Loading...
Minutes-PC 1991/07/15 ~. ~. :te:: AQ7QN AGEl~b1A =~. REt~1Id1R rfEE'1'ING OF Rf1E ANAHEIIN CIRY PLANNING QxIlKIS.SIQN ~~ Y, JULY 15, 1991 1YI' 10:00 A.M. ii 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. ~ i PREGIINII~IAt~' PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC 1lEARING (PUBLIC TFSR'I1~XXJY) 10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. Q~hlMISSIQNERS PRESQ1tt1': BWAS, BOi'AS'IDN, FELUf1AfTS, FLYER, f~IlVINGQ2 PERAZA (XJY~9~IiSSIQNFdZS A&SII4!': MFSSE P1mCF1)fIRE !t7 EXPIDITE PLANNIIVG Qx9KISSIQN PUBLIC FIEARIIVC~ 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commission, each additional time will produce evidence important to the Comniseion's consideration. 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present hie case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing ie closed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents are presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. PC910715 `~ ^~ -~,• ]a, (''F2')a MiTi~NRF~ N.~,IVE DEY.l.ARAR'IODI APProved ~~ VARIANC.E ~~ ,~~ Granted CfVNER: AMEDCO, HUMANA WEST ANAHEIM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL INC., 3030 West Orange Ave. Anaheim, CA AGQ~IP: KAISER HEALTH PLAN, INC., Attn: Property Acquisition, 393 E. Walnut St., Pasadena, CA 91188 IL)C1Y1'ION: 3030 West Orange Ave. Property ie approximately 3.27 acres located on the south aide of Orange Ave. and approximately 387 feet west of the centerline of Beach Blvd. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, minimum structural height and minimum required setback adjacent to residential zone boundary to construct a 5-story, 140,000 square foot medical multi-specialty office building with 2 levels of subterranean parking and a detached 5-level parking stn:cture. Continued from the February 25, March 11, 25, April 8, P.pril 22, and May 20, 1991 Planning Commission meetings. i VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC91-100 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE /"'• CONR'JERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. 1~ OPPOSITION• 16 PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Have worked hard to alter the project per the Planning Commission's request at previous meetings and feel they have mitigated the impacts of the project] had one addition to the staff reportt paragraph no. 21 of the staff report states they have moved the parking structure back from 20 feet to 33 feet= that is true and in addition they have stepped back the top 2 levela of the parking structure. In paragraph no. 25 there is a staff recommendation that the structure be constructed at a 2 to i ratio] they feel thin ie restrictive and their project mitigates the visual impacts of the ~^ parking structure to the condominiums to the south. He introduced ~ his staff architect, Jim Lynn, to go over the project changes and to show how they mitigated those visual impacts. Jim Lynn. Basically it is the same project with some changes that I were made in response to Planning Commission comments at the last meeting. ~ model of the parking structure was on display and Mr. Lynn addressed the model. He explained they have attempted, through some meetings with the Wind Rivera Condominium Homeowner's ~ Association, to modify the design of the parking structure and try to be sensitive to their environmental impacts. 07/15/91 Page 2 OPPOSITION CONCERNSS Mike Stacker. Ho referenced the April 22nd Planning Commission meeting and stated that the proposed project was ~, on an area of high liquefaction potential and according to the Anaheim General Seismic Safety Map, there was not any higher potential in that particular part of Anaheim than any place else. He presented a copy of the map from the General Plan= the proposed site at orange and Beach ie right on the liquefaction zone and that is the only place the highest potential shows up on the whole map. In an effort for them to comply in their geological report, they said they would have to go with a pile driven foundation or a mat foundation; the pile driven foundation has them worried; even in the report they caution that trying to drive piles takes approximately 20k to 70k foot pounds of force and that would be a large impact f~•r anyone living nearby. The entire scope of the project is too large for the small restricted site they chose; have asked them to relay the project out in order to make better use of that restricted site; he referenced an aerial view of the project; they have used up a lot of land to build a structure that is basically about as efficient as a pyramid. At the l:aet meeting some of the Commissioners asked that they try to build the parking structure over the easement; they had a meeting with Kaiser after that and they said they had to have fire access there; they esy it is a drainage easement, but it ie just a flat part of the parking lot; in the current plan that they showed they have stepped it back. He referenced hie model of the structure. ~. ~~ He discussed the e:.:•rance and exit and indicated that it was too close to their building; the nos. in the traffic study that Raiser prepared said that the peak entrance and exit to the parking structure would be se many ae 380 care per hour during the afternoon rush hour; the amount of fumes generated by the care ie hard to imagine not to mention the noise, etc. They feel they have not made an attempt to mitigate that impact at all and according to raiser in order to maintain the flow, the entrance and exit needed to be where it ie. All of the other developments in the area have tried L•o adhere to the intent of the Code to minimize the impact on the existing residential area. ~i,. The current layout still dose not address the potential impact on the `'' agricultural field to the west; the sloping would have a positive affect on the portion facing their area, but with the other aide of the structure going straight up 55 feet, and with only a 10 or ! ~~ 14-foot setback, the chances of homes being built in the field are reduced significantly 07/15/91 Page 3 _. yiCS They have not assn how they have mitigated the actual exhaust fumes from entering into their complex= with the structure being open, it ,^ dose provide more ventilation, but unfortunately, the only thing that ~ it will provide is that the wind will blow through the structure and evacuate the fumes and blow them into their community; their bedroom windows are on the front of their buildings and they would not be able to open those wind:..d due to the noise and fumes) if they would close the structure off, they would prevent any ventilation from occurring and, therefore, feel there is no suitable mitigation for this problem. Erin Stacker, a homeowner and board member of Wind Rivers Homeowner's Association. At the April 22nd Planning Commission meeting, they stated that Raiser led them to believe that the project was already approved which they feel was an effort to let the project slip through without any homeowner objection; she read a few sentences frcm that letter into the record. REBUTTAL• Jim Lynn. He stated liquefaction was a concern; their soils engineer took all of that into account and a structural engineer ie designing for that potential problem and feel confident that there is no danger. The initial soils report did call for pile driven foundations, however, recently they have looked into alternatives to that. In response to the concerns of the Wind River Aeeociaiion and on the ~.. parking structure, they are going to be drilling the piles rather \_i than pounding them into place, eo there should be no adverse affects on the neighboring condominiums. They are :earring towards using a mat foundation on the medical building and the mat foundation would not require any driven piles. In response to the comment about the project being too big, he explained the project is as big as Raiser needs it to be to serve existing membership in the west Anaheim area; they do not typically I build on spec, but build to satisfy existing membership demand. Hie next comments are in response to Mr. Stacker's comment on the shape of the building and how come the floors ara larger on the bottom and taper as they go up. Their attempt was to make the "•n,~, medical office building responsive to the setback to the strawberry field and potential future development to the strawberry field. Also, functionally they found in planning the medical office building, several large departments needed to be located on the first ! floor and some of the smaller departments gravitated to the upper floors of the building and those demands for space were smaller. They did look into the access easement and they are building over one of the two existing easements between the medical office building and 1,,,,1, the parking structure; they are building over the drainage easement. ~/ 07/15/91 Page 4 r T They felt the access easement would be difficult if not impossible due to serious functional problems within the building, i.e., they could :iot have windows on the exterior wall on that aide of the building if they push the parking structure all the way up to the medical office buildingt they would also have serious structural problems, i.e., both structures are independent structures and if they were to combine them together, it would be very difficult to keep the buildings from bashing into each other in the event of an earthquake. In response to Hr. Stacker'e comments regarding the setback Codes--it ie Raiser's understanding that there is a raquirement for setting back the structure in a eloping fashion from the strawberry field property, but prior to this most recent staff report, they have not had any requests from staff to step the parking structure back from the existing condominium property and there is now a condition in the staff report to do so, but they are not aware of any Code requirement for such. if they were to try to accommodate the request in the staff report to setback the top of their parking structure roughly 110 feet from the condominium association, it would really seriously call into question, their entire project. They feel what they sit doing right now mitigates the concerns of the con@ominium association, but obviously they would like more, and at this point they do not feel that they can give them more than what they are offering them. II • There were some concerns ahuut the traffic flow inside the parking /•` structure and the r~:aeon for placing the entrances and exists where 1`: they are. Richard F. Roti, International Parking Desfgn, representing Raiser Foundation Hoepitalt they design most of their parking structureet the reason for the access locations for this particular structure, ie that one is for employees which they segregate from the visitoret the employees qo to he lower levels and put the visitors in the upper levels where they have the higher customer acceptancet the reasons for the ramp locations and the entry to the ramps is that the ramp to the upper floors ht!e to come off the high side of the site in order to get the handicapped clearances on the ground level and that is basically what set the whole design. They need 1.2 feet more for handicapped vehicle clearance at the ground level then they do at the upper levelst in order to get that clearance since they have a limited le:~gth structure and they are stuck with a SB City ramp elope, they have to come off of the high side of the site and that is the reason for this particular access location. i 07/15/91 Page 5 •+•~ M C°'? Lynn. In response to the exhaust fumes Hr. Stacker brought up--it is I their uriderstanding that the prevailing wind blows from the southeast ,.-~ and during prevailing wind the fumes, if there were any, would t theoretically blow back onto their building and would not blow across their property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Henninger. He would like to comment on meeting the 2 to 1 setback as it would severely injure their project--did a quick analysis and it looks like 1t would cost them approximately 28 parking epacee from their already reduced no. and according to their Code, keeps them above the parking requirements. ~ Rots. They have to have a ramp that goes from floor to floor= at 5$ elope they need 200 feet at SBS right now they are at the absolute minimum= if the Commission wants them to shorten the structure, then they have to get the ramp somewhere else] they would have to elope both sides of the structure instead of one side of the structure and then they start compromising the architectural characteristic of the buildings it can be done, but the structure would be compromised severely. Henninger. If you discount the 170 epacee which will be required for Humana which will be placed elsewhere, then you will be over parked, i.e., you have 871 spaces and our Code requires 840 spaces. ~ Rots. We are over parked in terms of the Code, but not for Raiser's ''~ needss they have a calculated design based on Baieer'e needs which (~..' rune higher than the Code requirement. Peraza. Or. the medical building, you went 2 levels of subterranean parking and asked why they did not do that in the parking structure? Rots. They are attempting to keep the maximum no. of parking epacee above grade for. the viaitorss right now they have a balance of employees below grade and the visitors above grade determined by needs they could go down, but it ie a more complex construction job and they get lose customer acceptance by putting visitors below grade then above grade and that was the reason for their deeiyn. Rots. There is another option and that would be too close in the back aide of the parking structure. Boydetun. The open areas with landscaped planters looks better. ~,,;~~ koti. Agreed with Boydetun and stated the planters will enhance the back aide. i j _ _ _ ,: .. Hellyer. Any other ideas about the setback? `-~,.-;; t^ Roti. If they start comF~romieinq function and putting more spaces below grade, and try to increase the setback beyond where they are at, he is at a lose to offer anymore distinct advantages. Henninger. There are four levels that are setback 33 feet= there is nothing they can do about setting back the fourth level, and maybe the 2 levels above it, i.e., one more row each= take out some parking but it does not seem like that much; we are talking about less than 5S of total parking. Roti. You are speaking of levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 with level 4 being cut back and asked for clarification as to how far he would propose--with a 9-foot cantilever or all the way back? Henninger. With the 9-foot cantilever; then take 9-foot off of the level above; then setback every other floor. Lynn. Clarified what Henninger was saying, but was not on the record. Roti. Approached the model and discussed the seismic frame. He stated to move this frame wouli '~ pure disaster; level four could be cut back to the 9-foot mark al Hoydstun. Asked for clarification ae to how many levels below grade? ~ • Roti. one. l• ~ Lynn. And 2 levels below the medical office building. Below the building is intended for employ~ae and the parking structure is intended for visitors. Henninger. How big are they going to plant the trees? Mike Spaulding, landscaped architect. The proposed trees are 2 levels of landecapingi they are somewhere in the 30 to 35-foot range and will be at that level 7 to 10 years after they are planted; they will go in the ground se a 4 or 5-foot box tree and that will be approximately 15 to 18-foot high when they go into the ground= the lower level trees are fic¢s trees and they provide additional screening behind the trunks of other trees and they will screen in the 10 to 15-foot high range and become a solid wall of evergreen vegetation. Hoydstun. Could you plant the trees taller so they would have a better start? V _ _ _ :. _ ~. v - - ---.., Spaulding. A 4 or 5-foot box tree ie pretty much the maximum size that moat nurseries carry in any kind of abundance and after that it becomes very difficult to find epecimensj they are planting them pretty close in order to achieve a quicker screent the selection of that species will also help achievR a quicker screen. The ficue trees on the lower level will be planted about 5 feet apart and will achieve a very quick ecreenj they are achieving 2 levels of screen, i.e., one at the lower, the 10 to 15 foot level and 30 to 35 feet ae well. Hellyer. Commented on the setback on the convalescent home--the report states the setback is 19 feet, i.e., the parking structure is 19 feet away from the convalescent home. Lynn. That may be correct in relationship to the property line, but not to the structure itself. He referenced the site plan. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. The distance is from the property line] they have not measured to the building. Lynn. Dialogue not on record. Hellyer. A discussion took place ae to when would they lose daylight in relationship to the height of the parking structure. Lynn. Do not have any kind of report or special data today, however, they could provide that to the Commission or the staff at a later date. /~• ~~ Alfred Yalda, Traffic &ngineering. Requests to add a condition that the developer comply with their 2 new ordinances and resolutions that they have in place complying with transportation demand management which ie providing car pool, van pool and transportation information and possibly a bicycle rack for the employees to reduce the number of cars going into the site; did already provide an ordinance and a resolution to the developer. Lynn. No problem. Hellyer. In the staff report, there ie a condition that the parking structure would have to have a setback of 2 to 1 and the applicant esiA it is a deal breaker= they have not given him a compelling argument ae to why he should allow them to infringe on the condo ownerej in hie mind it would be a dirty trick if the Commission would allow them to do this that close to their homes] do not recognize the difference between single-family or the condo attached product in regards to the setbackf they should both enjoy the same] will not embrace this unless they accomplish the 2 to 1 setback. ;"`, 107/15/91 ~.J Page 8 Hastings. There are 3 corrections to the conditions staff would like to make: F 1. Condition No. 13, page 11 should read as follows: That the legal owner of subject property shall require a recorded uneubordinated access easement and strike the words "covenant" and "granting." 2. Condition no. 26 should reference the plane submitted being marked Revision No. 2, of Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit Noe. 2 through 11. Henninger. Would that include the model? Hastings. Would like to get a photograph of the model from the applicant for the file. 3. Condition No. 32--strike condition no. 9 and in its place add condition no. 17 for items to be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections. Henninger. Are you going to read in the condition on the transportation management? Hastings. Read the following condition into the record. i 4. That the developer shall comply with Ordinance No. 5209 and Resolution No. 9.1R-89 relating to Transportation Demand Management. ~, ~i Feldhaus. The pints show a iJ-foot height for the monument sign (condition no. 22). The restriction puts that at 8-foot. House. They have not stipulated that they could live with that condition. Henninger. 8-foot is what the Commission requires. Lynn. Can live with an 8-foot sign. 1~`~ ', "a ~f y c~.. ~../ i 07/15/91 Page 9 i :~~': Ji%i{~, ~-.~ x,-: ,. (` C ~::i ~ ~i ACTION: CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (5-1) (Hellyer voting NO) r~113 Variance No.-4143'- With condition that 4th floor be moved back 9 feeti 5-foot box trees and drill driving (dose not include the 2 to 1 setback) approving a 33-foot setback. Tie vote - Resolution failed to carry (3-3) (Commissioners Feldhaue, Hellyer, Peraza, voting NO) Commissioner Hellyer offered another resolution: ~//3 Variance No. 4341 - Including staff's recommendation that they abide by the 2 to 1 setback on the parking garage and with the same stipulations. Lynn. Prefers to take a no vote on the project as it was presented today rather than accept staff's condition of the 2 to 1 elope as this causes havoc with their project to try to conform to that--rather take a no vote and go to Council. Henninger. In either case you can appeal to Council. The vote was called for: VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Boydstun and Bouas voting NO) 07/15/91 Page 10 fr'Y ,~.~. ~. '~e".. ~:-~. ryv l ;W,, '-'Yis +'i7 r, ".,f s:> ;,, i; *~: - ~~. + ~,. .~ ,,~ ~-' i F ~ Continued to ~ 2a. CEbA NEfA'I4VE llF~GARA4'IQN July 29, 1991 l 2b. N~AIVIIt OF GtN]E RFYJUIRE~IT 2 ' C. GL3flIDITIGr1AL USE PIIi~fZR Alb. 3414 (READ~'I^.aF~) (UVA432: University Cinema, A California Limited Partnership, Attn: Bruce Sanborn, 13 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 l~'I(xT: 5635 Fast Ia Palm3 Avernie. PmF3rty ~s ap~rraxia-stely 5.54 acres located on the north side of I~ Pa].tna Avenue and apiutivcitrstely 300 feet west of the ~nter].ine of Imppxial Highway. To permit the expansion of amulti-screen jadoor theatre complex and to construct a 29-foot high parking structure (160 spaces) with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, prohibited roof mounted equipment and minimum landscaped ~ setback adjacent to railroad right-of-way. Continued from the June 6, and June 17, 1991 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. I FOLLOWING ZS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ~~ OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Some new issues came up that need to be ' reeolvedt also, there was a new condition added regarding parking during construction and, therefore, would like a 2 wk. continuance. ACTION: Continued to 7/29/91 ,,w~1 r... ,I 07/15/91 Page 11 ~!- ~i ''.'Yid `". .~: 3a. II~ AL IMPACT REEnR[' N0. 308 Approved 3b. C~1L PLAN AMFSILMFI~IP N0. 320 I 3C. ~SSIF7C.A'!'ICI~90-912_6 Denied Denied 3d. wA'rt~ OF QaDE RIDU.IRDNFiVT Denied 3e. GYJND 1!i USE PEl~1N1'P NO. 3415 Denied CTVNIIi: ZDM Corporation, 5150 S. Pacific Coast Hwy., Lonq Beach, CA 90804 I~'ION: Property .~s appraxim3tely 7.5 acres located at the mrtheast corner of Rzoakhulst Street and Gramel~y Avenue. To amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate subject property from the existing General industrial designation to the Medium Density Residential designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91-26z To reclassify subject property from the ML (Limited Industrial) zone to RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or a lase intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3415: To permit a 338 unit, 3 and 4 story deck-type "affordable" housing apartment complex with waivers of minimum building Bite area and permitted identification signage. ~ Continued from the June 3 and June 17, and 1991 Planning ~, Commission meetings. OENERIIL PLAN AIDrNDID3NT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-101 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC91-102 CONDITIONAL UBE PSRNIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-103 FOLLOWZNG IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: There were several concerns from the Housing Authority and they agreed to make any changes and bring the project back before the Planning Commission; requested that the Planning Commission take the opportunity to look at some of•their projects for comparison (one in Irvine and one in Lonq Heach). There was a elide presentation; they incorporated 2 projects (Villa Redondo and The Charter for the Commission's review). OPPOSITIONi 19 ~ OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Gary Huneycutt, representing the Orange Avenue Homeowners Association; there is total opposition to any kind of building of this type in their community; the City Council assured them they would support them in stopping this constant developing of high density apartment complexes in their community] has not heard of any benefit to tt.e community; they havc~~ exposed to the City Council members and to the Planning Commission, all of the negatives it imposes on their community, i.e., the crime rate, the traffic, and the overcrowding of schools] this dose not benefit their quality of life within their community; the density factor is growing and growing and they have vowed that they would like to stop this; they are opposed to changing the Codes ae they are written; they would like to see the industry stay in their community; this provides for jobs and a lot of people are without jobs in their community; there ie overcrowding in the complexes that have been built and they decided to take some action; the efforts of the City Council has been to atop this and he would like to see that the Planning Commission ~ continues to carry on that representation for the people who live in that community. Nre. Wallace. Hae lived in Anaheim for 30 years and represents a neighboring school district; she has seen what buildings like this do to children in the schools; this ie suppose to be an affordable housing unit; thero are 67 extra unite that are suppose to be built on this property] according to management only l0i are affordable and she wanted an explanation as to why 258 are not affordable; she is /''. opposed to medium density; too many apartments on this piece of land; ~__ she was concerned as to whether there was playground apace for children= allowing developers to come in and get rich on building in their community and are not allowing for family building. Joseph V>iderwood. Became a school crossing guard after he retired; was assigned to the corner of Brookhurst and Crescent for 2 months; the treachery at that corner is beyond description; about 2/3 of the vehicles eastbound on Crescent will turn either left or right; have more apartments in )A.:heim then what they can possibly cope with and to add to that is virtually unthinkable; the property has been designated for other usage. Richard R. Shimeall. He is also on a school board in a neighboring district; they have had to go on a year round school program in order ~~`~ to accommodate an increased number of children due to the number of apartments that have been constructed in their area; deeply concerned in the increase in the crime rate in their neighborhood; this ie the kind of project that encourages this type of activity; the higher density does lead to a higher rate of crime and it ie due primarily to the rapid growth in density of population occupying the land= asked Commission to deeply consider the effects on the quality of life of those in the City of Anaheim. ~~ 07/15/91 ~/ Page 13 a Dan Parker, Council for the Anaheim Union High School. Submitted a letter to staff in April that deals with some of the issues raised in ~~ the EIRr they have seen a nice project, however, they would like to ensure that adequate and quality school facilities and educational services can be provided for the atudente] the EIR fails to eubetantially mitigate the impacts and merely discusses the project and dose not deal with the capacity and coat problems that will be facing the district based on the generation numbers and the analysis the district has made of the project and of some of things that have been happening over the last year] this concerns the short run and the long run of the school district] the issue of declining enrollment of the high schools was raised, however, that has turned and projects like this one, plus elementary children growing up and becoming jr. high and high school students, are being fed into their school system and is creating a problem. The generation numbers ae discussed with the Planning Department are greater than that of the State average; the number of jr. high students coming out of this project will be approximately 50 and approximately 100 high school students] he was uncertain if the developer fees of .79 cents per square-foot ie adequate] there does appear to be some misunderstanding about the school district's nos. ~ and how they arrived at them, etc.] he discussed the generation figures] they used .14 for jr. high atudente and .3 for the high school atudente as opposed to .1 and .2 for the State averages. He expressed hie concern regarding the traffic] they do not oppose any new development in the community, but their job ie to provide the educational services and facilities and would ask that they deny ~'' approval of the EIR until such mitigation measures are discussed and •~ analyzed eo that they will be in compliance with the CEQD guidelineej it would be appropriate to condition any number of these steps upon adequate mitigations of the school impacts. REBUTTAL• Applicant. In reference to the first speaker's comments, they are taking an old run down industrial site which is no longer in use; it has some level of asbestos that needs to be cleaned up and will turn it into a viable performing apartment use which will bring in additional tax revenue= the EIR clearly stated that the apartment use was a beneficial ueej it was the beet of the alternatives posed= it will provide a level of affordable housing in an area and at a time ~I where there is needs we are in an economic slow down] when new jobs are provided, there will be a demand for housing and this is the one way to obtain a defined goal in the General Plan and that ie a housing/jobs balance= not all people can afford a single-family home= "t,,,F, not all want to commute from Horeno Valley] there is a definite i "~, benefit to the City in that regard. 07/15/91 `% Page 14 h The second speaker questioned the affordable housing; they are providing their no. of affordablee to the very low housing element; /-~ the market rate units fall within the low and moderate income 1 categories for Orange Countys they do meet the City's ordinance in terms of the no, of units specifically set aside; if the project is approved they are confident that they will be able to secure bond financingt have been induced by the City for this and if that should occur the affordable to the very low income will go from 128 to 20t, therefore 67 or 68 unite would be for the very low income units and that would be spread across all unit types. The third speaker referred to the traffic problem= there is a traffic problem and the City Engineer has been involved in an extensive engineering study that they did as part of their EZR and there are several mitigations that they are obligated to do. The fourth speaker made the statement that high density equals high crime; he personally dose not know of any study that has been done to substantiate that] crime ie eomethlnq that we all live with, however, it is not a direct relationship to density; they are profeselonally managed 24 hours a day on site= a project this size will have approximately 8 to 10 people] 1/2 of them will be living on site from the maintenance to the manager; they do not tolerate crime in their project, nor do they tolerate multiple people living in the unite; the parking level and the access to the unite ie secured and they take steps accordingly. He deferred the comments from the fifth speaker regarding the high ~' school district to staff. They have at certain times attempted to sit down and iron out some differences, however, he believes the EIR speaks for itself and staff can clarify that. Eric Nicoll, Community Development Department. The density bonus law under which the developer applied under, gives the developer 2 options to increase hie density by 258= the first option is to provide housing for very low income households which are defined ae houeeholde earning loos than half the median income based on their household size; if they choose to serve that income group, I:hey are required to provide 108 of the permitted no. of unite ae affordable houeingt the developer in this case has increased this to 128 due to other requests for waivers and variances. The other option would be to provide 258 of the units to lower income houeeholde which are defined as earning 808 of the median income; that essentially gets you to a higher affordable rent and a higher income group; their housing element and their goal is to reach a lower income group being the very low and do mixed income projects which this accomplishes. i~ 07/15/91 Page 15 ~b All of their unite are monitored on an annual basis for recertificatn of income on every tenant in every affordable unitt currently tti a are 1400 affordable units in the city and all are in mixed income settings where you could not differentiate between an affordable project and a market rate project. t Another goal of their housing element is to take a look at neighborhoods and make sure each project is compatible to that neighborhood. The neighborhood very succinctly indicated that they do not want to be impacted by apartments in single-family neighborhoodet essentially they are not consistent with that type of oast from a planning standpoint, they would ask them to look at each individual project on its own merits in that all individuals cannot have ownership opportunities based on income and apartments are still neededt their focus ie to try to provide the highest quality of apartments for Planning Commission to look att they go through a rigorous design review process as they aro prepa.:ing their design guidelines to bring before the Planning Commission; they do not have formal design guidelines eo they are doing it on a project by project basis. They have worked with the developer in depth tryit.g to get a 45 per acre project that they felt was acceptable by the community standards and provide a level of amenities that ie looked at as a benefit to the community, ae well as providing the 33 units of affordable housings the density ie a separate issue and the Planning Department has reviewed that and conformance with land use and other principles and were not addressing the density issue. At this time they are addressing the affordability which they have complied with and the design issues which they have outlined in their revised plan. Henninger. Why does City have a goal for affordable housing and what benefit is affordable housing to the City? Nicoll. They want to provide a balanced community in a mixed income settings it ie mandated by State law through the Department of Housing and Community Development which requires each Jity to develop a housing elementt they do not just focus on rentalet they have several home ownership programs as well. Henninger. Have a serious problem with overcrowdingt when he ease an apartment complex like this, he sees it ae part of the solution rather than part of a problem. Feildhaue. The question that these people have and have had for a long time ie, why dose West Anaheim have to be the balance, that ie where are all of the apartments are going. .,,~_ "'; I 07/15/91 ~/ Page 16 Hellyer. Questioned rtr. Nicholson ae to hie comment regarding persona preferring to live in Moreno Valley ae opposed to Anaheim. Mr. Nicholson. Not everyone can afford a single-family home in the income range they are discussing to live near ones job; ae an alternate in today's economics you would have to go some dietanca and travel. Hellyer. The reason they would go to Moreno Valley ie to have the opportunity to buy ::s opposed to rent. The applicant does not recognize the relationship of density to crime, nor has he heard of any studies that would confirm that; he disagrees with him on that issues. He told the applicant he has done a great job with the artistry and renderings, however, would like to see something lees dense and would really like to see ownership. Would like to see the counterpart that IDM has for condos. He felt IDM got the wrong word from Housing, i.e., in their desire to get affordable units, petitioner speculated that this was going to be embraced by the City of Anah-im. He reiterated that there are way too many unite and would like to see ownership. Nicholson. They did study ownership and looked at it one more tits between the last meeting and this meeting and they do not see a market in order to cover the economics to make it economically viable. ~' Hellyer. If he voted for this at the unit density they are asking ~- for, he feels it sends out the wrong message to the developers in the future, i.e., they will read into it that it ie a green light to Suy land on spec and hope to get the highest amount of unite on it; the Planning Commission ie trying to send out the message that they are not going to embrace high densities; they will do what they can to give a quality of life. Boydstun. Cannot see this density= petitioner has done a commendable thing in what they offered to the school district in order to offset this and one of the few developers to do this; there ie no room at the school in that area and they would have to build or put modulate elsewhere and the students would have to be bused; did not think this ~ would be a working situation; the property in question probably does not have an industrial use anymore, but there are new industrial buildings behind the proposed site and cannot penalize those people; if we do not protect our industry we will not have any jobs for people in this area; current problems in the area will be increased; need a lower density. .: ~> ~. Feldhaue. Did look at The Charter and thought it was an exceptional project; do not have anything in the City of Anaheim that would even compare to that project; the project would be too massive in Anaheim ae we do not have the privilege of having 100-foot setbacks with open apace and land; we have small lots; hie biggest concern ie how to mitigate the traffic and providing schools for the children as well as sufficient park apace; the project ie too dense. Nicholson The size of the units are compatible with this new project and the open apace and feel are identical and this new project is improved as they have more breaks in the corridor system. Henninger. High School District originally said they had no problem and then at the last Planning Commission meet'_ng they spoke of the over crowding; oral there any opportunity between that hearing and this one to mFet with them to discuss those issues? Debbie Fank, Planning. They have written letters and correspondence to let them know they were available to meet and apparently the key Hereon was out of town and before the last hearing there was not enough time and there has been no correspondence since then; they left a standing invitation that. they would like to work with them. Henninger. Apparently something was worked out with the Elementary School District and wondered why they were unable to do that with thi ..High $GhoO~.DietY~i.Ct. _ Mary McCloskey, Planning. originally they received correspondence /`. from the High School District that there was no problem with the ~~ enrollment and right before the first Planning Commission meeting they did receive a correspondence that they were ueinq new generation factors and that there was an impact to the Hlah School District. Al that point they continued the hearing for 2 weeks. Sent a letter stating what they needed to know about the generation factors to substantiate that impact and requested that they contact us to set u~ meetings eo they could understand and substantiate the new factors they were ueinq and understand what mitigation they were looking for. They did not receive any correspondence from them. A day before the meeting they were informed that the City Attorney would b out of town) staff recommended that they go ahead with the hearing because they felt they have given them ample time to explain the generation factors, etc. Henninger. There has been opportunity but no response to it. McCloskey. The consultants had also contacted the school districts and they wanted all information to flow through their attorneys consultants and City staff did make an effort to meet with them to understand their concerns. Henninger. Asked applicant if there was some other project that the would like to present at some other time? .. ":. t,. ~:' _..,... ., •}i¢' Applicant. Have redrawn several times in order to get to this level and, therefore, asked for a vote. ' House. Asked why there ie a problem regarding the school? Applicant. Unclear se to what the problem was= knows there has not been a meeting of th3 winds; there has been some sort of substantiation for the generation numbers given; he will provide those figures if it ie a problem. Henninger. Hae our staff attempted to provide opportunities for the school district to meet with the City? Applicant. Yee. ~ Henninger. Would urge the school district when those opportunities are provided, to trke advantage of them. House. They did not think they had a problem to start with. Applicant. Originally, back in August, the+:s did not seem to be a problem. House. Realize the west part of toam thinks they have moro apartments then what they think they need, but this location ie an ideal spot for one where it ie not right in a residential area and realizes the neighbors do not think that and this ie above the. standards of moat apartments that they have had built in this area; ~~ she would like to see the density less, but can understand where they ~~ are coming from with the density and the layout of The Charter and that concept would be a quality that we have not had. Peraza. The quality seems to be real goci, but West Anaheim knows that they have a lot of apartments. Beldhaue. Thinks the EIR is flawed with respect to the impact on schools. Henninger. Did approve something on the order of 4,000 attached unite on the east past of Anaheim 2 or 3 meetings ago and to keep the record straight, there ie a lot of higher density projects all over town. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney. As the Commission ie aware, CEQA ie essentially a disclosure process; the EIR is a procedure to get ae ''w~, much information available both to the Planning Commission and to the neighborhood in regard to the environmental impacts of a par::.Lcular project. CEQA itself has time limitations; there are comment periods that are established by law for entities that are potentially ~ affected by particular projects to gat their comments in with regard to the particular issues that are within their sphere of influence= there are requirements that these comments be responded to by the i consultant and by the public entity; under certain circumstances, if ~ there are issues that are brought up during that environmental review 07/15/92 Page 19 process, it is appropriate for the public or entities to come in with impacts that they could not have realized previouslyi it ie not appropriate to be bringing in comments at the last moment completely outside of the review process that are uneubstantiatedj the public entity does not have an absolute duty to mitigate every impact that a project has under CEQA= what it does need to do is to consider what those impacts stet in some instances it may be determined that mitigation ie appropriate and it may seek to try to fully mitigate a particular impactt in other instances it may determine that a statement of overriding considerations is appropriate where there are other concerns and overriding reasons for approving a project in spite of particular effects. ACTIO s Environmental impact Report No. 30B - Approved General Plan Amendment No. 320 - Denied Reclassification No. 90-91-26 - Denied Waiver of Code Requirement - Denied Conditional Uee Permit No. 3415 - Denied (Unable to make the findings) VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Bouas voting NO) ;i~tis,, ~. l r3%n!~..t^,~~. I o~/ls/91 Page 20 ,;,,,:ws :;=: -~xs' ` =r ~'; _ ;~' µ~*: ~~ z' 'n°tt~,: ~. '.~'+~;7 t.:~ :~„5,., `~ ~~`- . ~:, . C.'. 98. CEnA MITIC~IlTED I~'IVE DDCGARA7'I~T Approved 4b. QxIDITIQNAL USE PII7MI'!' N0. 3919 Granted ~[~: JACK HEINRICH, 12836 E. Alondra Hlvd., Cerritos, CP, 90701 AGIIPP: SAM E. ARBUTHNOT, 6631 N. Cherry Ave., Lonq Beach, CA 90805 IL)C1f1'IQN: 535 S. Anaheim Rlvd. Property is approximately 0.66 acre located on the west Bide of Anaheim Boulevard and approximately 330 feet north of the centerline of water street. To permit a car wash. Continued from the June 3, and July 1, 1991 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USS PER1(IT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-109 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None CT oN: CEgA Mitigai:ad Negative Declaration - Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3419 - Granted VOTE• 6-0 I Subiect to the followino conditions: ~ Petiticner stipulated to an 8-foot wall. Greq Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, read the following changes to the conditions into the record: Condition no. 4: That plane shall be submitted is the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division for their review and approval showing access to the trash area for sanitation trucks with turnaround area located on-site per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610. I ,.- 07/15/91 Page 21 •'+;~:; < k.;, P: Condition No. 6: Strike the word "lighting" and replace with the word "tree". Condition No. 12--add the following sentence: Thst said block wall shall be planted and maintained with clinging vines to eliminate graffiti opportunities. Condition No. 14s Change "CL" to "ML" Condition No. 17--Insert words "~;or comparable)" as follows: (Do not want to pin this down to a certain brand). 17. That prior to issuance of a building permit, bu3Zding plena shall indicate the following sound attenuating materials: Acoustic Roof Deck - 1-inch Tectum (or comparable) ceiling panels shall be placed along the entire length of ceiling area within the car wash tunnel. Acoustic Well Panels - 2-inch Sonex (or comparable) 1 with Rypalon coating (or comparable) shall be used along the interior walla of the car wash tunnel. Air Knives - Tufcote (or comparable) 1-inch TAF-S (or comparable) acoustical foam shall be used to line the inside of the ducts. Tufcote-101 (or comparable) shall be used to covex the outside of the ducts. ~ Greg McCafferty, P'larining 'staff,-risked 'that °h'eyadd 'vacuum- • • -•-•-- ° • -•-•-°• auction blower to the mitigation in condition no. 17. This was in reference to the letter received today by fax. Condition No. 22: Add condition no. 16 (to be accomplished before issuance of a building permit) and delete condition no. 21. Condition No. 23: Strike condition: nos. 13 and 16 and insert conditions no. 12 and 14. ie. ,w,. ~~ 'r.' .r err. 07/15/91 ~~ Page 22 :x ~.a~ .-, :, %~~; 58. !!F1')A AFy.ATiDF, DECGARI6"I0N 5b. wATVF'~j OF Q7IlE REnfTIRII~43V7" 5C. CYxVDITIODLA~ USE PERMiT NO. 3928 Cfp(VII2: GENE GOLDSMAN, 240 Monarch Bay, South Laguna Beach, CA 92677 AGQ~TI': PACTEL CELLULAR, Attn: Ernie Courter/Rich Wagner, ~3 Park Plaza, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATICBI: 2536 W. I,itlwln Ave. Property ie approximately 1.12 acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gain Street. To permit a cellular telephone facility including a 64 foot high monopole with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL U86 PERNIT RESOLUTION N0. PC91-105 Denied Denied Denied FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 5 -• -• ---- - -~~._ ._..A6TION:'~E{)A NGg`AE'iif8"Declaratiocr~-Dente~- _ ._. _._.- _ _.- _ .~......_~ ~-.~ Waiver of Code Requirement - Denied Conditional Uee Permit No. 3428 - Denied (The wrong site for this) ' VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Boydstun NO) i 07/15/91 Page 23 t ? ~~~~ 6a, CAA IIT~'IVE DEULARATION' Approved - 6b. WAIVER OF DUDE REnUIR~V'P Approved 6C. GUPIDI4'IONAL USE PERMI'P NO. 3430 Granted CLVDIER: MELINDA GRUBBS, 33 Bellcourt Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 IOCATICXJ: 3,-23 E. Ball Fd~ad. Property ie approximately 1.24 acres located on the north aide of Ball Road and approximately 480 feet east of the centerline of Claudine Street. To permit an emergency vehicle repair facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-106 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL Y?MUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved Waiver of Code Requirement - Approved "`..'"r"-. - "'"'_ -- - "" 1- C6tl"Permit'IQo. 3430.. ...""' /' Subject to the following changes to conditions read into the record l~ by Greg Hastings: - Condition No. 1s Strike the last sentence. Condition No. 2s Strike "prior to issuance of a building permit" in the first line. Conditions nos. 12 and 13: Eliminate both conditions and replace with the following condition: "That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution or within a period of 90 days from tYie date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, condition nos. 1 through 10, above mentioned, shall be complied with." VOTE: 6-0 ~y4~: 07/15/91 Page 24 7a. CEbA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. CONDITIAYAL USE PERMPI' NO. 3431 GINNER: JAN-ERICK PALM, c/o Swede-Cal Properties, inc. 5101 E. La Palma, Ste. 205, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGQP1': TIM HALLARD, P.O. Box 2676, Orange, CA 92669 LOCATION: 5109 E. Ia Palma Ave. Property is approximately 9.33 acres located on the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Kellogg Drive. To permit a church in an existing industrial-related office complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-107 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MI'.iUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved on . /'• Subject to the following changes to the conditions read into the l~ record by Greg Hastings, 7,oning Division Manager. Condition No. 7: Strike condition nos. 1 and 4. Condition No. 8 shall be reworded se follower That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to the final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, condition nos. 1 and 6, above mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 6-0 Approved Granted :;,~. ~&. ~~ 8a. CDJA CATECIJRICAL E~II~1L-~ASS 11 eb. CXJNDI'I'IONAL USE PErd3P1' NO. 3429 LA:~ER: The Home Depot, 2300 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 AGQV'1': Carnival Carte/Marlene Brown, 12351-Morrie Lane, Garden Grove, CA 92640 ILLATION: 2300 W. L.lncnln Ave. Property is approximately 9.1 acres located on the south aide of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 655 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street. To permit a portable food service use (hot dog cart) in conjunction with a permitted ratail etcr.e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-108 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOPI ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFIC?AL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: CEQA Categorical Exemption Claee 11 (No action) Conditional Uee Permit No. 3429 - Granted / (Granted for 1 year with the ability to extend it under Reports and Recommendations on a yearly basis). Subject to the following condition read into the record by Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement: "That the operator of the hot doq stand maintain the area immediately surrounding the stand in a clean and orderly manner, including, providing Lnd emptying a trash container. That all condiments shall be dispensed by the operator and that no condiments shall be placed at any other location other than on the hot dog stand. That the operator of the hot dog etard obtain a City of Anaheim business license and Orange County health permits. That the conditional use permit be authorized for a period of one (1~ year. VOTEi 6-0 No Action Granted (1 yr) 07/15/91 Page 26 ,.- ,` . „~ o ~r, ~~ 9a. CE~A CATEG27RICAL E.YENt~~'ION CIJaSS 1 e 96. GL7ArDITICNAL USE PERM PP h0. 343? [WATER; DEAN CLARK and JOYCE N. CLARK, 4760 Blue Mcuntain Drive, Yorba Linda, CA 92687 IrxAl'IQN: 1601-1611 Scxath E.a~lid Ptreet. Property ccnsiste of two parcels of land having a combined area of approximately 0.42 acres located on the southwest corner of Cris Avenue and Euclid Street. To permit the expansion of a commercial use within a residential structure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-109 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLF.:NING COMMISSION At•TIC''. NOT TO sE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: CEQA Cateyor.ical Exemp:.ion Class Conditional Use Permit No. 3432 rrr.rrlarrrr... _.__.....~dYiilaMW~r4teYriiW''~IIY11(=r.~11iY'-~:.. Euclid plus one other "reserved" ~ used only for staff); and Subject to the following change in conditi Standard Plan Noe. should reflect nos. 43E and should relate to the City Traffic and rather than the City Traffic Engineer. VOTE• 6-0 `.r- ~../ No Action Granted 10a. CF~ANEGATNE DfZ'LARAT7CN~7 (Previously Approved) lOb. Ct~TDITIONAL USE P~.P_r' ~. 3146 (lbadvertised) Ci9A7ER: TRINITY L'JTtIF.RAt7 C;IURCH, 4101 F.. Noh: Road, Anaheim, CA 4 607 '~1TIC1N: 4104 E. Nnhl F'l1i^h FYI_ Property is apprcximatel}' 4 acreE and orated on the northwest corner of Nchl Ranch Road an0 Nah1 Canyon Road. Request for approval fer substantial conformance. CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to Auc7ust 12, 19?1 w~ 07/15/91 Page 28 lla. I~?A NxATIVF. DE>=1.~1.~:1'rTC~N (F~-ev.icUS1y ApE>:roved) II Approved 11b. CCaNUPI'ICNAL USE P?s'?~~~'Pi'-,'k'.r.._1;f•3 (~' ~lvpJ"L1SE'C~) ' Approve) AGFNl': ROG WINTERi2C~aD (ttowers Perez Asaoc.?, 16~1~ Von Karman Ave., Irvt.ne, C'.4 92'J1S 1(X'S1T1(aV: 1525_horth F.~1•°~,'ni_~1t_q_ Property ie approximately 3. F,4 acres ..cn!.•.•~.i at ±.hrr no.-thwe~st corner of Oranye[air l..i :,e end Raymond Aven.,e. Request for amendment. t-~ -~~.~~dit.ione of apprcval pertaining to ind~.tatrially related -.~. .. businesses. F'OL.LGWING IS A SUMNARY OF 'I'iic i>I,n;1N liJG COMM_SSION ACTION. NOT O BE ~I CUNS:DF.RF:D OFFICIAL MItJUTF:S. OF'i>OS:TION: tJo rye nC_f IgN: CE'QA tJegativ? Ue r.:or~,t i-n: - !Pr~n•. app.l - Approved Conditional ltae~ i'crr.it :. ,. 3182 (heed. ) -~ Approved Commissioner Mennin~)~>r of fcr~~;l <. irmt.. ,. ~ •~ by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Cc;;.:r.i:'c :: :~~~r Mease a:,sent), chat. the City ...rr..... ---- - -° - ~Nr~1~6ilibleq..S'r/MBM6Y~i~lY~ "'` '" -',"",t'v f i nrI ~~fy~~ listed below are deemed to be industrially related ue ~ therefore, recommend that subject list be forward to __ their review and consideration. 1. Automotive Parts • 2. Carpet/Flooring Stores 3. Computer/Software 4. Electronics/Appliances Repair 5. Finance Co. 6. Florist (Wholesale only) 7. Furniture/Lighting 8. Paint/Wallpaper 9. Phone/Car Phone/Alarm Installation and Repair 10. Photo Lab 5/91 29 l~~a. ~A NFX,AT7l'E UIX,IJ}F•1?']c~': ;F>tTwiousl; ~,;>plrovr~l) 12b. Q~f7DIT1GfvAl~ .USE P:W"r•"'i'," _~,_ aU +~ (Id:~~dvet't i:~.~?, (SvT1~: WOODCREST .,. ,..LGP;". dt', ~ .. ."91: Mitchel:, Irvine, CA 92'114 :1C,F7J1': FRANKItN EL'r"r'S:', 4J'%5 Mac ArtLur Ct., 5: 0. cGC, NawNort Be:~. ~, c„ 9:6(:i; Bryan Cr;>w, .... nranyB Ni 1 i Lane, :•... ~..~ .;n fi: i l?, CA 9280 .'.!X'.1TIGY`!: X3472 Srlnt , :'.':n c_`. u:)`c ~n h_cy~l, Property ie apprcxi.n~at~.` 3a arr~ n located nn the south s;de cf Santa Aca C. ,:gin R:u„I and approxircately J,n98 tact. west of fire ~.. .. ,. .. , i n<~ of Gype;:m Canyon Road. R ecuest, fr,- an amr•:-. __ .. r ..,..' io'~~ -~lavwal pcrrta in'n, tc an extE:r.s;oi: ',f t:c,-•. CONDITIONAL USE YF.RMIT R~SGI tITION N0. 'r'0:.;.OA'i NG :5 P. SUMMAR'i O- a:F: l:.A:;::: s~~ ~:!1M:1155!CN P.CT; GN. ~ C 'I'U DF: C'0a;;1JEP. F. i' G'r f~;C'1A., M.;. ... .:n Pnole, Code Erfun~~<. rr~Yrr.. . - - ~dl~~.. ~YIIYWIrYY. ~•, `.r'^11 I Cort;nued to i Sr.pt. 11, i99i `"~ i 13. B, ~trxy.3lSSTFrTCATION ND 89-90-45 AND OaNDITIONAL USE NO 3261 - EXTFIVSION OF TIME: Smith end Fblitiski rgguests extension of time for Reclassificaticn No. 89-90-45 and Conditional Use Perniit No. 3261. Property located an the south side of F~nntera Street and 260 feet East of the centerline of Park Vista Street. PE[~URI' AND RFX~4IVDATIONS ~ A. O7[~IDlTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3178 - REXXTES!' FUR AN Approved EXTEiVSION OF TIME TO SLY WIRE! ~ITIQVS OF APPl27VAL: Reiyadh ChaJJQnnakchi. (Gener~1 PartnRr of At~hiterra, 7ra.) zequests a one-year extension of time to amply with Uanditional Use Fermit No. 3178. Property located at 1211-1245 South Knott Street. PERMIT k ff C. OaflIDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3295: Jay H. Shah requests extension of time far Conditional Use I~xmit No. 3295. Property is located at 640 W. Orarx~wcod Ave. D. TENTATICn' "'Dn^" Mar un_ ~go25 two V11R7~INCE NO. 3934: Elias D. Oviedo requests extension of time far F~classification No. 89-90-50 and Variance No. 3934 and Tentative Tract Map No. 13925. Property located at the 227 N. ~ffinen Stt~et. E. mR*DITIONAL USE PERMIT D1O 3253 -REVIEW OF REVISID PLANS Fi~R LLF-'~'-Mt11VATION OF SUBSTANTLAL CUNFUTdNANC'~" Richazd A. Debeikes Jr. (DeBeikes Investment Oompany), zequests review of revised plans for 3etermination of substantial. amfornianae with previously appravad plans to permit a axaaetcial retail center and asemi-EViclased z~+staurant with "on-sale" alcoholic beverages. Property is located at 1521 North Imperial Highway. aa7acn?nn~rr• The Plane4ng aams~ssion adjourned at 5:45 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., July 24, 1991, in ;he Council Chambers for a joint workshop with F~edevelopment G~mmission - RE: Northeast Area Study Update. '~'`'~ >,..,, Ta en o Calendar Approved Approved Approved 07/15/91 Page 31 `;