Minutes-PC 1994/02/23
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994, AT 9:30 A.M.
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
(PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
9:30 A.M. 1:30 P.M.
Note : 9:30 A.M. Field Trip to Tract No. 13266 within The SummN of Anaheim Hills Specffic Plan
area.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER,
MESSE, PERA7A
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: TAIT
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ~~
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their
evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request ff, in the opinion of the Commission,
such additional time will produce evklence Important to the Commission's cons(deration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be gNen ten minutes to
present their 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 saki.
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 is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ff, in ffs opinion, the ends of
fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review In connection with any hearing,
Including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non~tfocumentary evidence,
shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public
inspections.
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 fNe (5) minutes to speak.
AC022394.WP
~./
i-~
1a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.281 Previously Certified Continued to
1 b. SITE PLAN FOR TRACT MAP N0. 13266 March 21, 1994
OWNER: THE BALDWIN CO., Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Hala
Avenue, Irvine, GA 92714
LOCATION: Property is aooroximately 6 4 acres located on the
south aide of Serrano Avenue and approximately 1100
feet west of the centerline of Marblehead Drive Bract
No 13288 The Summit of Anahelm Hilts Specific Plan
SP8 2.
Petkioner requests a revision to ttie previously approved she plan for
Tract Map No. 13266 wkhin The Summk of Anahelm H(Ils Specklc Pian
(SP88.2) in order to construct 10 single-family residential structures
ranging from 3,395 to 3,911 square feet (previously ranging from 4,141
to 5,657 square feet).
Continued from the October 4, November 15, December 1, 1993, and
January 24, 1994 Planning Commission meetings.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO
BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 4
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Son Freeman, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714, representing Baldwin. They
received notice that the staff was recommending denial of the project. They believe
that the plans are consistent and in compliance wkh the Speckic Plan and Zoning
and Development Standards for the Summk of Anahelm Hills.
OPPOSITION:
The following indviduals are in opposkion of subject request: Jonathan Goldste(n,
1096 S. Taylor Court; Marey Penny, 8125 Oxley Court; Marie Zuta (phonetically
spelled) 1055 Taylor Court; and Dr, Robert Minnow, 1071 Taylor Court.
Many of the concems that were expressed by the foregoing individuals were the
same concems expressed at previous meetings and will not be repeated here. The
main concern was a change that was made that was not approved by the Planning
Director.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Freeman stated the Summk Point Custom Lot Design Guidelines are consistent
wkh this project and at this point in time are not applicable to the finding.
02-23.94
Page 2 ~I
2
He stated he has never heard what would be consistent. They have attempted to
address each Issue as K was brought up by staff. He asked to hear ftom the
Commission as to what the thoughts of compatibility might be. They would be
willing to take a look at doing something else. He has not heard anything that tells
him one way or the other what is or is not an acceptable method of treatment on
these houses.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Mayer asked Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, to go over the
documents because there is some confusion with the public about what role the
Design Guidelines take and what their task Is before they begin the discussion.
Ms. Mann explained that the Sfte Plan review before the Commission is a change
from the previous approval. The change was not approved by the Planning
Director. They look to the Sfte plan to determine consistency with the Specific Plan
and with the Zoning and Development Standards.
The Zoning and Development Standard consistency has been reviewed in the staff
report. With regard to the Specific Plan, the document (page 62) talks about Design
Guidelines, but these are apparently not the small Design Guidelines that some of
the homeowners have presented to the Commission. Those were attached to some
CC&Rs at the omg(nal public hearings on the Specific Plan.
There Is Desiyn Guideline language in the Specific Plan document and it would be
appropriate to look to some of those guidelines with regards to site planning and
~,.., : archftecture in making their determination of conformance with the Specific Plan.
Those items appear beginning on page 62 of the Specific Plan.
Commissioner Messe asked what has been d~~~ ~r~ce the last meeting in regard to
any redesign of the rear elevations.
Mr. Freeman explained rear elevations are driven by floor plan and not necessarily
an attempt to provkle relief separate from the house itself. They added some plaster
ledges; wrought iron callings and shutters at windows. If that is not felt to be
sufficient to swage the staff's or Commission's concerns, they would c?mainly be
willing to look at (on the rear elevations at every window where they do not have
architectural treatment already) adding a wood or plaster surround to give additional
detail to the back of the house. They would like to have everyone come out a
winner and ff there is a need to look at addftfonal design, they are willing to do that.
Commissioner Caldwell asked staff to comment on their recommendation for dental.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he has narrowed h down to 3
different aspects which were prevlous;y discussed that were not taken care of at the
time the staff report was v/ritten. TFat had to do with the window treatments, the
side and rear articulation and the dominance of the garages at the front elevation.
Staff would recommend that those three issues be taken care of before any
approval is gNen.
02-23.94
Page 3
Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Freeman ff he could bring in the rear views and
' the side vlews before they decide?
Mr. Freeman stated they have been presented in their packages in 8-1/2' X 11",
however, they would be willing to come back with a detailed archffectural review of
the backs of the houses ff that would help In the decision making process.
Commissioner Mayer stated she made particular note of wood versus aluminum
w(ndows and from every place that she could stand, you could not tell whether they
were Conking at aluminum or wood unless you get up very close to the window.
She asked that they add a little detail in the surrounds and that would take care of
that Issue as far as archffectural design and compatible character.
Mr. Freeman stated they would be glad to add that to the rear elevations.
Chairman Peraza expressed his concerns about having a four car garage.
Mr. Freeman explained they felt that adding a four garage option to the plans would
allow the plans to be consistent wffh the existing Summit Point because those are 4
car garages. (One is a tandem garage). This is an option and not something they
would necessarily do on every lot. If ff is a benefit to the lot ftself, then they would
look at trying to do that.
Commissioner Messe stated he felt they aro close to being consistent with the
Specific Plan as iar as Site Plan is conce+ned. The rear elevation does have to be
worked on. He was not certain ff they could do that through a continuance today
~, or whether they could take a vote and have them come back with a Reports and
t Recommendation item.
Commissloner Mayer noticed that a lot of people put up a patio roof covering which
basically obscures the first floor level of any kind of window treatment. Therefore,
the second floors would need the focus for the archffectural enhancement.
Mr. Hastings stated ff would be floe to bring those back as a Report and
Recommendation item to the Commission.
Commissioner Messe asked that the plans be complete wffh blue Ilne drawings.
Commissioner Caldwell stated ff they are going to make a decision based on the
drawings, then they should see the drawings first and then make a decision. In this
situation, he would like to see the whole package first. He continues to see a
substantial difference.
Mr. Hastings stated they would need to get a Letter from Mr. Freeman waving the
Streamlining Act.
Mr. Freeman stated they would provide the letter waiving the right to a streamline
permit process.
02-23.94
Page 4
'~
z,
~S
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED.
ACTION: Continued to the March 21, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
,~^,
t ,
s.~
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT March 7, 1994
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3658
OWNER: ENDOWMENT REALTY INVESTORS, INC., c/o TCW
REALTY ADVISORS, 865 S. Figueroa Street, Ste. 3500, Los
Angeles, CA 90017-2543
AGENT: SANDRA OUILTY, COMMERCIAL CENTER
MANAGEMEC: ~, 865 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA
90017-2543
LOCATION: 5620 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is
approximately 10.83 acres located at the southwest comer
of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway.
To permft an 8,710-square foot semi-enclosed restaurant with on-
premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and roof-
mounted equipment with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Continued from tho January 10, and 24, 1994 Planning Commission
meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PI.~;;VNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO
BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Amy Brazo, Vice President of TCW Realty Advisors. She is here to request approval
for an 8,700 square-foot restaurant at the Cross Roads Shopping Center. She
understands that staff has recommended denial based only on lack of information
on the operator and that ail of other condftions of approval have been meant.
They are working wRh a restaurant that is a large chain restaurant within Southern
CalHomia. They have a conffdentialfry agreement until all business terms are met
Including the signing of a lease and the signing of a lease will not take place until
they know they have the go ahead to have a restaurant at this location which is
contingent upon the CUP. They cannot disclose the operator, however, they can
disclose that it is a family oriented restaurant. That is the only Information she can
give at this time.
02-23.94
Page 6
The floor plans that were submkted to staff were worked wkh the restaurant, so that
the prototype floor plan would be something that the restaurant would follow k
approved. They worked wkh the restaurant to create the floor plan and that is a
floor plan they can accept and k they wanted to dkferentiate then they would work
wkh the Cky for any modifications to that plan.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissloner Henninger stated k was his understanding that there were some
additional hems of operating procedures that have not been provkied aril he knows
that the Police Department expressed Interest in that.
Chairman Peraza stated he did receive a letter from Officer Jim Gandy, Police
Department. He read the letter into the record. The Police Department would like
to place condkions on the CUP, but cannot make the Ilst of condklons wkhout
knowing the exact use. He recommended a continuance.
Commissioner Henninger stated they do not need to know the tenant's identity, but
they need to know the hours of operation, etc.
Ms. Brazo stated k is a family dining operation. The closing hours would be
11:OOp.m. They are pursuing a family dining operation. They are not pursuing an
after hours entertainment night club. It is strictly family dining.
Commissioner Boydstun asked about a liquor license and Ms. Brazo stataf they will
have a liquor license.
Commissioner Messe asked about the numbers of employees and Ms. Brazo
indicated she did not have that information, however, she could submk k.
Commissioner Messe stated these are details the staff needs relative to operation of
the restaurant.
Mr. Hastings explained that the Police Department may want to know what activkies
would occur outside of the building In the patio area? What would the hours of
operation be there since k is fairly close to residential? Zoning would be interested
In the answer to these questions.
Further discussion took place regarding some gukfellnes from CUP 3574 approved
at end of 1992 that possibly could be utilized as guidelines for this CUP.
Commissioner Messe suggested they get together wkh the Planning staff and th~:s
Police Department so the Police Department could wrke their condkions.
Commissioner Mayer suggested they do a proposal and block out the came.
ACTION: Continued to the March 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissloner Tak absent)
02-23-94
Page 7
~ 3b. WAIO ER OF CODE REOURREMENT Previously Approved Approved
Denied
3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1855 Readvertised Approved, in part
INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anahelm, CA
92805
OWNER: NORTH STREET PARTNERSHIP, Attn: Gilbert U.
Kraemer, P.0 Box 275, Placentia, CA 92670
LOCATION: 1071 N. Blue Gum Street. Property is approximately 0.5
acres located
on the west side of Biue Gum Street and approximately
210 feet south of the centerilne of La Palma Avenue.
To retain a new boat dealership with accessory retail sales and boat repair
and including three (3) temporary outdoor storage trailers wfth waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces, Ilmftations of uses, required front yard
setback and required screening of outdoor uses.
Pursuant to Code Section 16.03.091, the Code Enforcement Division has
initiated the proposed termination or modification of Conditional Use Permft
No. 1855 (to permit aboat/marine sales facility).
Continued from the November 15, 1993, January 10, and 24, 1994,
Planning Commission meetings.
'-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-21
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Davo Anderson, 1071 N. Blue Gum Street, representing Omega Marine. They have been
meeting wfth members of Zoning and Redevelopment and they have come to an
agreement wfth them.
He expressed concern regarding item no. 4 on page 7. They get boats from a factory.
They are wrapped up in plastic and not ready to go. They need to remove the plastic
from the boat, install a battery and a prop, hook a hose to the boat and start K to make
sure h runs. This is refereed to as a run-out procedure.
He referenced condition no. 5 and stated they would need a storage shad to hang up
hoses and other various items they use on a day to day basis.
02-23-94
Page 8
He referenced condtion no. 7 rega~bh:g stacking of bats. The subject of storage
versus display was discussed. H5 explained they would like to stack a boat on top of
each other along the 91 Freeway for visibility from the fteeway. Their whole concept is
to be seen. They have racks that are specfffcally designed by putting one boat on top
of another. Not store ff, but display it so it is ready to buy. They would Tike to be able
to do that. They would MIII not exceed th~~ 40 boat limit called for in the
recommendations.
He referenced condition no. 8 and stated they are no longer asking for a parking waiver.
He referenced condition no. 9. The time frame of 30 days does not gNe them enough
time to accomplish everything. He asked for 180 days.
Their neighbor, Mr. Taormina, wrote a letter of support. He read the letter Into the
record.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Caldweil stated that condition no. 4 was not Intended to stop him from
prepping a boat for sale. They just do not want a full blown mechanic shop operating in
the back.
Commissioner Caldwell referenced condition no. 7 regarding stacking of boats. He
explained the Idea is that they do not see boats from the 91 Freeway. The Idea is to not
have that area along the freeway to be used for retailing.
,r- Mr. Hastings stated there are 2 reasons for not allowing the stacking. One is because
there are way too many boats and that was a method of achieving more boats being
stored and the other one was to differentiate bet~reen storage and display. It was his
opinion ff you start stacking the boats you are storing them. If they are a single level
then that is more of a display area.
Commissioner Boydstun asked ff they could add a condftlon that they could have 2 or 3
racks for display so they could be seen In the front and specffy what they are for. That
they are not for storage, but for display and limit the number. They could be located
only in the front row for display. She added they could also put a not to exceed
number.
Mr. Anderson indicated that would be agreeable to him. Mr. Anderson suggested 5
double racks or 10 boats.
Commissioner Henninger stated that seemed a lot to him. He suggested two.
Mr. Anderson asked ff they could compromise wfth 3? They have a long frontage.
Chairman Peraza felt 180 days was too long. After some discussion tt was determined
that 90 days would be adequate.
Commissioner Messe asked when was he going to sign his lease for the storage area?
02-23.94
Page 9
~V
Mr. Anderson explained they are still in negotiations with the Koll Company and he does
not know exactly when they were going to sign tt. They were requesting some
modfflcation to that property to make tt suitable for their uses. They also have to apply
for a CUP to allow mechanical work to be done at that location. it all depends on how
the process unfolds.
Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Anderson what would happen ff they did not sign the
lease and Mr. Anderson explained they will get a secondary building. It fs to theL-
advantage.
Commissioner Messe suggested a time Iimft of one year.
Cheryl Flores, Planning Department, asked if they wanted to conskler any timing on the
Installation of landscaping and also the applicant mentioned the proposed storage shed.
Did they want a Ilmftatlon on the size of it? If h is under 120 s.f., a building permft would
not be required.
Mr. Anderson agreed that the storage shed would be under 120 s.f.
Mr. Hastings stated before the landscaping Is planted they would like to look at a plan.
Mr. Anderson agreed to submit a plan.
Waivers were denied as none of them apply anymore. Moved to deny the waivers.
CUP 1855 was readvertised with possibilities of annual renewals and the probability of
removal of the annual renewals.
.•-
t_
Allow display of boats up to 3 boats along the 91 Freeway frontage on double racks.
Conditions complied with within 90 days.
Landscape plan submitted within 30 days and installed within SO days.
Storage shed on-site behind a line parallel with the 92 Fnnry frontage and even with the
front face of the building. (Not in the setback area).
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Denied WaNer of Code Requirement -ail the waivers were withdrawn
by the applicant at the public hearing
Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1855, as readvertised, for 1 year
with the possibility of further extensions in connection with public
hearings. The following conditions were added to the permitted use:
1. That a minimum of twelve (12) parking spaces shall be provided
on-site.
(Action continued on next page)
02-23.94
Page 10
(Item No. 3 -Action continued from previous page)
2. That the petkioner shall submk landscape plans to the Zoning
DNision of thr: Planning Department for review and approval
indicating rf~n:mum of one (1), 15-gallon tree for every 30 lineal
feet fronting the SR-91 (Riverskle Freeway) wkhin thirty (30)
days from the date of this resolution. The landscaping shall be
Installed wkhin sbcty (60) days from the date of this resolution. i
3. That the petkioner shall ekher remove the unperrnkted marquee
sign from the pennkted pole sign or apply for a separate
variance.
4. That mechanical work on subject property shall be Iimked to
installation of battedes and propellers, and minor set-up
procedures. No other mechanical work or assembly shall be
permitted on-ske.
5. That the three (3) tractor-type trailers shall be removed. A
storage shed may be placed on-ske behind a Ilne parallel wkh
the Riverskle (91) Freeway ftontage and even wkh the ftont face
of the building; k may not be in any setback area and k may not
exceed one hundred and twenty (120) square feet.
6. That the retail sales of accessory kerns shall be Iimked to hems
associated wkh boating and other marine activkies.
~.
7.
That a maximum of six boats shall be displayed on three (3) ~
double racks along the RNerside (91) Freeway ftontage. A 1'1
maximum of 4~ boats are permtted, wkh no storage of excess I
inventory on ske.
8. That Condkion Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be
completed by the petkloner wkhln n(nery (90) days from the
date of this resolution.
9. That the boundary of subject property shall be restored to the
area as approved by Condkionai Use Pernik No. 1855 and that
the fence surrounding the unpermltted expansion area shall be
relocated to the north property line of subject property.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tak absent)
i
U
02-23.94
Page 11
4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Withdrawn
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3845 Readvertised
OWNER: ESMAIL and MAHIN RASTEGARI, ET. AL, P.O. BOX 3465,
Fullerton, CA 92634
LOCATION: 1108 N. Acacia Street. Property is approximately 0.36
acre located on the east skis of Acacia Street and
approximately 525 feet south of the centedine of Romneya
Drive.
To expand the maximum enrollment of a previously approved day care
facilfty from 24 to 55 children and to Include a caretakers' unft wfth waiver
of minimum structure) setback requirement.
Continued from the November 15, 1993, and January 10, 1994 Planning
Commissicn meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Esmail Rastegarl, owner,1108 N. Acacia Street. Staff recommended dental of the
expansion. He submitted plans for the purposes of expanding. The Building
Department has requested a 20-foot driveway. Financially, and for other reasons, they
could not achieve this. He elaborated further and asked the Commission for their help
and support.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement. He stated Officer Grace Medina conducted an
inspection on the property. This matter is before the Commission because they did find
substantial non-conformance wfth the property. He referenced a memo dated February
16, 1994. They are still showing numerous violations in regards to health and safety
issues. Th?ro were a number of other violations that were not health and safety that
have been corrected.
02-23-94
Page 12
1
Ij
He referenced Building 1 and stated as of February 16th the patio cover on the east side r
of the building has not been adequately secured. These are health and safety hems,
especially ff there are children Involved. Wiring of the lamp on the south side of the ~
building Is still exposed; patio cover on the north skle of the building has not been I
adequately secured; the garage cornersion Is still being used as a nursery.
Building 2. The unpermitted patio cover on the west skis of the building is still present;
the deteriorated supports have not been replaced; improperly inslalied electrical
receptacles on the face of the building have not been removed; unpermitted air
conditioning unft Is still present; unpermitted living rooms and laundry rooms are still
present.
Building 3. There are 3 addffional violations. All of these violations do need to be
addressed. They will continue to work with the petitioner.
Sheri Benge, Fire Department. She initially Inspected the facility at the request of the
Community Care Licensing. She approved them for their curcent license. She was not
aware there were same outstanding changes to the building that had not been approved
by the Building Department. She would feel better ff they would bring the building up to
at least the minimum standards.
Commissioner Henninger stated they do not have the information they need to act on
the Reports and Recommendation item. It was his feeling that the owner needs to go
back and talk with the Building Department and figure out what the best approach
would be.
Commissioner Caldwell stated the Building Department makes sure that the structures
are built safely. They are running a child care facility and ft is crazy to have these
condtions exist. They need to get these Issues taken care of.
Mr. Rastegari explained he wanted to save the building, but ff the Commission did not
cooperate, he could not save the building.
Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Rastegari ff he would like the Commission to tum a
blind eye to the conditions that are unpermitted and unsafe?
Mr. Rastegari stated he did not have a permit to do anything with the buildings. He
asked ff they expected him to corcect the building?
Commissioner Caldwell stated Mr. Rastegari owns the building; it is unsafe and he is
going to compound the problem by moving 24 children in there. He felt he should
corcect the problems.
Commissioner Henninger stated he has heard some things in the testimony that were
serious safety Issues and other things that sounded like monetary issues Ilke the
payment of fees. He asked that he go back to the Building Department to correct the
things that need to be corcected and come back to see ff the Commission can gNe him
a hand with some of the other things that are not serious safety Issues. The safety
Issues need to be taken care of.
02-23.94
Page 13
r,
}~
Mr. Rastegari stated that is the reason they provkled a plan for the Building Department :g
In order to speckically respond to those kerns, but he had to go through the Planning
Commission first. They told him not to touch the building. ;
Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to see a minimum Ilst of corcections that
need to be made and how they are going to take care of them. On some of the hems
there are options like the unpermkted structure could be removed or brought up to
Code and in those cases he would like to have the Building Department and the ~,
applicant to come to a conclusion as to which of those 2 options they w.ouid take, Le., is
k going to be removed or brought up to Code? That would be an economic decision
for Mr. Rastegari to make in conJunction wkh the Building Department. He would Ilke a
list and then attach k to the Reports and Recommendations so that they know what Is
going to be done. He asked how long that would take?
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated at least 4 weeks.
Commissioner Masse stated he would be working wkh Code Enforcement and the
Building Department.
Mr. Rastegari stated k the Commission approved this today, as he was expecting, he
would start complying wkh all of the requirements.
Commissioner Mayer asked for clarification, that Mr. Rastegari was asked not to do any
of these hems because he did not have a percnk. She was especially concerned about
the electrical. Some of these things could be removed k they aro dangerous.
Mr. Freeman stated k was his understanding after reviewing the file, that the applicant
was issued a Notice of Violation letter dated November S fith addressing the violations on
the property. This was after an inspection was made wkh building officials as well as
their officer. Each one of the violations carcied a required action, I.e., ekher obtain the
permks or remove the unpermkted structures whether k be a light fixture, un electrical
panel, a garage conversion, etc. The memo that is attached to the staff report are the
Ike and safety threatening things that they have to address at this particular time
because of the use that is there now. The kerns klentiFled in the February 16th memo
are the kerns that have to be addressed immediately.
Commissioner Mayer asked far further clarification ff he could remove the unpennkted
air condkloning unk and he could remove the lamp that has the exposed wiring and put
a solar battery operated lamp in ks place?
Mr. Freeman explained k k was originally approved under a pemtk, wkh the original
construction, k requires the wiring be enclosed. That is an easy fix. if k is addkional
wiring that has been installed after the inkial permk, he could remove that wiring or
obtain a permk to allow the light fixture to remain at that location.
Commissioner Mayer stated the electrical really bothers her. She would like for him to
address whatever he can address before he comes back before the Commission.
Chairman Perdza stated he would also like for the petkloner to have the Fire Department
Involved so that all safety Issues are addressed.
02-23-94
Page 14
.~
Commissioner Mayer stated some of these things do not have to waft for a plan. It can
~ be done over a weekend.
Item no. 4 was wfthdrawn by the applicant. Has letter of February 7th from
Mr. Rastegari asking for wfthdrawal.
Refer to hem 12B for further action related to this ftem.
ACTION: Subject request was wfttxlrawn as requested by the applicant. ~
VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
~,
~._
02.23.94
Page 15
~~ ~
Sa. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.311 (Prev(ousiy Certified) Approved
"b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.336 Rec. approval to Ciry Council
5c. THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO 92-1 AMENDMENT Rec. approval to City Council
NO 1 (INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS THE DESIGN PLAN AND GUIDELINES AND THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES PLAN)
INITIATED BY : THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
Per Planning Commission Resdution No. PC 94-11
OWNER: PYROVEST CORP, 848 W. Sunset Bivd., Los Angeles, CA 90012
LOCATION: The proposed amendment area is a rectanaulariv-
,~re6~ parcel of land consisting of acoroximately 9 acres
located at the southeast comer of Freedman Wav and Harbor
Boiiieyard in the Citv of Anaheim The proposed amendment
area is w`thin the boundaries of The Disnevland Resort
~ecitic Plan (SP92 1) Parkina District and is identified as
the proposed 'District A' on the amended Disnevland Resort
Development Plan.
The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 Amendment No. 1 is proposed to
redesignate an approximate 9•acre portion of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
from "Parking District' to "District A'. Said amendment Includes the removal of
District A from the GR Overlay, the removal of District A acreage from the East
Parking Area Option Plan and the removal of public parking facilities as a permitted
use in District A. Similar to the GR Overlay, District A would permit development of
permitted and condftlonally percnftted uses allowed by the existing f;-R (Commercial
Recreation) Zone as set forth in Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as it
currently exists or may be amended or superseded in the future. Said amendment
also Includes text and exhibit revisions In The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
document to reflect the new District A.
The Land Use Element of the Ciry of Anaheim General Plan curcently refers to The
Disneyland Resort and describes four land use districts (Theme Park, Hotel, Parking
and Future Expansion Area) as well as a C-R Overlay. General Pian Amendment
No. 336 is proposed to amend the Laixl Use Element to revise the description of
The Disneyland Resort to reflect the redesignation of the approximate 9-acre portion
of the Parking District to "District A.' District A would continue to be designated for
medium density development allowing up to 75 hotel/motel rooms per gross acre
or 75 rooms per parcel whichever is greater; however, h would no longer be
designated for public parking facility uses. Hotel/motel accessory uses would
continue to be allowed as well as other visitor-serving uses.
02-23.94
Page 16
environmental Impact Report No. 311 was previousiy certified by the City Council on
.une 29, 1993, in conjunction wfth the approval of General Pian Amendment No. 331
and The Disneyland Resort SpeciFlc Plan No. 92-1. EIR No. 311 addressed the
environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated wfth the development of
subject amendment area. Staff review Indicates that no addttional impacts above those
covered in EIR No. 311 would result from the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan
amendments and that previously-certttied EIR No. 311 is adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for the proposed amendments. In connection
with subject amendments, the adopted EIR Mttigation Monttoring Program for The
Disneyland Resort would be amended to reference "District A' in Mttigation Measure
3.10.1-B, which Frtains tc fair-share provision of funding torfin-related equipment.
ACTIONS:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MOTION, OR RESOLUTION AS INDICATED
BELOW, WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE
PROPOSED ACTIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MAKE THE FINP.L DECISIONS.
THAT THE PREVIOUSLY- CERTIFIED EIR N0.311 IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE
REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS REQUEST AND
MODIFYING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TO REFERENCE'DISTRICT A"
IN MITIGATION MEASURE 3.10.1-8 MOTION Aooroved
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.336 RESOLUTION N0. PC9422
SPECIFIC PLAN N0.92-1 (AMENDMENT N0. 1) RESOLUTION N0. PC9423
SPECIFIC PLAN N0.92-1 ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (AMENDN
RESOLUTION N0. PC9424
N0. 11
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Marion Harvey, law firm of Latham and Watkins, 701 B. Street, San Diego,CA, representing
the Walt Disney Company and Disney Development Company. The proposed General
Plan Amendment and the SpecHic Plan Amendment would Implement a choice between
the two optional configurations for the public parking facility in the east parking area of the
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan.
The amendment would implement a choice between the two optional configurations for
the public parking facility. It would allow the northsouth configuration to remain in the
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan while deleting the eastwest configuration. The
amendment would also delete the public uses from the Anaheim Plaza property which is
the western end of what was the eastwest configuration.
02-23.94
Page 17
To accomplish this objective, a new district, District A, would be added to the Specific
,^ Plan which would allow for the land uses that are currently allowed under the CR Oveday
for the same property and would Incorporate the Zoning regulations that curcentiy apply to
the property under tho CR Overlay.
The proposal is suppu~~yd by both Disney and the property owner. Cky staff has reviewed
it to ensure that k is consistent wtth the Specific Plan as k was previously considered and
approved. They have also reviewed k in order to determine whether there was any CEQA
review required and determine that the proposal Is consistent wkh the tHO options
previously considered as part of the project and that no new addkional CEQA review
would he required.
The amendment, while k appears to be a minor change in the project, (because all k does
is delete the one option that was previously approved) generated a lot of paperwork
because of the creation of the new district. Everytime the plan refereed to the CR Overlay,
there was a requirement to change the reference to refer to District A.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Messe stated they have a pretty complex set of paper.°~ork as k is and he
wondered why they have to create a new district, District A. He asked why they Just net
remove this from the parking district and let k sk in the overlay zone?
Ms. Harvey explained the proposal was generated as a result of settlement of a dispute
between the property owner and the Cky an~r D~:ney. One concern was that the public
parking facilky uses be removed from that property because the e::isting district that
' covered that ro o was the ublic rkin ristdct, s eciflcall the east rkin area.
t P P rtY P Pa 9~ P Y Pa 9
The change wan necessary to achieve that ~sbJective aril to create a new district that ne
longer allowec' l:.ublic parking facilfties.
Comrdssloner tdesse asked ff the CR Ovuday allowed public parking facilftles?
Linda Johnson, Planning Department. She explained that the CR Overlay doss allow
public parking facilfties.
ACTION: Found that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 is adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for this request and that Mkigation Measure
No. 3.10.1-8 be modified to reference "District A".
Aecommended approval to the Cky Council of General Plan Amendment No. 336.
Recommended approval to the Cky Council of The Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan No. 92-1 Amendment No. 1, including the condkions of approval set forth in
paragraph C) of the February 23, 1994 Staff Report to the Planning Commission,
and, made the following flrdings:
(Action continued on next page)
02-23-94
Page 18
i
(Action continued -Item No. 5)
~,
(1) That the property proposed for the Specific Pian amendment has unique she
characteristics such as topography, location or surroundings which are
enhanced by special land use and development standards;
(2) That the amendments to the SpecHic Plan are consistent wfth the goals and
policies of the General Plan and wfth the purposes, standards, and land use
guidelines therein;
(3) That the amendments to the Specific Plan result in development of desirable
character which will be compatible wfth existing and proposed development in
the surrounding neighborhood;
(4) That the amendments to the Specific Plan contribute to a balance of land
uses;
(5) That the amendments to the spec'rfic plan respect ernironmentat and aesthetic
resources consistent wfth economic realfties.
(D) Recor ded approval to the City Council of Amendment No. 1 to The
Disney,,..._ Resort Zoning snd Development Standards. ~'
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent) I
~•
~ p
~',t
02-23.94
Page 19
v
6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3455 Readvertised
OWNER: ANAHEIM DISPOSAL INC., Attn: Richard B. Winn, 1131 North
Blue Gum Avenue, P. 0. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92615
LOCATION: Prennrh. to nerr9ximately 95 acre located on the
n rth i ~f the Riverside (911 Freeway. and
,ftpproximate~~ 400 feet west the centerline of the southerly
terminus of Whftestar Avenue.
(a) Petkloner requests an amendment to a condkion of approval pertaining
to the time Iimkation of apreviously-approved expansion of a
recycling/resource recovery facilky.
(b) Petftioner requests aone-year time extension (retroactive to September
23, 1993) to comply wkh condklons of approval for subject petklon.
Approved
Approved
amendment to
condk(ons of
approval
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. _ PC9425
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None/ 1 person in favor
~,
' PETITIONER:
Tom Vogt (phonetically spelled), representative for Anaheim Disposal, 1131 North Glue
Gum, Anaheim, CA. Tha CUP before the Commission was prev(ously approved. They
are asking for an extension of the CUP. It is a small parcel of land approximately .95
acres. They had Intended to use h for overflow parking and storage boxes from their
facilky. Due to a fuel clean-up of underground tank removals at their G & M Center,
the project was stalled about 12 months. They are behind schedule and would like to
renew the CUP so they have the option to use this in the future.
IN FAVOR:
Phillip Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA, representing
Mr. Ouakendahl (phonetically spelled). Mr. Ouakendahl owns all of the property that
Is not the sliver. All of the property to the north of that, they have been working In
conjunction wkh the operators and would concurc wkli the Commission's interest fn
permitting the condkional use permk to have an extension of time so that k could be
ultimately implemented.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
None.
02-23-94
Page 20
,~
ACTION: 1. Approved Negative Declaration
r-` 2. Granted a ane-year time extension (retroactive to September 23, 1993) to
comply wkh condkions of approval, to expire on September 23, 1~4.
3. Modified Condition No.15 of Resdution No. PC91-145 to read as fellows:
"15. That this condkional use permk (s granted (retroactively to September
23, 1993) for a period of two (2) years and shall terminate on
September 23,,1.'
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tak absent)
r
t
02-23-94
Page 21
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3359 Readvertised
Approved
Approved
Approved
OWNER: ANAHEIM DISPOSAL INC., Attn: Richard B. Winn, 1131 North
Blue Gum Avenue, P. 0. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92815
LOCATION: 2751 - 2781 E. White Star Ave. Property is approximately
11.5 acres located on the west skle of Blue Gum Street, on
the south side of Gretta Lane and having an approximate
frontage of 520 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue.
To enclose existing outdoor uses of an existing recycling/resource
recovery transfer facility by construction of a 76,952 square foot and a
29,510 square foot building with waNer of minimum number of parking
spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9426
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition / 2 letters were submitted in support of
subject request
~•
. ~ PETITIONER:
Tom Vogt, 1131 N. Blue Gum, Anaheim, CA. This request is to cover existing outdoor
uses currently at their recycling facility wfth a structure. They concur with the staff report.
The structure will enhance their current operation by mitigating potential dust and litter
problems on windy days. They do ask on condftlon no. 3 that the lot Ilne adjustment be
done prior to a Certfffcate of Occupancy Issuance as opposed to the Issuance of a
building permit. They do concur wfth the findings of staff.
He submitted two letters from their neighbors in support of this project.
OPPOSITION:
Jim Mealy, (phonetically spelled), AMA Plastics, Vice Presklent of Finance and
Administration. He submitted a letter from the owners of the building dlrecUy across the
street from the existing facility. They own and operate an injection molding business that
has been In that facility since 1978.
It is his understanding that they are to expand wfth a 76,000 s.f. facilty which will be
directly up to the street line and 90 fee4 back from the curbing which certainly will cause
an unsightly sftuation. Presently the amount of dust particles are abound all day long.
The odor, especially In the summer time, is qufte harmful and hurtful to their employees.
They employ approximately 260 people, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
02-23-94
Page 22
~.J
They have had several Instances during the summer months where they have had
^ employees request to go home because of the smell.
He referenced page 5, hem 13. Wfth the enclosure and large openings, ft will still present
a harmful environmental problem. Not only the emissions from the building, but the truck
noise and diesel truck emissions during the day. This is an eniironmental Issue.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Vogt stated they are not proposing to change the scope of their existing operation.
They are trying to enclose more of h so they do not have the potential for dust ar litter
problems. There is no guarantee that the situation will change signtflcandy in mkigating
any of those problems, but they do not feel that h would be affected negatively. They
keep close contact with all of their neighbors including AMA Plastics and they monitor
their concems. If they have ar, odor complaint tf!ey call them. They have nut had odor
complaints other than on hot summer days They do not feel by adding this structure
that h will inrrease that problem, but rather :!elp the problem They think it is a positive
addition to the neighborhood.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Mr.Vogt explained the key to controlling odor is to get the material out as quicMy as
possible-do not let the material sk. They conskJer themselves very successful at that.
There are times when the material comes to them because ft has been sitting at a
restaurant or a customer's yard where the odor already exfts. He further explained their
goal is to keep h as dry as possible and export h as quicMy as possible.
Chairman Peraza asked abort plastic coverings.
Mr. Vogt explained they have ,some wind curtains on the north side and the south side of
the facility that extend down to about 12 feet from the ground. However, there is a
problem as the equipment pushes the refuse Into the pit, ft tears the screening ff ft is any
lower than that.
Commissioner Messe stated he could understand Mr. Mealey's concems as it would
impact the area. He asked how many employees he had?
Mr. Vogt stated approximately 450.
Commissioner Messe asked if he would be willing to tie this CUP down to that number oti
employees? He explained the Impact on dust and traffic might have to be looked at if
they Increase their market. He asked what could the Commission tie ft to?
Mr. Vogt stated they currently have a solid waste permft-they are monitored monthly by
the County of Orange and the State of Calffamia. They are tied to a specific amount of
refuse that they are allowed to take ln. They cannot exceed that now. The problem is
that at eny given lima customers come and go and the mix changes. As they try to
recover more material and meet the mandates for Anaheim and the other cities they
serve, ft becomes more labor intensive. So you may not necessarily see more truck tr(ps
but you will see more people sorting the refuse to recover recyclables.
02-23-94
Page 23
L./
Commissioner Henninger asked how does the current volume compare with the
permitted volume?
Mr. Vogt explained they are at an average of about 7596 of their permitted volume on a
dally basis. In the summertime h goes up as tree trimming and the growth cycle occurs.
Commissioner Henninger asked about their peak times.
Mr. Vogt explained h does not change slgnHicandy, other than the fact that as they
attempt to recover more material, even H their tonnage does not go up, their employee
mix could change as the recycling process expands.
Commissioner Henninger stated there is a signfOcant parking waiver and somehow this
has to be fled down to make this work.
Mr. Vogt explained a large number of their employees operate out of their 0 & M Center
which will be opening in May which is about 250 feet north on Blue Gum. At that point
they will be moving their maintenance shop operation from the existing facility down to
that facility which will reduce personnel at the Blue Gum Location. Also they work
variable shHts. They worb~ from 4:OOa.m. to 2:OOa.m. so at no one time is there ever near
450 people at that facility. The 129 spaces they have allocated is more than adequate. If
you drive by their front comer parking lot, you will see, in a lot of cases, It is not full.
Commissioner Henninger asked what was his biggest shift?
Mr. Vogt stated the day and night shHts at the material recovery facility are about the
same--about 50 employees each. Dudng the day there are a few extra handling the
transfer operations, but all of the dfirers and mechanics will be down the street at their 0
& M Center.
Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification N he had a 50 employee maximum per
shift at this site?
Mr. Vogt explained actually l~ ~vould be 50 employees in the material recovery facility and
12-15 employees processing refuse during the day In the yard. The day shift would be
larger by 12-15 employees. April 11th is the actual end of construction date for the Blue
Gum facility, but with the weather, it will slip a little bit.
Mr. Vogt stated one of his concerns regarding limiting the number of employees, is that h
really does not affect the truck trips like he thinks the Commission's goal is. It is a very
labor intensive process, so people would be added just to recover different commodities
as markets develop for them. To Iimft the number of employees at their facility at any
one time, might compromise their ability to meeting their recycling mandates.
Commissioner Henninger stated they could come back and ask for a change.
Commissioner Messe stated they are not against their expansion as long as k does not
hurt the neighborhood or impact the area. Perhaps they should Iimft the number of trips
to this facility.
02-23-94
Page 24
i~
Mr. Vogt stated the tonnage Iimftatlons they have really does control that. If they have to
~ shut the gates at a certain number of tons, then that automatically will regulate the
number of truck trips to the facility.
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering. He stated perhaps they could provkle him with a
detailed study as far as their peak time, the number of their employees and what
percentage of them come in cars; what percentage car pod and what percentage take
public transportation to know exactly what the demand is H that is what the concem is.
Commissioner Messe stated their concem is more of the business exparxling beyond
what K is now. He is not concerned about whether this parking variance will impact the
area anymore. He thinks h is probably alright as stated in the report.
Commissioner Henninger suggested they add a conditlon saying no shift larger than 78
people.
Commissioner Boydstun's dialogue was not recorded as her microphone was off and not
audible to the Secretary.
Mr. Vogt stated right now residential recycling is at almost 2596. They will be doing more
commercial recycling. He could easily see a shift size double what it is today, but that is
not Increasing the scope or expanding their operation outside of their walls.
Commissioner CalrYweii asked where are they going to park?
Mr. Vogt stated they are going to be removing many of the employees from the facility
and they will be parking at 1231 N. Blue Gum. They also own industrial property north of
F ; Gretta Lane which the buildings ore vacant. They do not have a parking problem or a
concem at all.
Commissioner Messe stated they have two parking tots across Blue Gum that are
unpaved and in bad shape. He asked what they were doing about that?
Mr. Vogt stated that is an outcropping from when they built their 0 & M Center north o ~
Blue Gum. They had a fuel tank removal in which case they found contaminated soli.
They had a fuel clean-up that lasted almost one year. It put them one year behind. As
soon as the center is done, then all of the vehicles seen on the northeast comer of Blue
Gum and La Palma, will Immediately be moved to that yard.
Commissloner Messe asked about the southeast comer of Blue Gum and La Palma?
Mr Vogt explained part of the solution to that is item number 8. They just approved the
sliver of properly eastbound. Their goal is to get rid of both of those yards..
Commissloner Messe stated he was satisfied wfth item no. 7 except he would Tike to see
them tie it to their present operation. Perhaps they could tie h to their present customer
base. If they add, then they can come back.
02-23.94
Page 25
Mr. Vogt stated it seems like that would Iimft their ability to do business on a dally basis.
It is a competitive business and their goal is to obviously be competkfve in the market
place and if they have to go through a lengthy approval process to bring a new customer
In, that makes them virtually uncompetitive. A lot of the customers that they currently
have and would have in the future, have done business with them in the past. Their
customer base continually fluctuates. People have needs and come to them for short
periods of time and then they leave. Other customers replace them. They really feel that
their permit, which mandates the amount of refuse they are allowed to take in on a daily
basis, is really the best vehicle for contrNling that.
Further discussion took place regarding this issue between Mr. Hoyt and the
Commission.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarHfcation as to how much tonnage he is allowed and
Mr. Vogt stated 4,168 tons per day.
Discussion took place regarding percentage of tonnage.
Greg McCafferty, Planning Department, explained they are curcently allowed by the State
to process 4,166 tons per day. He further explained they had a meeting wfth Community
Development staff and at that meeting, they were told they were curcently at about 4096
capacity.
Mr. Vogt stated the 4096 number is Incorcect. He explained that would put it at about
1,000 tons a day and they have not been that low since the day they opened. On any
given day they are between 2,500 and 3,000 tons. The fifth of July they will be at 4,000
tons. Historically it is the busiest day of the year. It varies avidly in between those
numbers. On a Saturday, they will be at 500 tons a day. During the week they would
never be under 2,400 to 2,500 tons. He added, because of the hours their route trucks
run, they really operate a lot at non-peak hours.
Their commercial trucks leave the yard at 4:30a.m. and are off the roads by 12:OOp.m.
and 2:OOp.m. Their transfer trucks start at S:OOa.m. and are off the road by 3:OOp.m. to
3:30p.m.
Melanie Adams asked about condition no. 3 as the applicant had some concerns. She
explained there are two alternatives. 1) As listed in the staff report; and 2) "prior to the
Issuance of a building permit, that an agreement be submitted to the Building Division for
review and approval by the City Attorney's office agreeing to record the parcel map or lot
line adjustment prior to their requesting a Certfficate of Occupancy.' If that is agreeable
wfth the City Attorney.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, indicated that would be fine.
Mr. Vogt Indicated that would be fine.
02-23-94
Page 26
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
~ Approved WaNer of Code Requirement
' Approved Condkional Use Pernik No. 3359, as readvertfsed, wkh following
changes to condkions.
Modkied Condkion No. 3 to read as follows:
3. That prior to Issuance of a building permk, an agreement shall be
submkted to the Public Works Department, SubdNlsion Section for
review and approval by the City Attamey's office agreeing to record
Parcel Map No. 90.236 or a lot line adjustment plat, such that the entire
building is wkhin one parcel, prior to the request of a cert'rficate of
occupancy.
Added the following condkion:
That the tonnage shail be Iimked to four thousand one hundred sbcty eight
(4,168) tons per day.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tak absent)
~~
~..
°~t
02-23.94
Page 27
l,J
8a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATI0~1
8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
Bc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3662
OWNER: WEST STREET DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., P.O. Box 18021,
Anaheim, CA 92817
LOCATION: 8270 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately
.94 acre located on the south skis of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
and approximately 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont
Boulevard.
To permit a 4,416 square foot private educational facility (pre-schod to 3rd
grade) and a 4,372 square foot church wfth waNers of minimum landscape
setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary and minimum setback of
institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary.
Continued to
March 7, 1994
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COM1111SSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued to the March 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
l,/
02-23-94
Page 28
5
- T -
9a. ~EOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3663
OWNER: INTERCHEMICAL CORPORATION, Attn: Donald 8. Smkh, 100
Cherry Hill Road, Parsippang, NJ 07054
AGENT: GRIFFITH COMPANY, Attn: Thomas Foss, 2020 S. Yale Street,
Santa Ana, CA 92704.3974
LOCATION: 1244 N. Lemon Street. Property is approximately 6.12
acres located on the east side of Lemon Street and
approximately 830 feet south of the centerline of Commercial
Street.
Continued to
March 7, 1994
To permk the manufacturing of road base material from recycled asphaltic
concrete and ono 160 square toot modular office unk.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
~^,
.. ,~ ACTION: Continued to the March 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tak absent)
02-23-94
Page 29
Ore/
__ _. ..irf.2,..,..____. ._._.._.
10a. ,~tlA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
10b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.93-94-08
10c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
10d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3884
Approved
Granted, uncondit(onally
Approved
Granted
OWNER: GEORGE D. KENTNER TRUSTEE, 5810 E. La Palma Ave.,
Anaheim, CA 92807; ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL
SERVICES AGENCY, Attn: Charles W. West, P.O. BOX
4106, Santa Ana, CA 92702
AGENT: JAEDUK AHN, 5810 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA
92807
LOCATION: 5810 - 5940 E. La Palma Ave. Property is approximately
1.31 sores located on the south skle of La Palma Avenue
and approximately 1,020 feet east of the ~entedine of
Imperial Highway.
To reclassify the subject property from the RS•A-43,000 (SC) (FP)
(Residential/Agricultural-Scenic Corridor Overlay-Flood Plain Overlay]
Zone to the CL (SC) (FP) (Commercial, Limited - Scenic Corridor
Overlay -Flood Plain Overlay) Zone.
To expand an existing carwash facility by adding an auto service facility
within the flood plain overlay zone wfth waiver of minimum structural
setback and yard requirements and required she screening.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC9427
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9428
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIGN. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIOWER:
George Kentner, 5810 E. La Palma, Anaheim Hills Car Wash. They secured a lease from
the County.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the plan that staff was looking for, was
submitted showing the trees as well as the vines-there is a landscaping adjarent to the
back of the build(ng facing the rl\rer trail.
02-23-94
Page 30
t../
Mr. Kentner explained the car wash has been in existence for about 8 years and they
!~ secured a base for some property along the back by the bike trail. They propose to put
a oil Change weft that would work in conjunction wfth a car wash. Every car would be
washed; pay for thetr services; and pick up their car on the other end whether it was a
wash or an oil change. They were trying to Include that with their servA:es for their
existing customers.
He referenced the plans and Mr. Hastings thought they should put some more trees
along the back to screen the bike trail in order's help block the p~vking from the bike
trail that goes along the river bed.
There was a question about a bottleneck in the area where you get your car vacuumed.
In the past few years them • .,ve been several car washes in the area that have opened.
They have no problem wfth stacking anymore, It is non existent.
They added some vines along the bark of the building to help out in case of graffiti.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Henninger asked about their detail operation.
Mr. Kentner stated there, is a canopy where they do some polishing and wax(ng. The
people that work fnr tnem have their lunch under the canopy. It gives them some shade.
He thought h cold stay. The cars will be going through the car wash and not ar.-und
behind the car wash to get to the oli change unft.
.~
( They will give a break on the car wash ff they get an oli change.
Commissioner Henninger expressed concern that the canopy would Interfere wfth the
backup room for some of the parking spaces.
Mr. Kentner stated he did not think it would. They could remove the canopy ff they had
to. Most of h is employee parking.
Chairman Peraza asked how long the lease was font
Mr. Kentner explained they have a lease for 5 years.
Mr. Kentner stated they are also moving the trash area to the east of the property. Right
now that will gF~e :f rem a Ifttie more stacking area and a turn-around for the trash truck.
Mr. Yalda suggested that. They are also closing off the one driveway In the center of the
project which should help wfth the flow of the traffic and give them a little more stacking
area.
Commissioner Henninger asked how large the detail area was and Mr. Kentner stated it is
0 feet wide (or 200 square feet). He asked staff what they wanted to do wfth the detail
area?
02.23.94
Page 31
~../
Mr. Hastings explained as long as it is shown on the plan and does not Interfere with the
!'"~ 24-foot backup area required by Code, he dkf not think staff would have a problem.
Thay would consider that as part of the car wash. Nomrally they are concerned about
outdoor uses, but since a ponlon of the car wash is outdoors anyway, this would go
along wfth that.
Commissioner Caldwell asked how this revised plan affected the wavers being asked for?
Mr. Hastings stated Waivers 'A' and 'B" would still be required, however, staff could sae
that there would be some type of hardship because of the size and shape of the property
and that there is really no reason for the site screening.
Commissioner Henninger stated basically a lot of this use is outside of the property on a
lease area, so technically the waivers are needed.
Mr. Hastings explained the waivers pertain to property adjacent to a zone, not necessarily
adjacent to a property line-there is no property line, h is simply a lease Tine at the south
end.
Mr. Hastings stated staff had some corrections to the cond(tions:
Condition no. 8 should read: 'That prior to approval of a grading plan,` rather than 'Prfcr
to removal of a grading plan.'
Condition no. 13 should read: That the tube and oil structure' rather than the tube and
tune structure.'
(~- Condition No. 16 should read: Should reflect condftions `3 and 14' rather than "3 and _4.'
Mr. Hastings stated that this use should be tied to the car wash, I.e., H the car wash goes
out of business, this business would be Integrated into one project. If that does occur,
then they could come back and amend the condftlon wfth the Commission's review and
approval wRh the revised She Plan.
ACTION: Approved NegatNe Declaration
Granted Reclassification No. 93-94.06, UncondRionally
Approved Waiver of Cade Requirement
Granted Condftional Use Permft P:o. 3664 wRh the following changes:
(Action continued or neM page)
02.23-94
Page 32
(Item No. 10 -Action continued hom previous page)
Modflied Condition Nos. 8, 13 and 16 to read as fellows:
8. That prior to approval of a grading plan or Issuance of a building permit,
whichever occurs first, the property owner shall submR a Water Gluality
Management Plan (WOMP) specifically IdentHying best management
practices that will be used on-sfle to coMrd predictable polutants from
stomiwater runoff. The WOh1P shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department, Subdivision Section for review and approval.
13. That the luxe and oli-change structure shall be setback a minimum of
three (3) feet from the southerly lease Iine in order to allow a planting
area with shrubs and vines to prevent graffiti opportunflies. Plans
subm:~ed for building permits shall reflect this requirement.
16. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condflion Nos. 3 and
14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Added the following conditions:
That this conditional use permft is valid as long as there is a lease in effect
with the County of Orange.
That the lube and oil-change facility is accessory to the car wash.
That ff the applicant chooses to maintain the auto detailer, he shall submft a
' revised plan showing its location. The auto detail canopy may not exceed two
hundred (200) square feet.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
'''~~
Y,
02-23-94
Page 33
~..~
~ 1 ta. [`EOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPT -CLASS 15 No action
11 b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.90-273 Approved
OWNER: STERIK COMPANY, 628 Moraga Dr., Bel Air, C'A 90049
AGENT: A. J. KOLTAVARY CIVI! ENGINEERS, 1151 Dove SL,
#210, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: X1.121 North Beach BoulevaM. Property is
approximately 6.4 aces located at the northwest comer of
Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard.
To create a 2-tot commercial subdivision.
(Originally advertised for the Zoning Administrator meeting of February 17.
1994.)
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITONER:
The applicant was not present.
lam; THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
None.
ACTIf3y: Approved Tentative Farcel Map No. 90-273.
VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
02-23-94
Page 34
12. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3550 -REVIEW OF FINAL PLAN Approved final
Gregory Slmonoff Archkects (20101 Southwest Birch Street, Ste. 210, plans and exhibks
Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707) requests review of final she plan,
elevations, landscape plans and roof-mounted equipment details for
Condkional Use Permk No. 3550 (to permit a 172,231 square foot Super K-
Mart Store). Property is located at 1095 Pullman Street.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2910 -SUBSTANTIAL Continued to
CONFORMANCE REVIEW OF REVISED PLANS: Cky inkiated. March 21, 1994
Condkional Use Permk No. 2910 for substantial conformance review of
revised plans In conjunction wkh a child day care facilky for a maximum of
24 children and two multiple- family dwelling unks located at 1108 N.
Acacia.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adJoumed at 3:50 p.m. to the 10:00 A.M., March 7, 1994, Work
Session wkh Araheim City School District to discuss their 1993 Facilfties
Master Plan.
fr~3
05-23-94
Page 35