Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/10/10 MI2 ~ AR t.•EETIN OF THE ANAHET"'~ CITY PLANN77~15~~ R~ Date: October 10, 1988 was cal'.ed :..+ The regular meeting of the )~;ehfAm ~-itYY l~+nniag Commi ,slon l~s of the Gems z:; io,:~ b tho Chairwoman in the Cor.acil order at 9:00 a.m., October , Chz~eL• a quorum being p~,rese~Y. -end~cu: Cc:mmis~ioL reviawed p on, today's agenda. REi:ESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:40 p.m• Chairwoman Bouas Serbsti.. 'McBUrney, Messe ~; _`~MMISSIONERS f RESENT: Bayd,stti~n, Carusil?.o, Feldhaus, COMMISSIONERS ASSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Ca='o1FFlynn ArtSu: L. Daw Debbie Fang Raren Urman Anrika SariLalahti Marz McCloskey Lucy ::eager Janet Botuia Raren. freeman Eric Harrison Linda Rios Lori Duca Cheryl Westbrook ?~.hn 'Poole Richard Mayer Brad Hobson Edith Harris Planning Directox Deputy City Attorney Deputy City F,nq,inesr Deputy Tr.aff:c Eugineer Deputy Traffic Engineer Zoning Ac inistrator Planning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Assistant Planner Assistant Planner Assistant Plann~:r Assistant P? ~n~.t°r Planning .Aide Code Enforcement Manager Park Planner Redevelopment Planning CammisaioL Secrekary wcs~ STING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was pos ~au *T3A PO 1958 inside the display case to :r-i~~d '^- t~+e foyer at 10:00 a.m., DCCOD4r 7, la kiosk. of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside disp Y Publ.is7ed: Anaheim Eulletin - September 36, 1988 ~UBT"itiYNp : Chairwo~i~an Fiouas wii•~abeeallowedetonspeak~on ite suofdinterest hearings, members of the public the planning Commission and/or agenda which are within the jurisdiction of items. p123m %• i a s ,..` n.n..~TSSION OCTOBER 10 1998 83-2 MTTIi~ ES• ' '~`VFTM rITY PLANNI~ PPLEMENT T EIR N 2 ENER PLAN AMENDMENT N 244• ITE N 1 - pErTFIC PLAN E IFI PLAN N -2 IN I A P B I F IL T E P AN DEVEL MENT TANDARD I L I A T ANALY I INF RMAT NAL Z NI AND REQUEST~TY TTF~.cI DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO 88-03 (AMENDMENT NO 1) • rntrN IL REVIEW OF la - 1f ~BtTr~ HEARING: OWNER: THE BALnWIN BUILDING COMPANY, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, ATTN: DIANA HOARD, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: Subject property is approximately 591 acres and is located approximately 1.1 miles southeast of Weir Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway intersection, and is bounded on the north by Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan dev<slopmeat, on the west by The HighllydinetCompany propertyPeandlfurther development, and on the south aa3 east by described as The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community (PC)(SC). Petitioner requests adoption of a Specific Plan (including Zoning and Deneconsidersannamendment to the,LandcUsetElementnof theeGenerallPlanmwidtchnent (roposals including but not limited to Hillside Low Density Residential, Hillside Low-Medium Density Residentiala e;11a1Fiscal1 m actsAnalysisdandlal/ General Commercial, and General Open Sp ~ royal of an amended request for a recommendation to the City Council for app and restated Development Agreement (Development Agreement No. 88-03, Amendment No. 1) between The Baldwin Company and therovideofornthe1developmentroLoupdto "The Summit of Anaheim Hi??s" project to p 2117 residential units, 5 acres of commercial uses, aenOsaace,elemeatary school site, a 12-acre park site, and 169 acres of op P Continued from September 26, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. There were two interested persons indicating their ositionetotsubjectbrequest hearing and nc one indicating their presence in opp and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of thtt minutes. Diana Ftoard, Vice President with the Baldwin Company at 16821 Hale Avenue, Irvine, stated the numerous items for Commission's consideration today are basically a composite of about 19 actions Commission has taken since February, 1987. She pointed nut the modeandnexrlainedothegmodelfwas ofdtheteastosideioa of 'che topography on the site, P whicY. is essentially the area being considered today. Ms. Hoarc'~ noted, on the before situation, they have imposed the landslides and fault coaditi~us which were evident throughout the aisa•te3enteandawill Sid Neblett, with Pacific Soils, the geologist on site, P briefly go [:hraugh some of the constraints they had to face is planning the site and the manner in which they are now addressing that to ensure a safe development. 10/10/88 rirxirr~, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONAlISSION OCTOBER 10 198B 88-3 Slides were presented as follows: - an exhibit of the Specific Plan, which does encompass the whole site, putting into one document many of the actions taken to date - The Summit located between The Highlands and Sycamore Canyon - the future extensions of Serrano and Weir Canyon that would go through the site - an aerial photo of the site - the Specific Plan with the surrounding land uses (exhibit); noting basically, with the other two ranches, all three are residential projects - exhibit ~f the plan which is in place to date - the open space which goes through the middle to the west, and noted there are essentially no Chang s in that area, and that to the east is the area where there are some changes is today's Specific Plan - an exhibit showing reallocation of some of the land uses and on the west, a technical modification which the City had requested in order to have the General Plan more closely reflect the approved tentatives, noting there are no differences in any kind of land use; and noted the Specific Plan essentially reallocates the land uses on the east side so that they were ab]e to have an area of detached units which were not previously in the plan, and they came up with about 226 detached units - reallocation of the school site to put it in as area more central to the site, and taking it off Weir Canyon so it will be surrounded by residential areas. Ms. Hoard explained they had met with school officials and they were happy with this change, and they would not have to do eacessive scund attenuation and other t'~ings reduction of the commercial area from 30 acres to 5 acres, which they felt the market could support; and that it has been placed at an intersection which did not previously have commercial, and noted they had done that to enable right hand turn movements into the commercial - the park has been reconfigured and they are working with the Sycamore Canyon representatives so they can present to the City one flat graded pad for the park site; and that a grading study had bren submitted to the City; and she believed the City was in agreement with the plan and ttey are proceeding to make that a finalized plan - the three areas where they have a higher doasity product - one is an apartment site which will have open space oa two sides and commercial on one side; and two other higher densities were located is areas more recessed, so they are not as obvious to the general passerby. She noted, after that, the bulk of their land uses are what she considers single family ~~haracter - an exhibit which was a representation of the planned community to=t that is in place right now and with the Specific Plan, the difference in the grading of the site, noting t:.hey were able to come a little closer to representing thu topography that exists there - development in four master phases; and during the first phase, they would be putting Serrano Road in so it will match Serrano from Sycamore and The Highlands, noting with the first unit of her project, and the others, Serrano would go through - the area adjacent to Weir Canyon allowed them to bring a different product type on at the same time, so the project could have a better. market appeal 10/10/88 '. V MI E ANAPEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-4 - the middle area, Area 3, allowed them to continue the single-family detached units and the larger single-family on 10,000+-square foot lots _ the last phase is the area east of Weir Canyon, and that is the open space and recreation plan where they had the county bike path, which goes along Weir Canyon and adjoins to wherever that will go; noting a transition area between which the Traffic Engineer had asked for south of the Oak Hills, Weir Canyon intersection - an equestrian trail which links up ~~ith Sycamore and goes through the open space, then the county park, which is part of the Weir Canyon Regional Park - a Resource Management PP.an which they worked out witY. the Department of Fish and Game so they are able to preserve or recreate natural habitat which exists t:tere now, noting by relocating Oak Hills, they had been able to save the natural canyon in its existing state, pointing out they would also be reforesting about 40+ acres of the site xith about 4,000 trees, and they are involved in a 5-year program to ensure survival - an exhibit of the landscape concept with a lot of areas where they would be planting and recreating the forest type environment of a natural oak woodland, noting in a downhill situation, they would always have at least 7 feet of landscaping, in addition to the right-of-way, and in an uphill situation where there is more visual impact, there would always be at least 14 feet landscaped, in addition to any right-of-way; and noted the major circulation plan is Serrano, Oak Hills, and Weir Canyon. Ms. Hoard said the Specific Plan was an opportunity for them to master plan at one time, instead of coming to Commission with 19 requests, which she has done is the last couple of months, and it gives them a chan!:e to plan the individual areas, knowing exactly what the topography is going to be. She said they were able to cluster the hi.~her density areas and they were surrounded by vast amounts of open space so they would not be as obvious. Ms. Hoard said the development standards were site spocific, and there had been mention of some of the height issues. She noted they typically build a higher unit than is in L-his general area, and the height of their single-family detached unit is typically 30 feet and they are proposing 26 feet. She stated they had worked with the Anaheim Hills Coalition and they felt since this was a master planned community, they could support the 26 feet height. Ms. Hoard said another area of concern was the townhouse and stacked flat areas. She explained the square footage of the units is less than the code currently requires. She stated when doing 2,000 plus units, they need to build their own marketplace within their own site and they wanted their buyers to be able to move up within their own project. She said if people are there 10 years, they get established with the schools, travel habits, etc., and they wanted to be able to offer those people a different product within their own site and by having the townhouse and stacked flat units, at the square footages proposed, it allows them to have different marketplaces going on at the same time, hence the stacked flats would not directly compete with the paired homes, which would have the same square footage requirement as tho stacked flats or condominiums. She stated their hope was that the Commission would consider that so they could offer more variety in the products they are proposing to the marketplace. 10/10/88 ~~ 'ai> MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-5 Ms. Hoard stated with the Specific Plan as proposed, no area could exceed the number of units proposed on these plans without the permission of the City, but gives them some flexibility to offer a more creative product, and they might be able to have more recreation area. Ms. Hoard stated the Development Agreement is essentially the same Development Agreement the Commission had seen before. She stated it is an opportunity to bring everything back together, in one document, and then qo forward so they are not dealing with all these separate approvals. She added they have agreed to provide fees far the police station and the widening of Santa Ana Canyon, in excess of the fee structure and even though they have reduced the density by 90 units and are proposing today to reduce the commercial by 25 acres, have indicated to the City that they would continue to pay the fee structure of the original plan, since that was what the City's program had included, and that means about 5225,000 above and beyond what anyone else on a per unit basis is being required to pay. Ms. Hoard referred to Condition No. 50, which indicator they would have to have a maintenance mechanism in place prior to recordation of the final tract map. Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, stated if the Commission changas the timing of the other financ~~l mechanism conditions, it would also be appropriate to change the timing of this one which would be prior to the sale of the first residential lot, or the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit (ezcluding the commercial parcel). She said that general timing is consistent with the other timings in the conditions of approval. Ms. Hoard noted Condition No. 112 requires a view analysis from the county area through the regional park, and that was an item they had already dose in conjunction with an approved tentative and received concurrence from the county that they are not intruding into a viex shed. Ms. Hoar3 stated also mentioned in the Specific Plan are two entry monuments to the project, however, they proposed three major community entry monuments - one would be at Weir Canyon and one at each of the two Serrano entrances. Ms. Hoard stated Sid Neblett would briefly give a little history of the geology of the site and some of the constraints they are proposing in the grading. Sid Neblett, Ezecutive Vice President of Pacific Soils Engineering and Chief Geologist, stated they had spent roughly 100 days in preparing the geotechnical report for this specific project. He noted that included drilling roughly 69 borings to depths of 75 to 80 feet, 120 plus test trenches and numerous bulldozer rows, and from that information, the landslides and fault zones were determined cad shown on the map. He indicated the basic structure underlying this particular tract, and the tracts near by, is a structure that dips toward the Santa Ana River, and consequently there are a number of slides that also reflect that geologic consideration. He added the design as shown mitigates those slides since they will be taking out and stabilizing all slopes where they affect stability. He added also two major fault zones transact the property in a north/south direction, and these fault 10/10/88 `CANNING COMMISSION nrTnnFR 10. 1 IxrrrFC. ANAHEIM ~'fT7C~ zones have broken ~';sd shattered some of the rock nearby. He stated articular also reflects the measures that would be required to stabilize that p situation, and added the faults that are on the property are not act9Ce000a000 are old bedrock faults, and probabl,;y are in ezcess of 10,000,000 to years old, and are south and west of the Whittier/Elsinore Fault and do not affect this project. Mr. Neblett stated all the slopes are essentially 2:1, and the areas which were natural slopes which required removal have been removed because they either had landslides Ilan as developedrothey could actually makestheeslopes consequently with the p manageable and provide overall integrity. v[JBLIC INPUT Frank Elfend, 4675 MacArthur Court, Newport Beach, stated he was not opposed to the project, but represents Woodcrest Development and they have indicated they have several questions and comments on some of the conditions of approval. He stated he did want to qo on record indicating there are some questions that he was sure could be discussed with staff and resolved prior to City Council meeting. Brian Crow, 113 Orange Hill Lana, Anaheim, stated he had met with Ms. Hoard on numerous occasions and the Baldwin people were itdero erttoandrHaldwin didtnot they are trying to encroach a bit onto The Summ P P Y seem to mind at all. He said he did understand there were a couple of issues, such as the faults, and that some of the stabilization work on that comes onto their property and perhaps, they will need to work that out. He said they share a common drainage problem also, which they are working on. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe asked about the Fourcorners Pipeline and Ms. Hoarlan with responded she was working with Fourcorners and believed the safety p their program for the first phase of development will be forthcomiageChinto week. She said they do not do any eztensive relocation until they g the nett phases, and then they have a phased relocation program so that it goes through the street area vs. any park or natural area, and oecne roceeds to Oak Hills, it essentially follows Oak Hills through the site, th P back to its location with the Irvine Ranch. Commissioner Messe asked if it would be subterranean to Oak Hills Road, underneath the roadway, and Ms. Hoard answered it would be in the landscaped area. Ms. Hoard responded to Commissioner Messe that she had been told the pipeline carried crude oil. Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, said he had not specifically seen the plan but that Engineering would not approve any of the plans for any of the developments without concurrence from Fourcorners. IO/10/88 rc ANAHEIM CITY PLTINNING rntnt7cSION OCTOBER 1Q, 1988 88-7 Commissioner Messe stated he would also like to hear from the Orange Unified School District and asked if they had a letter stating that the new school site was adequate. Ms. Hoard said yes, they did have on file that the preliminary location and size was acceptable to them. Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, stated staff did receive, on July 15, 1988, a copy of the letter the School District rarote to the Baldwin Company indicating that the location shown on the development plan is agreeable to them and they will be continuing discussions as far as the exact placement and timing. Commissioner Messe asked about the park site on the north. Richard Mayer, Anaheim City Park Planner, stated they had been working with Baldwin and with the Sycamore people on the park site. He stated the configuration submitted by the Baldwin people vas acceptable; however, they had not approved the overall configuration between both ranches yet. He noted they had asked for additional clar:.fication from the Sycamore people and once they get that, they will be in a better position to approve or disapprove. He stated right now, based on everything he has seen, it looked good. Commissioner Messe asked the effect if the Commission approved the Specific Plan today, and Mr. Mayer said, as far as the Saldwin Company was concerned, they were okay. Commissioner Messe asked about the the entryway signage, etc.. compared to the other developments. Linda Rios explained the signage proposed for The Summit, essentially, would be on the same size wall as both The Highlands and Sycamore Canyon developments; however, the area of the Biqa face itself would be larger so, depending upon the type of program The Summit proposes, they would have that maximum sign area to work with, so they could propose something that would be similar to The Highlands and Sycamore, or, per their proposed plan right now, they could come in with something larger, but it would be oa the same size wall xith the face larger. Commissioner Messe said his only other concern was the square footage, standards, and how they relate to our present codes. He said there was a question about some of the housing being a great deal smaller than what they would normally approve. He stated it seemed, although it has been said this was being offered so the market could move up, that for this area, some of the square footages are too small. Commissioner Herbst agreed and noted that Ms. Hoard had said the occupants may want to move up, and they were starting with a 1-bedroom, 600-square foot dwelling and moving up to 4-bedrooms at 1200 square feet He stated there is a reduction of 150 square feet off each one. He stated it appeared each one of the developers are coming in with smaller and smaller houses, an~'1 smaller lots in as area where it is not justified. 10/10/88 ~~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAUlIING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-8 Ms. Hoard said it was part of their overall master plan to allow more diversity in the market and it was the opportunity to appeal to the single person or a couple who could not go into the higher priced larger, places. She said the square footage is typical of what is being built throughout most of Orange County. She said the parking standards still adhere on the bedroom basis, and they end up with the same amount of parking. She said with a unit like this, it would be less inclined for a family and more inclined for the very young entry into the market place, and the thought was that they would go on from there to a paired home, which is usually a young couple with one child or older couple looking for a smaller place with less space and work. Commissioner Messe stated the 1-bedroom, per code would be 750 square feet, and they are asking for 600 square feet and that it seemed they were making that unit very small, even though they were not changing the density. He noted although the Specific Plan said one of the goals was to establish new affordable housing, they are not really talking about affordable housing the way the City defines it. Ms. Hoard said a smaller unit allows the price to be less in the marketplace Chairwoman Bouas stated the goal is to have the first person in that less expensive unit then have the opportunity to move up to somet::inq more expensive and stay within the same area. Ms. Hoard stated their experience had been that once a person has established themselves in as area they like, they want to stay there, and want to be able to move up in the area where they have chosen to live. She added if they are there for 8 to 10 years, that opportunity is offered. Commissioner Herbst stated the 4-bedroom units, at 1200 square feet, are awfully small, a reduction from 1350 square feet. He noted that extra 150 square feet would allow the owner of a house with 4 bedrooms to do a lot more with it. He added he felt they are going a little bit to the extremes, and they have reduced the whole area in square footage and he did not think that should be done in that area. Ms. Hoard asked if Commission could feel comfortable with something slightly larger. Commissioner Herbst responded he could live with 750-950 square feet instead of reducing everything by 150 square feet in that area and that was what they had been allowing and that was where Chey should hold it. Commissioner Carusillo agreed. ;•te asked about the height as shown on Page 42, Subsection C. Joel Fick, Planning Director, explained that section pertained to commercial standards, which would be addressed later. Commissioner Carusillo explained his question was with regard to "35 feet, 2-stories mazimum height, measured from the highest finished grade to the uppermost story ceiling." He asked what the potential for the height overall would be if that was measured from the lowest finished grade to the top of the roof peak? 10/10/88 }A. ~~ e~ncc aN LSIRTM CZ'TY PLANNING COMMI +ON OCTOBER 10 1988 88-9 Mi"' Mary McCloskey, Planning Division Manager, said the roof structure would be a function of design, whether it was a high pitched roof, etc. and it could be higher. Commissioner Carusillo stated he was not suradebuthe lowestwgradeetouthe roofm the highest grade, rather than the lowest g peak could conceivably be 50 feet and thought that should be clarified because we are trying to get some continuity in that area. Commissioner Carusillo referred to Page 31, Paragraph E, regarding the single- family detached products proposed at a mazimum overall height of 26 feet, again, measured from the highest portion of the structure to the highest finished grade". He stated in this case, the highest portion of the structure he believed was the ridgeline, but the highest finished grade is the concern. He explained he was concerned about what the design might look like and whether there might be a lower grade so that they might have an overall height that far exceeds 26 feet. Joel Fick responded this has been under a lot of discussion before the Commission, in terms of how the height is actually calculated and staff's recommendation oa this would be that the height is measured from the highest portion of the structure to the ground floor elevation directly below that poi~:2,. Ms. Hoard explained there are no pads where the structure would be taking up a split pad so, essentially, measuring from the lowest or highest is the same because to have a lower and higher and measure from there, there would have to have a structure which was taking up the pad differential. Commissioner Carusillo agreed and added he did not, however, want to allow that flexibility so felt it should be more specific, measuring from the lowest finished grade to the roof peak (directly below) which would ensure the 35 foot height limit. Ms. Hoard responded she thought the wording was the way it is in the code; and that it was just their intent to be consistent and not have different definitions. Joel Fick stated that was a good point just so there is no ambiguity and that he felt that was Baldwin's intent also but to avoid the ambiguity in the wording, that if it is measured directly from the highest portion of the roof structure to the ground level below, that would make the point very clear in measurement standards. Commissioner Carusillo said his main concern was is the RM and RS zoning, and in those cases, he recommended replacing the wording as Mr. Fick indicated. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the 26 feet height was going to be acceptable to Commission. 10/10/88 ,. ~xtrrFg ANAHEIM rl~rv at axxrxG COMMISSI^" ^rTnnFU 1 1988 88-10 Commissioner Carusillo stated that issue has not been really discussed and is still up in the air and he did not thoroughly understand and asked if this 26-foot height is alloxed here, would that not be opening the door for other areas to increase the height. Be added he would like to see this settled once and for all before certain areas are excluded from the height ordinance. Commissioner Boydstun stated this, however, is a planned community and is not like someone building a house next door that will be different from everything else and this whole community is going to be laid out to fit together. Commissioner Carusillo stated he had some sympathy for that, but just wanted to know where they are going to make the exclusions. He asked if they should not wait until there is a firm ordinance in place regarding the height. Chairwoman Bouas responded that may be a long time coming and this Specific Plan would not change it anywhere else and would not be opening the doors for any other area and is just for this particular project, this planned community. Commissioner Herbst asked how the staff would explain that to other people coming in and wanting a variance, pointing out that after the whole Specific Plan has been approved with a height of 26 feet, it would be hard to explain to someone who only wants one house at 26 feet that the Commission will not allow it because the code is 25 feet. Commissioner Messe responded that it could be explained by saying this was an entire neighborhood or planned community. Chairwoman Bouas added this area has been set up for that height and the other areas aren't, and this area would not affect any other area out there, but an individual asking for a height variance in an area with lower houses does affect the neighboring area. Commissioner Carusillo stated the City has something in place now that dictates 25 feet within the Scenic Corridor, of which this project is a part, and he felt there should be some final decision on it before making ezceptions. He said contrary to what has been said, and maybe others do not have any concerns that this would open up the floodgates to others wanting this same variance, but that he does have that concern. Mr. Fick said this Specific Plan is a little different than some of the other variances requested on a specific lot because this request is in conjunction with a Specific Plan proposal. He stated the Specific Plan is really a different process than a variance, because it is actually amending the City's Zoning Ordinance on this specific project. He pointed out staff had received a letter from the Coalition which addressed the 26-foot height request, and as a logical request for a specific product in a specific plan, it need not apply to the entire area covered by the General Plan. He said he also understood the reason for this request as part of tk:e Specific Plan was so they could begin the design of the product type, whereas, it could be a couple of months before the overall canyon area ordinance is campleted and is place. 10/10/88 e ,~ ; ~. nr•rnnFU 10 1988 88-11 bi•***"rS ANA~'It~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner McBurney asked if Sycamore Canyon and The Highlands projects were gi•.en the same type of Specific Plan height waiver which Ms. Hoard was re~~uesting. Joel Fick responded the other two projects had a 25-foot height limit because there was no request to have it higher. Commissioner Messe stated he thought chimneys were discussed, but would not change the ove~a~l height. Commissioner Feldhaus stated approval of this today is just merely approval in concept and all the mitigation measures of the EIR and Supplement and the other things proposed by staff are still there rovalskeHelaskedsifatherescould concrete prior to final tract or parcel map app be other amendments as the projects evolve. Mr. Fick stated ttyey are requesting approval of vesting tentative tract maps for purposes of this project and there is a development agreement and approval of the Specific Plan does amend and establish a zoning ordinance for this portion of the City. He stated the intent of the Specific Plan is really an attempt on behalf of Baldwin to establish ground rules up front that will guide the implementation of the development. He stated the Development roved Agreement sets the standards in existence at the time the project is app and that the developer in this case is required to make substantial improvements. Commissioner Messe stated the reason for the Specific Plan is so they do not have to come back and forth for different approvals. Commissioner Feldhaus stated a previous developer had some grading problems and now the Commission is discussing height issues and asked if the Specific Plan sets the standards in concrete. Mr. Fick stated the developer is required to comply with the conditions of approval, as set forth by the Commission or Council; and respondedo osed Commissioner Feldhaus that the applicant could come back with a p P amendment at any time; however, if the City wanted to impose a different standard than existed at the time the project was approved or the Development Agreement was ezecuted, that would be a different consideration. He stated the City reserves tha right, really on health, safety, and welfare types of issues, and if there are issues which are unknown today that really necessitated a change, probably not only in this project but in projects in general, the Development Agreement provides for the City to address those issues. He clarified something like the parkingarkindastandards werelnotssed perhaps is three years if the City decided the p 9 adequate. Commissianer Messe asked about the commercial standards and the reference that the following uses are permitted in a neighborhood commercial area, and asked the definition of a "cultural facility". 10/10/88 ;;a, ~,.' xrurrrF¢ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO"''"rcerON OCTOBER 10 1988 88-12 Ms. Hoard responded that could be anyt2:inq such as a transit kiosk and is an area set aside for people to do that grind of advertising; or if somebody wants to do some kind of heritage thing. Joel Fick stated there is no definition in the Code for a cultural facility and Commissioner Messe added he would like to see that reference deleted. Ms. Hoard responded that would be acceptable. Commissioner Herbst asked if they intend to build single story within the 50-foot setback. Ms. Hoard responded when they have a condominium project adjacent to a single family, they would be the same height for a distance of 150 feet. Commissioner Carusillo stated he recall~ad the minimum square footage was to be 750 square feet. Ms. Hoard stated the square footage they are asking for is typically being offered now and code requires, in their interpretation, a pretty large unit. She stated they would try to deal with something between, but she was not comfortable with what code requires. Commissioner Messe said code requirements are typical of what is being offered in the City of. Anaheim, ezcept where affordable housing is offered. Commissioner Boydstun stated in a 4 bedroom unit, one half of the square footage would be is bedrooms and that would mesa a lot of people sad no living space. She added she felt they should meet code. Commissioner Herbst said he felt the code allows units which are small enough and that he xould be willing to qo down on the permitted percentage of bachelor units below the 750 square feet, but not allow everything to be smaller. Ms. Hoard said those are townhouses or attached flats which they were talking about and not a detached home. Commissioner Herbst responded he realized that but that is still too small. Chairwoman Bouas stated she wanted to address tha grading; that the model has been done and is here, and the geologist is here so she felt if there were any questions, they should be addressed now. Commissioner Herbst stated the grading requirements have been spelled out in the ordinance, and that they should conform to the contour grading ordinance which the City already has in place, and compliance would be up to the Engineering Department. Commissioner McBurney commended Ms. Hoard on the grading models provided to the Commission, and added that really helps to understand ezactly what is going to happen. 10/10/88 MIh^JTES, A_NAHE'IM CITX PLA_*?NING C0t~,.;ZSSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-I3 Commissioner Messe asked how the rest of the Commissioners felt about the signage, noting he felt the square footage of the signs was a great deal larger. Commissioner Carusillo stated they had discussed that and agreed the signage would be lox profile, rather than tall. Commissioner Carusillo said everything seems to be all right, with the exception of clearing up the verbage on the height, square footage minimum,. and removal of the "cultural facility." Joel Fick pointed out a section in the staff report, Section 8, Addendum A, which lists a number of corrections and additions to the Specific Plan and explained staff is in agreement with Baldwin on those changes and his recommendation is to incorporate that into the overall approval. Commissioner Messe said he would like the word "affordable" deleted oa Page 14 of the Sgecific Plan because it means something different in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Messe said in the EIR, on Page 78, Paragraph 3 should have tkie words "high quality" deleted, and in Paragraph 2 add the words "City Codes". ACTION: Commissioner ;Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has considered the Draft Supplement to EIR No. 281 for the proposed Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and amended and restated Development Agreement for The Summit of Anaheim Hills and after reviewing the evidence, both written and oral, the Planning Commission finds that the benefits of the project have been balanced against the unavoidable environmental impacts and, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the occurrence of the significant environmental effects identified is Supglemeat to EIR No. 281, as set forth, may be permitted without further mitigation due to the following overriding considerations: Economic, social and physical consideration make it infeasible to eliminate all of the significant environmental impacts of the project which have been identified in EIR No. 281 and the Supplement; such environmental impacts of the project rill be reduced by compliance xith City codes, policies and procedures, and the approved Specific Plaa; the project rill bring substantial benefits to the citizens of Anaheim by providing employment and permitting the development of a variety of residential densities and unit types to assist in meeting demands for housing; and mitigation measure have been incorporated into the project to reduce the majority of environmental impacts to the acceptable level; therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify Supplement to EIR No. 281 for The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment anal amended and restated Development Agreement and adopt the Statement of Ovecridinq Considerations. Commissioner Messe offered Rcs^~ution Ho. PC88-282 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 244, subject to land use policies and condition that the number of units is restricted to 2117 dxellinq units overall (Exhibit A). 10/10/88 On roll call, the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC SURREY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-283 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve The Summit Specific Plan (SP88-2), pursuant to The Summit Specific Plan (SP88-2) Zoning and Development Standards as stated in the Specific Plan document and amended per Addendum A, and subject to the conditions of staff, with the added conditions that the square footage of multiple family dwellings are to be constructed according to City code; that the word "affordable" be deleted from Page 14 of the Specific Plan, that on Page 78, Paragraph 3 the term "high quality," be deleted and in Paragraph 2 the wording is to be changed to "approved Specific Plan, and policies and procedures;" and that the height of the structures are to be calculated from the highest portion of the structure to the ground floor elevation directly below that point, with a height limit of 26 feet for single-family residential zone on the basis that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has made the following findings: that the property proposed for the Specific Plan has unique site characteristics such as topography, location or surroundings whi.~h are enhanced by special land use and development standards; that the Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and with the purposes, standards, and land use guidelines contained therein; that the Specific Plan results in development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development ~n the surrounding neighborhood; that the Specific Plan contributes to a balance cf land uses; that the Specific Plan respects environmental and aesthetic resources consistent with economic realities. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-284 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim introduce and adopt an ordinance for adoption of zoning and development standards to set forth minimum standards and procedures for the development of residential, commercial, and open space land uses within the Specific Plaa area as provided for in Chapter 18.93 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: N027E ABSENT: NONE Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-285 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does recommend to the City Council that the amended and restated Development Agreer~+ent be 10/10/88 x. ocs~ 'TTY PL"~nawv ~^*u'+ySS702r1 OCT^RFR 10 1488 88~,t` MINUT•.S. approved and entered into by the City with the Developer oa the basis that the Developer has demonstrated eligibility ~:.o enter into this Agreement as set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Developmeat Agreement Analysis Section; that the EIR Report No. 281, as addended, previously certified by City Council and the Supplement thereto, is adequate to serve as the required environmental docursentation for Development Agreement No. 88-03 (Amendment No. 1); that the Agreement meets the criteria set forth is Paragraph 10 of the Development Agreement Analysis Section. On roll call, the foregoing re<••alutioa was passed by the following vote: AYES: SOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Council of the City of Anaheim review item Nos. la through if of petitioner's request for approval of Supplement to EIR Report No. 281; General Plan Amendment No. 2~1d; Specific Plan No. 88-2; Specific Plan Zoning aad Development Standards; Fiscal Impact Analysis; and Development Agreement No. 88-03 (Amendment No. 1). 10/10/88 crnv nP'i'naFR 10 1988 88-1~ ..nrc ApiAHEIM CI~l .P_I+Aj` an A V DE R T N• ~A,~TFrnATION NO 88-89.33. TEM 2 - 77 EV I N ) R ADVERTS ED VA I E N 4 ENT T VE TRA T PL*RLIC HEARING: OWNER: SO PAC PROPERTIES, INC., ATTN: JOHN W. JAMESON, 4G85 Mac Arthur Ct., Ste. 450, Newport Beach, CA 92b60. AGENT: ELFEND A2.'D ASSOCIATES, INC., ATTN: JIM HUNTER, 4675 yacArthur Ct., Ste. 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCAT7fiif: Property is approximately 95.0 acres oa the north and southeast si3es of Queens Drive approx. 750 feet southwest of the centerline of Hackamore Lane and further described as Tentative Tract Nos. 10976 and 10977. Request: RS-A-43,000(SC) to RM-3000(SC) AND OS(SC). To establish a 26-lot tract and construct 24 attached single-family residences with waivers of (a) minimum lot width and (b) minimum structural setback. Continued from September 26, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. There 'was no one indicating their 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. Frank Elfend, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, stated they met last Thursday night with the Anaheim Hills Coalition to discuss the proposed request and the results of that meeting were summarized in a letter provided to the Commission today. Mr. Elfend stated subject Property is lotated is Area 19 of the Anaheim Hills Planned Community; and that this area was apprcved for development by the City in August 1983, at a density of 1.61 units per acre. He said the subject property was approved for two Tentative Tract Maps, totaling 25 units and 71 acres of open space; and is contrast, the current request proposes to eliminate development within Tract No. 10976 and consolidate this development within the boundaries of Tentative Tract No. 10977 consistent with the goals and policies of the Canyon Area General Plan. He said this consolidation was previously disturbed by corrective grading, which was required in order to stabilize ancient landslide areas. He said by eliminating grading and development from Tract 10976, ridge lines and canyons will be preserved, additional open space will be provided, vegetation and wildlife will be retained, and community views will be maintained. He added the proposed product type and architectural is compatible with adjacent tracts. Slides were presented showing the proposal. Mr. Elfend referred to Page No. 9, Condition No. 3, of t;'te Reclassificaeriod which requires compliance xithin one year and requested that the time p be Consistent with the Tentative Map, which is for two years. 10/10/88 4 ~~ N I IT1 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 - E8-17 Mr_ Elfend stated on Page No. 11, Condition No. 16, of the Variance requires that the curbs bo painted and posted for "ao parking". He said that was not required on the earlier tracts and added he was sot sure if that was just a standard condition. Mr. Elfend referred to Page No. 12, Condition No. 26, of the Variance requiring compliance within one year, and requested that be changed to two years. Mr. Elfend said Paqe No. 13, Condition No. 1, requires that a flood hazard letter shall be obtained from the Orange County Flood Control District. He said his only comment there is that the elevation of the site is so high, he questioned if that condition is needed, and added he would like it dele*..ed. Concerning Condition No. 10 on Page No. 14, Mr. Elfend stated the project engineer said the storm drains out there had been constructed in conjunction with Area 19, and his only comment was that they are already built. Mr. Elfend stated he had discusser Condition No. 14 with Greq Hastings, Zoning Divisloa Manager, sad it should read that the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 10977 is granted subject to the approval of and finalization of Reclassification No. 88-89-12 and Variance No. 3849. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Souas asked staff about the 2-year compliance requirement. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, said she had checked the Subdivision Map Act for the City and that had a one year limit. She noted this was a vested map, and the State Subdi~:°!ioa Map Act might give a longer time period, but the City's maximum is one year, so the timing conditions in both the reclassification and the variance would be consistent with the Tract Map. She stated if it was a Vesting Map, it xould be a different period of time. Mr. Elfend stated the Ordinance which is referred to is the condition of approval is Ordinance 18.03.090 of the Municipal Code and that indicates the Planning Commission or City Council can set a time limit greater. Ms. Santalahti said the Tract Map would be good for one year and would have to come back for a time eztension and for these to be consistent between all three, they would all be for one year. Mr. Elfend stated he had spoken to several people about this and gotten different answers, but that if what Msi. Santalahti said was correct, and it is one year and they had to come back aai! extend the Tentative Map, they would extend the reclassification as well. Ms. Santalahti stated she would double check and verify the timing. Commissioner McBurney said he believed the Subdivision Map Act calls for are year, with two time extensions. 10/10/88 ~> MIhJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOS°R 10 1988 88-18 Commissioner McBurney asked how staff would keep the other tract which was not going to be developed as permanent open space. He asked where that was spelled out so the Commission could have assurance that it would be maintained as open space. Joel Fick suggested the Planning Commission could rezone that lot for open space, and that he had spoken briefly with Frank Elfend about that today and Mr. Elfend was agreeable. Commissioner Herbst asked if there was going to be a homeowner's group that would be involved in plot B also and Mr. Elfend responded it was his understanding that each tract has their own homeowner association for their common areas. Commissioner Feldhaus asked Mr. Elfend if he had a copy of the Anaheim Hills Coalition letter and Mr. Elfend said he did. Mr. Elfend stated the letter pretty much reflects what he said earlier, and that most people who were at the meeting had homes that abutted the area which would be open space. He said Commissioner McBurney was right on the zoning and that is what they are committing to today, in terms of the consolidation. He said their comments were generally positive in being able to have that area open now and not have homes next to them. Mr. Elfend said the questions were who would maintain the open sgace, and could they be assured the developer was not going to come back and want to put homes there. He stated his answer is that the developer he is currently working for has come to the Commission and would qo to City Council and have said they are consolidating development and pulling it off that area, and if someone wants to make another recommendation, it would not be them. Commissioner Carusillo asked for further clarification on how that open space was going to be maintained, and where would the money come from. Mr. Elfend stated there was a condition of approval on the Tentative Map that CCSRs be provided with a homeowner's association that would maintain that area; and that normally an open space area is like that; and it is not so much maintenance is terms of upkeep, but more of the liability and insurance consideration. He said it is upon the developer of that property to be assured that could be provided satisfactorily to the City Attorney's Office, as well as the Department of Real Estate. He said if it is not then they would not be able to record their maps, therefore, the City has the control, via the conditions of approval, and he assumed based on his discussion with both the applicant and potential buyer of the property, that they will be able to satisfy that condition. Commissioner Messe asked about Condition No. 16 and the red curb and "no parking" signs. Mr. Elfend responded the potential buyer had indicated that was not a requirement on their other tracts. Commissioner Messe stated he would like an answer from staff on that, because with the curb painted red, signs could not be needed. 10/10/88 :~. ~,I~7'*4$ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION nrrnnFU 10 1988 88-19 Ms. Santalaht.i stated there have been problems in the past and it was felt this was a solvcion to a problem of people parking in the cul-de-sacs, which is typically parking head in, and she assumed this was an attempt to eliminate that problem. Commissioner Carusillo asked if they needed a sign to enforce no parking in a red zone; that the area out there is pretty much obliterated with signs and he did not like those 4 a 4 signs along Nohl Ranch Road between Royal Oak and Imperial; and that he did not think those signs were really needed. Debbie Fank, Deputy Traffic Engineer, said either one should be effective. She added people tend to disregard the signs more than they do the red curb, and they just basically reinforce each other. She said this was included because there is an existing problem and the fire trucks need that radius to make their turn. Commissioner Carusillo said as long as it is enforceable with the curb painted, he felt that was sufficient, and Commissioner Messe said he would take the signs out; and Chairwoman Bouas said she felt they should have their choice. Ms. Fank stated signs do not have to be replaced as often as the curbs which have to be repainted every year: and it could be a maintenance issue. She stated signs are more cost effective. Chairwoman Bouas asked what Mr. Daw had foun3 concerning the timing on Condition Nos. 3 and 26. bfr. Daw said the approval of Tentative Maps is initially good for two years. Chairwoman Bouas suggested modifying those conditions. Ms. Santalahti said regarding the question on the storm drains, Condition No. 10, that if that has been taken care of, then the condition is moot. Ms. Santalahti stated Condition No. 16, oa Page 15, is the rewording for the Tentative Map; and !hat she would like a new condition that prior to final tract map approval, Reclassification 88-89-12 shall have an ordinance on it finalizing the zoning. She said that was a typical condition. g~TION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify from the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential, Single-Family/Agricultural, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RM 3000 (SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zoae that area of subject property southeast of Queens Drive (former Tentative Tract No. 10977) and that area of subject property north of Queens Drive (former Tentative Tract No. 10976) to the OS(SC) (Open Space, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone; and to establish a 26-lot (including two lettered lots designated for open space) 24,-unit attached single-family (condominium) residential subdivision, to construct a 26-lot, 14-unit attached single-family (condominium) residential subdivision xith waiver of minimum lot width and minimum 10/10/88 structural setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 93.6 acres, having approximate frontages of 880 feet on the southeast side of Queens Drive (former Tentative Tract No. 10977) and 43 feet on the no=th side of Queens Drive (former Tentative Tract No. 10976) and being located approzimately 750 feet southwest of the centerline of Hackamore Lane; and does hereby approve khe Negative Declaration, subject to the mitigation measure that the areas currently identified as Lots A and B on Tentative Tract Map No. 10977 have been rezoned to open space, upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with nay comments received during the public review procesti and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is ao substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-286 and moved for its passage and adoption th,t the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Reclassification No. 88-89-12 (Readvertised), in part, subject to Interdepartmental Conditions with modification of Condition No. 3 to extend the time for compliance to two years; and with the added condition that Lot A and Lot B are both to be zoned OS(SC), and remain as open space. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: SODAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-287 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3849 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 Zoainq 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, including modification of Condition No. 16 to allow either painting of curbs or posting with "No Parking" signs, and modification of Condition No. 26 to increase the time period foz compliance to two years. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MES5E NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MO'RION 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 Codo Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 10977 (Revision No. 3) for a 26-lot tract (including two lettered lots designated for open space) 24-unit attached single-family (condominium) residential subdivision subject to the following conditions, including modifications cad additions: 10/10/88 MINUTES ANAHE m z "N^ `^"^^'^"' nrrnnFrt 1n. 1988 ~~~ 1. 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 legal property owner's expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the property. 2. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim is as amount as determined by the City Council. 3. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation 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, shall then be filed and recorded is the Office of the Orange County Recorder. The Covenant's and Restrictions shall include provisions that Lots A and B shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 4. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be submitted to and approved by the 2oainq Division. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed. 6. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, "No parking for street sweeping" signs shall be installed as required by the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division and is accordance with specifications on file with said division. 7. Thut the purchaser of each residential dwelling unit shall be provided with written informaY.ioa concerning Anaheim Municipal Code Section 14.32.500 pertaining to "Parking restricted to facilitate street sweeping". Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. 8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, is the preparation of the site, sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no grading shall be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided to the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have ~aitiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through subject property to ultimate disposal as 10/10/88 ~ ~ 1 r,IhJTES ANA~'IM CITY PGAN•a7ING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-22 approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request. 9. That the alignment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this tentative tract map shall not be considered final. These drains shalla be subject to precise design considerations and the approval of the City Engineer. 10. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of nay silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 11. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 12. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and approved by the City Fire Department. 13. That all grading shall be in conformance with the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance. 14. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the tree preservation regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the "SC" Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. 15. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 10977 is granted subject to the approval of and finalixatioa of Reclassification No. 88-89-12 and Variance No. 3849. 16. That no public or private street grades shall ezceed ten percent (10~) except by prior approval of :he City Fire Department and the Engineering Division. 17. That all lots within subject tract authorized by this resolution shall be served by underground utilities. 18. That in conjunction with the submittal of nny grading plan, the property owner/developer shall provide information showing the overall shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed is accordance with City Council Policy No. 211. 19. That prior to final tract map approval, the developer of subject tract shall enter into a special facilities agreement xith the City of Anaheim for crater facilities in the High Elevation System, as required by Rule 158 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 10/10/88 ;~h MINUTES ANApF'TV rrmv ar.axxrxr, rnMMTCSiox, OC^ OSrR 10 1988 88-23 20. That in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", each buyer shall be provided with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject tract. 21. That all street dedications and improvements shall be made in accordance with provisions of Section 17.08.390 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 22. That, as specified is Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.84.042.012, no roof-mounted equipment, whatsoever, shall be permitted. 23. That prior to final tract map approval, a zoning ordinance shall be adopted in connection with Reclassification No. 88-89-12. 24. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal 2oninq Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 25. That prio.c to final tract map approval, Reclassification 88-89-12 shall have an ordinance read on it finalizing the zoning. Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 10 days to the City Council. RECESS: 3:40 p.m. RECONVENE 3:55 p.m. 10/10/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88 24 ITEM N0. 3 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3064 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: METLER ELECTRONICS CORP., ATTN: STEPHEN METLER, 1430 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: FAR WEST BANK, 2825 Walnut Avenue, Suite "B", Tustin, CA 92680. LOCATION: 1430 South Anaheim Blvd. Request: To retain an automobile storage lot with waivers of (a) minimum front setback and (b) required screening and enclosure of outdoor uses. Continued from the September 26, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. (This action was taken at the beginning of the meeting) ACTION Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner MCBurney and MOTION CARRIED, (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the aforementioned matter will be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 24, 1988, at the petitioner's request. 10/IO/88 '~' wF MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINy,.[,;?~;~~': , ;,}~, ~is:TOB£R 10, 1988 88-25 ITEM N 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 280 AND ADDENDUM; REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO 4; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 243; SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 88-3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0. 88-04 (To be considered at later date) PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: SANTA F& LAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, 3230 E. imperial Highway, Suite 100, Brea, CA 92621. AGENT: PHILLIPS BRANDY REDDICR, 18012 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA 92714. LOCATION: Property is approximately 26.3 aoro~ located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue. Request: Petitioner requests adoption of a Specific Plan (including Zoning and Development Standards), a Redevelopment Plan Amendment (to consider an amendment from a designation of Industrial to Industrial with an alternative of Commercial, subject to a General Plan luneadment providing for such use), a General Plan Amendment (to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the site from Geaeeal Industrial to Commercial Professional), and a Development Agreement for tha proposed Santa Fe Pacific Plaza project to provide for the development of 5G~,000 square feet of office area, 24,000 square feet of retail commercial shops, a 4,000 square foot fast-food restaurant, an 8,000 square foot restaurant, a 150 room hotel and 2 parking structures. There were four interested persons indicating their presence at the public hearing; and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner McBurney declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., because of his employment and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 243, Specific Plan No. 88-3, and Development Agreement No. 88-04, and would not take part is either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter wit23 any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner McBurney left the Council Chamber. Chuck Christensen, Project Manager, 3230 East Imperial Highway, Suite 100, Brea, explained a little about the history of this project and what they had gone through to develop what they xere presenting today. Mr. Christensen said Santa Fe acquired the property in 1965 and were working now to develop the property because that was where they wanted to move their corporate office. He noted a couple of years ago they decided there were four criteria that needed to be met to develop the site properly: 1) they wanted to develop something that was compatible with the existing, surrounding land uses; 2) they wanted something that had the potential of being well received in the market place and 3) because the traffic at this particular intersection is extremely heavy, they wanted to come up with something that would have a minimal traffic impact; and 4) they wanted to develop a project that could economically justify a whole list of traffic improvements and other infrastructure improvements that were needed. 10/10/88 MTNtrTES, ANAHE M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-26 Mr. Christensen said Santa Fe is an existing owner in the northeast industrial area, owning several existing, fully leased projects, as well as new projects not yet leased. He said they own projects proposed and not yet built, and they own a big percentage of property that is still undeveloped. He said they had bees in that area foz a long time and would be there a long time to come. He said they do not want to destroy the integrity of the area and they think Commission's interests are their interests. He said they were looking for long term solutions to the problems, as well as a long term approach to the planning uses. Mr. Christensen said he felt the project was compatible to surrounding uses. He noted just east of the project there is a furniture store, appliance store, a restaurant, a bank, and several offices; and diagonally to the east there is a 2-story office building, and across the street, there is a gas station. He added he thinks this will be well received in the market area and they are especially excited about the uses which will serve the existing industrial area, and the supporting commercial uses are seen as a seed there, as well as the restaurant and hotel, which will all focus on the existing people in the area as well as the future on-site users. Mr. Christensen said since the site has freeway frontage, visibility, and access, they think the office oriented type uses will do very well; that they are focusing on corporate type uses which are already allowed in that area, as well as other industrial oriented type office uses. Mr. Christensen stated this project would have a minimal traffic impact, and that was a real challenge and they have worked with the Traffic Department for some time on this. He said this project has less peak hour traffic impact than if they were to develop the site with strictly industrial uses. He stated to minimize traffic they have provided suziliary uses on site; that the project can justify the infrastructure improvements which need to be made; that several lanes need to be added to both Tustin Avenue and LaPalma, as well as improvements on the bridge and the ramps. He said they met with Redevelogment several times to come up with as agreement as to who is going to assume those responsibilities. Mr. Christensen said he believed the site was unique; and it is different than the other industrial lands they own. He stated because of the size, the only way to approach development of the property successfully was to look at the long term uses. He said because of the freeway visibility and access they felt the use is appropriate, whereas other sites in the northeast area, without those characteristics, may be more appropriately developed as industrial property, which is exactly what they are doing with their property to the east. Phil Schwartze stated several years ago they started work on this project and at the time there was not much of a decision on behalf of the property owner about what particular land use they were looking at in this area; that they discussed over the months with staff exactly what kind of process they would use to come up with the ultimate plan, and it was only in the last few months that they decided to qo with the Specific Plan, so the exact uses on the footprint could all be tied together. 10/10/88 -$ 'M tvrrrrS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI^U ^rTOBER 10 198E 88-27 Mr. Schwartze said when they originally looked at the alternatives, those included ne project, office, 2 kinds of mixed use projects, and industrial; that they looked at all the various impacts associated with those uses, including traffic, waste water, air quality, noise, and all the things reviewed in as Environmental Impact Report, and that impacted the decision about what ultimate land uses would be placed on the property. He stated the architectural rendering is looking across the property from Tustin/LaPalma down toward the freeway; and that when they were looking at strictly industrial use, they thought about rail service but that could not done because of the topography, and the market would not support it. He said offices, because of the traffic loading, was inappropriate; and that ultimately, this plan was mitigated fully in the Environmental Impact Report, and they subsequently prepared a Specific Plan. Ae stated, in the meantime, staff had been working with Wildan to prepare a study to look at the regional aspects of the traffic going on in that area and that they have not seen the study but it would indicate there are a number of regi.oaal traffic impacts which may occur there subject to additional activity in the next 10 or 15 years, at the same rate or percentage of distribution between office, retail, industrial, and those kinds of things are proj~nct'ed. He said they were hoping they could discuss the land use issues and the traffic issues with the Commission. Mr. Schwartze stated some of the mitigations which were looked at from the traffic standpoint (referring to exhibit) was t:;e possibility of locating a road down the center of the property which would feed directly onto the freeway; that this is to be a CALTRANS approved program and he did not know whether that was feasible or not, so from the environmental standpoint, since it is out of the funding criteria of the lead agency, which is the City or the property owner, it is not an issue that could be directly addressed in the Environmental Impact Report; however, is something they had reviewed. He said there was some concern expressed that coming from the Riverside Freeway, and making a left turn into the property, in the late afternoon and the p.m. peak hour when traffic would be coming from Rockwell or others, cars would queque up so a signal there might block the flow that would be departing. He stated they had been asked to look at a fully elevated flyover that would come up across the property and down through a super elevated curve and feed directly onto the site; also, there was a possibility of putting an underpass there. He said Santa Fe conducted engineering studies to determine if either of those ideas had feasibility, recognizing the substantial cost associated with either; that they were aware that the traffic going through that intersectioa, whether this property remained a strawberry field or this project was developed, was a regional traffic issue, not a project specific issue, and that unless this traffic is mitigated through the whole area over the next 15 years, it will not be mitigated. Mr. Schwartze said he thought they saw traffic as really a city-wide issue, if not a county-wide issue, and that they have vacant land on which they are looking for some use and tend to be looking for the highest and best use. He stated it appears the impacts are those which they as a landowner have no control over. He stated they had offered additional right-of-way, and asked 10/10/88 ES ANAHEIM CITY PLnuxrxC rnT.atrcSr9N OCTOBER 10 1988 88-28 if there is something they could do to mitigate this traffic. He said the issues were still there and facing them and they did not quite know what to do about it; that they are aware the Wildan Study would be more finalized is the next couple of weeks and hoped they could return then and based on the results of that study, it was his guess they would be returning; and that he was not sure there are any additional mitigation measures that could be proposed now but it is possible there might be something that would come up at the conclusion of the Wildan Study. He stated he wanted to make the Commission aware this is not a project that would happen overnight, but they are looking at a 5-to 10-year buildout on this site. PUBLIC INPUT: Lyle Parks, property owner on the east side of the 91 Freeway, north to LaPalma, except the Bessie Walls Restaurant, stated his address is 1064 North Tustin Avenue. He stated they had bees is several of the study sessions and have discussed many times that they either aead a left turn lane at Tustin Avenue onto the freeway, or they need a U-turn at LaPalma and Tustin Avenue. To allow people who come in to have the ability to go back onto the freeway, and this is causing a great deal of concern to them. He said there was same discussion that the Rockwell people letting out in the afternoon is a factor, but it is both ways from about 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. there is traffic. congestion; that they definitely need a way to qo back onto the freeway, and not to go to Ratella or back to LaPalma. He ezplained he is merely stating the problems and that he would like to have them addressed, but tha` he is not for or against this project. Philip DeCarion, 1074 North Tustin, one of the ownors of Bessie Walls Restaurant, stated they are quite familiar with this property, having seen the traffic build up on Tustin Avenue at LaPalma over the last 10 years to a degree which has affected their ability to do business there since they have a difficult time getting people out c.f their driveway and going south onto Tustin Avenue. He said they would like to see this project qo forward, and he felt it was a well thought out project with lots of things that would be beneficial to the area; and Additionally, the fact they nee going to widen the street and make some traffic control possible, is a good opportunity for the City and the developer to do something that would substantially affect the area and traffic in a positive way. He said about 5:30 p.m. traffic does lighten up to a great degree and is not a problem, ezcept there just is no traffic control at the intersection with his property and Tustin Avenue. He suggested a signal there and thought it would be the best alternative and the second best alternative would be for them to have a U-turn at LaPalma. He stated the project should not go forward until this is addressed. He stated he thought the idea of putting in a bridge or tunnel was aesthetically poor for the neighborhood. Al Mayo, another owner of Bessie Walls Restaurant, agred with what his partner had said, and added he had no objections to the project but their concern is the traffic and accidents with people trying to get onto the freeway. 10/10/88 `' MINUTE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-29 Lawrence Alpert, 3707 East LaPalma, property owner directly across the street, stated they realize this property will not stay a strawberry field forever, but he would like to concur with what was said by the three previous speakers. He stated an additional 1200 automobiles into this project would be impossible and under the current situation it is impossible from the freeway to make a left turn onto LaPalma. He said if a large number of cars have to make this left turn into this facility, the biggest problem is not only getting into the facility but leaving the property anytime between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. He said the proj>~t as designed looks to be a terrific project and would improve the property values, but the way it ezists today it cannot be utilized freely since the amount of traffic would be increased so much that it would be difficult to do business and the 5 to 10 year buildout would cause an even greater inconvenience for them just because of additional work crews and construction. He said if they could be assured that the traffic in the cormnunity itself can be reduced, then he would be in favor but not under the present conditions. Chairwoman Souas stated she would not close the hearing at this time, but felt if the Commission had any questions of staff or any further information they wanted staff to get for them, they should ask now and then this matter should be continued until the Wildan Study is finalized. Commissioner Messe asked staff how much difficulty there would be in determining what the City's present inventory of industrial zoned land is, what it was 5 years ago, and what the trend is, etc. Debbie Fank, Deputy Traffic Engineer, said the Wildan Study went back 5 years and they took the existing land uses then tracked the trend. She said the first part of the study was to determine the land use and project that to the year 2000, and they have that data now. Commissioner Messe asked if that was only for the Northeast Industrial Area and Ms. Fank responded it was. Commissioner Messe stated he was wondering about city-wide statistics. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated staff could find out what information is available; that he knew in the Canyon Industrial Area, staff has detailed information because a vacant land use inventory was done. He stated other than that, staff does an annual land use survey which addresses developed acreage, and staff could take a look at that to see what information is available. Commissioner Messe stated this project would take 26 acres from property zoned industrial, and then soon we would have to have industrial land developed to service the office zoning instead of the other way around. He stated he was worrying about the industrial inventory disappearing. Mr. Fick responded staff would review the acreages, such as the General Plan acreage and the land use inventory information, to see what the historical data is. 10/10/88 ;'- ~ao4 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI,~ION OC~'OBER 10. 1988 88-30 Commissioner Feldhaus said since that is in the redevelopment area, he would like to know what the Redevelopment Commission has. Brad Hobson of the Redevelopment Agency stated to date the Redevelopment Commission has consented to hold a public hearing oa this particular issue of whether or not to amend the redevelopment plan from industrial to a commercial alternative, but that they had not addressed a land use change as yet. He stated first the Planning Commission has the opportunity to address the land use issue and those comments are included in a report to City Council, then there is a notice sent to all property owners and the public hearing could be as early as January. He said this is a fairly long process and is also dependent upon certifying the EIR. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if it was customary for the Redevelopment Commission, in these matters, to get the reports a week or so before they go before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hobson responded that is true but they generally look at the land use compatibility or consistency with the plan, and they are aware that a redevel~~p:~ent plan amendment is proceeding, so they are not addressing the compat`.~~;.;:cy with the redevelopment plan because it has already been determineu that what is being proposed is not compatible with the existing industrial designation. Commissioner Herbst said he would like to see a meeting of the industrial people in the area and get their input before Commission has to make a decision on this project, as to what the accumulative impact is going to be on the people that are already out there. He noted they had developed industrial property and this is supposed to be an industrial zone and was to be protected. He said certain services have been allowed to come into the area, but the long range impact this particular corner may have on the whole area is a concern and this could have a vital impact oa the existing businesses and could cause a problem where many of their employees might decide it is too hard to get back and forth to work and look for employment elsewhere. He said the traffic study show with it being commercial, traffic would be considerably heavier than if it was straight industrial. He said certain uses are allowed by CUP, but now this is getting into 500,000 sq.ft. of commercial office use. He said regional offices have been allowed, but with about 500,000 square feet, it appears may be the project is being over built. He added he did not like to see the industrial users being required to set back 50 feet, then allow this project to come up to within 10 to 15 feet of the street, and development permitted in this area should be consistent. He stated there were certain things he would agree could be allowed there, but this project is really overdone, and it is too much, and it will impact that corner and all the rest of the businesses which have been out there for years, and they have spent a lot of money in developing their businesses. He stated again he would like a meeting with the industrial community. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the developer wanted the Commission to make their decision before they have the hearing. 10/10/88 M7NttTFC ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-31 Commissioner Messe stated he would not be willing to vote on this before he sax the Wildan Study and some of the information on the industrial inventory. Chairwoman Bouas asked when the Wildan Study would be ready and what kind of a continuance they should be looking at, as far as a date. Mary McCloskey, Planning Division Manager, said the study was due to the Redevelopment Staff oa October 17, 1988, and would have to be forwarded to Planning, Engineering, and Public Works staff. Commissioner Herbst asked if staff would have a chance to notify the industrial people out there about that public hearing, and not just those within 300 feet. Ms. McCloskey responded staff could notify any one the Commission desires. Commissioner Carusillo stated the developers should come up with a solution to the horrid traffic problem that would be created; and that if they had that solution in place, they could mitigate a lot of the concerns, similar to what they had heard today. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he had heard this morning that the Pedevelopment Aqoncy, with Redevelopment Funds, was going to consider some sort of solution to the critical intersection problem and it was suggested that there may be some request for participation from the State. Mr. Fick suggested an alternative option, rather than inviting a large number of people to a public hearing, that the Commission could hold some type of public workshop session, maybe working through the Chamber of Commerce or some group to let Santa Fe give a more informal question and answer type session to the business community, to find out if the impacts are things they could address is advance of the Commission hearing. He said if this hearing is continued for six weeks, it would staff the opportunity ko do that. Ms. Fanks said there is a Transportation Management Aqeacy in the Northeast Industrial Area xhic?: was formed from the Chamber with City staff inputs and it is a group of the business and property owners out there, and that may be a good group to get in touch with, to get a mailing list, etc. She added she believed they meet evsry other month. Chairwoman Houas stated she believed that was a good idea and that Santa Fe should pursue it so those industrial people are aware of this and the Commission could hear what their concerns are, which would help in their decision. TI N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 21, 1988, for further input from staff and the industrial area; and further that the public hearing was not closed. COMMISSIONER MCBURNEY RETURNED TO THE MEETING. 10/10/88 7TFM un_ S _ CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE N0. 3848 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: GARY MASCIEL AND YOLAND MASCIEL, 200 N. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA. LOCATION: 621 E. Avon Place Request: To waive (a) required screening of parking areas and (b) required improvement of front setback area to construct a 4-unit, 2-story apartment complea. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Gary Masciel, 420 South Euclid, Anaheim, stated the development is a 4-unit, 2-story, 2-bedroom apartment complea. He stated he was asking for a setback vEriaace on Avon Place; that some screening could be put there similar to other projects where there were smaller retaining walls, something along the lines of landscape screening, rather than a b],ock wall. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Rospondinq to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Masciel stated he was willing to screen with landscaping; and that they have a basic landscape plan with shrubs just to provide some greenery. Commissioner Feldhaus stated flat shrubbery does not screen and that he would like to see landscaping particularly there, such as hedges and something to come up to that height. Mr. Masciel stated they were not putting in ground cover, and stated they did submit two landscape plans. Commissioner Carusillo asked the size of the patios and balconies, and Mr. Masciel responded they all meet City standards which is a minimum of 8 feet long by 12 feet wide. Responding to Commissioner Carusillo as to security in that garage, Mr. Masciel stated the garage is open on either side, ventilated, and there would be lighting for security, but it would not be gated. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, noted a correction of the dimensions on the location map and the property is 60 feet wide by 110 feet. She said on Item 5, Page 2, in the middle of the chart where it says, "land area square feet per dwelling unit", the two sets of numbers in the columns have been reversed. Commissioner Herbst asked the 6-1/2 feet is where they are taking the 8-1/2 feet out for the two parking stalls is the 15-foot landscaped area, Ms. Saatalahti said that xas correct, with the remainder being used for the parking spaces. Commissioner Herbst asked what type of landscaping the applicant would put in front, or if it would be bermed. He stated they have a flat pad, the parking 10/10/88 ~Y. INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-33 is to grade level, and there are two outside parking stalls ants added he felt if they bermed that, it would give some screening and also help the visibility from the front. Mr. Masciel agreed. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would like to see at least 10- or 15-gallon hedges to help screen that area. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment complex with waivers of required screening of parking areas and required improvement of front setback area on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.15 acre, located at the northwest corner of Avon Place and Dakota Street, having approximate frontages of 60 feet on the north side of Avon Place and 110 feet on the west side of Dakota Street and further described as 621 E. Avon Place; 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 Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-286 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3848, with a stipulation by the applicant to berm the 6-1/2 foot to 15-foot front setback area and include shrub screening to at least 3 feet high along khe berm area where it meets the t•+ro parking stalls; oa 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 in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTfJN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 10/10/88 €, ~ *xrurrrFg ANAHEIM CITY PLAxxrxc, COMMISSION OCTOBER 14 1988 88-34 NO 6 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREME2~t ; rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3070 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: CRESCENT ASSOCIATES AND MILTON GOTTLIEH, C/0 BOB CARR, L. A. CELLULAR TEL. CO., 6045 SLAUSON Avenue, Commerce, CA 90040. AGENT: JEROME SUCRMELTER ASSOCIATES, 23534 Aetna Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91364. LOCATION: 301 N. Crescent Way Request: To permit a cellular phone transmission station with waiver of maximum structural height of microwave tower. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jerome Suckmelter, 23534 Aetna Street, Woodland Hills, Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company, stated the Director of Engineering, Ray Tichmaa, is also present to answer questions. Mr. Buckmelter stated he sent a revised site plan to the Commission, and that it was revised because the Interdepartmontal Committee tied some conditions to their original plan. He stated this revised plan shows a different location for a temporary monopole and building which would be removed once they got the tower approved. Mr. Buckmelter stated they are a bona fide public utility providing cellular telephone service to Southern California; and that there are only two public utilities, PacTel and L.A. Cellular, and they are both 3oing very well. He said this is really growing is popularity and that is why they are here today. He stated the hub of their cellular system, the main telephone switch office, which is located in the City of Commerce, is reaching capacity: and they anticipate at the end of January, 1989, they would be at capacity. He stated they started searching some time ago for another hub for their system, andall their consultants and engineers suggested they have a site remote from the City of Commerce, such as Orange County, and they found this site located at 301 North Crescent Way, and that this is an important site for a lot of reasons, Mr. Buckmelter stated the City describes what they are proposing as a telephone exchange office building; and that it is permitted in the ML Zoae as a matter of right but because of the 200-foot tower, they need this permit, and noted the use is permitted but the structure isn't. He explained they need the structure to put microwave dishes on and are proposing to do almost the same thing that Sprint has done. He stated the reason they chose this particular site was the advantage of being is a central part of Orange County where they could divide the area codes 213 and 714. He stated also they have to get close to the PacTel main switch, which is the laud system switch just to the northwest; and that this is also central to a lot of their cell sites and they want to link them via microwave, in order to have a failsafe method of operation. (Photographs of the site were presented into evidence). 10/10/88 t MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-35 Mr. Buckmelter stated the proposed use operates with two different types of frequencies, one is a UHF TV-type frequency, which once were reserved for UHF TV and is now allocated to cellular companies and the other is microwave. He pointed out there is no environmental hazard; and the type facility they are requesting could not be operated if it was hazardous, and that they are exempt by the FCC. Mr. Burkmelter stated also, they have documentation citing all the different sections of the Federal Communications Act, which he submitted for the record. He said he also had documentation showing there would be no interference with radio, television, computers, etc. He sail! they are required by State lax to pre-coordinate before they qo on the air with the different facilities. He said just last week they received FAA clearance, who approved their tower and they are not requiring any type of lights, paint, or anything like that; however, if the Commission feels it would be necessary, they would be glad to put a light oa the tower. Mr. Buckmelter said if this is approved, they would have a system that would be failsafe; and then if there was any problem with their hub in Commerce, this could work independently and take some of the load from Commerce and visa versa, and this would continue even during times of emergency, such as an earthquake, and that the cellular facility would be able to operate, providing communication, even when telephone lines qo down. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe said his only question was regarding the lighting on top of the tower. He asked what the Police Department says with their helicopters flying around town. Mr. Huckmeltez stated they did not bring up that issue, but they had questions like this raised in other jurisdictions . Commissioner Messe said if the tower was two hundred feet high, they would be required to have a blinking light, or a steady light, and they are not quite up to 200 feet. Chairwoman Bouas and Commissioner Boydstun stated they would like a light on the tower anyway. Mr. Buckmelter asked if they preferred a light not visible from the ground, but only from the air; and Chairwoman Bouas said whatever was on the rest of the towers in the area, so that aircraft and the police helicopters can see it which may be flying low. Mr. Buckmelter said they would put an FAA approved light on the tower. Commissioner Messe asked what was going on there right nox. Raymond Tichman, 6045 Slauson Avenue, Los Angeles, stated he spoke with Sprint today regarding their tower and they were a little bit aloof about what they were doing, but he knew the site had been turned down. He stated according to 10/10/88 1~,~NUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-36 the man who was in charge of the disposition of the equipment, he stated they were going to retain the site and reinstitute the microwave at a latter date, but currently they had traasitioned to fibre optics because of the quality consideration of long distance carriers right now. He said that specific use is for long distance carriers. He said the microwave the applicant is proposing for the cellular connection would be of a shorter range and they can achieve a higher quality because of the types of microwave tk:ey are choosing for this specific task. He said they had offered to purchase Sprint's tower and they had declined. Commissioner Messe asked how large the microwave dishes were. Mr. Tichman said the ones in the photo (Sprint) were at least 8 feet and he believed there were 12 foot ones, but that he did not have technical data on that. Commissioner Messe stated the applicant is talking about hanging 7 dishes on their tower. Mr. Tichman stated that would be the ultimate configuration; that obviously, when they are in the infant stages of trying to fix a position on a microwave tow~sr, they would do many studies to see how many different cellular sites they can make hops to (point to point connection). He said the number 7 evolved because of the surrounding cells, tsd it looked like they could achieve that; and that they would only utilize the size dishes required to achieve their reliabi3ity and that happens to be 99.49 effi.tieacy. Chairwoman Bouas asked if they had documentation that it is not detrimental to the health and safety of the public. Mr. Tichman responded the microwaves are licensed in the jurisdiction of the FCC; and that as far as emissions, they are something that have been around for 20 to 30 years and are no different power than what is around them. He stated there are a lot of microwave facilities which connect buildings to buildings, and that they are proposing nothing more than what is currently the standard and controlled by the federal government. Commissioner Carusillo asked about the letter Mr. Buckmelter sent to the Commission, which talks about the FCC extensive testing and the safety of the environment, etc. He asked if that addressed health also and Mr. Tichman said it did; and noted the ANSI Standard, which the FCC recognizes, is far more stringent than the OSHA Standards. He stated the equipment has gone through the emissions testing and what the emissions would be to humans surrounding the area. He presented the letter from the FCC which documented that this is no hazard to the citizens. gCTI(1~t: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a cellular phone transmission station with a 200-foot high microwave tower on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres, having a frontage of approzimately 160 feet on the west side of Crescent Way, having a maximum depth of approximately 10/10/88 ". T~i r,INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER in_ tggg 88-37 351 feet and being located approzimately 95 feet north of the centerline of Penhall Way and further described as 301 N. Crescent Way; 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 Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby APPROVE waiver of code requirement, subject to condition t2sat an FAA approved light be installed at the top of the tower 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; snd that strict application of. the Zoniaq Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Boydstua offered Resolution No. PC88-289 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3070, 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 BURNEY, t~SSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 10/10/88 ~, ? ~y, flI~T'~'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-38 ITEM NO 7 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREy[ENT: rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3071• WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY N0. 543 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: DONALD LEROY LYNCH, Attn: Dwyer J. Beesley, 300 N. Tustin Avenue, 11201, Santa Ana, CA 92705. AGENT: DWYER J. BEESLEY, 300 N. Tustin Avenue, 8201, Santa Ana, CA 92705. LOCATION: 121 N. Rathryn Drive Request: To construct a 2-story, 11-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height and (c) maximum lot coverage.. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Dwyer Beesley, agent, stated this project was excellent amd it meets the need for affordable housing in the City of Anaheim and the applicant has the support of the residents on Rathryn Drive and almost all of the parcels directly to the north. He noted Commission had letters in their packets from the residents is support of this project. Commissioner Carusillo asked Mr. Beesley about the gentleman who lived directly adjacent to the project, to the north, and asked if he was in favor of this project. Mr. Beesley responded he had met with the lady there, who is not actually the owner, but he asked her if she would like to see the plans and she said she did not care to, and that this is fine to have next door; and they had no objection. He stated the residents are in easy walking distance of restaurants and commercial uses, but still tucked into a nice residential neighborhood. He said he plans to own this project for a long time and plans to fulfill the neighbors wishes that it remain a nice project. He said because of the way the project is designed, there would be no loud noise or intrusion into the neighborhood. Ae added in order to put an elevator in, the cost is about 524,000, and they felt they needed to have a couple of extra units which comes to 11, and that they still have a nice project with il. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked hox many units were affordable and Mr. Beesley said there were four for a period of 30 years. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated Debbie Vaqts of Community Development prepared a summary sheet for this project which was signed several weeks ago, and that four of the units would be affordable, 1-bedroom, 5416 monthly rent, for a 30-year period. Commissioner McHurney said he felt this was a good project and is needed. Chairwoman Bouas said it was unusual that the residents around the area were happy with something like this. 10/10/88 _. b,INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOx nr~rOBER 10 1988 88-39 Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the trade-off is an 11th unit for an elevator, and Mr. Beesley said it was. He also noted that 11th unit is affordable. Commissioner Messe asked if Mr. Beesley would stipulate to the elevator, because oa the plans it looked like it had been removed. Commissioner Carusillo asked about the dimensions: of the balconies indicating he wanted to make sure they were adequate and usable, and was told they are 9 foot by 12 feet. TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit construction of a 2-story, 11-unit affordable Senior Citizen's Apartment Complex with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, and maximum lot coverage on a rectangular-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 0.23 acre, having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Rathryn Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 105 feet, being located approximately 150 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 121 N. Rathryn Drive and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby APFROVE waiver of code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoniaq Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-290 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3071, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations with the added condition that as elevator be included in the construction of. the building. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby APPROVED waiver of Council Po]icy No. 543. 10/10/88 ~t MTNLT~ES ANAHEIM CITY PLAhdING COhuvI SSION OCTOBER ~0 X988 88-40 EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: CONDITIONAL_USF PERMIT N0. 307__2 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: RALYANJI ROFVERJI MOTA AND JYOTI R. MOTA, 2912 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA. AGENT: JOHN E. SWINT, 707 W. North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. LOCATION: 2912 W Lincoln Avenue tSt@g> S ov Motor) Request: To permit a 13-room addition to an existing 32-room motel. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. John Swint, 707 West North Street, Anaheim, said he had read all the conditions which are all reasonable and since they are not asking for any variances or waivers he would like Commission's decision. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Bouas asked why the need the two apartments for the managers. Mr. Swint stated the applicant has their own families operating the motel; that he did one at 1600 South Harbor which had two apartments and one at 631 West Ratella and that had two and there was one under construction right now at 1734 South Harbor that had two apartments, one of which was 4,000 square feet. He said each apartment is occupied by members of the family of the owners of the motel. He said one of the owners was present and could verify that. Commissioner Messe stated his question was whether this is really a motel or an apartment complex. He asked what type of residents they have and if they were day to day, week to week, month to month, etc. Mr. Shah, manager of the motel, stated it is about 50/50 weekly and daily tenants. Chairwoman Bouas asked how many kitchens there are and Mr. Shah responded 5 to 6. Ms. Bouas asked if they are proposing kitchens in the new ac'.dition and was told no. Commissioner Feldhaus asked the average occupancy rate, and Mr. Shah said 600 to 70~ was the average for the whole year. Commissioner McHurney asked how many people are in the families who would occupy these two apartments. Mr. Shah explained there are three members in his own family; and that there are two couples, or one couple with one son and two daughters that would occupy the other unit. Chairwoman Bouas asked if he personally would occupy one of the apartments and Mr. Shah said he would. She asked about the other family. Mr. Shah responded the other family would occupy the proposed unit. 10/10/88 Commissioner Messe asked if they split the management and ownership of this motel. Mr. Shah responded he is not really considered the owner, and it is on a commission basis. Chairwoman Bouas asked for clarification and if he is not the owner, would he just manage it and Mr. Shah said that was right. Commissioner Messe asked if the other family who was going to occupy the apartment was as owner. Mr. Swint said one of them is Ren Mota, who has a son, and both of them also occupy the motel and run the motel; that Mr. Shah is only the manager eight hours during the day and the others take over the rest of the time. Commissioner Carusillo asked if there would be renovation ~f the present rooms and was told by Mr. Swint that there would not be renovation; that the west wing was not very old and the east wing was in good condition. Commissioner Boydstun asked what living facilities are there now for staff. Mr. Swint stated the northerlymost portion of the building is now the residential area, but that is going to be converted largsr offices. Mr. Swint stated right now they have a very small office. Commissioner Boydstun asked if that was going to be changed so that it is not living space to be rented monthly and Mr. Sxiat said that was right. Commissioner Messe asked if they were going to put a second-story, new structure oa that easternmost building, without renovating the rooms in that building. Mr. Swint responded there is no need to do any physical changes to the building. Commissioner Boydstun acted if there was a landscaping plea with this and Mr. Swint said there was none because the entire ground floor was occupied with parking. He said there was no apportuaity to increase the landscaping because it has already been established. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the landscaping would be renovated and Mr. Swint said it would, and that it is one of the conditions. Commissioner Messe asked if they were adding parking because of the additional rooms because ha had been there on a Saturday afternoon and there was very little parking available. Mr. Swint said the pool is being removed and there would be a lot of parking where the pool is now. He said they are not asking for any parking waivers. Chairwoman Bouas asked staff what the parking requirements were. Annika Santalahti stated they are required to have .8 spaces per room and the large manager's unit is required to have 3-1/2 spaces and the other unit has the same as the motels. She stated they meet code exactly and they are not counting any tandem spaces, and they have three. 10/10/88 y MI' ""°S ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION ^rrnxFU i0 1988 88-4~ Commissioner Messe stated they agree to all the conditions imposed by staff, including that sidewalks will be repaired and anything that needs repairing will be repaired. He stated he wished something could be done about making that particular motel look better °=d less like an apartment complex. He stated he views it as an apartment complex which does not have transient visitors but is a place of permanent residence. Mr. Swint stated now it does not look very good, and asked if the Commissioners had seen the elevations which show the new building; pointing out it would be upgraded to a point where they would not recognize the building. Commissioner McBurney asked if it was true that there are quite a few apartments there and Mr. Swint said they are not apartments and explained there are five units with kitchenettes. Commissioner McBurney asked if those are permanent guests and Mr. Swint responded occupancy is three weeks. Commissioner Herbst asked if anything could be done about the landscaping, since they are going to remove the swimming pool; and asked if there could be some type landscaping to enhance the parking lot area. Mr. Swint responded there are possibly some areas where they can put a tree, and said if the Commission wants to make that as an added condition, they would accept it. Commissioner Herbst said he has no problem with the construction, and that anything there would improve the area; however, he did have some reservations about the two apartments proposed. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he was trying to figure out why there are four bathrooms in the one apartment and Mr. Swint said they are large families. Commissioner Messe stated it was presented that there was one family of three and one of four and asked if that was true or not. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he wondered about the four bathrooms and the thought came to him that they would have a lot of people in there, which would be what the extra bathrooms are for. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 13-room addition to an existing 32-room motel on an rectanularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.86 acres having a frontage of approximately 95 feet on the south side of Lincoln Ave., having a maximum depth of approximately 330 feet, being located approximately 1070 feet east of the centerline of Beach Blvd. and further described as 2912 W. Lincoln Ave. (Stage Stop Eiotel); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with nay comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and nay comments received that there is ao substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 10!10/88 ~' ~ 1 Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-291 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3072, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Suctions 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations with the added condition that the applicant will improve the parking lot area with a reasonable amount of landscaping to enhance that area, with approzimately three to four trees. Commissioner Messe asked staff if there had been any code enforcement problems in that area. Ms. Santalahti said she had been in contact with Bruce Freedman, Code Enforcement Officer, who indicated the only contacts they had at that location had been relative to graffiti, which had been quickly taken care of. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: HOURS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST, MC HURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 10/10/88 ~: ~ i rTnaER 10. 1984 88-44 MIN~'Tr~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 0 9 CEQA CATEGORIrAL EXE1•'PTION CLASS 3• CONDITTONAL t1cE PERMIT N0. 3073 ITFt-~-- PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: OSWALDO VASQUEZ AND ANA B. VASQUEZ, 1134 Lomita Place, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: DAVID PETERS, 610 West Broadway, glll, Anaheim, CA 92805. LOCATION: 1134 W Lomita Place Request: To permit a 640-square foot "granny unit". There was ao one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made apart of the minutes. David Peters, 610 West Broadway, Anaheim, said this unit is proposed for his 70-year-old grandmother. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chairwoman Bouas, Mr. Peters said the house is located at 1134 Lomita Place and his in-laws live there; and that this unit would be for the mother of his in-laws. Chairwoman Bouas asked if this would be over the garage and if the garage would be available for parking cars. Mr. Peters responded that is correct, and that the garage is available to park cars in at the present time. Commissioner Feldhaus asked how they would get into the garage with the bougainvilla growing over the garage door. Mr. Peters said that has been growing there for some time, and that they did not ordinarily use the garage, but they can get into it from the one side. He explained they do use it for storage space, but it can be opened and they can get into it. Commissioner Herbst asked the applicant if he understood about the age limit for occupancy of the unit and Mr. Peters said be understood. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State ETR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically ezempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-292 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit no. 3073, 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: SODAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BiJRNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. r MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-45 ITEM NO 10 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT: rONDITiONAL USE PERMIT 3074 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ANAHEIM HILLS PROMENADE PARTNERSHIP, ATTN: DAVID E. SIGMOND, 22 Starlight, Irvine, CA 92715. AGENT: JUDY P. REYNOLDS, 6511 E. Serrano Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807. LOCATION: 6511 E. Serrano Avenue. (Aau~ ^••y~ Swim School and Physical Fitness Center) Request: To permit physical therapy (massage) in an existing aerobics studio with waiver of permitted location. There was ao one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Judy Reynolds, 6511 East Serrano Avenue, said she was the owner of the school; that it is the Anaheim Hills Workout Studio and the request is to allow physical therapy in the existing business. She stated the swim school is located in a small shopping center and she has been there for sir years and just recently she has added an aerobics studio next door. She stated the reason for the CUP is because is that center there is the school, the Towa and Country Early Education Center and just recently a CUP was granted to the Anaheim Hills Community Church which is located at the other end of th.e center; and in order to do the physical therapy in this location, a waiver is needed for the physical therapy. THE PU°uLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Bouas asked if Chere would only be one person doing the massage. Ms. Reynolds said the technician works for her row as a swimming instructor; that she is 28 years old, a physical education major, and has just recently acquired her diploma from the American institute of Massage in Costa Mesa. She indicated this instructor has worked for her for 2 years and is a good instructor. Ms. Reynolds added she felt it would be an enhancement to her business to be able 20 offer this because there are so many people doing strenuous excersises who could use this service. She said she has had many request from people during their aerobics workouts for names of people who could offer this type of physical therapy. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Ms. Reynolds responded she does not intend to change her signs. Chairwoman Bouas asked how she would advertise that the masseuse is there. Ms. Reynolds stated they would do that in the general advertising for the swim school and aerobics center, and this would just be offered in conjunction with the sports, as a health therapy and a sideline to their business. 10/10/88 ~ E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-46 Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Ms. Reynolds stated this would be strictly in canjunction with the aerobics classes. Ms. Reynolds stated she also has a n*+mber of children with cerebral palsy in her swim classes and massage is required to stimulate their muscles and that she would be offering this to them as well. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the masseuse did anything like acupuncture or anything besides massage and Ms. Reynolds said ao. A TI N• Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit physical therapy (massage) in an existing aerobics studio with waiver of permitted location on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acres located at the northeast corner of Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road, having approximate frontages of approximately 485 feet on the north side of Serrano Avenue and 250 feet oa the east side of Nohl Ranch Road and further described as 6511 E. Serrano (Aqua Duks Swim School and Physical Fitness 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 on 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 Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waiver of code requirement, on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, with the added condition that said service is to be perforrzed in conjunction with the swimming and aerobics classes and that there is to be only one licensed masseuse employed by the subject Physical .Fitness Center. LAAitinn3l Discussion: Commissioner Carusillo asked about the hours of operation and Ms. Reynolds said at the moment they are not offering any evening hours. She said the swim school is not open on weekends and the aerobics studio is open for Saturday morning class. She said if there is a request for evening hours, they may offer hours on Thursday evening between 7:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. only. Commissioner Carusillo said he believed, as part of the Conditional Use Permit, they would have to stipulate to those hours. Commissioner McBurney stated the hours aze already included on Page 3 of the staff report: 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, closed Sunday, 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Thursday, by appointment only. 10/10/88 Joel Fick, Planning Airector, said if the Commission would like, they could include in the approval that a condition be added that if there is going to be another masseuse, it would be submitted back to the Commission under Reports and Recommendations for their consideration. FURTHER ACTION• Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-293 and moved for its passage and adoption that Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3074 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations with the added condition that if at any time the subject business wishes to employ an additional physical therapist (masseuse), said request will have to be submitted to tho Anaheim City Planning Commission under Reports and Recommendations for action. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOXDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to agpeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 10/10/88 .,~,; OCTOBER 10 1988 88=4B ..nrc ~7~IM CITY t'i aN~7ING COT 11. REPORTS AND RECOt~R' ATI N A. anTNC PLAN RELATEn SttBMITTALS - Planning Commission initiated item relative to requiring certain additional information in connection with tentative tract map grading plan submittals. Commissioner Herbst said because of The Highlands incident regarding grading, that some of the sites were misrepresented as far as what was going to be done in the way of grading, and the Commission needs additional information. He stated he did not feel all plans would Hoed large models, such as was presented today by Baldwin, but when they get into a major plan where grading will be done on a large scale, something is needed. Commissioneer Messe said actually the one paragraph in the report, oa the second page, the unnumbered paragraph seemed to outline what the Commission is looking for. He said this model on the Baldwin Pt°ojtetuire great and he felt when there are other projects that are going q grading on a large scale, the Commission should be able to ask for a model. Commissioner McBurney said he felt staff knew how Commission felt, as far as mass grading was concerned, and something oa the nature of over 100,000 cubic yards, where they were going to change the form of the earth, Commission would like to see what is going to be done. Commissioner McBurney stated if a motion is necessary, he would propose that in staff's opinion when there is something of thisrobab1tu20,000ey should require a grading model; and on anything less, p Y cubic yards or less, then the Commission would not have to see a model. Commissioner Messe asked staff about the fact that The Highlands had not yet submitted grading plans for Commission review, and that was a condition Mr. Herbst added. Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, stated that was a condition on the approval theyhhavesnotgyetabroughtMthoseoinpbecause theylareenotaready atethisted point. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated the other thing he would like to ar"3 is that staff is attempting, on all the tract maps, to work with Engineering and give commentary regardless of the size or models oa what the proposed project is when the tract map comes through. So, even on small tract maps, by practice, staff is going to try to provide Commission with more information than they had previously. LION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Plaannnq Commission does hereby require submittal of a scaled model and/or otradindditaIISafor large information in connection with tentative tract map g 9 P- scale development projects where there will be substantial grading, or where the configuration of the earth is going to change considerably. 10/10/88 ~~` AtT t. 1'i`FS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-49 Additional Discussion: Commissioner Herbst stated at the last meeting, the Commission passed a motion that there would be no heavy equipment traffic going up Canyon Rim Road and last week he saw numerous truck and trailer loads going onto The Highlands site, dumping and coming back around Canyon Rim Road; and that those were the kinds of trucks t_hsy did not want on that street and it was agreed they would not do that, but they are. Mr. Fick said he appreciated knowing that and that staff would look into that tomorrow morning. He said he has heard from the community that they are trying to monitor that, but that staff would look into it, as well. g. VARIANCE N0. 3653 - Yuakub A. Vali, property owner, requests approval of a one-year time extension. Property is located at 119 East Watar Street. TI N: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT a one-year time extension (retroactive to April 13, 1988) for Variance No. 3653 to ezpire on April 13, 1989. C. REO E T FOR WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO 542 - SOUND ATTENUATION: Petitioner requests waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to Sound Attenuation. Property is located at 1235 N. Gilbert Street. Aanika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, offered soma plans as exhibits and noted the applicant was present because there was some confusion. Steve Fisher, 9161 Gordon Avenue, LaFiabra, said there was some confusion regarding sound attenuation and he was not sure where it came from at this point. He said they originally did a sound study that did require a 9-foot sound wall the entire frontage on the freeway, which was approximately 338 feet and once he saw that he went back to the sound engineer and worked out a revision that would allow them to cut that down to 195 feet. He stated the plans will shox the reason they were able to do that was because there was a carport there and the height and design would actually act as a barrier itself. He said the only problem is the sound engineer was interpreting the City's sound policy incorrectly and he was looking at how other cities interpret it; that essentially they ended up having to qo with the 12-foot sound wall the entire length to get permits and he is requesting that they modify the original sound report. He explained he wanted to qo to 195 foet, with a 9-foot sound wall, which would bring it within reasonable sound measures and economically make it a feasible project. He stated this is a very unusual site, very narrow in width, causing a very long frontage. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if they are going to get caught in the I-5 widening. Mr. Fisher said it is very possible, and it is an issue he would deal with then. 10/10/88 ~' ~NUTES ANAAEIM CITY PL xxTxr COMMIS ION. OCTOBER 10, 1988 88-50 Commissioner Herbst asked about the drawings with the 12-foot height. Ms. Saatalahti said that was the requirement when applicant xent in for the building permit and that is what they would have had to do to meet sound attenuation requirements and the applicant is asking for a lower wall which his consultant says is satisfactory, although higher than 65 CNEL. Commissioner Herbst said a 9-foot wall would not take care of it, and any diesel truck going down the freeway, with their stack, is almost 12 feet high and would blast right into project. Mr. Fisher stated they meet sound requirements everywhere, except directly behind the wall in front of the apartments and they are bringing it down to a 70 decible level, instead of the 65 the City was requiring. Commissioner Messe noted 5 decibles is a lot of noise. ACTION Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that i:he Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby 7ENY the request for waiver of Council Policy No. 542. Mr. Fisher said he was aware of at least one precedent set some months ago just up the freeway, where a 21-foot sound wall was going to be required but there was an existing 10-foot freeway wall already constructed and Council approved it to remain. Mr. Fisher asked why it would be appropriate in some cases to bend the rules, and not in others and asked where to qo from here. Chairwoman Bouas stated Planning Commission did not act on the variance Mr. Fisher had referred to, and that was the City Council. Ms. Santalahti said that particular item went through Council and there was no concern with the sound attenuation at the time; and when the developer investigated he found it required a lot more than expected so he went back and it was approved. She stated Mr. Fisher has the right to appeal Commission's decision to City Council. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 860 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Melodyland, applicant, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 880. Property is located at 400 West Freedman Way. ACTION Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-294 and moved for its adoption and passage that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 880. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC HURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 10/10/88 ;~~- MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION O(`T(IRRR ln_ 1988 88-51 E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3007 PEOUEST FOR RxTROACTIVE TIME E'XTEN~IQ TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Arco Petroleum Products, applicant, requests approval of time eztensions. Property is located at 1801 S. State College Boulevard (Arco Service Station). A TI Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby APPROVE a 90-day time extension to comply with conditions of approval on Conditional Use Permit No. 3007, retroactive to August 9, 1988, to expire on November 9, 1988. F. REVISED PETITION AND SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FORMS FOR RECLA$,$IFICATIONS. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Annika Santalahti stated the development community has not had a chance to look at this. Commissioner Messe asked if this would add a lot of time and costs and Ms. Santalahti stated it should save a bit of time by getting this in properly. Commissioner Messe asked if the notification and letter to school districts included high school districts, junior college, etc. Ms. Santalahti said it included high school districts. g~TION Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst•and MOTION CARP,IED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby APPROVE the revised Reclassification, Variance and conditional Use Permit Petition forms and Supplement to Petition forms. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2169 - Dick Rogers of Safaris International Znc., (leaseholders) requests review of revised plans for recommendation to City Council. Property is located at 4060 East La Palma, Ms. Santalahti said this was a request for approval of revised plans, which would then go to the City Council. The applicant received the staff report and sent a letter that staff had received this morning indicating he would like a two-week continuance, in order to digest the staff conditions. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve applicant's request to continue the aforementioned matter to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 7, 1938. H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3053 - Nune pro tune resolution to amend Condition Nos. 19 and 22 of Resolution No. PC88-262. Property is located at 201 West Ratella Avenwl. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-295 and moved for its passage and a~?,optioa that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby adopt the nunc pro tune resolution in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3053. 10/10/88 ~c MI N I I PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 1988 88-52 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 12. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Jacqueline Jarrett, 1550 w. Tedmar, requested a rehearing and clarification of Resolutions on the project located at 1500 west Broadway, heard and approved on August 15, 1988, on the basis she felt the notice of public hearing was improper, the resolutions were incorrect and incomplete, there was a lack of compliance with the elimination of the spot zoning and she felt they could come up with a better development consistent with Anaheim 's General and Circulation Plans, and she wanted to bring to their attention that the applicant for these waivers was now in non-compliance with an access restriction onto Gilbuck. Ms. Santalahti said although Ms. Jarrett had been notified on a previous hearing concerning this parcel, she was not notified this time becauss she was not within 300 feet of the project; and the incomplete resolution referred to the Commission did approve a nunc prc+ tune resolution correcting it. Ms. Jarrett said her concern with tho change in the nunc pro tune was that the words store and street had been used improperly in describing the east border and the west border; and that the Pepper Tree Fair is on the east and tha••, is where in the minutes it is talked about having mazimum height and the restriction oa the west side was Gilbuck, and street and store have been flopped from the minutes to the resolution incorrectly so they had the maximum fence height on the wrong property. Ms. Santalahti said she would take a look at that. Ms. Jarrett said the Commissioner's voted to waive Policy 542, and that was not in the resolutions; and that is the one she had some concern with, and if they had a higher fence, that would help eliminate some of the noise coming through the tract. She said last year she came and addressed the Commissioners about the fact that when Pacesetter bought those homes, they all had to be single story, 100 feet back, and a few in the cul-de-sac allowed 2-story, but they had to have a higher fence height. She said all the people down on Elm, who came and complained at the second hearing, will get the noise. Ms. Jarrett said she went by the property and saw a sign posted on the property, with a "no trespassing" sign right at curb so you cannot possibly read the sign without trespassing; that the posted notice had no date on it, so she called to find out about the hearing and discovered it had already been held. She said last year the notice of public hearing was posted right below the "no trespassing" sign so they could read it. 10/10/88 ~G ,aTwtrrFg ANAHEIM CITY yr nxttiNG CON+dISSIOu- of TnBER 10. 1988 88-43 Ms. Jarrett said the applicant had put up a fence, taking out the cyclone fencing, and now there is foot traffic. Commissioner Messe said theta ::as a block wall oa Gilbuck and there cannot be any pedestrian access. Ms. Jarrett said yes there was, they had not closed that off. Chairwoman Bouas said there would be fencing going down the side eventually, that would close that off. Ms. Jarrett said that may be but they have now opened that up, where it had been completely closed off before. She said children can now go through tY.at area and it is all overgrown. She said the hazard was one of her concerns; and another concern was that she wanted to see that those were going to be single-family homes and not multiple-family or multiple story; and that last year they were assured it was going to stay single family homes. Chairwoman Bouas said there was nothing that would have assured there would be single-family homes there and Ms. Jarrett said last year the Commissioners agreed there should be no spot zoning and that there would be single family homes there. She stated the traffic and the sound were going to be problems. Ms. Santalahti stated along the railroad there is sound attenuation and line of sight requirements, as well as a vibration requirement, and they have to have a lice of sight blocked from 8 foot above the tracks to the eaves of whatever the height of the building is and this one is closer to 20 feet and Commission waived that requirement on this particular project. She stated under the Policy being close to 300 feet away from the track, a vibration issue, any commission also allowed the project to go closer with the residential buildings. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the Commission also said that there would be no pedestrian or egress or ingress of automobiles off Gilbuck. Ms. Santalahti stated staff would give the Developer a call and ask that they fis that, whether temporary or permanent, but that the City wants it taken care of right now. Ms. Jarrett asked if they are really going to waive the sound attenuation and let them build within 42 feet of the railroad track. Commissioner Feldhaus said they still have to meet the CNEL. Ms. Jarrett and Ms. Santalahlti stated the Commission did waive the Council Policy. Ms. Jarrett asked if they were going to insist on a higher wall or whether that was waived also and Commissioner Messe responded as far as the neighborhood was concerned, the building that goes across the back will help attenuate the sound. 10/10/88 MIND .ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISeTOp nrTnnFU 70 1988 88-54 Ms. Jarrett said it would not attenuate the sound if they is going to be a lower fence and the noise would repel off of the buildings and come through the tract. Ms. Santalahti said if the sound attenuation on the report and the Commission's decision pertained to the railroad tracks, in fact the issue of noise on Broadway has not been resolved and the developer will have to comply with those regulations oa Broadway, as well; and if he doesn't, he will have to come back to Commission. She said Broadway is an arterial and *_hey are required to sound attenuate property on that street, which is a slightly different regulati'.on than for the railroad which she knows the Commission did waive. Commissioner Messe asked Ms. :farrett to let staff research this and get back to her. Chairwoman Bouas asked that she give her name and address to Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. OTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Aerbst indicated he had a question regarding the new ordinances he just received. He asked about parking on front lawns, and asked if that covered the parking in the driveways, where they park over the sidewalk. Ms. Saatalahti said she would check. Mr. Daw said parking over sidewalks is covered by the Motor Vehicle Codes. Commissioner Aerbst said if Code Enforcement could not ticket those, they needed a better tool in order to take care of the problem. Ms. Santalahti said, regarding the arcade ordinance, that if there is a written notification to all tenants and no opposition comes ia, or it is under 50~, then it has to be approved. She said there is the opportunity to appeal to Council, however. Commissioner Aerbst said he noticed an arcade sign (corner of Lemon and Orangethozpe) where there was not supposed to be as arcade. Ms. Santalahti said he may have switched from an arcade to a convenience store with machines, but she will look at it. nn,70URNMENT There being no further business, Commissioner Aerbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that this meeting is adjourned at 6:40 p.m., until 9:00 a.m. on October 24, 1988. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ .~° Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission 0123m mm