acceptable. Mr. Singer said they are having all commercial driveways reconstructed in order to facilitate street traffic. He said street traffic is getting to be pretty bad and he would not call 25,000 a small value, that is a very substantial volume of traffic. Ms. Bouas said the volume of traffic was heavy on those streets but the amount going into his facility was very small. Mr. Singer said, however, the conflict point was there. Mr. Carusillo said, all the same, t:~is is to be done City wide to minimize the problem we now have. Mr. Feldhaus asked how much in dollars they were talking about. Mr. Singer said approximately 53,000 a driveway, so two driveways would be 56,000. ACTION Commissioner Carusillo offered a rnot.ion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent due to a Conflict of interest) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automotive repair facility on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acre located at the southeast corner of Miralomt. Avenue and Tustin Avenue having approximate frontages of 250 feet on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, 180 feet oa the east side of Tustin Avenue and further described as 3620 Miraloma Avenue 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 xill have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-221 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby 08/15/88 ii ,-~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST, 15. 1988 88 - 56 GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3046, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, NOES: NONE ABSENT: MESSE Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. COMMISSIONER MESSE RETURNED TO THE MEETING. ITEM N0. 13. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3047 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: MARC V. GARNER AND CANDICE JAYNE HAHNER, 21165 Via Ausa, Yorba Linda, CA 92686; AGENT: RHR ASSOCIATES, 17321 Coventry Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92686; LOCATION: 4527 E La Palma Avenue Request: To permit an automotive repair facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was one person indicating her presence is opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. PRESENTATI Robert Rirkpatrick said he was speaking oa behalf of the applicant. He said this proposal was for an automotive repair facility for lightweight maintenance and repair of Mercedes-Benz automobiles. He said the site was on the north size of La Palma Avenue, was a relatively small site, and the uses which were proposed dealt with lubrication, tune-up, and no body work or painting would be involved so there would be no fumes or hazardous waste associated with this use. He said the operation of the facility would be conducted totally indoors. He said there was a front parking lot which would be restriped to provide full sized stalls for 11 vehicles outside and parking on a side aisle for an additional 5 stalls. He said the applicant's internal operation will include, in addition to an office, a waiting room and parts; he will provide service lifts and interior parking for 5 additional vehicles. Mr. Rirkpatrick said in response to staff concerns a parking study had been generated. He said he was not sure if the specific results of that study were transmitted to the Commission. He said in addition to the basic report an addendum was generated which specifically addresses the internal parking and external parking. He said the bottom line results of that study indicate that based on a 15 minute peak parking demand a total of 15 stalls are required by the automotive use. He said the site currently contains 17 parking stalls 08/15/88 ~. ~, y `r.' ~. .,,, MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST, 15, 1988 88 - 57 outside and the building is about 4 to 5 years old and because of the change in standards, 5 of the outside stalls in the alley way nett to this building have been determined to be substandard. He said he agreed they are substandard; they are B feet wide with a 10-foot aisle and there is a certain amount of hardship in changing this use which all of a sudden makes those 5 stalls non-conforming, and apparently, are not supposed to be used. He said, in addition to the it stalls outside, which are authorized, there are another 9 stalls inside the building, and based on those additional 9 stalls and one other piece of information, that he was not sure was passed on, the existing operator, a manufacturing firm in the back of the building, needs 4 parking stalls. He said the operator makes customized automobile racing parts on a mail order basis and has four employees; his customers do not come to the place of business. He said by the time they get all the way through it there is a total of 19 parking stall areas for placement of vehicles that are required for the peak hour. He said the parking study did determine that there was adequate parking for this operation. Mr. Kirkpatrick said the plans that were submitted to the City indicated a dedication of 12 feet for the critical intersection program and indicated that the west half of the drive approach would be modified to a 10-foot curb return. He said the applicant had advised him to indicate his consent to the conditions of approval; in addition, based on earlier comments and the conditions, they xould be putting in a 10-£oot radius oa the east side of the approach. He said the driveway leading to the site was about 5 feet in width, 17 1/2 feet on this site and the balance on the opposite side. OPPOSITION• Margaret Moore, owner of the building across from the proposod project said she did not believe this would be compatible with other uses in the neighborhood and was concerned this might pose afire hazard, with £lammables, fumes, and noise; additionally, there would be traffic problems brought to the area by this business. Ms. Moore said the traffic and parking problems had become very acute in the City of Anaheim, and at certain intersections near Lakeview felt this would be compounded by the type of business that would have cars coming in for repairs. '~ Mr. Rir;kpatrick said the location of this business for a N.ercedes dealership was important to his client, simply because there was a limited number of reasonalble locations for the placement of this type of business and clientele. He said, in terms of the appearance of the building, the landscaping would be upgraded across the front of the site, curb and gutter would bie modified, sidewalk installed, landscaping in front of the building would bye upgraded, a single sign placed on the outside of the building, and the types of vehicles that are maintained to a certain extent speak for themselves in terms of the way the business will be operated. He said you do not misitreat Mercedes-Benz automobiles sand .stay in business. He said it was important for this operation to be properly maintained, simply to maintain the 08/15/88 MINU'S'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 58 clientele. He said, in terms of noise, the operation was totally inside. .He said from the outside it will look like a upper-end office building that employs some very rich people. He said they do xequest approval for both the Conditional Use Permit and the waiver oa the parking. He said it was his belief that there was sufficient parking for this specific operation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Kirkpatrick if she were correct in her understanding that they manufactured parts and shipped them out. Mr. Kirkpatrick said there are two operations in the building; in the front would be the automotive repair and the back half of the building manufactures automobile type parts for Indianapoli^ race cars, which are custom made and shipped out. He said the rear operation had nothing to do with theirs but they had four employees in the back of the building. Commissioner Herbst asked what type of automotive repair Mr. Kirkpatrick was talking about. He noted they are looking at a general use here, as far as permit, for an automotive facility. He said they would have no control over what type of repair work they were doing there, whether it was Mercedes or Toyotas or whatever. Mr. Kirkpatrick asked if this use could be limited to this applicant. Mr. Herbst said the only thing they could probably do would be to put a time limit oa the Conditional Use Permit; he did not think they could control it. He said if they had an automotive operation it would be hard for Commission to say someone else could not have an automotive operation there. Mr. Herbst said it appears that with the automotive repair facility, the smallness of the building, and the way the parking was arranged along the side of the building, it was strictly inadequate. He asked how they would back cars out; they could not turn them around, they would have to back them out and the facility is strictly inadequate for that type of use. He said the driveway was narrow, and putting cars along side of it to try to meet the parking code would require backing cars out, almost into the other parking area, before you could get out of there; that does not make sense. Commissioner McBuraey noted applicant did not, technically, need that space along the driveway for the parking ordinance, so he believed those stalls could just be abandoned. Commissioner Meese asked if parking spaces one through five were needed, and Commissioner McBuraey said they were not. Commissioner Meese asked how many compact parking stalls were in the front, and Mr. Kirkpatrick said there were none. 08/15/88 ~ ; ~~. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 59 Chairwoman Bouas asked if basically the work would not be done by appointment and Mr. Rirkpatrick said that it would. Mr. Rirkpatrick said the 5 stalls in the aisle way, which is very narrow, were currently striped stalls which are used by the rear operator. He said 2 of those stalls are non-functional because you must turn out of that area. He thought it would be appropriate to eliminate those 2 southerly stalls leaving only 3 in the alley way. Mr. Herbst noted that on the staff report it says that 29 stalls are required and it are provided and asked for clarification. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, noted the 11 spaces staff counted (referring to the exhibit), the exhibit showed 11 usable parking spaces. He said he believed there were 5 spaces along the east property line which were not counted toward code spaces because they did not meet minimum requirements. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated there are only 11 parking spaces shown. He said parking spaces on the inside of the building do not count. He said he remembered when this building came is and noted it was to remain an industrial. building. He said he thought what the real problem was, was that he had no confidence in the parking study as it was conducted because it did not really show a real world situation; it had stretched the point quite far. He said his concern was that the lot would be over parked and thereby force some vehicles to back out onto La Palma Avenue from time to time in order to get around that lot, which he did not consider a safe situation; at most auto repair facilities, cars are pretty much stacked oa the lot. Ms. Bouas asked what kind of work would be done oa the cars and Mr. Rirkpatrick said it would be lightweight mechanical. Mr. Rirkpatrick said cars would drive is and drive out on a daily basis. He said regarding backing out onto the street, there was an ingress/egress easement which was 20 feet wide and 50 feet deep, and. crosses over the adjoining site so they essentially have two parking areas which share a common drive; therefore, there is a substantial area on site to make U-turn maneuvers so that you would not back onto the street. He said he did not foresee anyone backing onto the street, it would not be necessary. Ms. Bouas asked if there would be any storage outside and Mr. Rirkpatrick said there was some sort of storage area directly behind the building but their type of use does not require outside storage. Mr. Singer said outside storage of vehicles that are waiting to be worked on would be oa the outside; Mr. Rirkpatrick said that would only be daytime. Mr. Messe noted daytime is when the impact oa the par;:,nq lot was most significant. He said he just felt this facility was way under parked when you consider the square footage of the facility and what could happen there. Ms. Bouas noted there was no guarantee that what was in the back was going to stay constant, where they would only need four parking spaces. 08/15/88 w. ~ ;~ti ~. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST. 15, 1988 88 - 60 Mr. Rirkpatrick said the user in the back is the owner of the building and operates the automotive parts manufacturing business and is leasing the front portion to the applicant; therefore, he has control over the building. Mr. Herbst said he saw the wide driveway on the drawing but asked if they had an irrevocable offer of 'being able to use that. Mr. Rirkpatrick said, yes, that was parcel 2 of the deed reflecting an ingress/egress easement 20 feet in width by 50 feet in length over the south west corner of the parcel immediately adjacent. Mr. Herbst asked how many employees they would employ there. Mr. Rirkpatrick said there was a misstatement on the report, that there were a total of 7 employees which will occupy the entire site, 4 in the rear and 3 is the front operation. Mr. Rirkpatrick said the parking requirements for this operation, based on another study xhich vas presented to and approved by this body and resulted in the approval of Astor Automotive oa Hancock, reflected a requirement for parking at a ratio of 4.49 stalls per thousand square feet of gross floor area. He said that study also took into coasiderakioa interior parking areas inside the building, as compensation for,, oa that site, a shortage of parking. He said Mr. Erickson is simply looking for parity. He said the same logic was being applied and they were not deviating from that. Ms. Bouas asked how many cars could be parked inside and Mr. Rirkpatrick said a total of nine vehicles could be parked there. Mr. Rirkpatrick said they have four service racks, plus five open storage areas, and those could ke striped. ACTION Commissioner McHurneg ofi~.~red a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED that the Aunheim City Planning Cortanissioa has reviewed the proposal to permit an automotive repair facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces oa an irregularly-shaped parcel of land Gonsistiaq of approzimately 1 acre located at the southeast corner of Miraloma Avenue and Tustin Avenue having approzimate frontages of 250 feet on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, 180 feet on the east side of Tustin Avenue and further described as 3620 Miraloma Avenue anu does hereby approve the Legative 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 ao substantial evidence that the vroject will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Cotmnisaioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun, Feldhaus and Messe voting NO) that the 08/15/88 { ;~;: j~-7iT1'F.C_ ANLAF.TM CITY PLAbdING COMMIS°'~" "`^T1CT 15 19$8 88 - 61 Anaheir:. City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking variance will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and that the granting of the parking variance under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general we3fare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner McBuraey offered Resolution No. PC88-222 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3047 for a period of 5 years, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MC BURNEY NOES: BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, MESSE ABSENT: NONE Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, gzesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ~,~ther Discussion: Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Singer, on the utilization of this building, what he could see as a proper use; what type would give adequate parking. Mr. Singer said it was originally designed, two buildings actually, he remembered very vividly, for warehousing with office space up front, which is a normal single unit warehouse/office type operation. it had a dock where vehicles could enter, load and unload merchandise, and this is what it was originally designed for. He said they were not very old, they must be about 5 to 6 years old. Mr. Carusillo said his dilemma was that, although he thought it was somewhat inadequate for the purpose, if tha gentleman wants to use it for that so be it. He said he did not know how long it had been vacant but it looked vary bad oui there. Commissioner Herbst noted that they do have the right of revocation if a problem is r•reated and Chairwoman Bouas agreed. COMMISSIONER MCBURNEY EXCUSED HIMSELF FROM THE RES? OF THE MEETING. RECESS: 6:25 p.m. RECONVENE: 6:55 p.m. TTEF, NO 14 C$QA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENTZ b ITIONA E PE t/IT NO 3049• WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY N0. 543 PUBLIC HEARING OWNER: WILREN WAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 6795 Airport Drive, Riverside, CA 92504; LOCATION: 490 West Wilken Wav 08/15/88 ~~ ~~ t,~I ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 62 Request: To construct a 1 to 10-story, 440-unit "affordable" senior citizen apartment complex with waiver of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit and (b) maximum structural height. There were eight persons 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. PRESENTATION• Richard T. Brown, 6775 Airport Drive, Riverside, stated he would like to give a capsule history of this parcel. He said the 40 acres of the northeasterly corner of Harbor and Chapman was occupied solely at one time by the old White Front Store and when White Front went under, the property was divided so there was the present strip-type of commercial along Harbor Boulevard. He said then another segment went into the present condominiums and the remaining portion is the 9.6 acres that is now an unoccupied mini storage. He said he got involved in the property after a previous applicant had applied for and received, with the blessing of the neighbors at that time, 143 condominium units; when they purchased the property they purchased oa the condition that they would be able to apply for and receive a 250 unit apartment project. He said they had applied for that and it was denied. He said they determined, rightly or wrongly, that they would attempt to pursue the property since they had so much invested in it, even though they were not at that time obligated to buy it. He said that when the apartment project was denied, theg were approached by an operator of a mini-storage and asked to design for him the mini-storage that is there currently, which be would purchase from them,. He noted the operator had some problem, the details he is not sure of, but in any event the mini-storage was not purchased and they now have an unoccupied mini-storage on that site. He said they determined that they had to do something with the property and, because of where it is, how it is, and the zoning, and because of the desires of the neighbors in the area, they tried to come up with a reasonable use for the property, kaeping in mind what the objections were to the 250 unit apartment project request. He said at that time, and before this body and the City Council, the objection to the apartment project was made on a number of different points; the most important at that time was that there had been a surge is crime in the same general area. He said they had the concerns at that time of overloading the schools, afraid of an increase in traffic, the capability of the Fire Department to handle a much greater load, and the normal infrastructure objections to the project. He said, as they can tell since it has been empty a long time, that they had spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what the proper use of this parcel was so they could answer the neighbors objections as best they possibly could and at the same time satisfy the requirements of some very expensive property to make it productive. HR said their answer to that was what was before them now. Mr. Brown stated he believed the Senior Citizen's Project speaks to many of the issue.5 that the neighbors at that time brought up and were concerned about. He said it was unlikely they would get a lot of crime emanating from a 08/15/88 ;~ ., MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQt~ISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 63 project of this nature; obviously there would be no load on the school system; they have provided more than double the requirement of open recreation area on the site so presumably there will be no effect on Ponderosa or other nearby parks. The building is all concrete, all fire proofed, meeting and/or exceeding the newest codes in both health and safety so he did not believe there would be any particular load on the infrastructure. This is contemplated to be a private enterprise non-governmentally supported building so there should not be much of a concern there. He said that leaves a couple of obvious questions; you have an 8-sc.•.ry and a 10-story building, then the buildings running in a horizontal line are 3-story buildings and then, toward the residential area, easterly side of the property, are 1-story buildings. He said the sum and substance of that is the architects ran a line of sight line so that none of the buildings will impinge on any of the easterly houses. He noted the staff report indicates their line of sight drawings would not necessarily be accurate for a couple of houses on the north side of Wilken, the opposite sine away from the tract, which is an objection that he had not anticipated but in looking at the plans the ends of those buildings are blank walls and would not have windows so there may be one or two houses that would be impingod by those tall buildings on the north side of Wilken way although he doubts that is the case. Mr. Brown said he did not think there was a substantial objection as to the height of those buildings; the height of those buildings had allowed them to get much more open ground area, or park space, on the site. He said he did not think there was any question that there would be some increase in traffic; he could not determine if the traffic generated would be more than the mini- storage would have created. He said that from the traffic studies they had made it should not be of substantial negative impact to the neighborhood; then such traffic as is generated would largely be off peak traffic. Mr. Brown, in addressing the reason for 440 units, said the hest answer he could give was that they had made a sincere effort to come in with as many very affordable units as they could. He said the staff report indicr.~~ed 31 - 32~ and they had agreed with the City staff that is fact they would :;ommit to 35~ of the very affordable. He said the number 440 came with the maximum number of units they could put on there while not asking for parking waivers and being able to maximize the open space and at the same time get the cost of the land down per unit enough so they could achieve the very affordable. Mr. Brown said it was their intention to use a very new construction system with this plan, it has been through engineering already, they know it will work, they are not yet convinced of the advantage of it cost wise, they know it is less azpensive, they know it is a first class structural system and if they can do it, it is their intention to maximize the use of the 440 by making much more percentage of this building available for the vary affordable. Mr. Brown said if Commission feels that on the north side of Wilken Way, where they had inadvertently intruded oa adjacent property th_~y should take a couple of stories off and comply with the height restriction oa one of those buildings, porhaps they could move it to the other building. 08/15/88 ~` ~..~. , , ., . : ~,:::~s:.:,;;~., MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST. 15. 1988 88 - 64 OPPOSITION• Ralph SanGiovanni, 242 West Simmons, Anaheim, said the applicant had found the right use, and they had all agreed upon it, a few years back; that was the mini-storage. He said they are good looking and they had used the land to the maximum, the neighbors had no objection to them, and now he believes that was all a trick to get is there and build something leaving it sit for this period of time. He said he could not believe no one would buy that after it was built; it was sitting there brand new and now they want to tear it down to build something else. He said it made them very nervous when just around the corner there were 30-year-old structures. He said the storage shP~is were the perfect thing for that spot. He said he knew they needed housing or senior citizens, but there are plenty of areas where they would not have to knock samethiaq down to build. He said a few years ago Commission did work with the neighbors and denied the 250 apartments. He said now the senior citizen project is a whole new game, because it eliminates garages. He wanted to know why the senior citizens would not have enclosed garages; they would have to leave their cars in the open and that was not a good idea. He said it did not appear to be enough parking, with 440 units, a couple of people per unit. He noted senior citizens often have motor homes for traveling and there would be ao place to put them. He was against the waivers; he said the density was 2 1/2 times the amount allowed and he felt this would not be comfortable for the people that would be living there. He noted Wilken, in the direction of Raster, leads to two major freeways, the I 5 and 22 Freeway, which means that just about anyone leaving that area to head for a freeway will go up Wilken so that will be the newest highway in Anaheim and when that is congested the people xill be using all the other streets within their tract. He was also opposed to the height waiver and noted they had played some tricks with this by making the buildings all different heights. He said the General Plan agreed upon years ago, was 18 units per acre. Mr. Brown was proposing 46, three times the amount, which is pretty high density. He asked who monitored and enforced the number of persons per unit, the age of the resident, etc., after the thing is built. He said he felt this project would effect more than those neighbors within the 300-foot radius. Marla Anghelone, 2231 South Oertley Drive, who lives immediately behind this proposed project, said she believed approximately 900 senior citizens living very close to each other is just ripe for crime. She said they are a known crime target and with the way the cars were parked throughout the outside perimeter, they could step on cars and hop over the 6 foot wall into someone's back yard into traffic and be lost. She said by having one access way this would cuC down on the availability of police to come in and surround the area. She said also with elderly people you would have a higher rate of emergency vehicle traffic and that would mean sirens day and night, with an increased load oa the streets. She noted that Wilken Way was so narrow that if you parked two large pickup trucks, with camper shells, there would only be room for one car to pass between. She noted there is a cafeteria proposed in this plan which would mean heavy trucks in and out to service that, as well as an increase in refuse trucks to pick up trash which will impact on the sewage systems. She said she was also concerned about pedestrian traffic, walking to the bus and to the park. She said she dzd not believe this project was 08/15/88 ~ ~ ~. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AU ST 15 1988 88 65 functional, although there is a lot of open space it is not utilized efficiently, and she xarried for the safety of the residents of the proposed project; there was no place for them to walk safely without crossing a major street. She asked if there were going to be major improvements made in the sewage system because their sewage system was barely holding what was there now and their underground system would not handle the increased capacity of approzimately 900 persons, plus a recreation center, plus a visitors, etc. She stated all of their air flow comes from the direction of the project and noticed a drastic reduction in air flow just from the Plaza Alacante Hotel now and they would have a drop in their sunlight also, and at night, lighting from the project would shine right into their homes. She askefi who was going to keep up the parkway. She noted they had trouble with this applicant even now keeping the parkway up; he had been spoken to several times by the City because they had a problem with him keeping up his parkway aven to fire safety standards. She said she was wondering if there were going to be a fire access gate from the opposite end of the one road going through and, if there were , how would they keep others from coming in through there. She also wanted to know if there would be as increased police patrol for that many people. She noted that there are several people is her neighborhood who do not get off work in time to come to the day time meeting and she wanted to request a continuance of this, with the condition that it not be heard prior to 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. Frank McCormick, 229 West 9luebell Avenue, Anaheim, said the speaker prior to him had said basically what he wanted to sa}', the only thing he wanted to add was that the police had said, due to the increase population around the neighborhood already with the saturation of apartments that already ezists, it is the worse crime neighborhood in the City. He said people come over his back fence and as Marla and Ralph had said there is a tremendous amount of crime, and when a new hotel is built on the corner of Orangexood and Aarbor that will constitute more traffic. Eileen Young, 242 West Simmons, Anaheim, said she was opposed to this complex or any other in that spot. She said she did not understand why those storage sheds were never opened. They stayed empty for txo years and she felt they could have rented them out if they needed the money. She said concerning the idea of the senior citizens, they keep trying to sell them on the idea that senior citizens are immobile and 55-years-of-age is pretty young. She noted most people drive, her parents are 70 and 3rive they do not sit around. She noted, also, in the neighborhood there are inadequate sidewalks and if these people were going to be walking, they would be walking down their streets. She noted that things change constantly and if applicant went bankrupt already on the last project, then will half way through this project will they go ba:krupt and then it won't be senior citizens anymore, it could just become apartments. She noted this would be the 29th senior citizen project being built in Anaheim. She felt they should utilize the storage sheds that are there now and not tear down something new to put up more buildings. She said this was not the best use of this land. Mr. Guerra, 2154 South Madrid Street, Anaheim, said his main concern was the crime is the area. He said Mr. Brown talked about the quality of the building 08/15/88 .. .. ...~...~ ... .. ,....,~,...`...'~xw.~v~r. r+:..r .u.nv::..ra'~.:v w L L t A..!!?fAi .~ t: ~./. ~~ MINUTES ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST. 15, 1988 88 - 66 but that will not solve anything. He said the problem here was the over population. He said he was all for building affordable housing for senior citizens, he was one, but this height building is a single family area was not appropriate. He asked Commission to give careful consideration to this project, he felt they should deny it. Mr. McCormick, said he would like to ask members of the Commission if they had not, 3 to 4 years ago, gone through this before when Mr. Brown proposed apartments; at that time he asked Mr. Brown why he could not build condominiums, which the owners would be more tempted to keep up, whereas renters are more slack in the care of the property. He would like an answer to that. REBUTTAL• Mr. Hrown said, as he spelled out before, the 250 units were proposed and denied before and that is why they have proposed this project. He said that prior to his involvement is the property the property was approved for 148 condominium units; that proposal was made with the support of a pension trust fund that owned the property at the time, who they actually bought the property from, and even with the strength and power of a huge pension trust fund they could not make condominiums work economically, yet they had unlimited resources. He said they are not economically feasible on that property in that area. Mr. Brown said that in a unit of this size, there would be provided and could be stipulated, that this will be a high security building arith security people on the premises 24 hours a day, in addition to full-time management. He said, also, that there trould not be an average of two people in .each one of these units, the chances are good that there would be 1.2 people per unit in this type building. TAE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Messe said he would like to hear from Mr. Brown relative to the sewer problem and the condition that is being imposed on him. Mr. Hrown said they had no problem with any of the conditions; they will comply xith the staff requirements. Commissioner Baydstun asked how many compact parking places they had. Mr. Brown said they had some to start with and at Mr. Singer's suggestion they eliminated any questionable ones, by making larger regular spaces. Mr. Messe said the drawing showed 15. Chairwoman Bouas asked what the senior citizen ordinance was for size. 08/15/88 ,n ~~. , ~. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST, 15, 1988 88 - 67 Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, said the ordinance did not allow any small car spaces; however, the spaces that are small car in the plan are above and beyond the required number of spaces. Ms. Bouas asked regarding the apartment size. Mr. Hastings said for one bedroom he believed it was 550 square feet, and they meet code on those. Ms. Boydstun asked if what they were saying xas that they had enough parking to meet code plus the compact spaces. Dennis Costa said that was correct, they had an overage of parking per requirements of the City. He said the compact stalls on that plan were in excess of what they should be, there was an error made oa that plan they had not been able to change before meeting the deadline. He said he believed there was a maximum of 7 they could have, and the overage of eight would have to be revised oa the plan, into full size. Mr. Herbst asked, about the parking that they have surrounded the perimeter with, and how they intended to control that parking and have the people parking within reasonable walking distance of their facility. Mr. Costa said the parking would be assigned. Mr. Aerbst noted they could have as many as 200 cars. Mr. Costa said that is always a problem with a high rise. Mr. Herbst said they were talking about a senior citizen project and in those cases they wanted the walking distance within a reasonable distance and control. They have a 10 story building with 158 units in it and most of the people living here are still going to be working. if there were a man and wife they would have two cars. if they are talking about someone 55 years-of-age, those people are going to be working and driving their cars just like in a regular apartment house. He said he is talking shout a reasonable distance in walking and he did not think they could even consider this because the way the perimeter is surrounded with parking, they would have someone about 500 feet away from their apartment, which does not work in senior citizen complexes. Mr. Brown said there is a specific distance is the code, that you must have adequate parking in the immediate ~:icinity of the building, and he was unable to give them what that distance is but be could say that this complies with whatever it is. Mr. Herbst said he did not believe it does. Mr. Brown said if it does not, they will see to it that it does. He said he also wanted to add that in the high rise buildings there would be no 55s, only 62 years old ant older. He said the only 55-year-olds would be in the one stories on the perimeter. 08/15/88 *. ~- . _; ,: ;~; .,.. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS'SIQN AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 68 Ms. Boydstun and Mr. Herbst asked him how he could control that. Ms. Boydstun said the State Law says 55 if you have over 150 units. Mr. Brown said he understood in the management of senior citizen buildings that you could assign suites; you could not do it oa the basis of race, color, or creed, but you could assign suites on age and ability to use those suites. He said the high rise buildings would have rapid speed elevators is them and all the facilities that are not as adaptable to the 55-year-olds would be in the low rise building. Mr. Herbst said for some reason, if you live in a complex that has a 150 units or more you can be 55 and be a senior, but if you have a senior citizen complex that is less than 150 units, you have to be 62. He said his concern was that there was a double standard here as to who is a senior citizen. He said he happens to know that seniors that are 55 are still working and driving automobiles and this is what bothers him about the complez; they would have na control over tenants; the State says you could fill that whole complez up with 55-year-olds; there is no control over it, except on the affordables. Mr. Brown said he could not answer that but the parking ordinances for senior citizens has changed is Anaheim and their project more than complies with that code. He said they had the same problem, they are not aiming at the 55 market, they are aiming at the over 62 market. He said it is most likely that this thing will probably be occupied with people that are a great deal older than the 62. He said that it was their intention, if they could get the density, to make much more of this available to the very affordable. He said they were making the best effort to serve the market. Mr. Messe said the staff report shows there would be an agreement to 137 affordable units and the write up on the site plan, which they received as part of the staff report, indicates 110 at very low rent and 110 at lox rent. He said that is 220. He asked what they have in the way of as agreement. Debbie Vagts, Housing Operations Coordinator, said she was not aware of anything in excess of 137. She does not have an agreement for 220. Mr. Feldhaus asked what her agreement was for the very low and Ms. Vaqts said her agreement was for 137 very low, nothing is the low. Mr. Feldhaus asked which buildings those affordable were is and Ms. Vagts stated the units would have to be spread throughout the project. Mr. Herbst asked, in looking at the 10-story building, how that affected the homes. He said when the sun goes down and you get behind the 10-story building, what does that do to neighbors back yards early in the evening. He said he was talking about circulation of air and sunshine. Mr.Brown said he could not tell Mr. Herbst if they took a sunset line of sight or not. 08/15/88 s 0.. .y_ ~, viI2.JTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1986 88 - 69 Mr. Herbst said if you took a look at that building, the 10-story building, and the overlap of the 8-story building, then you have the whole area blocked and when the sun sets early, it would set a lot earlier for them. Mr. Brown said if there was a blockage, the sun sets south westerly, so if there were to be a shadow or shade it would be on Wilken Way and not to the property on the east. He said he doubted seriously if that would be a problem. Mr. Herbst said he had viewed many senior citizen complezes across the state and many he had seen were gated and really had security for the seniors. He said many of the parking areas are beneath the buildings where they drive down a gated entrance and qo up the elevator; they don't have to walk too far from the elevator to their rooms. He said he does not agree with applicant's design. He can see where there would be a lot of vandalism there. He would be concerned with a senior coming is and having to park way over on the back side and walk a good distance to their area, carrying groceries or whatever. He thinks this is something that they seed to consider. He does not think this project is properly designed in a manner to take care of the type of people they would have there. He noted that many of the services were 3 to 4 miles away. Mr. Brown said they had wanted to have gates on this project but there was a traffic flow and stacking problem that they had not as yet been able to solve and that caused them to leave gates out and say to Commission that they would have a 24-hour foot patrol is the project. He said they would much prefer to gate it. He said if they do not have adequate parking close enough to the facility, then they would do whatever it takes to get it and if that requires going underground close to the building, they would do that. He said he hoped that would not be the case because they are doing their best to keep the cost down so they can get more of the units to be affordable. He said the goal is to have the whole think very affordable and they can already tell them that it will all be affordable. Mr. Herbst said Mr. Brown talked about having a gated community but noted a stacking problem. He said it was just a matter of redesigning the project to where they could have a gated community and suggested Mr. Brown had too many units there, which needed to be cut down so they could have a gated community and build it in a manner that would be safe for seniors that have to walk a good distance. Mr. Herbst said they had a huge rectangular piece of property and there was no reason why they could not meet all the conditions necessary to service it. Mr. Herbst said they had packed them in, as many as they could get, and as high as they could go. He said he was not against the high rises if they did not effect the neighborhood but these interfere with the health, safety and welfare of those homes back there and he believed the applicant needed to qo back to the drawing board and come up with something better. Mr. Carusillo said that maybe this project was approvable, but a solution might be allocating a number of spaces, if the parking was adequate, for 08/15/88 ;k MINUTES. ANAHEIM CIT7t PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST. 15. 1988 88 - 70 loading and unloading only, adjacent to the entry ways and/or elevators to the units. Mr. Carusillo said his real concern, however, was with the density. Mr. Carusillo said a solution to the height would be to remove two stories in Building No. 1 (10-story) and any other adjustments, to get it down to a more suitable density situation. Mr. Herbst said there were some good points about this project that protected the single family home but there xere some areas that they had not considered and his concern was with the senior citizens that live there. He said security is the main thing they think about and this does not give them that. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, said his nnn concern with this property was that if it was approved as is, he had no doubt that once residents moved into the project they would want gates and there was ao way to retro fit them under this design; they should be preplanned is an orderly and manageable fashion. He said he really had very strong concerns about that because, as they had heard this evening,there were concerns about high crime area, and the elderly are, of course, targeted for crime. He said the cars would be vandalized and the senior citizens could not live there without security gates. He said there was no practical way to do it under this design. Mr. Messe said it could be done with a design modification and Mr. Singer noted it would have to be a severe design modification. Ms. Bouas said another answer might be to not strive for all affordable, to have some other units there that are not affordable to attract other people with some type of transportation. Mr. Brown said they have vans that would carry tenants back i~nd forth, since that was a need. He said he believed Commission's concerns were valid and perhaps they should not have tried to reach the goal of all affordable. He said he recognized that they needed the gates and were rilling to work with that and if Commission wanted them to go back to the design board in general, he would be perfectly willing to do that. He said he would hope to get some direct input from Commission as to what they think. Mr. Messe said he believed that Mr. Brown was hearing from them that high security was important, and more important is a senior's project than high density, so it means if some density has got to come down to achieve that, then that is what their input is. Ms. Bouas said if they could not do as many affordable, that would be fine. Mr. Brown said if they wished to continue this, they would go back and target that issue. He said they may want to go higher on the other building to compensate, or eliminate one of the three story buildings to get more turn around space. Ms. Bouas asked if a four week continuance would be enough time, or would they need siz weeks and set for 6:00 p.m. Mr. Brown said that siz weeks would be fine. 08/15/88 '~ L1I~,*"'IIS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AU~J~'" 15 1988 88 - 71 A TI N• Commissioner Hoydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McHurney absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of September 26, 1988, ro be heard after 6.00 n.m., in order to offer the opportunity to the applicant to redesign the project. Additional Discussion: Mr. Brown asked if the density would bother Commission if they could accomplish the security, even if they have to do some underground parking. He asked if the 8-story building could be made 10-story, so they would have two 10-story buildings. He asked if that was acceptable or if they needed to work on the density. Mr. Herbst said they may want to take a look at the high rise buildings. He said he had no problem with that if they were located in a manner that they do not effect the neighborhood. He said they might be able to relocate things to where sunlight and air circulation would not be effected too much. He felt it should be done so that it does not black off the people that are living is these houses. He said he felt they seeded a gated community and that they might not have to qo to underground parkiaq but they might use their lower story for gated underbuilding parkiaq. He said they might lose some units underneath, on the ground floor. Mr. Brown said Commission's input had been good and they would try to put it too good use and appreciated their consideration. He hoped they could come back with something that was acceptable to them. Mr. Carusillo said they had talked about the problem with the 10 stories, the impact, then they mentioned txo 10-story buildings. He said he felt they were going the wrong way in that direction, as far as he was concerned. Mr. Brown said he suggested that only because, from a marketing standpoint, there, were a large number of people in the City of Anaheim that need very affordable housing. He said all he was trying to do was to satisfy a need. Mr. Carusillo added, but not to the detriment of the people that are living there. Ms. Houas said they might not want that to be all affordable housing, a mixture is much better. Mr. Feldhaus said that buildings one and three were the 10-story and 8-story buildings, which are on the far west side of the project, nest to a commercial site. 08/15/88 __._...___~..-, ...................,.ww,wu_..:uar~*xe~~aa..+.aa:~;vS~rzsx.x'K.. `I ::~. ~, MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLA_xxrxr rnrrMTCCrON. AUrrrcT, r s, _ __ 1988 88 _ 72 Mr. Herbst said they need to make a study and look at the way the wind flow and sunshine goes and arrange the buildings so that they are not blocking off the single family homes; these are studies they need to make. Mr. Carusillo said they had also talked about some negative impact visually from the residential north of the project, because of the 10-story building. He asked if that were a blank wall and the reply was that it was blank and there was no way anyone could look down from the top of the 10-story building into someone's backyard. Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, said that one of the conditions of approval that was recommended from the Engineering Department, based on the plans submitted, was just that a modified cul-de-sac be constructed at the end of Willowbrook. He noted that if this were a gated community where traffic could not go straight through, Engineering would then recommend that a full standard cul-de-sac be constructed at the end of Willowbrook Street, which is going to require the developer to acquire some right of way to construct that. Ms. Bouas said that when they revise their plans it would go through department review again. Mr. Daw said he just wanted to make that comment now so that applicant is aware of it. He said that Fire Department may want a crash gate but if they had a gated community then anybody else who gets on Willowbrook has to turn aroun3 and come back down to Chapman and, as such, a modified cul-de-sac would not suffice and a full standard would have to be constructed. Ms. Anqhelone said she had a comment about the gated community; she would have people parking in front of her house because they do not have a pass to the gate or they are visiting someone and they know there is no parking in there. She said if they are going to have a gate it should be set far enough back that they could have 12 to 15 visitors spots between the gate and street so they don't end up parking in front of her house. Ms. Bouas said that was right and she believed they should take that into consideration. Mr. Herbst said he suggested the developer have a meeting with the neighbors before coming back before the Planning Commission, on the new plans. ITEM NO 15 - CEOA NEraTrvr DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REOUraFU.tFxT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ti0 3050 PUBLIC HEARING• OWNER: LEDERER-ANAHEIM, LTD., 1990 Westwood Boulevard, 3rd floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025; AGENT: VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, ATTN: STEVEN ZARIT, 333 East Cerritos, Anaheim, CA 92612-7019; LOCATION: 333 East Cerritos Avenue (Vineyard Christian Cent *1 Request: To retain a church (Vineyard Christian Center) with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. 08/15/88 ~: •- ~. MINOTES ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION AU S'~' 15 1988 86 73 There were no persons indicating their presence in oppasition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. PRESENTATION• Steve Zarit, 2510 West Warner, Santa Ana, said he was on staff at the Vineyard Christian Fellowship. He indicated they had a 5 year lease on the property and owner had agreed to eztend that for 30 more months. He said he picked up this morning the recommendations and the only ones he could not commit to at this time were 1, 2, and 6, because they involved the owner of the property who had taken a 3-week vacation. He said he tried calling the owner's office to let him know about 1 and 2, but he said he did not think there would be too much of a problem with 6. He said he did not know how the owner felt about donating part of his property to the City and he had not been able to contact him. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Messe asked if they were changing anything is the operation of the church, or adding building. Mr. Zarit said they were not adding anything at all; ao structural changes. He said they just had 30 more months to qo oa their extended lease. Chairwoman Bouas saiC she thought they should xait to impose these conditions until something major was going to happen to the property. ~~~ Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain a church with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 12 acres located narth and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, having approzimate frontages of 725 feet oa the north side of Cerritos Avenue, 500 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and further described as 333 East Cerritos Avenue (Vineyard Christian Center) and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negativo Declaration together xith any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Stu=:y and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause as increase in traffic congestion in the 08/15/88 ,' ;x ,, r: MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 74 immediate vicinity nor adversely affect nay adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-223 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3050, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to interdepartmental Committee Recommendations with modification to delete Condition Nos. 1 and 2. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCBURNEY Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 16. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3051 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: P/A STATE COLLEGE INVESTORS, 15751 Rockfield Boulevard, 8200, Irvine, CA 92718; LOCATION: ],177 S. State College Boulevard Request: To permit a 6-unit, 8,670 square-foot commercial retail center including a 2,800 square-foot convenience market with waivers of (a) minimum structural setback for trash enclosure and (b) required screening of parking area. There were two persons 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. PRESENTATION• Gary (secretary was unable to discern the last name), with Park Abrams Development Company, said they agreed with staff recommendations in the report aa~ look forward to developing a quality project within the City. He said Commission took some action in late November on basically the same project. He said they took over the project after that xas approved, met with staff, then went oa to working drawings and met with many of the local residents for their input oa the design and tenancy. He felt he generally had the consent of some of the single family residents, as well as tenants in the apartments. He said there xas a provision for a convenience market that had beRn changed to a ranch market, who had agreed to contain his hours to 11:00 p.m. closing and work with the deliveries and trash problems. They would carry produce, meat items, and that type of thing so it will not be the typical 7 - 11 situation. He said basically they were in the process of being approved by the Building Department when the new Ordinance 4901 went into effect. 08/15/88 ,~ ,. N ~ii~[1 TIES, ANAHEIM CITY P .ANNING Cnrrt~rTCCtON AttrrtcT 15 lORA gg 75 OPPOSITION Harold Vlviall, 1150 South State College, said he was the owner of the property immediately opposite this project. He said he was not in opposition to the project but in opposition to several items in the staff report and wants some assurance from the developer as to his intention. Mr. Vlviall noted Item Nos. 6 and 9 on Page 6 of the staff report. He said the first alludes to fast food service facilities and how they may obtain those. He said as they might recall in the past that other fast food projects, Circle R and others, were proposed for this property and this was greatly opposed by all the people who live in that area; they are concerned, and want to make sure, they do not have as intent to bring that type operation here. He said they had been verbally assured and would like to get some further assurance oa that. Commissioner Feldhaus said the condition did state that they were not to have fast food service. Mr. Vlviall said conditions state no fast food service, unless required parking is provided or a parking variance is granted. He said this gives them an option and he was not sure why that gratuitous loophole was in there. Commissioners Feldhaus and Messe informed Mr. Vlviall that they always have that option; they would need to come before the Flaaaing Commission again, however. Mr. Vlviall asked about the other condition having to do with sigaage. He said if these people happen to sell to someone who is not as conscientious as these people appear to be, then they would not have any restriction on signs. He said they would like them to stipulate that they would comply with the CL Zone signage requirements. He said this was essentially a residential area, is immediately adjacent to a residential area, and they would not like to see variance type signs put there. Irene Correa, 1900 East Belmont, said she resides directly behind the project. She said she was the resident-manager of that property and tho gentleman who presented the proposal had not mat with her; he had never talked to them about the problems that might be occurring due to this project. She noted they were is a cul-de-sac. She said there was a trash container on the corner of the project which is on the north west corner and she gets an awful lot of trash from that project. She said if anything is thrown in there it ends up in hez project and she has to clean it up. She said she gets a lot of traffic from teenagers, disturbing the cars, and vandalism in the complex. She said she had 108 units, also there are pets there and when someone comes onto the property the dogs start barking. She said she had 17 units that would face that project alone and is those there are approsimateiy 20 dogs which will be constantly barking at intruders/traffic. She said she wanted to know if the only thing that was going to divide that project from hers was a 6-foot fence. She said there would be the noise of the trucks coming by to 08/15/88 MTNiTCF.$, ANAHEIM rITy PLANNING CO*~ T~SION AUGUST ~s long 88 - 76 deliver and also access onto that project, with one driveway right off of State College that goes onto that project and another one that is in the cul-de-sac. She said there is not enough parking to begin with. She said the driveway that is off. that project, anytime they water, it all drains into her driveway and down the driveway all the way to the rear of the complex. She wants to know what they are going to do to stop this. She felt there would be a lot of traffic and they would be parking in her open spaces in her project; she had already seen this happen. Commissioner Messe said that building had been empty since May. She noted that there had been a bank there at one time, which was not too much of a problem. Ms. Correa said they do not need another market, they have a Circle R across the street, a liquor store across the street on Ball Road, and this is going to be a ranch style so she knew they would have some kind of grocery carts that will end up being left in her complez. She said she neoded to know how far away that project is going to be from that brick wall that is only 6 feet high, what are they going to do with the driveway, and exactly how much parking they will have. ~B t AI+: Applicant said, as far as the noise issue, the way it stands now there is complete circulation around the bank. He said with their building being set back closer to the wall there would be a landscaped buffer there as well as the building and there would not be any traffic closer to the apartment complez than exists now. He said the drainage he thought the Planning Department had handled but if there were any problems with that they would be happy to look into it. He said they had met with most of the residents in the apartments fronting the development, as well as the single family residents, and the market owner had agreed to limit the time of deliveries, trash pick up, etc., so it would not be inconvenient. He said he did not think they would create any more traffic than is already in the vicinity. He said they would control the hours of operation, and the management staff that they had within his company would be overlooking the shopping center as to trash; they will increase the sweeping and trash pick up if that is necessary. He said they might offer, if necessary, a security patrol. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Messe said, to satisfy the concerns of the first gentleman that spoke, the conditions of approval for this project include no fast food and to code signing so he felt that was taken care of. He said, as far as Ms. Correa was concerned, the way the building was going t~ sit on the property would help matters a great deal. He said it will not be empty and a lot of cruising done through the property will stop. He said the building was going to be set such thaL• most of the noise will be away from the apartment complex. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, said applicant actually has five additional parking spaces above and beyond what is required, which would allow them to 08/15/88 ,:~' < MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt~AlISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 77 have fast fond in the convenience market, unless it is specifically conditioned that it not be there. He said currently the condition reads that it not be there unless code required parking is provided, which it is, so the Commission may want to strike that part of the condition and have it read no fast food period. Chairwoman Houas said she would rather see that they have no fast food service there. Mr. Meese said he did not realize that they did have parking to code. Ms. Bou.as asked applicant if they would agree to no fast food oa the property at all. Applicant said the only difficulty they would have with that was defining what is fast food. Commissioner Herbst said fast food was anything that was prepared on the facility. Applicant said he believed the parking code kind of restricted them to what they could and could not have. Ms. Bouas said what they are really talking about are like what Circle R's are putting in, that type of thing where they have sandwiches or food that can go into a microwave; that is what Commission does not want there. Mr. Herbst said if they have something that is packaged, that is different, but when they prepare or heat it on the lot that is fast food. Applicant asked if they could just go case by case; if they have someone that has an interest they could come back. Mr. Slaughter asked what would happen if the ranch market was only there for a month and a new user came in; the fast food would be permitted by right because they have enough parking there that was used for the market. He said the way he read this condition was that as long as fast food was permitted by right, and there is sufficient parking, it could go in by right and they would never have to come in before the Commission at all. Commissioner Carusillo said he believed the answer was to just stipulate no fast food and interpret it down the road if they have to. Applicant said he wanted to know what their definition of fast food is, that is his problem. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, said a fast food restaurant is any establishment that is engaged in the business of preparing and purveying food where said food is ordered by patrons while standing at a window or counter located inside the building, regardless of the manner is which said food is thereafter served, or whether said food is consumed on the premises. 08/15/88 r ~~~ .~: MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST. 15. 1988 88 - 78 Applicant said it was still difficult for him to define, such as what is a Heidi's Yogurt vs. a more intensive use. He said they prefer not to be totally locked in on that and would work with Commission or staff. Mr. Carusillo said to draw the line they can just say no fast food and if something down the road approaches that, they will just have to come back and discuss it; define it a little better. They will have to consult with staff to see if it violates the codes, which were just defined. Chairwoman Bouas asked why they did not just leave Condition No. 6 as it is. Mr. Carusillo said if they did that they would be able to put fast food in without coming back in. Mr. Messe said he believed they should just put a period after the word "retail Center." He said they should just state that th%:re be no fast food in this commercial retail center period. A TI N• Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McHurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 6-unit, 8,670 square-foot commercial retail center including a 2,800 square-foot convenience market with waivers of minimum structural setback for trash eacl~aure and required screening of parking area on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 0.72 acre located at the southwest corner of Almont Avenue and State College Boulevard, having approzimate frontages of 138 feet oa the south side of Almont Avenue and 245 feet oa the west side of State College Boulevard and further described as 1177 S. State College Boulevard 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 Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT a waiver of the code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoniaq Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-224 and moves for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3051, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartment Committee 08/15/88 ~; ~3 ~ ~~ ~. *+**,)TEc ANT~wEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST ~s 1988 88 - 79 Recommendations, including a modification of Condition No. 6 to read that no fast-food service facilities shall be permitted is this commercial retail center. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCBURNEY Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. COMMISSIONER BOYDSTUN EXCUSED HERSELF FROM THE REST OF THE MEETING. .mcrx *10 17 CEOA NE~nTIVE DECLARATION' WAIVER Oti :'vuc xcu~+~~~•+~~- ~ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3052 Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City planning Commission Resolution No. PC75-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that one of the principals is a customer of his and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3052, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Messe left the Council Chamber. pitBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: ORANGE COUNTY STEEL SALVAGE, 320G E. Frontera Road, Anaheim, CA 92816; AGENT: 91 FREEWAY AUCTION SALES, P.O. SOX 6258, Anaheim, CA 92815; LOCATION: 3180 Frontera Street Request: To establish a retail used suiomobile sales facility with waiver of maximum area of free-standing sign. There were no persons 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. ~gFCENTATIOlI Phillip Anthony, representing the applicant, 91 Freeway Auction Sales at 3180 Frontera Street, said they were there that evening with a proposalwhichtis same piece of property they originally requested the auction for, relocated at the other end of the street. They are requesting a basic used car sales lot, which has no connection with the auction use. Ae said the same purpose was to find a low intensity interim use which would be safe, to bring in some income from this property until the entire parcel can be developed. He said he did think they had a very simple use; there are no new buildings, no significant traffic, and they have excess on-site parking for both 08/15/88 5~ . MINU'S'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 80 customers and the employees. Be said the activity would be mostly low level and primarily is evenings and on weekends, which would be off peak time. He said the benefit would be that it would allow them to bring is some income and at the same time clean up the lot. He said all street improvements would be brought in and installed, and landscaping would be developed. He said they are proposing retail sales only, which would generate sales tax revenue to the City. He said the one concern r!as a code waiver to put in a reasonable sized identification sign; they suggested one of 308 square feet, 14 x 22. He said they were trying to reach the size that would normally be allowed if this same use were in the ML or CL Zone. Ho said they do agree with all of the staff conditions as presented. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Herbst said if they did not sell the cars at the other end (auto auction) they could bring them in and sell them here. Mr. Anthony said they could look at it that way but even if that were the case, he did not see where that would cause any problem, but they are two separate businesses. Chairwoman Bouas asked if they were run by two separate companies and Mr. Anthony said they were; there would be some similar people connected but they are basically bringing in experts in the two fields to put together new companies with the right expertise to (1) operate an auction and (2) operate a conventional used car lot. Ms. Bouas asked what the hours of operation were. Mr. Anthony said that was from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. He said that evidently did not get into a condition. Ms. Bouas asked if they would have 24-hour security and Mr. Anthony replied that they would. Ms. Bouas asked about lighting. Mr. Anthony said the plans show yard lighting, nothing really excessive but there would be lights around the perimeter of the property. Ms. Bouas asked about a public address system. Mr. Anthony said they did not have anything like that planned. He said this was really a rather low key operation; it was not going to be set up as a high powered used car lot. Ms. Bouas said she would not want to see anything like that because it would be disturbing to the hotel. 08/15/88 pp . _. _ ......... .... ....._....„_,..~, ,.....,.. _....~s.r u~.x.n...~.~....,.u4..i.~unti~:C1i:~ C.\X:nr~v..u~~'-T,~;'.xC.~".:SSki1y",7~i~X9S'iLTFn%u'3'iLLA~S.SP6' C 1 .RC, P '. C" ~. Mr. Herbst said they would have to have washing facilities the-•e and asked how they intended to handle that. Mr. Anthony said since they had mentioned that before he had asked. their ezperts and they recommended that they basically wash cars in p1acE. Mr. Harbst said he knew other car facilities did that but they had special equipment to go along and spray the cars and wipe them down; but out in this location they would probably be expecting a little more dirt and more aroblems. Mr. Anthony agreed that there was a lot of dust in that vicinity, but their approach was to wash them in place. Mr. Herbst said they would not be doing too much to the yard, it was already black topped, and he was concerned whether the drainage was adequate; he thought they should look into that. Mr. An.ihony noted they had to qo through that with the City Engineering Deparl:ment, but they were going to be finishing up, the surfacing and making sure the drainage was correct. Mr. Herbst asked what length of time they wanted for the permit. Mr. Anthony said the s.:nff did not propose a condition on that because he thought they felt this use was much better known and lower level; he said they were agreeable to the same condition as the other one (auto auction). Ms. Souas saki she believed they should put a time limit on it. Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, said there had been some discussion about this being retail sales and he was wondering what kind of stipulation they had to effect. He said it could suddenly become a wholesale lot. He said they should have some input, as far as the City was concerned, when it comes to retail sales taxes and asked if there was a stipulation to that effect or was Commission imposing that as a condition. Mr. Herbst noted they had done that on the auto auction; they put a condition that it was to be retail only, no wholesale at the auction, and they could do the same thing here. Mr. Anthony said this was all in the business plan they submitted but he was not sure this was included by reference is the staff's report. Mr. Herbst said that in the staff report, under development proposal, it states that all sales shall be retail. He said it is not a condition but they could make it one, along with a stipulation. Mr. Slaughter said it should read sales or leases, should that occur. Mr. Carusillo asked Mr. Anthony to elaborate on Condition Ho. il, landscaping, what he had in mind out there. He said he was concerned about the hotel to the west. 08/15/88 µ ~:, MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN CnrrtarSCrnx ~firU$T. 15 1988 88 82 Mr. Anthony said there is as esistinq block wall separating the two properties, which is a new wall. He said they had presented landscaping plans somewhere in the file, which is referenced is the staff report, which does call for landscaping as shown through that entire frontage. Ae said it does specify grass and specific plants. Mr. Feldhaus asked what the 18 foot lines all around the perimeter of the area were (as appeared on the exhibit). Mr. Anthony said those were parking spaces for cars. Mr. Feldhaus asked how the trash trucks gained access to the trash enclosure and, Mr. Anthony said they would come directly through the main entrance and around by the side of the building. Mr. Carusillo said he would like to suggest a condition be added as far as flags and bangers, and other promotions contrary to the norm, that need a special permir,. Mr. Herbst, addressing the issue of the 14 x 22 sign, stated that xas a fairly sizable sign and asked what the height was. Mr. Anthony said it was 22 feet high. He said there would be at least 8 feet clearance underneath, which is code requirement. Ms. Bouas asked how that compared to the auto auction sign. Mr. Anthony said in that case they had approved a 350 square foot sign, and this is 308. Mr. Herbst asked about the lighting and Mr. Anthony said it would be lighted. Mr. Herbst asked if that lighting would be toward the freeway side, because h9 was thinking about the hotel. Mr. Anthony said it was located so it faces pretty much away from the hotel. It xould show toward Frontera Street and the freeway as an identification sign; the lighting would be the normal kind coming up from the front side so it really would Lave no light directed toward the hotel at all. Mr. Herbst said be would be concerned about light affecting the drivers coming down the freeway there. He said this needs to be looked at. He asked how long they would leave the lights on, 24 hours a day or secured at night. Mr. Anthony said they had not considered that but he assumed they would be on at least during the evening hours of operation. He thought it would be good to have a curfew on the light. He had not thought about what it should be but maybe about midnight would be good. Mr. Carusillo said he saw an empty vehicle shell parked is front of the location that someone had abandoned or left there temporarily. He said what he was leading to was that area could get a little bleak looking gad asked if 08/15/88 _ .~.. v~' ~..! ING C01,~TCernp AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 83 ^*Tps, ANAHEIM CITY P ANN he would have any objection to do~agsaideitalookedllikelall they had wase adjacent to the hotel property. vehicle spacing all along that west wall. Mr. Anthony asked him if he meant inside the property. Mr. Carusillo said he did. Mr. Anthony said they certainly could, although he did not think it would be terribly visible. Ms. Bouas said that would be all Ceg~ainlytwouldanotawant theirscarseparked were not over the cars, but they under trees. She said they could put cypress or something like that there. Mr. Anthony said they really hadn't thought about that because it was somewhat unusual but they could certainly do something there. Mr. Anthony said it would have to be something in large boxes or they would have to remove some of the cement along the wall and create a planter. Mr. Carusillo said he would like to see the concrete removed and planting along that wall, rather than bores which never seem to work out. He asked Mr. Anthony if he would stipulate to that and Mr. Anthony asked how far back would be meaningful. Mr. Carusillo said he felt it should be all that wall adjacent to the hotel property. Mr. Anthony said it is an extremely deep lot and did not know if that would be practical to have it going all the way back to the rear. Mr. Carusillo said the rear property line still abuts the hotel proper. He thought it xould be more aesthetic for the people in the hotel; it might soften what they are looking at to the east. Mr. Feldhaus said if you get the Italian Cypress in the 10-gallon container they would be about 5 to 6 feet tall already. Mr. Anthony said he thought that was a good recommendation. Mr. Anthony said they would agree to a strip of landscaping, Italian Cypress, along the inside of the west property wall adjacent to the hotel., watered and maintained. C~~ ssioner CarusilissionersdBoydstuanand McBuraeyyabsentssCo~issioaer Messe MOTION CARRIED (Come absent due to a conflict of iroeosal'tohestablishaeretailyusad automobile Commission has reviexed the p p sales facility with waiver of maximum area of free-standing sign on a rectangularly-shaped par=azimatelyd250nfeetloa theasouth1sidelof2Frontera' having a frontage of app rozimrtely 445 feet, being located Street, having a maximum depth of app 08/15/88 ,:; ;. :M. ~: MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN COMMISSION AUGUST 15 laAg 88 84 approximately 1,100 feet northeast of the centerline of Glassell Street and further described as 3180 Frontera Street and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered She Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the publi~~ review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the p~:oject will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and McBurney absent, Commissioner Messe absent due to a conflict of interest) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waiver of code requirement subject to stipulation by the applicant that there will be a curfew on the lighting of the sign, said sign not to remain lighted after 11:00 p.m., on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC86-225 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit 3053, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to the Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, including the added conditions that there be no public address system in operation on the premises; that the hours of operation be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; that all sales and/or leases of automobiles will be retail sales; that there be no flags, banners, or other promotional displays without first ol~tainiaq a permit from the Planning Department; that lighting of the aforementioned sign will not extend beyond the hour of 11:00 p.m.; and that the petitioner will landscape the entire length of the west side of the wall adjacent to the hotel, in Italian Cypress, spaced at 5 foot centers from the front to the back, maintained and watered. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: HOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST NOES: NONE ASSENT: BOYDSTUN, MCBURNEY, MESSE Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. COMMISSIONER MESSE RETURNED TO THE MEETING. ITEM NO 18 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CONDITION t rtSF pFRMIT NO 305a PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: MELODYLAND CHRISTIAN CENTER, ATTN: NOBLE R. BUSSAY, P.O. Box 6000, Anaheim, CA 92816; LOCATION: 400 West Freedman WaY 08/15/88 ,,. ;tir .. ... .,: MSNitTFC ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A~j,~TJST 15 1988 8B - 85 Request: To permit a 40-patient birthing center, a 300-person child day care facility, and a 100-person adult day care facility. There were no persons 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. PRESENTATION• Ralph Wilkerson, 33781 Cabrillo, Dana Point, said the request concerned ao changes in the external facilities at Melodyland. He said it is a building that they had not been utilizing fully and he wanted to make use of it. He said they had dedicated a major artery of traffic through there, it cut Tight through their parking lot, some time ago. He said they are planning in the near future an underground parking of the whole area, so they did not want to spend any more money oa sidewalks and such until they do come in for that major study and at that time they would agree to whatever the City wanted to do, relative to that, so he was asking they take that under consideration. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Wilkerson if he was talking about the 45-foot dedication along Clementine. Mr. Wilkerson replied they had dedicated that whole street already and now the City was asking for more. Mr. Wilkerson said at the time when they come in for their major project, which is under study right now, they would, if there was a need for more and the people on the other side were going to give more, they would too. Mr. Wilkerson said he did not want to make a major change in the property since they are not doing any change externally in the present facility they have. Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, said the Commission may want to inquire if the opposition is to the dedication of the right-of-xay oz to the improvements that relate to it; hecause obviously the improvements are an expensive item but signing a deed for dedication is relatively painless, except for the loss of the land. He said the City may at some time decide to go through and put in the improvements itself, once it has been dedicated. He said he was not clear as to what Mr. Wilkerson's objections are right now. Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, said he did not recall what the exact dedication was but he would guess that it was somewhere is the neighborhood of 32 feat. Mr. Wilkerson said he did not have any problem with the dedication at some future time but he did not want to put sidewalks in at this time and have those extra ezponses. IIe said they had a facility that had sat there for five years that need to be utilized. 08/15/88 ,:°~ ~: MINUTES. ANAHE~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 86 Commissioner Messe said it was apparently Condition Nos. 3 and 4 that Mr. Wilkerson was object?ng to and Mr. Wilkerson said that was correct; it was the items where cash was required right now. Mr. Wilkerson said all of the other conditions they could comply with. Mr. Wilkerson said he did not want to da anything major on the street lighting such as that, since they are planning a major program. Chairwoman Bouas said they had probably already paid the street lighting. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the records indacate that has never been paid, the street lights or street trees. He said if they do have a receipt for that the City would obviously honor it. Commissioner Herbst noted that the Commission cannot waive the condition for sidewalks, that has to be done by the City Engineer. Mr. Wilkerson said they were not building anything they were just utilizing what they have and at the time when they dedicated the property to the City the City said they would bear those expenses that would be required so that it would not be a hardship on the church. He said if they were going into a major commercial development then he would agree to do what the City wants. He said it was a bare lot when they bought it and they had done a lot of landscaping using volunteer workers. Ms. Bouas asked Mr. Wilkerson to tell them about the birthing center. Mr. Wilkerson said it was a medical center, run by a medical doctor, staffed with other medical personnel. He said it was just a day time operation, and they would not be running it, someone else would be doing that. Mr. Messe asked about the adult day care center and asked if that would include patients with Alzheimers. He asked how far they would go with that. Mr. Wilkerson said he did not think so. He said they had noticed several hospitals that had started building these; two hau been built and they are full. He said there is a need for people who have an older person to care for to be able to leave that person during the day while they work. He said they will have a medical doctor on staff at all times. Ms. Bouas again asked about the birthing center and Mr. Wilkerson clarified, stating there was no overnight care there. He said it was not a 24-hour facility, the birthing center or the adult day care. Mr. Slaughter said he was a little concerned about the adult day care center. He asked about a parent that could not care for himself during the day being left at the center for care and asked if there was anything that would requ..re those persons to stay at the center if they wanted to leave. Mr. Wilkerson said there was capable leadership, people that had finished their programs in this, and it was a completely enclosed court area where they could not get out. 08/15/88 `~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 87 Mr. Slaughter said, however, if they wanted to leave they were permitted to unless they had some kind of a custodian. Mr. Messe said the point is they are adults and if they said they wanted to leave they could leave. Mr. Feldhaus asked about them walking away from the facility and then wandering around. Mr. Wilkerson said it was pretty well contained. He said they have an inside court, with no outside except into the court area. Mr. Carusillo said, generally, whoa something like that would happen the facility would call the police department and advise them that someone was leaving that should be accompanied. Ms. Bouas noted that they would be leaving their parent there because they did not want to leave them at home to wander off, so if they had instructions for them not to leave, would they prevent them from leaving? Mr. Wilkerson said they would make a telephone call to the guardian. He said there was a lot of supervision there. He said it would also be an activity center with things for them to do. Mr. Messe said it was a bit d?.fferent than taking care of children because they are adults and if they say they waa.t to leave they would have to have some kind of written consent from a guardian to detain them. He said if they say they want to leave, they would have to let them leave. Mr. Wilkerson said in such a case they would have to have written consent to detain them but he was not anticipating taking those kinds of cases; he did not know. Mr. Herbst said, as far as ezpenses were concerned, the Condition Nos. 3 and 4 were up to engineering in regard to whether those would be waived, and asked Mr. Daw what the Engineering Department's feeling was on that. Mr. Slaughter said he agreed that tho Engineering Department can waive sidewalks and the Commission cannot, where they are originally required by law. He said, as he understood it in this case since ao building permits are being pulled, the sidewalks would not be required by the code unless the Commission imposed a condition that they be put in in the first place. He said while the Commission could not waive them, they were not required to require them. Mr. Messe said he would like to correct Condition No. 11 to read that the adult day care facility shall not ezceed 100 adults on site at any one time and the child day care facility shall not ezceed 100 children on site at any one time until ezpanded. 08/15/88 ~,. .~. ;~ MTNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~TT~JST 15 1988 88 - 8~ Mr. Wilkerson said it read 200 children because they could easily accommodate 300. He said they have the area, the ground, the space, but they do not intend to go over 200. Mr. Felahaus asked if there were charges for these particular services and Mr. Wilkerson said there would be, and there would be tares coming to the City. Mr. Wilkerson said they are not certain yet whether the day care services would come under the church or be a separate corporation. He said he is thinking now it will be a profit making group that will rent it from them, since he did not think they wanted to get into that business, but he wanted to have that kind of a program there because he thought there was a need. Ms. Bouas asked if there were a time limit on the permit and Mr. Herbst said he did not think it necessary. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission reviewed the proposal to permit a 40-patient birthing center, a 200-person child day care facility, and a 100-person adult day care facility on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 12 acres located at the southwest corner of Freedman Way and Clementine Street, having approximate frontages of 855 feet on the south side of Freedman Way and 858 feet on the west side of Clementine Street and further described as 400 West Freedman Way and does hazeby 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 oa the environment. arldirional Discussion: Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated that before any action was taken on the Conditional Use Permit, as far as Engineering was concerned, if the Commission is considering deleting any requirement of sidewalks, from Engineering's standpoint he would still recommend that sidewalks be installed along Freedman Way. He said the primary reason for that is that there are hotels on the east and this would provide a suitable and safe walking surface for those patrons of the hotel to go to Disneyland; also, Freedman Way is to its ultimate and will not be changed regardless of their future construction. Commissioner Messe asked if there was a sidewalk along the green area opposite the Grand Hotel, and M.r. Wilkerson said there was a sidewalk across the street all the way to Disneyland. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, said one thing that concerns him is that the plans do not reflect a drop off area for the day care center and perhaps the 08/15/88 ~, ~,, ~NUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLA2iP7ING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 89 petitioner and the Planning Commission would consent to add a condition stating that a drop off area, to tho satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer, be provided on site. Mr. Wilkerson said he believed that was an excellent idea and they were taking the parking lots along the side of the building and putting is some more screening and plants in that area, then there will be an area where there would be no parking and they could let people off in a safety zone; he concurs with what Mr. Singer is saying. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-226 and moved for its passage and adoption that the City of Anaheim does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit Ho. 3054 pursuant to 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, with modification of the conditions to delete Condition Nos. 3 and 4, and adding a condition that a "drop off" safety zone be provided on site for those people utilizing the facility, to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, HERHST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOYDSTUN, MCBURNEY ABSTAIN: FELDHAUS Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's docisioa within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 19. - CE^'` urra~rrvF nFl'rLRATION VARIANCE NO 3237 (READVERTISED) ptIBLTC HEAP.TNG: OWNER: VAZQUEZ AND AE LEON 12, Attn: HUGO VAZQUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92801; LOCATION: ~Q7 and 211 North Coffman Street Request: Petitioner requests amendment to Conditions of Resolution No. PC88-14 pertaining to recordation of a tract map to establish an 8-unit condominium complex. There were two aersons 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. PRESENTATION• Dennis Diamond, 623 North Pine Place, Anaheim, said he was representing Hugo Vazquez at this time. He said they would like to request that the tract map that was required prior to obtaining the building permit on this job site be tied into the Certificate of Occupancy. He said apparently there was some confusion when Mr. Vazquez initially started this, in regard to having it tied in; having the option of building apartments and still applying for a tract map. 08/15/88 . E •sr, biro c auavoTU rTTV vraxuTNr rOMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 BB - 90 Mr. Diamond said they were able to pull a permit on April 29, before the park and recreation fees went into effect, but in everyone's haste, everyone failed to observe that the conditions of approval required them to have a tract map prior to pulling the building permit. He said with the continuance of the other projects being built, this one more or less got put aside because they were behind with a backlog of various projects throughout the City. He said now the loan has already funded to where they are up against the wall in that regard. He said they would like to still provide a tract map but have it tied into the occupancy permit of the building upon completion. OPPOSITION• Evelyn Clark, 221 Evelyn Drive, said she and her husband live right behind the project. She said they understood the applicant wanted to change from RM-3000 for condos to RM-2400 for apartments and wanted to know if that meant they could have more units added for affordable housing. She noted they are already loaded with high density apartments going in behind them on landlocked Cypress and Coffman Streets. She said they are against any more density. She said owner occupied condominiums would be better than apartments. She said it is zoned RM-3000 for condominiums and they would like it kept that way. Ms. Clark said that the residents on Evelyn Drive did not receive a notice of today's hearing. REBUTTAL• Mr. Diamond said they did not want to change the zoning, they just wanted to be able to pull the building permit and have the tract map filed and approved prior to the occupancy permit. Ms. Bouas asked why they could not do the tract map now. Mr. Diamond said they are running against time. They did not start as earlier as they should have. He said with the loan already being funded, in order to get a permit they have to have the tentative tract map to get approval from Planning and 2oninq; the only thing they could do was ask to have that tied in with the occupancy permit.. Mr. Meese said that means they would not be able to sell any of the units until they had the map. Ms. Bouas stated the last project applicant had brought before them was condominiums and they in fact are not condos, they are apartments. She said they did the same thing an Cypress Street. She said those were supposed to be condos and they did not do that. Mr. Diamond said he was under the impression that Mr. Vazquez had an option. Ms. Bouas said he did not have as option on that. Mr. Diamond said he was not saying they did not want to do condos, he xas asking if they at least could do the occupancy permit tied to the tract map. 08/15/88 ~:: MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST, 15, 1988 88 - 91 Commissioners said no. Commissioner Herbst said they had had since January 4, and they had hearings oa apartment houses on this project, hearings on condos, and one of the stipulations was that they would have a tract map before they broke ground and that was a condition that was going to stay, as far as he was concerned. Commissioner Messe said it was very clear in the minutes of that meeting that that was what the intentions were. A TI N• Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission had reviewed the request for deletion of Condition No. 9 and modification of Condition No. 15 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC88-14, in order to construct a 2-story, 8-unit condominium complex on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 0.55 acre, having a frontage of approximately 122 feet on the west side of Coffman Street, having a mazimum depth of approzimately 201 feet, being located approzimately 490 feet north of the centerline of Center Street and further described as 207 and 211 N. Coffman Street and has determined that it is conformance with the previously approved CEQA Negative Declaration, as required. Cammissi.oner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-227 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY the request of petitioner to amend the Conditions of Resolution No. PC88-14 and that said conditions must be complied with. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST, MESSE NOES: HONE ABSENT: HOYDSTUN, MCBURNEY Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the xritten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 20. - REPORTS ANA RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2406 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION - Jiffy Lube International, Inc., property owner, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2406. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-228 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT the request for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2406. 08/15/88 .a' ,a,y pfINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST. 15, 1988 88 - 92 On roll call, the foregoing resolution xas passed by the foilowinq vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT; BOYDSTUN, MCBURNEY B. 21;EQjLEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THEATERS IN TAE "CO" ZONE - DISCUSSI N: Commissioner Herbst said this was concerning a proposal to put a theater in the office complex on the corner where Raiser used to be and asked if that was a good place for a theater. Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, said the request was to amend the code to permit theaters in the "CO" Zone, by Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mr. Herbst said they had been furnished a map as to where they wanted to put a theater. Mr. Slaughter said these folks were interested in accomplishing it but if they amend the code it will permit theaters by CUP anywhere in the City where it is "CO" zoned. Mr. Herbst said "CO" zone is office and he believed that would create a lot of traffic. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, said it was a very good use for reciprocal parking because theaters were normally operated after hours and would not be is conflict with business uses, if they are in a business district such as an office complez. He said if they were going to put a theater somewhere and wanted to maximize the parking supply it might not, is certain circumstances, be objectionable. He said the only problem with Raiser Development was that each building has a separate secure parking area and so when you are talking about reciprocal parking availability, this may not be the case in this particular location but it may be possible in other areas. Re said the concept xas not objectionable but when getting to a specific location this may require some debate. Commissioner Messe asked if they didn't have that same type of reciprocal arrangement when putting a group of theaters in a regional shopping center. Mr. Singer said yes, ezcept that a regional shopping center is open during the time that the theaters are in operation, although not to the sane extent, but there is some opportunity for shared parking. He said he would definitely recommend that it be by CUP as opposed by right. 08/15/88 .~- ~. ~~: w MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 93 Mr. Feldhaus noted that "CO"s are dwindling and at some point they probably will not have a "CO" zone anymore. Mr. Hastings said that actually they had several pieces of property interested in going into commercial office; the downtown area, and the stadium area, where you may find some type of theater. Mr. Carusillo paid there was another factor involved here, a little down the line, but as far as the regional shopping center and their desire to put in some theaters, would this conflict. He said he realized a CUP would be in order but ~:o just give a blanket to this seeded more thought. Mr. Feldhaus asked would th3 professional offices qo into a commercial general or commercial limited center, in order to perform their services? He said he could not see changing a "CO" zone to allow a movie theater. Ms. Bouas said it would be with a CUP so they would have to come before the Commission; they would not just have a right to have it there. Mr. Carusillo said that would be encouraging them. This is taking the first step that it is perhaps all right and they will go get a CUP. Ms. Bouas asked if they wanted to think about this and Commissioners agreed this should be continued. Mr. Feldhaus said he believed this one was also in a Scenic Corridor Zone. Mr. Herbst said they should have a full Commission present on khis. Mr. Hastings said the way the Scenic Corridar was set up as far as a list of Conditional Use Permits, those uses are the prohibited uses and this is not a prohibited use in the Scenic Corridor. g~TION Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and McBurney absent) that the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of September 26, 1988. C. REQUEST FOR CODE AME~'DMENT PERTAINING TO MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF SWELLINGS IN THE RS-HS-22 000 ZONE - Request from Jeff Lake, Reith Companies, for a Code amendment pertaining to the minimum livable floor area of single-family dwellings in the RS-HS-22,000 zone. 08/15/88 .. ~v MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGT~ST 15 1988 88 - 94 DISCUSSION• Mitzi Ozaki, 340 Timpkia Road, said that prior to annezation into the City of Anaheim, is 1973, the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Association reviewed Anaheim's Code in order to establish standards for their half-acre zoning in that at the time the City of Anaheim did not have a half-acre estate zone. She said they were rather appalled to discover that, is fact, minimum square footages a~ floor space for RM-2400, which are apartments, were the same as for the resident of single 43,000, which is an estate zone. She said in checking with Peralta Hills they said they had not made a real issue of this because the high cost of purchase of an acre lot would preclude anyone from wanting to build anything quite that small. She said they felt that they should clearly define the current and established practices for their area and that is how they worked with staff and established a 1700 square foot zone minimum for their particular zone. She said, so far as she knew, over the 15 years that this code had been in place that no request for waivers had been made so she felt that this code was probably still with merit and valid for an absolute majority of the people in that zone. She said she felt the codes were established to protect the majority and should not be changed at whims of individuals. She said she suggested that if the real discrepancy lies in that the one acre estate zone doesn't have a minimum standard it really reflects their past and current building practices and that is the code that needs to be changed to increase the minimum square footage of floor space and the RH-22,000 in fact is still valid and should be kept unchanged. Commissioner Herbst asked Joel Fick, Planning Director, if he had any input on this. Mr. Fick said he did not have anything really to add to what Ms. Ozaki provided. He said the only additional comment that he had heard many years ago, when there was a flooring discrepancy, that is the Mohler Drive area there was a desire to have a ranch style type home and that was a reason for having a larger floor area within the RH-HS-22,000 zone but he could not back up the validity of that. Mr. Herbst said there was a part in tine code requiring the ground level to be 1700 square feet; if a person had a 2-story home they could accomplish 3,000 square feet very easily and have a nice home on a large lot and still have more open space. Mr. Fick said Mr. Herbst was correct, that they had is fact had a couple of. lots that they may recall in recent times that effectively had very little amount of pad on sloped area and that is a subject with the height limits that they had discussed and looked at in a lot of detail. Mr. Herbst said he was still thinking that a 2-story could still stay xithia the 25-foot limit. 08/15/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGU T 15 1988 88 95 Ms. Ozaki said she felt: very definitely that at the time, the 1700 square foot really needed to be the bottom floor and if people xanted it larger, it is really the reality today is seeing homes being built that are 3500 and 4500 square feet, so that the 1700 is the bare minimum which is why it is clarified as the bottom floor level. She said if there are any lots out there that are having a hardship then they should pursue it through waiver showing their particular hardship. Mr. Herbst said that was one thing they had had from the Mohler Drive area was that they did not want any variances and if a person has a hardship lot they are faced with the people out there not wanting any variances at all. Ae said you cannot make a code where you can tie everything down for everybody. Ms. Ozaki said, is this instance, if there is a true hardship they would prefer not to see the code amended to reflect something that is not a reality out there. Mr. Carusillo asked Mr. Herbst if he was concerned with someone's hardship lot that someone would want to build less than 1700 square feot. Mr. Herbst said they may not have a pad that they could build the 1700 square feet on the ground level and this calls for 1700 square feet on the ground floor level. He said they might only be able to get 1500 feet and go 2-stories with a 3000 aquare foot home. Mr. Messe said that then they could come in and ask for a variance. Mr. Herbst said yes, but the people out oa Mohler Drive do not want any variances of any kind. Mr. Carusillo said he did not see that as a problem, he thought the 1700 was probably not a concern at all, there are some drastic lots there, one is talking about close to 4,000 square feet and there isn't much of a pad, he will have to put a retaining wall in there but he did see that as much of a problem. Ms. Bouas said they had had someone make the requesC and Mr. Feldhaus asked why they needed to amend the code. Mr. Messe said the request was from a builder and Mr. Herbst said they evidently have a hardship plot. Mr. Carusillo asked if staff had an idea where the lot was that the gentleman was wanting to get a code amendment for. Mr. Messe said the builder was saying that numerous lots in the zone were sloped. 08/15/88 r '.~ ~~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST, 15. 1988 88 - 96 Mr. Carusillo said over the years it had never come up and frankly he thought they would have the neighbors up in arms if they suggested that someone might be able to build something less than 1700 square feet out there. Mr. Aerbst said they xere talking other than the Mohler Drive area; they were talking about anyplace with a 2200 square-foot zone and they have some of those in Anaheim Hills. Mr. Fick said the request was for an amendment in the RS-HS-22,000 zone, which would include properties up off of Hidden Canyon Road area east and west of Fairmont in the Mohler Loop area and also Eucalyptus Drive area going easterly. Mr. Messe said he believed it had worked all these years and they should leave it alono; Ms. Sauas agreed, they should bring it in as a variance. ACTION• Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo (Commissioners Boydstun and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the aforementioned request and does hereby DENY said request. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2872 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION - Thomas P. Walker, property owner, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2872. ACTION• Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-229 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT the request for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2872. On roll call, the foregoing resolution xas passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOYDSTUN, MCBURNEY E. ~^*1DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1812 AND VARIANCE NO 2498 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION - Mohammad M. Shashaani, property owner, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1812 and Variance No. 2498. 08/15/88 ! e. '~ kr +/' -: 5' b' MINUTES ANA~iEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 97 ACTION• Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-230 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT the request for termination of Variance No. 2498 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1812. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOYDSTUN, MCBURNEY F. RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENT - Subsection 18.060.070.030 - Drive-through and drive-up lane requirements. DISCUSSION• Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, said they had found somewhat of a discrepancy in the code was that a drive-through restaurant normally requires 160 feet of storage space for the window and they required ttaat an order board be placed 100 feet from the window. Somehow it round its way into the code and they had never noticed it before, or used it before. He said they recommend that the code be amended to either delete that 100 foot provision or convert it to 160 feet total. ACTION• Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance amending Title 18, Chapter 18.06, Section 18.06.070, Subsection .030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to read as follows, eliminating subsection .030 completely: Each drive-through lane which does not utilize a separately located ordering device shall have a minimum distance of one-hundred sixty (160) feet between the start of said lane and the service window area. G. VARIANCE NO 907 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION - Robert K. Knutson, property owner, requests termination of Variance No. 907. T N: Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-231 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT the request for termination of Variance No. 907. 08/15/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15 1988 88 - 98 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by tie following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOYDSTUN, MCBURNEY g, crRxTr rnRR7nOR SZNGL~~A~„ayv orcrnrnrrTar ~nxF RFTrRT cTANDARD REVIEW AND°i~ QISCUSSION: (At the beginning of the meeting) Chairwoman Souas asked if there were any persons present for the Anaheim Height Ordinance, because they were going to set a date for a public hearing on this item. There was no response. Ms. Bouas asked how interested parties would be notified. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated staff would notify certain communities. He said obviously they could not mail out notices to everyone is the canyon area. He said they would also publish a notice is the newspaper. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the aforementioned matter would be set for public hearing at the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 26, 1988. I. OVERVIEW AND STATUS OF SPECIAL STUDIES pRFVrOncrY IDENTIFIED BY ~ PLANNING COMMIy~SION CITY COUNCIL OR STAFF. No comments were made or action taken. J. CONDITIONAL,USr PERMIT NO 1585 - Request by Gilbert L. Hershber, representing So Cal Cinemas, for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1585. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-232 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT the request for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1585. 08/15/88 ~. 1 { 4;r ~~ On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, tdESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOYDSTUN, MCSURNEX R. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-OS-AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • N0. 2905 - Request by Gilbert L. Hershber, representing So Cal Cinemas, for a one year time extension for Reclassification No. 87-88-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2905 to ezpire on August 17, 1989 Commissioner Herbst offAred a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT a one year time eztension for Reclassification No. 87-88-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2905 to expire on August 17, 1989. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to reconvene on Monday, 12:00 a.m., on the corner of Serrano and Canyon Rim Road in Anaheim Hills, for a site inspection to view the grading of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills. Respectfully submitted, ~L~!7;Y2~~-lam Prepared by Marvelyn McMillan for Pamela H. Starnes, Ezecutive Secretary Anaheim City Planning Department 0114m/0120m 08/15/88 % ~ _ i ~.. ,