The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1998/04/27SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1998 11:00 A.M. • DISCUSSION OF THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WEST ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION). • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES, PERAZA COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE ONE VACANT SEAT STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Cheryl Flores Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Richard Bruckner Andy Agle Tom Engle Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Senior Planner Sr. Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Community Development Community Development Police Department Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary P: DOCS\CLERICAL\M I N UTES\AC042798.DOC 04-27-98 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None A. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMITY: Determined to be Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Andy Agle, 201 South in conformance with Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805, requests determination of the Anaheim General conformity of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the West Plan Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project with the City of Anaheim General Plan. (Vote: 6-0, 1 vacant seat) RESOLUTION NO. PC98-60 Andy Agle, Redevelopment Agency: Requested that the Commission find the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the West Anaheim Commercial Corridor to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. The Redevelopment Plan has been written in such a way that it will be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan as it now exist and may be amended in the future. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated that this action by the Planning Commission is a ministerial action and as such is statutorially exempt from CEQA. 04-27-98 Page 2 B. a. NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3957 -REQUEST FOR Determined to be in DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: CH substantial Anaheim, LTD, c/o Crown Realty & Development, Inc., Attn: conformance with Fritz Howser, 20101 SW Birch Street, Suite 260, Newport Beach, previously approved CA 92660, requests determination of substantial conformance plans for apreviously-approved planned "mixed-use" commercial center. Property is located at 2001-2221 East Katetla Avenue and 1750 South State College Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Bpydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved Negative Declaration serves as the required environmental documentation for this request. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the modified plans (Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1-A, Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 15 and Exhibit No. 23) are in substantial conformance with the plans originally approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3657, based on the following: (i) That no adjacent and nearby properties or uses will be adversely impacted. (ii) That the off-street parking provided for the modified land uses and square footages is consistent with the originally approved shared parking. 12AS.DOC Applicant's Statement: Fritz Howser, Crown Realty & Development was present to answer any questions. 04-27-98 Page 3 G. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION /PREY.-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3363- REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE• Vineyard Christian Fellowship, 5340 East La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92807, requests determination of substantial conformance to expand an existing warehouse and a recording studio and to construct a new 353 square foot entrance and a 312 square foot office mezzanine for an existing 81,938 square foot building in conjunction with apreviously-approved church. Property is located at 5300 East La Palma Avenue -Vineyard Christian Fellowship. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved Negative Declaration serves as the required environmental documentation for this request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed modifications are in substantial conformance with the original approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3363 based on the following: (i) The proposed additions are minor in relation to the overall size of the existing facilities and Code-required parking is provided for the proposed changes and additional square footage. (ii) The previously-approved operations on the site have not changed and the proposed improvements are reasonably similar to the original approval. Approved Determined to be in substantial conformance with previously approved plans Applicant's Statement: Chris DeWitt was present to answer any questions. 04-27-98 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2b. OWNER: Gary Calkins and Elaine Calkins, 6263 East Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 6263 East Trail Drive. Property is 3.75 acres located on the north side of Trail Drive, 162 feet west of the centerline of Whitestone Drive. To establish a 2-lot single family residential subdivision. Approved Approved ® m o ® • o Applicant's Statement: Carl Kritziger, 680 Londery Lane, Anaheim, CA: Stated before Commission is Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212, Revision No. 1, which has been reviewed by the staff, which is for two lots only. They reviewed the staff report and had the following comments: Item No. 10 -The applicant has meet all the property setbacks and compliances. They also exceed the code requirements for the street frontage and are within the requirements for the density of the subdivision. e Item No. 15 - On the grading reports they are in the process working with Melanie Adams from the Public Works Department putting together a grading map and will be turning it in this week. The rest of the recommendations are for approval of the Negative Declarations and Conditions as submitted for o Conditions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, they do not have any problems with. • Condition No. 4 - As previously discussed, they will submit the grading plan including earthwork calculations and an erosion control plan to the Public Works Department this week. m Condition No. 5 -That the legal property owner shall dedicate a 20-foot wide easement to the City of Anaheim along the Trail Drive for public utilities purposes. He asked for a clarification whether it is for access only or for actual placement of public utilities because the driveway will be in the process of being upgraded and has trees and final paving along there. By doing that they want to understand that the work that will be put in place will not be removed or replace without prior consent. They asked for clarification to understand what it is referring to before they agree to this. (Chairman Bostwick interjected that they would get him an answer to that question..] Item No. 7 -They are in agreement with as far as the damage during the construction. Item No. 6 -That the improvement certificate shall be placed on the final parcel map stating that new 12-inch duct the iron pipe water main looping shall be constructed from the easterly portion of Trail Drive, to the westerly portion of Trail Drive to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department. This is the first finding that they have seen in this process that has indicated this. If this was to stand, it would create a complete hardship for the development of a single lot. They only received this report on Friday and this morning Elaine (Calkins] met with the Public Works Department and the Water Division. She understands that there may be alternative ways to do that. They do not feel that would be their responsibility to put in a 12-inch water main to loop the two tracts together. The water service 04-27-98 Page 5 that they have up there is adequate for the development that they are doing. He asked for a clarification on that matter. Stated he had just been handed a letter to the Commissioners stating., "We request that if the above mentioned tract map is approved a recommendation is made that no construction vehicles be allowed to be parked on Trail Drive or Quintana to east of the Seigel driveway. That Mr. Calkins has plenty of site space for construction vehicles especially at the bottom of his property to do that. Thank you for considering our safety and importance:' signed by the people in the neighborhood. They do not have any problem with that either. Basically those are the items that they needed to address and hope that they can go forward with the approval of this as recommended by staff. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Stated she just spoke with Mr. Bruce Bowman, Civil Engineer in the Water Engineering Division and he had not received the revised map and did not realize that there were just two parcels involved on the revision. Being such she would recommend Condition No. 6 be deleted. If there were any further subdivisions of the property she would reanalyze it at that time. She did however request the 20 foot wide easement as listed in Condition No. 5 for that future water line. Chairman Bostwick: Asked typically when putting in a waterline are they going to speak to the property owner and work out the reconstruction of the property and put it back the way it was? Melanie Adams: Generally, yes. It could be any location approved by the Water Division. Commissioner Boydstun: Condition No. 7, would they do it with a bond? Commissioner Henninger: He thought it should be added that to Condition No. 7. Also suggested adding a condition regarding construction equipment parking. Melanie Adams: Asked whether he mentioned something about a bond on Condition No. 7? Commissioner Henninger: Is a bond is done for repairs? Melanie Adams: Only for public improvements and this is a private road. Commissioner Henninger: What if someone injures the private street, how do they secure this condition? Melanie Adams: They have not taken bonds in the past on the private roads. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested adding a condition that repairs be done before occupancy is provided. Cheryl Flores: For the record, letters were received, one from the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, one from Mr. Neil Seigel, a neighbor, and then one from a person who identified themselves as a concerned Anaheim citizen. The applicant did refer to another letter containing several names of residences in the neighborhood that is also part of the record. OPPOSITION: None/Correspondence was received. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212, Revision No. 1, with the following changes to conditions: Deleted Conditton No. 6 04-27-98 Page 6 Modified Condition No. 7 to read as follows: 7. That the developer shall be responsible for all repairs for Trail Drive in the event that this private street is damaged during construction. Any damage shall be repaired prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Added the following condition: That there shall be no parking of construction vehicles on Trail Drive, westnf the property line or on Quintana Drive. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Setma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (1:40-1:50) 04-27-98 Page 7 3b. VARIANCE NO. 4356 OWNER: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, One North Broadway, Suite 500, White Plains, New York 10601 AGENT: The Muller Company, 100 Pacifica, Suite 350, Irvine, CA 92618 LOCATION: 1500 South Anaheim Boulevard and 300 East Cerritos Avenue. Property is 18.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. Waivers of (a) minimum structural and landscape setback, (b) permitted encroachment in setback area, (c) minimum parking lot landscaping and (d) required improvement of right-of-way to construct a 271,775 square foot industrial building in conjunction with the demolition of one existing industrial building and the renovation of one existing industrial building. Continued from the Commission meetings of March 30, and April 13, 1998. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC98.61 SR s o s • o 0 (Chairman Bostwick: Announced Commissioner Bristol would conduct this item because he had a Conflict of Interest.] Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated for the benefit of the audience that they do have a revised staff report concerning this item that is available at the back of the Council Chamber or at the Planning Department front counter noted as "Staff Report Revised April 27, 1998" in bold print at the top of the report. Applicant's Statement; David Recupero, 15052 Springdale, Huntington Beach, CA: Stated he is a consultant in governmental relations representing the Muller Company, who are the agents for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The proposed site was formerly OSCO/Sav-on Warehouse Distribution Center. This company has been working with staff for the last five months in an attempt to bring a new development in the City of Anaheim. This property is appropriately zoned industrial (General Plan Industrial). While the company could have used the existing building, Metropolitan Life has chosen to invest in Anaheim with a 22 million dollar investment and build a new building at the corner of Cerritos and Anaheim Boulevard. As indicated in the staff report, there are four variance requests that have been submitted to for Commission's review and approval. Staff concurs with three of them, 1) the 8-foot wrought iron fence in the front on Cerrritos, 2) the landscaping within the parking lot every 10 spaces, and 3) the street improvements along Cerritos Avenue. They have staff support and concur with the recommendations. The forth recommendation however is most important to the company and that is the setback along Anaheim Blvd. Mr. Muller, president of the company, will be discussing that in detail. Basically that is a key element and he referenced photo renderings which showed the differences between what the company is proposing with the 30 foot setback verses a 10 foot landscape zone adjacent to Anaheim Blvd. The proposal before Commission, as Mr. Muller will indicate, is really in the interest of the City as one of the gateways to the Anaheim community. 04-27-98 Page 8 The Circulation Element of the General Plan specifically addresses a city planning policy applicable to this project. It gives the Planning Commission the authority to approve a variance request, because the policy specifically states that consideration is to be given to aesthetics, landscaping and ease of driver orientation in the development of arterial highways. They firmly believe that the photo renderings will facilitate that particular policy. Commission will hear today from the property owners immediately across the street from the subject property who have raised some concern relative to parking the trucks. They have met with the owner and the manager of the facility across the street at the Anaheim Marketplace and they believe that they have answers to facilitate their concerns about on-site parking. Steve Muller, president of the Muller Company, 100 Pacifica, Irvine, CA: Stated they are the developer of this project along with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The site was formerly a Sav-on distribution facility. It had very limited truck loading area and yet there were 44 truck stations there. Their plan is to demolish the building that was built in the early 60's that faces Anaheim Boulevard and replace it with a new state of the art facility on half of the site and refurbished the rear building. (He asked Anita Leaver, from their office, who has worked on the project, to point out on their rendering as he discussed this project.] The building in the back currently has loading that faces out on Cerritos Avenue. What they are doing is making that loading feasible for that building by moving the loading from Cerritos Avenue to the west elevation between that and the new building that they will be building. They then designed a building where they set back the loading as far as they can from the street on Cerritos. They have worked with staff to design landscaping so the truck loading in that area will not be seen facing Cerritos Avenue. Doing so because of the constraints of the site and the way they want to put atwo-story office at that corner which will be the main entrance to the building. This is a fairly large building. They wanted it fronting the intersection. (Anita showed the Commissioners the elevation of the corner of their building on the renderings.] This has lead them to the design that they are proposing, atwo-story glass building. In laying this site out they did run into the existing condition that there is a 50-foot setback and they have an irregular shaped street in front of their property, with the widening of Anaheim Blvd. Therefore, their variance request is asking for the 50-foot setback modified to an average of 30 feet in that it narrows to 25 feet and then 37 feet on most of the area. If they were to move the building back 13 or 15 feet along Anaheim Boulevard, only 10 feet of landscaping is required, parking can then be installed. Their proposal is to grant a variance so it can be landscaped. The building will also make a statement off the freeway on Anaheim Boulevard, a nice landscaped area, whereas if you come up Anaheim Boulevard most of the area has sidewalks right up against the curb and no landscaping. They feel that this would be very attractive and yet allows them to put a big corner office out in front where people can view this coming up and down Anaheim Boulevard. They are excited about starting construction on this project and ask that in addition to the staffs recommendation of the other three variances that they also be granted the fourth variance. Jim Schrader, Donjon Engineering, 5150 E. La .Palma Ave, Anaheim, CA: Stated Condition No. 7 on page 9 of the revised staff report requests a 10 foot radius for the curb returns turning in and ouf of the driveways. There are standards for both 10 and 15 feet. They would like to have the curve radius as it is shown on the site plan which are 15 and 25. The reason for this is that they want the improved truck access coming into the property. There is 25 feet where their main corridor comes in for truck access. They want to have no impact, if possible, on Cerritos Avenue where they have that 25 foot radius. Therefore, they would like a modification to Condition No. 7 for the 10 foot to read 15 and 25 feet as indicated in the site plan. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: Stated they had no problems with that request. 04-27-98 Page 9 Public Testimony Tom Kieviet, of Farano and Kieviet, 2300 E. Katella Ave, Anaheim, CA: Stated he was present on behalf of the property owners next to the property on the other side of Cerritos Avenue. Namely Edga Enterprises, Inc. and Anaheim Lederer Ltd. They own 1440 and 1490 South Anaheim Boulevard which consist of, the Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant property and the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace property. The General Manager of the Anaheim Marketplace, Robert Weiss and a principal of the property of Anaheim Lederer Ltd. were in the audience. They are not in opposition to the proposed project but rather are concerned about the availability of the truck parking on-site which this facility has had in the past and could potentially have in the future. They met with the property owners and have had fruitful discussions as far as the possible proposed mitigated measures. They appear to be professional people that may not create problems as Tong as they own and run the project, but their concern is that once this variance is granted and the building is built that there be assurances that the building can accommodate potential uses that can occur in the future. In the past when it was a distribution center for Sav-on there was frequent truck loading dock areas that would fill up resulting in parking in the free lane along Cerritos Avenue, on the property at 1440 and 1490 South Anaheim Boulevard, resulting in damage to the driveway areas of the shopping center area as well as the street because of the excessive truck parking and traffic problems. This project appears to be proposing what appears to be a similar amount of truck docking areas according to the renderings and elevations provided which show substantially more truck doors than the current facility. There are currently 11 facility truck doors. There is a potential for 50 but they designate 41 possible truck doors. Their concern is that unless adequate on-site truck staging parking is provided that this truck parking will overFlow into the street and onto his client's property resulting in further problems which presumably Code Enforcement has experienced in the past as his clients. In the past they have had as many as 15 to 20 trucks outside the facility at one time. In their discussions with the proposed developer they have expressed to them their concern about the need for on site parking and they have addressed that concern by proposing preliminarily, at least in some areas, where trucks could be parked waiting to unload. While they appreciate their efforts to provide the on-site truck staging areas, they would feel, at minimum, if a variance to the setback request is granted that there would be a condition in the variance that would require the applicant to provide a certain number of truck staginglparking areas on-site for as many truck loading areas as they may have. They propose that there be at least one truck staging parking areas for every 2 truck loading areas. In other words, if they have 40 truck Loading areas they should have 20 on-site truck parking areas available. In their plans they have indicated the ability to have 15 truck parking areas. That may be contingent on the ultimate number of doors that are placed in the facility and the need to have more truck parking areas if there are additional doors to be added in the future. They appreciate the effort to upgrade the area that this development proposes to do, however instead of necessarily decreasing the facility in size it's an actual incrEase in overall warehouse capacity. They will be taking down an office structure-that fronts Anaheim Boulevard and while some of it will be replaced by office, the bulk of it will be replaced by a warehouse. The height of the warehouse facility will be increased substantially to allow more warehousing cubic square feet to be used. If this was implemented, there will potentially be three times as much warehouse facility as the existing product has which could result and generate substantially more truck traffic which is their principle concern. If they can accommodate their concern regarding the truck parking on-site then they would not necessarily oppose this project. They hope to work with them'in this regard but feel at minimum a condition needs to be added, if granted, regarding the setback. That there be at least one truck parking space for every two truck loading areas that are permitted on the facility. Mr. Muller: Stated if someone went and counted doors on the building they would be mislead. On the existing building what is causing the problem is that there are 44 truck dock positions where Sav-on was backing trailers up to dock levelers on the dock. They are not adding any additional trailers to the building. 04-27-98 Page 10 In the past there was no place for the trucks to pull into the property. Sav-on had a truck terminal there whereas they are building awarehouse/manufacturing assembly type building. They are charging rents much higher than warehouse distributions can charge. They are proposing parking that exceeds the code. They are going to try to take advantage of the roof deck parking to attract a good employer to the City. They are not looking for a truck terminal. He believes that their building works and can support that with staff. David Recupero: Stated one other clarification the engineer brought to his attention is on Condition No. 17 of the conditions indicates the combination of the Tots into one parcel. It is actually going to be two parcels. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger: Asked staff what their thoughts were on Item No. 17? Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Stated they have objections with Item No. 17. Commissioner Henninger: Do the two lots stand alone with regard to their parking for instance, or do they need to have a reciprocal parking agreement if the two lots are maintained? Melanie Adams: Responded she want not certain and would then need to check with Zoning on that. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Asked Don Yourstone, from Code Enforcement if there have been problems with violations on this site in previous years with parking? Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: Responded not on this site in question but on the site of the Anaheim Markeplace. They have a letter from the property authorizing Code Enforcement and the Police Department to issue parking citations to trucks that are using their parking lot for their parking. They have issued some citations out there. They would need a citation number or license number of the vehicle as a reference point to be able to determine the amount of violations cited. They can not track by address only. They have issued parking citations out there at the discretion of their security staff on the site. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Asked if he had any idea when that period of time might have been? Don Yourstone: Responded this was months prior to this company taking over. This was when the Sav- on Company was there. Alfred Yalda: Stated they should have a reciprocal access and parking agreement because of the way the plans are designed, should one property sell and build on it they are going to cut off their truck turning movements and parking. Commissioner Henninger: Stated if paragraph 17 is deleted they would like to replace it with a requirement that they submit reciprocal parking and access plans. Jim Shrader: Asked if they could get it to read as "lwo parcels" because currently there are three with the parking access would be more correct. Commissioner Henninger: Asked whether they are going to submit a lot line adjustment merging it into two? Jim Shrader: Responded yes, that is correct. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he had the sense that they should not approved a development proposal that varies from the plans for beautifying the entries coming into the City. He agreed with staff on the recommendation but at the same time he also tended to agree with the applicant that a 30 feet fully landscaped is a much better design alternative than a 10 feet with parking behind it. He then asked staff whether it would be appropriate to amend the Specific Plan in the area to provide that sort of alternative. 04-27-98 Page 11 Richard Bruckner, Redevelopment Agency: Stated that they had that very debate regarding the setback and whether it is better to allow a 10 foot landscaped space with parking behind it and then a building or a trade off fora 30 foot fully landscaped setback. In the Northeast Specific Plan this was resolved by allowing a choice by the applicant's part to either do the parking and then the building or do fully landscaped setback and bring the building slightly closer to the street. After evaluating this from a purely aesthetic point of view the 30 foot fully landscaped setback, they believe, will provide a nicer entry way to the City. It will allow large mature trees to grow unobstructed by hardscape. Allow them to be "much healthier and a finer entryway to the City. In addition, this applicant has chosen to conform with the street tree plan and plant all the required street trees through this stretch of Anaheim Boulevard conforming with the trees that have recently been planted there. So the combination of the street trees both the understory trees and the Palm trees along with the 30 foot fully landscaped setback creates a nice tone into the entryway for the City. The Community Development Department can support this. They understand however that there is a problem with the Code. Therefore, they would be happy to work with the Planning Department to look further at this Code revision. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Asked Mr. Bruckner if the Redevelopment Agency was happy with how it now looks? Richard Bruckner: Responded yes, they have been very cooperative in dealing with the elevation to provide some relief to the elevation. It is a very large building, there is over 200,000 square feet but given the size and scale of it the landscaping certainly helps out that and they have made modifications which the applicant can describe. Commissioner Peraza: Stated he understood that there is roof top parking in one of those buildings. Is there something that can be done to have the employees park on the roof so they could have the ground parking for trucks? Commissioner Henninger: Recommended adding a condition that they will have all truck parking on-site. That gives Code Enforcement the and the Police Department the leverage they need to enforce it. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she believed the building where they go sits back farther now whereas before if there were long trucks that could not get on-site. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Stated he thought the independent truckers were violating the parking. Don Yourstone: Stated there was no definite identification that the trucks were coming from Sav-on. It could have been a truck coming from anywhere. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended approving all four waivers. Amend Condition No. 7 to state that all driveways shall be constructed with a "minimum" of 10 foot curb radius. Condition No. 17 change (the third line) the word from "one" to "two". Add a condition that the applicant will provide reciprocal parking and access agreements between the two properties which will be reviewed by the City Attorney and then recorded. Add a condition that all truck parking shall be on-site. Selma Mann: Asked that Commissioner Henninger's recommendation be changed from an "agreement" to a "covenant". Commissioner Henninger: Responded yes, that would be fine. Discussion following the action: Following this item Commissioner Henninger asked staff to consider the Code setback requirement in this area and whether they want to bring forward an amendment to the code that allows this sort of option (the 30 foot fully landscaped setback). He also thought staff should take a close look at this landscape every 10 spaces and see if it might be appropriate to somehow amend that and allow a more workable option. Cheryl Flores: Asked if that would that be something Commission would want to consider when the landscape areas were out of the view of the public rights-of-way? 04-27-98 Page 12 Commissioner Henninger: He thought staff needs to look at that and return with a creative solution. Perhaps if they look more at the end areas on drive isles and collected that landscape area consolidated it in to those so that there would be a bigger planter area to accommodate more in the way of trees and would not cause those curb breaking problems that you see in small planters. Cheryl Flores: Responded staff will return to Commission with a proposed amendment to the code, as requested. OPPOSITION: 3 people present (1 person spoke) ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 4356 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 7 and 17 to read as follows: That all driveways shall be constructed with minimum ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137. 17. That a lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Engineer and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder to combine the existing lots adjacent to Cerritos Avenue and Claudina Street into two (2) parcels. Added the following conditions That an unsubordinated reciprocal access and parking agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. That all truck parking shall be kept on-site. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal .rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (1:51-2:23) 04-27-g6 Page 13 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4012 Granted for 1 year OWNER: John E. Biard and Garol D. Biard, trustees of The Biard (To expire 4-27-99) Family Trust, 18021 Weston Place, Tustin, CA 92780 AGENT: John E. Biard, 18021 Weston Place, Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1423 North State College Boulevard - Payless Carnet' Property is 0.61 acre located on the west side of State College Boulevard, 350 feet south of the centerline of Via Burton Street. To permit and retain a retail carpet store in the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone. Continued from the Commission meeting of April 13, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-62 SR7096TW Applicant's Statement: Nader Zarrabi, Carpet & Flooring, 1423 N. St. College Blvd., Anaheim, CA: States it appears that there are more conditions added then were last time. Condition No. 7, he did not understand it and asked for a clarification. Commissioner Henninger: Explained next year Mr. Zarrabi could request that Commission extend the time for a few more years or remove the condition all together. This condition is left this way because there have been some problems with the conduct of this property in the past. Nader Zarrabi: Stated Condition No. 1, regarding the iwo trailers they have in the back of their warehouse are basically used as a buffer. When large trucks come in (24 to 48 feet tong) they backup into the property. They only have a small alley on the left side of the building. When they come in it creates a traffic congestion on State College Boulevard. Once they come in they have to spend at least 1 to 2 hours for unloading purposes. Their neighbors have service trucks that go in and out. So every time they want to go out they have trucks leaving every 10 to 20 minutes ,but if they have to gas their truck again then the trucks have to come in the street again blocking the traffic. It creates a lot of traffic congestion. They have these trailers and then once they leave they have time to bring it inside the warehouse. That is the only reason they have the trailers. Commissioner Bristol: Asked the applicant to explain this again. Nader Zarrabi: Explained when the trucks (suppliers) come in they use two containers and pick up the merchandise, put it in there. When they have time, because it is very close, they back up almost to the trailers. So they can put them in the trailers and then when they leave, they do not have too long, half hour maximum. Then they move it inside of the building because they do not have a lodk on them. They do not want to store anything of value. They had problems with the trash bins that were broken and have since been replaced. They hired someone permanently, 5 days a week, to clean up and make sure everything is transferred quickly. He requested that the trailer remain. He requested that they be allowed to retain the trailer. Commissioner Henninger: Asked why is it that they can not unload quickly into their warehouse? 04-27-98 Page 14 Nader Zarrabi: Responded because the warehouse consists of racks and it takes a forklift to go in and one by one they have to set them up. Each roll takes about 15 minutes. Sometimes they are there a half a day. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if the containers are stacked up? Nader Zarrabi: Responded he stacks them up in there as soon as the truck arrives, the truck leaves then they take them in one by one. Commissioner Bristol: Asked when they are put in these trailers how fast will their employees put them inside the building? Nader Zarrabi: Responded a minimum of 2 hours depending on how many rolls. Commissioner Bristol: Asked how long are they stored in the trailers? Nader Zarrabi: Responded as soon as they come in they take them inside the same day. Commissioner Bristol: Stated looking at the configuration they are perpendicular to the west side. Are these trucks pulling in backwards? Nader Zarrabi: Yes. Commissioner Bristol: Stated they are pulled off then put them there for a time before moving them inside. Nader Zarrabi: Put them on the ground? Commissioner Bristol: Yes, but they can not do that overnight. Nader Zarrabi: Responded they are storing the merchandise. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if Code Enforcement had a problem with the containers being back there? Don Yourstone: Stated he had some photos that were taken on the April 21st that indicate that the material that are inside these trailers appears to be there for a long period of time. He suggested having the truck pull in, put the material on the ground or on pallets temporarily and if it is a matter of a couple of hours then they could move it inside their building. These trailers are probably taking up some of their required parking. Nader Zarribi: Stated in the past five years that they have been there, they never even had their employees park in the back. It is never used because they only have 1 - 3 customers a day and there is plenty of parking in the front. They even have their trucks sometimes park in the front. They never have a rash of customers come in at the same time. There is only two of them working there and now there is a third employee that does nothing but the warehouse maintenance. They tried putting the pallets down for awhile, but the pallets break, create a lot of debris, then the landlord, who is next door, complains because it leaves marks on the asphalt, so the asphalt is getting ruined now. They have tried everything that they could possibly try. The trailers are not locked up so that shows that they do not store anything of value in there. He did not know when the pictures were taken. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. (Some discussion among Commissioners.) Commissioner Henninger: Stated staff has not had much time to think about this, they could perhaps continue this item for 2 weeks and see what worked out. 04-27-98 Page 15 Cheryl Flores, Senicr Planner: Stated paragraph 12 of the staff report shows that they are one space over in parking. She was not sure if these two trailers take up just two spaces. Nader Zarrabi: Responded they each take one space. Cheryl Flores: Stated it is possible that one could be retained as long as it was not in a code required parking. They are over one and if he needed to retain two he could process a separate administrative adjustment for the parking if it's imperative that they retain it. She emphasized is that the area be kept neat and clean and if there is ever going to be storage., it would be inside these trailers with the doors closed. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Code Enforcement if he could see the photos? (Some discussion among Commissioners while looking at photos]. Nader Zarrabi: Stated the reason that they have two trailers is because some items come in on pallets and some are carpet rolls. You can not put a palette on top of a roll of carpet because they break.. So that is why they have one person for rolls and one for pallets. Commissioner Bristol: Asked staff wasn't this supposed to be re-striped a couple of meetings back? Cheryl Flores: Responded they have that as a condition of approval. Commissioner Bristol: Stated it was hard for him to determine how many spaces they had when he was out there. So he is not certain if it's taking up 1 or 2 spaces in the back. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the basic rule is that they want the businesses to be operating within the buildings and not outside. Although from the photos it appears that the neighbor next door is also doing a lot of storage outside. Chairman Bostwick: Stated that was his feeling. It just lends itself to breeding something that they have tried to clean up in the City. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if Code Enforcement is doing anything about the neighbor? Don Yourstone: Responded yes, they have that under inspection right now. Nader Zarrabi: Stated next door has so much parking that no one uses. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he did not doubt that there's more parking than needed there, parking is not the real issue. The issue is how orderly they want Anaheim to look. Nader Zan-obi: Stated that is why they have the trailers there, so they do not have everything-scattered all over the parking lot. Commissioner Henninger: Stated they don't even want the trailers out there Commissioner Bristol: Stated just remembering when he was out there on Saturday, the trash bins are on the north side of the fence. He asked why they? Is it because the trailers are there? Nader Zarrabi: Stated no not because of that. The trucks are very heavy when they try to make a turn there, they damage the asphalt. The landlord does not want them anywhere in here. He said to put them in the back and that's why they are on the outside. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Stated he may want to ask the applicant when are they going to resurface the parking lot. You cannot see any parking spaces out there. He has been out there several times and people don't even know where to park. Chairman Bostwick: Stated that is true, looking at the pictures, it looks like the asphalt pulverized 04-27-98 Page 16 Commissioner Henninger: Stated it doesn't even look like there is any asphalt according to the photos Chairman Bostwick: Stated there is grass growing through next to your trailers and it doesn't look like a parking lot. Cheryl Flores: Condition No. 4 addresses that parking area is to be refurbished but it is not until 90 days after the completion of the Riverside Freeway. If you're considering that you may want to put a sooner time frame on that. Commissioner Henninger: Why it was timed to the completion of the Riverside Freeway? Cheryl Flores: Responded Condition No. 4 was meant to reflect the landscaping adjacent to the on-ramp that is deteriorated right now. This should be separated out as far as the parking lot and that landscaping. During the voting: Commissioner Henninger Recommended amending Condition No. 4 and break it into two conditions and have the first part of it regarding on-site landscaping timed within 90 days of the completion of the current improvements to Riverside Freeway. The other condition have the parking area timed within 90 days of the date of this approval. Nader Zarrabi: Asked if he was allowed to keep the trailers? Commissioner Henninger: Responded no trailers. Nader Zarrabi: Stated in that case he would Tike to submit a form for a request to build some storage space. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the applicant could work with the Planning staff on that. He did not feel Commission would have a problem with a permanent structure. Cheryl Flores: Stated staff would have to look at that with regard to the parking, whether it needed a parking waiver, etc. Chairman Bostwick: Continued to do some plans and submit them to the Planning Department. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4012 for one year with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition No. 4 to read as follows; 4. That within ninety (90) days of the completion of construction of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway on-ramp, the on-site landscape shall be refurbished per Code requirements pertaining to required landscaping. Added the following condition: That within ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, the parking areas shall be refurbished per Code requirements pertaining to improvement of required parking areas. 04-27-98 Page 17 VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (2:25-2:44) 04-27-98 Page 18 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5-11-98 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4010 OWNER: Southern California Edison Company, 100 North Long Beach Blvd., #1004, Long Beach, CA 90802 AGENT: CGA Associates, Attn: Gavin Berry, 1525 Monrovia Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 LOCATION: 1505 South State College Boulevard. Property is 10 acres located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and State College Boulevard. To construct a 91,310 square foot self storage facility with waiver of minimum parking lot landscaping (deleted). Continued from the Commission meeting of March 30, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. to SR1046CF.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.. 04-27-98 Page 19 6a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 355 Request for Withdrawal 6c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-15 6d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4009 OWNER: Lincoln-Beach Associates, L.P., 14011 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 404, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 AGENT: Jordan-Valli Architects, Attn: Patrick Crowley, 34700 Pacific Coast Highway, #202, Gapistrano Beach, CA 92624 LOCATION: 2951-2961 West Lincoln Avenue.. Property is 3.0 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 300 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. General Plan Amendment No. 355 - To redesignate subject property from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. Reclassification No. 97-98-15 - To reclassify subject property from RM-1200 Zone to the CL Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4009 - To construct a 74,593 square foot self-storage facility with a caretaker's unit and an outdoor recreation vehicle storage lot with waiver of minimum structural setback. Continued from the Commission meeting of March 30, 1998 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to May 11, 1998 „FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING ",COMMISSION"ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the applicant to address staff concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 04-27-98 Page 20 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3823 (READVERTISED) Approved for 1 year OWNER: Calvin Williams and Claudia A. Williams, 4310 (To expire 3-4-99) Bergamo Drive, Encino, CA 91436 AGENT: Dawson Davenport, 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92718 LOCATION: 5693 East Orangethorpe Avenue -All American Sports Pub. Property is 1.9 acres located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway.. To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain an existing sports bar with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-63 Applicant's Statement: William Connors, 5693 East Orangethorpe, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is one of the principals involved with the All American Sports Club and would appreciate the Commission's recommendation to extend the CUP for one year. The Police Department stated a major problems that they have there is the open door . The reason for that is that they have a ventilation problem. It was brought to their attention that the owners of the strip mall would be involved in a renovation program, so they did not want to put in a ventilation system until they found out exactly what the owners were going to do. He understands that it is progress but a bond has not been posted. That is the reason for the door open at times. They want Commission to take this into consideration to see if they can still get a deletion of time limitation. He has spoken to the police officers about it, and at night their door has been opened because they can not put in a ventilation system. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Investigator Tom Engle, Police Vice Detail: Stated he was not aware that his ventilation system had not been installed yet. He thought that was a completed a Tong time ago. The reason they are saying that the front door is a problem is because as part of his conditions he has to have it closed. When they go out to do their inspections, either with Code Enforcement or in an undercover capacity, they look at all the conditions that Commission has placed upon that permit. Then they go from there in submitting their report. He was surprised that the ventilation system had not been done yet. William Connors: Stated there is a ventilation system but it is just not adequate. It's what was in there before. They would like to update it and make it more adequate for the Sports Club but they did not want to go ahead with that expenditure if the owner of that strip mall is going to renovate the property. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if they have a back door? William Connors: Responded yes. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if he was keeping it open so people can go out in the back and smoke? 04-27-98 Page 21 William Connors: Responded no. Some people do come in and smoke but that back door is never opened. Commissioner Bristol: So they go out the front door to smoke? William Connors: Yes. Commissioner Henninger: Asked the Police Department if there has been a problem with this use with the neighbors or other tenants in the center? Tom Engle: Responded no, there has been no problem. They have had a few complaints here and there but nothing of substantial nature. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated staff would recommend that they retain the one year time limit due to the close proximity to the residential neighborhoods and the fact that there have been complaints even though they may be considered minor and few at this time. It would be relevant to retain the one year time limit. In paragraph 15( b), as it suggests, the condition should read, "for one year to expire on March 4, 1999" rather than from the date of this resolution as printed in the report. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the applicant had any idea when the owners are going to do the remodeling? William Connors: Stated he called the City about two weeks ago and they indicated that there was a bond that had to be posted and as of that time it had not been posted. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended Commission approved this for one year it and see how this ventilation will be cared for then perhaps at that time it can extend it longer. Commissioner Henninger: Stated Commission has been keeping a tight reign on all the bars in the city. It is very typical to have them on 1 or 2 years, and it this time he would be hard pressed to remove this condition entirely. William Connors: Asked if this does not prevent them after the year is expired to go ahead to try to get the deletion of time limitation? Commissioner Henninger: Responded that was correct. Following the voting: Chairman Bostwick: Asked Code Enforcement to look at graffiti and trash enclosures at the property and the doors in poor shape. Even though they are behind the building they need to look at that and make sure they are according to Code. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved amendment to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3823. Amended Condition No. 16 of Resolution No. PC96-31 as follows, based on the finding that the conditions under which Conditional Use Permit No. 3823 was originally approved still exist; furthermore, the conditional use permit is being exercised substantially in compliance with the conditions of approval at this time, however, previous violations cited by the Police Department indicate that continuation of the time limitation is appropriate: 04-27-98 Page 22 "16. That subject use permit shall be permitted for a period of one (1) year and shall expire on March 4, 1999:' VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (2:45-2:52) 04-27-98 Page 23 8a. 8b. OWNER: Henry W. Ortlieb, 716 South Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Anthony P. Cara, Attorney, 1851 East First Street, #900, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 716 South Beach Boulevard. Unit B -Coastal Checker Cab Comoanv. Property is 1.0 acre located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Stonybrook Drive. To permit and retain an existing taxi dispatch facility including taxi cab auto repair and maintenance. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-64 Denied ~° '~' ;~~.~- ~F.OLLOWING IS A SUMMARYOF THE,R~LANNING COMMISSION ACTION.,,,;; _", Applicant's Statement: Jahad Elkaraci, owner of Checker Cab Co.: Stated he applied for a CUP because he was told by the City of Anaheim that he needed one to service his cabs, brake jobs, tune ups etc. Since he was cited, he has applied, made several attempts to process his application. He feels that he has given the City of Anaheim everything they needed for the application. Regarding the Environmental Impact -the only hazardous waste that will be stored at the facility is the oil. That will be stored in a 50 gallon drum which will be removed when it gets full. Other than that there are no odors, fumes, loud music, noise levels, no toxic chemicals. He doesn't think there is a problem as far as dispatching taxi cabs, hiring drivers and servicing cars (installing the meters, radios, brake job, changing tires). They were doing some repairs which have ceased. Any major repairs go outside to another facility. From day one they have had a business license. They are not applying to service the City of Anaheim far as picking up radio calls. Any radio calls that they received in the City of Anaheim, are referred to A Taxi Cab Co. or Anaheim Yellow. He has no drivers that have been cited. Although there was one..driver who picked up'in the City of Anaheim but he was terminated because of that. There are no inoperable vehicles being stored on the site. As they are guilty of operating without a CUP, that is why he is before Commission. There was auto repair being conducted on site; and there still is but it is now down to a minimal as far as changing brakes. Currently he has one car at the facility that needs a transmission and they are not going to do any repairs on that vehicle, it will be sent to an outside shop. Currently they do not do any auto painting. Atone:point there was a helper who did paint a vehicle. Anything in the future will be sent out to an outside shop. As far as dispatching which states all taxi cab businesses operating in the City requires City Council approval. Picking up in the city and conducting business as a taxi cab transportation for hire, he understood, they need Commission's approval. But to dispatch calls, answer phones, and conduct from a corporate headquarters, he was not aware that he needed City Council approval, and he still does not think they do as far as corporate headquarters. The license was issued, and he does not feel that they 04-27-98 Page 24 violated that in any way. They have been approved for the OCTA, they operate in Huntington Beach, Buena Park, Irvine, Westminster, Stanton, and he is applying for the NewporUCosta Mesa area. He is making several attempts with the owner to modify/upgrade the property. They plan on striping it, resurfacing it and would help share the cost. He was also looking at the proposed use will not affect the adjoining property and land. He doesn't see that being a problem. They have an abandoned lot across the street. To the east of are apartment complexes which they have not ever had a complaint. He. does not feel they are a threat for the health, safety, general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim around there. The traffic generated is not a problem. He has 13 cars and 10 of them are on the road. He drives one, his father has one, and his partner drives, one. They are a small company and this shop serves their purpose. They plan on staying as a small company. They only plan on having 25 cabs in the next 2 years, so he does not see the location as being a problem where he is located right now, He stated any vehicles that are there don't belong to him nor are they affiliated. There were a couple of cars that belonged to drivers that park their cars. They have 12 hour leases. Drivers come and park their vehicle or drive his cabs. There is plenty of parking on Stonybrook and he has never been a parking problem in the 7 months that he has been there. When he applied for the CUP, Anaheim did request that he stripe and park it to match the square footage. He notified Anaheim what his exact plans were. Being that storing 10 cabs there was a problem, he decided to speak with his attorney and his partner. They decided it was best that they did not store any vehicles there at all. They spoke to the owner of the property and he received several estimates to pave and stripe and was told the owner would be more than happy to meet the cost and would be done within the next 30 days. As far as the conditions, putting the trees, receptacles and anything to upgrade the property, he would be happy to sit down with his landlord and come to a reasonable solution as far as cost. He noticed that he has been doing that around the property now. If the CUP was granted there are several things requested that he would complete in 30 days. He did not have a problem with any of the items requesting except Condition Nos. 3 and 4 and 20. Condition No. 3 the roll up garage door would be something to get an estimate on then sit down with the owner of the property to discuss it. The doors on there now, are strong and durable and not broken in anyway. But if it pleases the City of Anaheim to get roll up doors then he would be happy to comply. Condition No. 4, the "Santa Claus" figure, belongs to the owner. He was certain the owner would be more than happy to take the Santa Clause figure down from the sign. He has been waiting for the CUP license and was waiting to see what today's outcome would be as far as putting a sign over the shop that he is leasing. The space next door is vacant, there is a 36' front over the shops. He requested 14 feet to put his sign to represent his company and let them knowing that he is doing business in Anaheim. Condition No. 20, as far as plans and striping he needs time on that, but is sure can abide with all the conditions. He did not see a problem with anything else. As far as shop repairs, once he was told by Code Enforcement and did everything his my power to cease and stop all activities there. As far as painting, there will be no body work, no painting of any sort done at that facility. As far as picking up in the City of Anaheim, they do not pick up in the city. He thought those issues should be corrected. This matter is in court, City attorney's office, the court date is on May 29th and felt that he has done everything that needs to be done to get the CUP approved. Henry Ortlieb, owner of the property: Stated if the tenant lives up to these conditions as far as working on cars in the parking lot and not storing anything there, he would have nothing against it, but he wants to get the place cleaned up. The Santa Claus will come down. Chairman Bostwick Stated there's another problem there, the tire store is storing tires in a truck outside Henry Ortlieb: Stated he told her just about an hour ago that they have to go. 04-27-96 Page 25 Chairman Bostwick Stated it also appears that he has a stereo business in there. It appears they are conducting work in the parking lot. Asked if he was aware of that? Jahad Elkaraci: Stated the only thing he does in the parking lot is if a motorhome comes in and doesn't fit in the building, he puts the antenna's on it in the parking lot. But other than that everything is done inside. THE PUBLIC BEARING WAS CLOSED.. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked the applicant where was the business location previously? Jahad Elkaraci: Responded it is a new venture. He has been in cab business for 20 years and because of OCTA, he and his partner decided to go into business for themselves. They are Coastal Checker Cab Company, dba filed with the County of Orange and also with the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Boydstun How long has Coastal Checker Cab been around? Jahad Elkaraci: Responded for seven months. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if they have only had one person picked up in Anaheim? Jahad Elkaraci: Responded they had a driver pick someone up at corner of Beach and Ball on a flag down. It was the Police Department doing a sting operation. Once the driver walked into the facility, he was reprimanded and grounded for termination. Due to that, the car was stolen and was never returned. It's on file with the Police Department. Chairman Bostwick: Stated his attorney wrote a letter indicating that there are about 10 cabs? Jahad Elkaraci: Responded that was an old letter. They have revised the letter of operation, it was submitted with the application. They put in the letter that there will be no storing of vehicles, that's the solution as far as the parking spaces. Chairman Bostwick: He indicated that his intent within a couple of years is to have 25 vehicles? Jahad Elkaraci: That's a good chance. Chairman Bostwick: Stated they are going to impact the parking lot or the street by 25 vehicles? Jahad Elkaraci: Responded no, that's not how the taxi :business works. Currently he has 13 cabs, 10 of them are leased 24 hours a day. Be can control where the drivers park. There is plenty of parking on the property but if that's an issue it's something that they can determine whether to allow it to continue. He does not feel it would be an impact to the City. He has one vehicle stored there from a driver and informed him the vehicle had to be moved out by the 1st of May so they can work on the asphalt. He has only had two drivers bring their cars to work, the rest keep their cabs with them 24 hours. g9% of the cabs in Orange County are taken home with the drivers. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how many does he have in 12 hour shifts? Jahad Elkaraci: Responded currently only one and he is thinking about doing another one because they have drivers that are waiting to work, It's not in their budget to grow the way the OCTA is now, they're going to put half the drivers out of business. Cheryl Flores: Stated if the drivers are parking their own cars on Stonybrook, that would not be considered as using the site to contain the parking. Chairman Bostwick: Thought the cab business needs to be in an industrial zone and away from the view, where the vehicles can be stored inside, do all the work inside, and park cars off the street and out of the view. This will impact the proposed growth development in the areas, particularly when Commission just approved the draft Redevelopment Area for this whole area. He felt this is not appropriate for this zone. It is not a commercial type use, it needs to be an industrial use. 04-27-98 Page 26 Jahad Elkaraci: Asked if the use could only be approved until September 30, 1998? That is when his lease expires. He recognizes that the shop needs to be improved, and he sees the owner doing that everyday, painting and landscaping. He felt he was at fault for this because he requested the conditional use permit. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if he was planning on moving in September? Jahad Elkaraci: Responded that is one of the options if their conditional use permit does not go through. Perhaps in the future they will apply for Anaheim with their OCTA permits. Commissioner Henninger: Agreed with Chairman Bostwick, the use is more appropriate in an industrial zone. Chairman Bostwick: Stated it the applicant needs to find the proper location and go through the proper permit process. It needs to be inside the industrial zone. Following the action: Jahad Elkaraci: Asked whether it was out of the question to service the vehicles and maintain the corporate headquarters? Chairman Bostwick: Responded he needs to find a different location. Jahad Elkaraci: Asked as far as conducting corporate headquarters and dispatch there? Chairman Bostwick: Responded that is for dispatch. He needs to park, service and store vehicles in another location. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Denied Negative Declaration based on the potential for significant environmental impacts being generated by this use. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 4019 to permit and retain an existing taxi dispatch facility including auto repair based on the following: That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Based on information contained in the petitioner's letter of operation and the Code Enforcement memorandum, the retention of this use will continue fo create an .aesthetic blight in and around the property. In addition, the size of the property is not large enough to accommodate the storage and repair of taxicabs on the premises. 2, That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. As indicated in the Code Enforcement memorandum, this use has created a blight in the area due to ongoing violations such as outdoor auto repairand storage of inoperable vehicles. In addition, the 24-hour operation of this facility is not compatible with the residential neighborhood to the east. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (2:53-3:16) 04-27-98 Page 27 ___ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4015 June 8, 1998 OWNER: Hanford Hotels, LLC, 4 Corporate Plaza, #102, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Pagenet/Marmac, Attn: Peter Yune, 15621 Red Hill Ave., #200, Tustin, Ca 92680 LOCATION: 201 North Via Cortez -Hanford Hotel. Property is 2.93 acres located on the west side of Via Cortez., 930 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. To construct aroof-mounted telecommunication (paging) station with a maximum of five (5) 6-foot high omni type antennas and one (1) dish type antenna. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 10TW.DOC ® ® ® o • o Applicant's Statement: Peter Yune, representing PageNet: Stated the following concerns about the recommendation for denial on this project. • Page 4 under Recommendation, item 18(b) 1 -.apparently there are & white omni antennas, about 1'/~' thick and 6'/: feet tall. They were proposing to put two additional antennas to have a full capacity site at that location because of the volume of traffic. He spoke with his client this morning and they have decided not to expand anymore on this site, therefore, they are not going to install two additional antennas. He is requesting approval for three existing omni antennas. One equipment cabinet, two smaller cabinets, as well as two small GPS units, and one 3-foot satellite dish that is there now. They explored the idea of using panel antennas. They were able to use panel antennas because the facade was 30 by 30 feet where it has the separation for the panel antennas. They are in the process of getting that particular facility permitted through the City. At this facility, they are covering large areas with these omni antennas and they do need that space to put panel antennas and it is only 10 x 10 so they were not able to use panel antennas. The satellite dish goes up about 1 foot above the existing parapet. It can be lowered it so that it is completely screened by the parapet so that it is not visible. He requesting for three omni antennas on top of that parapet and nothing else will be visible. If Commission will approve this project, they will go forth with the three omni antennas on top of this parapet, if not approved as is, they asked for a continuance in order to explore the different options as far as another site. They would Tike to continue operation of their existing facility because it is used by public safety officials and private and public customers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Chairman Bostwick: Asked if it would be possible to put a facade on that tower of the building. Increasing it's height and put a roof on it, something similar to the tiled roof to the east in the shopping center so in order to blend. In some way incorporate the antennas behind the facade on that roof, then everything could be hidden. Peter Yune: Stated the reason they chose that site is that they have a landlord who would like to have their facility on the roof because their employees use the PageNet service. They were actually solicited. They have done a lot of redesign in Orange County to do what they are mentioning. They could explore 04-27-98 Page 28 the idea, but last time he checked they had a site and tried to contact the landowner to see if they were interested, but could not find anyone in the area. Chairman Bostwick: Suggested if an architectural feature was added on the roof that would then hide the antennas. Peter Yune: Responded yes, they could expand the existing parapet and make it larger in order to put their antennas on the top of it or put it on the side but they would need to speak with the property owner. Commissioner Henninger: Asked how long would it take them to do that? Peter Yune: Responded it depends, Hanford Hotel is a corporation in Orange County. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion to continue this item for 6 weeks (June 8, 1998) to allow the applicant to investigate the possibility of putting an architectural feature on the top of the existing hotel to screen the proposed antennas.. Cheryl Flores: Requested the applicant to submit revised plans at least two weeks in advance of that. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised plans showing an architectural feature on the top of the existing hotel to screen the proposed antennas. Staff indicated that said plans should be submitted by May 26, 1998. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:17-3:23) 04-27-98 Page 29 10a. 10b. Granted for 5 years OWNER: Tweedt Family Trust: Trustee, James E. Tweedt, P.O. (To expire 4-27-03) Box 10077, Santa Ana, CA 92711 AGENT: Air Touch Cellular, Attn: John Bitterly, 1111 Town E. Country Road, #37, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 1422 South Allec Street. Property is 0.99 acre located on the east side of Allec Street, 539 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. To construct a 60-foot high steel telecommunications monopole with three arrays having seven (7) antennas each, and three microwave dishes to replace an existing 60-foot high wood monopole. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98.65 ® • ® o o e Applicant's Statement: John Bitterly, land use consultant for Air Touch Cellular: Stated this request is to upgrade and improve an existing monopole facility in an industrial area of Anaheim. They want to do this for two reasons. One is Air Touch and other systems can operate on one or two broadcast type signals; one is digital type which you hear a lot of commercials for and the other one is analog. At this existing facility they already have analog antennas and would like to add digital antennas to phase in their digital service and eventually phase out the analog service. By using this existing facility they avoid having to build another facility, two, possible three elsewhere in the City to serve the same area. Therefore, it is a good solution to use their existing facilities. Secondly, they would like to improve the appearance of this facility. This facility was built in 1989, and at that time they used a wooden pole for the monopole. They would like to go back and put in a steel monopole, which would improve the appearance in this area greatly. Since 1989 this facility has been operating with no complaints, no problems and it is located at the rear of an ML zoned lot. All the properties around are zoned ML, and it is very difficult to see this facility, even with the 60 height from the main streets, which is Cerritos and Lewis. They would not extend the height of this facility under their current proposal, would leave it the same size. Basically, just clean it up and improve service in the area. By upgrading this site, that means that other sites will not have to•be built. In this City there is going to be a lot of demand for telecommunications sites. So if they can utilize an existing site, it leaves other possible sites that might be acceptable to the City open for other people-and that should be considered. They understood that the staff has recommended a denial on this. It is rather confusing. They have an existing facility and if they are denied it will remain as is which means they will have to find some other way to implement their digital service in this area, which could be one or two other facilities, whether they are roof tops or not. Basically, this site would continue to be an analog site. In conclusion they are requesting approval to upgrade the appearance of this existing facility and they feel that it would achieve all goals that all parties want to meet here; as opposed to a denial. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner t3oydstun: Asked how high does the pole have to be to work and do they still need the 60 feet? 04-27-98 Page 30 John Bitterly: Responded technology has not changed to the point where they can lower the height. But They can maintain the same height of 60 feet, which is fortunate. Chairman Bostwick: Stated he thought staff was interested whether they could find some other location in the area such as the project at Cerritos and Anaheim Blvd., the Muller, Anaheim Blvd. facility that was approved earlier as a possible location to mount the antennas on the surface, behind the parapet, or wall or another facility which would offer a better location and not as visible. John Bitterly: Responded it would be a better location with regards to being a completely steel site, but it would not be a good facility with regards to the technical operation of their system. That is off of their actual service area of this facility. If they were to put a facility there, they would have to put one, at least on another segment within that area of service, and possibly even a third. They are not certain of that, but they know that they would have to have another. They did consider staffs recommendation but unfortunately it does not work for them. It is a matter of technical use of their system and operation. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she could not see how it is a problem and felt a steel pole will look better than the wooden pole. Chairman Bostwick: Stated technology in this area has grown and asked if he could see the necessity to have this for 5 years? John Bitterly: Responded he could see it would be there in 5 years or 10 years but beyond that he was not certain. They are having two broadcast systems and eventually the analog system will phase out which means they will only have digital antennas at the site in the future. That is one change that will occur. Through future technological changes those antennas will probably be the same size, but will offer a lot more signal capacity which will help in the future. But regarding any other changes, they do not foresee any that soon. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Mr. Bitterly if he was in agreement with the way Condition No. 2 is written? John Bitterly: Responded yes. That would be 7 antennas each, on the 3 arrays OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4016 for 5 years on the basis that it's location does not harm the site line. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (3:24-3:32) 04-27-98 Page 31 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11 b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4021 OWNER: Imperial Properties and Canyon Plaza Shopping Center, Attn: Harold B. Hembree, P.O. Box 7250, Newport Beach, CA 92663 AGENT: Todd Von Sprecken, 100 Bayview, #4000, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 5755 East Santa Ana Ganyon Road - L.A. Fitness. Property is 15.0 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. To permit a 40,000 square foot physical fitness facility with roof- mounted equipment within an existing tenant space in a 157,794 square foot (total) commercial center with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) permitted commercial center identification sign, and (c) permitted wall signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-66 Approved Granted "~ ~ ° "~F,OLLOVI~ING IS~A SUMMARY,AF,THEiPLANNING,COMMISSION:ACTION., ~ ~" ~~ ~'~ Applicant's Testimony: Phillip Anthony, 14101 La Patt Place., Westminster, CA: Stated he was representing the applicant LA Fitness. The property is the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center at Imperial Hwy, and Santa Ana Canyon Road. He thought they have finally found a good anchor tenant for this center. Five or six years ago, Albertson's who had been there from the beginning suddenly moved out leaving a 40,000 square foot vacancy in the middle of the center. A few years ago the landlord brought in Food to Market. They did not flourish but they were only using half of the space. They now have a proposal to site a new LA Fitness Center at that site which would use the entire 40,000 square feet and build a modern LA Fitness Sports Center there. The request before Commission is a conditional use permit as required by code for this type of use. The use does meet all of the code requirements. It is thought to be very compatible with the rest of the center and surrounding area. It is the kind of use that the general plan and zone code envisions there, but the code does require a parking study which was done. The parking study shows that there is more than adequate parking to handle this use. The parking study also shows that the access to the center would not be affected by the proposed lA Fitness use. There are a couple of waivers that deal with signage. The center is a little unusual in that it is below grade level of both Santa Ana Ganyon .Road and Imperial Hwy. They are requesting the normal second monument sign. There are obviously two highway frontages. There is an existing monument sign on Santa Ana Canyon Road. They are asking for a smaller sign on Imperial Hwy. because the location of this major anchor for the center is unfortunately far to the rear of the center, several hundred feet from both of the arterials and is basically invisible from the highways. So they are asking for a just slightly larger structure, but within the sign face size for the monument side. The size is mainly because there is a berm there that requires some adjusting to make sure it is visible on the berm, and also for architectural reasons because the sign is meant to match the architecture of the center and be an .attractive structure. The other sign is a little unusual. It did not come before Commission, but the Zoning Administrator, several years ago, actually way back to Albertson's approved a sign on the rear of the Albertson's building, which is visible to a very special audience. Those people leaving the freeway, the off-ramp 04-27-98 Page 32 eastbound, that off-ramp as it comes into Imperial Highway has a perfect shot through the buildings there to see that rear spot. It was thought because of the location of the Albertson's that it was a good chance to give them a little visibility from that particular audience. Albertson's never built the sign, later Farm to Market wanted it too. They had the Zoning Administrator approve that as a time extension but they left before it was built. They still feel it is a good idea and LA Fitness would like to use that site for that very special viewing corridor off-ramp from the freeway. This is just an effort to give that major use. That is not at all visible from the two arterials a little bit of signage which will help their activity at that point. Those are the only real issues today. He felt this is clearly a proper use at a proper place. At the morning session, there was some discussion regarding the impact of the Maag property being developed to the east. Although, he did not believe LA Fitness itself has any impact on that property, obviously the proposed common entrance at Via Cortez is of interest to these property owners as well as the Maag property owners and developers. They have communicated with the property owners over the lunch hour and have spoken to them many times about this. They are more than willing to cooperate with a suitable joint access, an expanded Via Cortez that meets and maintains the needs of their center and meets the needs of the Maag development, if and when it ever happens. Both Mr. Yalda (Traffic Engineering) and himself have just reviewed some language that he came up the morning session. He thought that Mr. Yalda could read the suggested wording, 'that the property owners of their site would cooperate and would consent to a mutually agreeable development of Via Cortez which is approved by the city staff and Traffic Department. They would provide any additional right-of-way on their side that was needed to implement that joint improvement of Via Cortez.' That will have to be done if the Maag property is to develop and which was approved a few weeks ago. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Alfred Yalda if he had the new language? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: Responded he thought that what Mr. Anthony stated was the language that he was going to recommend. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Mr. Yalda if he would read the language? Alfred Yalda: Stated that the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center property owner shall provide, in writing, to the Traffic and Transportation Manager within 90 days approval of this project that they will provide needed right-of-way to improve access to Via Cortez including the permission to construct improvement as needed and approve it by the City Engineer. Alfred Yalda: Stated he had a copy of the draft plan that shows proposed access and asked if Commission would like to see it? Chairman Bostwick: Asked if there needs to be anything mentioned relative to the dedication of the one foot strip on Via Cortez; that the agreement include the dedication of the one foot strip widening of Via Cortez. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if that wasn't a private issue? Commissioner Henninger: Stated it is a public street and apparently the people who built the public street (Commissioner Henninger and Chairman Bostwick spoke at fhe same time.] Chairman Bostwick: Asked whether they have stipulated that they would, he did not know whether they need that language in there. Any stipulation as to whether they will dedicate? Alfred Yalda: Responded they just have this one foot. He had no idea what it is for. Chairman Bostwick: They have one foot of land on the east side of Via Cortez and when they expand the Maag property it is going to utilize the one foot, otherwise you would have a one foot strip down part of the lanes of traffic. That was supposed to go to three lanes on the entry side and it is only two lanes now. 04-27-98 Page 33 That foot has to be part of the street. That is why he is saying that they offered to dedicate that one foot of strip of land to the City, if and when Via Cortez is widened, is probably what the language ought to be. Commissioner Henninger: State the other side of that, was held out because the current shopping center developers built that whole right-of-way and I imagine they want to see some of their costs returned to them, which seems appropriate. Commissioner Boydstun: Is this what they're saying Phil, that they will donate this foot to the widening of the street? Mr. Anthony: Stated he could not say exactly what they are saying because this one foot goes back long before his time. But he thought as Mr. Henninger was saying, when his client built Via Cortez, they built it all on their property and at their expense. In fact, they built it one foot inside of their property, which is the present situation. But whether there is separate recapture, reimbursement agreement, he do not know. In spite of the impression they might have received at the meeting on Maag property, they are not opposed to the Maag development at all as long as there is some mutually satisfactory development of Via Cortez worked out. That is what they are doing now. The owners and himself have already met with Alfred and Mr. Lower. He has this first response back from the Maag .property traffic engineer. They are determined to work together to make that access work for both properties. He thought in the process, that one foot strip disappears sometime. If there's some old agreement, that would probably have to be satisfied, but he did not know the final answer to that. The thought is when Alfred's wording mentions right-of-way, it implies that it has to be taken care of. He could not give the exact answer, he did not know. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested perhaps making that two conditions. The driveway remaking at Via Cortez as one issue and the one foot strip as another. What would probably be fair is to ask them to dedicate the one foot strip provided appropriate reimbursements are made for the improvements that are in place for their fair share. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated it appears that the applicant does not have a problem. The primary thing to consider is that there be an nexus between what they are asking and the development that is coming into this particular property and to the extent that you see an intensification of use that would justify that type of dedication. It is appropriate to insert as a condition. Commissioner Henninger: Stated it will be included as two different conditions. Cheryl Flores: Stated Commission may want to consider the timing of when that would occur. Commissioner Henninger: He recommended a g0 day period for both conditions. Mr. Anthony: Asked for clarification to make sure he understood that these conditions will not hold up LA Fitness from moving in as a tenant? Commissioner Henninger: Responded that is why they are conditioning for 90 days before a building permit or occupancy permit. During the voting Commissioner Henninger: Recommended that two conditions be added. To add the condition that Alfred is proposing cooperation regarding the redesign of the Via Cortez plus the driveways. He also recommended a second condition regarding the dedication of this one foot strip of land that's on the east side of Via Cortez and to stated that the property owner will come to a agreement regarding the dedication of that one foot strip within 90 days provided that appropriate reimbursement for any improvements made on Via Cortez can be negotiated. Cheryl Flores: Recommended one more condition, for the removal of the existing freestanding wood sign on Imperial Highway and it is the intent of the property owner to remove that sign. 04-27-98 Page 34 Commissioner Henninger: Agreed to add that as a condition. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4021 with the following added conditions That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center Property owner shall submit a written agreement stating that a right of way will be provided to improve access to Via Cortez and giving permission to construct improvements to the Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution., the property owner shall come to an agreement regarding the dedication of the one-foot strip of land on the east side of Via Cortez, provided that appropriate reimbursement for any improvements made along Via Cortez are negotiated. That the existing free-standing wood sign on Imperial Highway shall be removed VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (3:33-3:46) 04-27-98 Page 35 12a. 12b. 12c. OWNER: Vineyard Christian Fellowship, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Richard Banister, Pastor, Vineyard, Christian School, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5340* East La Palma Avenue - Vineyard Christian Fellowship. Property is 23.08 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway. * Advertised as 5300-5340 East La Palma Avenue. Conditional Use Permit No. 3506: To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain apre-school through 8th grade school in conjunction with a previously approved church. Determination of Substantial Conformance: To consider a request for a determination of substantial conformance pertaining to the use of a portion of an existing parking lot for playground use on weekdays only. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION tdO. PC98-67 Approved for 5 years (To Expire 5-18-03) Continued to 5-11-98 SR1038JK. FOLLOWBNG,IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION"ACT,ION. "' Applicant's Statement: Richard Bannister, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is the pastor and principle at Vineyard Christian School. They agreed with the staffs findings although requested consideration of the following under Recommendation: No. 19(b) - he requested the CUP to be continued indefinitely under the same CUP that the church uses, (Interchristian Fellowship of Anaheim). Under Ordinance No. 5224, churches are allowed in the Canyon Industrial Area without having to reapply for CUP's and there is a clause stating that it can include education facilities as well. Therefore, they would like to be considered under that ordinance. They are currently not operating at 490 students, which is what their current CUP allows, and anticipated it to be quite a while before that happens which they would at that time reapply for a CUP. No. 19(c) -they would like to add a "ball wall" to their playground proposal for the CUP. He submitted some photographs that were taken of their proposal of a "mock set up". There were some poles set up at 10 feet high, 16 feet apart with a strip of colored paper. He has taken photographs from different locations on La Palma Avenue and the ball wall is in each of the photos. There might be some concern because it is set far back. The reason being for not granting the ball wall was due to the parking spaces. It probably would take up four parking spaces, but during their peak hours of operation, Sunday mornings during services, cars would still be allowed to utilize those parking spaces and the playground is not utilized by the children's ministry on Sunday mornings. Therefore, that would not hamper any of the parking during their peak hours. It would enhance and improve their playground usage for their elementary school children.. 04-27-98 Page 36 Jergen Milezewsky, 3040 Saturn St., Brea, CA: Stated the location of the ball wall was positioned in order to make it easier for supervisors to watch over the children and prevent children from hiding behind it. It would be in an area that would be very visible from the offices and therefore control what may be going on there. He has worked with other schools, within the City of Anaheim and they have never been required to have a reinstatement unless there was a temporary facility such as a trailer, a temporary classroom, etc. In atI of those instances, the granting of that use has always been permanent, unless there was some major change. With the school being limited to 490 children, there is noway that school can grow unless they make some major modifications. If there is a concern about the parking, there is the whole center lot, which is currently a paved area. If there is a concern about four parking spaces, that would be four out of 1,200 which is a fairly insignificant number. Also, the entire center area which is currently an asphalt paved area. Four parking spaces can easily be striped in there. He do not know that was a major concern. Going back to the ball wall for a moment, the position in there is also such that it is at the end of a driveway, so cars are going to be going slower there. It is the intent not to use it when the church is in full use. People are going to be parking there on Sunday mornings and therefore they would be prevented from using it. With the current use of the facility, the only playgrounds that are used Sunday mornings are the.playgrounds for pre-school children and the lower grades immediately next to it. All of the other children are all housed within the facility and so there would be no access for the children to that area during that time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if there was some way they could move this ball wall next to their existing play equipment? Wouldn't that be a more appropriate place for it? Jergen Milezewsky: Responded in order to relocate there, there is currently a sand volleyball court and restroom facility. They would have to put in another foundation slab to do that. In order to position it correctly, again, the position allows them to monitor the children using the ball wall. If we were to relocate it either in a different position or a different location, it would be more difficult to monitor that area with duty supervision. Chairman Bostwick: This is set up In the planter between the two parking areas and are they simply going to put up a slab wall that's going to be used from either side? Orjust one side? Jergen Milezewsky: Responded from both sides. Chairman Bostwick: So they are using the asphalt surface? Jergen Milezewsky: That is correct. Chairman-Bostwick: Asked if there are any sidewalls to this? - - Jergen Milezewsky: Responded no. Chairman Bostwick: Just strictly one flat surface? Jergen Milezewsky: Responded correct. Chairman Bostwick: Suggested they move it directly north, .along the edge of the grass and the concrete, between that and the sand volleyball court, and make it twice as long, they would have the ability to use two on the same asphalt surface without any disruption of the parking. Asked if that would work? Jergen Milezewsky: Stated he would need to review the photograph to see whether that would work. Chairman Bostwick: Stated, for the record., his proposal is basically to move it directly north of the proposed area at the edge of the sand or the wood chip play area. They would still be utilizing the parking 04-27-98 Page 37 area surface as the surface in which they play on, rather than destroying the planter that is between the two parking areas, they would be going along the edge of the concrete on the south side. Commissioner Henninger: Stated they are going to have to remove the curb, a ball wall won't work behind the curb. So they are going to concrete right up to the bottom of it. Chairman Bostwick: Or bring it up flush to the concrete. Jergen Milezewsky: Stated the only problem with the alternate plan suggested would be that they would now need 16 feet of wall, which is a longer wall, and they are still impacting four parking spaces that were of concern. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the parking spaces were not a concern, The concern was having this play facility out in the middle of the parking lot which did not seem right. On the edge of the parking lot seems like a better location. Chairman Bostwick: Stated it keeps growing and they are trying to keep it all contained within a certain area. Jergen Milezewsky: Responded he understood what they are saying that they want to contain the structures to a certain area. Chairman Bostwick: Yes, so all the play equipment is in a certain area. Commissioner Henninger: Stated they did not mind that it is twice as long. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Suggested perhaps they should return with a plan that can be reviewed.. Chairman Bostwick: He thought it was appropriate to find out how they are going to put this wall up. Alfred Yalda: Stated the only concern he has with Chairman Bostwick's proposal is that there is still going to be children playing and throwing balls. He is concerned it is going to be unsafe for the people that are there on Sundays. There is going to be a ball wall built right next to the parking spaces and children are going to start playing on the side of the parking lot. Commissioner Henninger: He did not agree. He thought that the back side is all lawn, so it could not work as a ball court. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated they would only be able to play on one side, the cars would block that side. Alfred Yalda: Stated as long as it is prevented he thought that it is a good idea to put it there. Commissioner Henninger: Asked staff if they had any comments regarding the time limit? Cheryl Flores: Stated they would like to continue or have the 5 year expiration to expire on May 18, 2002. With regard to Ordinance No. 5224, which is identified in paragraph 5(c), that allowed churches to be in the Canyon Industrial area without the 9 consecutive year time limit that was on them previously. However, it still gave the option to the Planning Commission to impose a time limit and it does not necessarily mean the educational facilities accessory to church uses should be approved without a time limit. Commissioner Henninger: Asked what did they do with the church use CUP? Cheryl Flores: Responded the church CUP does not have a time limit on it. Jergen Milezewsky: Stated the school is a ministry of the church. They are not a separate entity from their church board. 04-27-98 Page 38 Cheryl Flores: Stated she needed make a correction. It would be to expire on May 18, 2003 for 5 years. Chairman Bostwick: Therefore does this replace Conditional Use Permit No. 3363 (he referenced page 2(b), second paragraph of the staff report)? Cheryl Flores: Stated this one is Conditional Use Permit No. 3506. Chairman Bostwick: Conditional Use Permit No. 3506 expires May 18, 1997 and Commission is just extending that. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he was a little torn here regarding the time limit because he sees this as an integrated facility and they have allowed the church go without a time limit. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated it has a cap on students. [Commissioners discussing this further all at once.] Cheryl Flores: Pointed out that stafFs recommendations are based on the concerns that the City Council has had with schools in the industrial zones. Commissioner Henninger: He recalled when they first had this come before Commission as a school, they discussed all the various concerns. It is an industrial area and in the future they might get some adjacent use that was a primary permitted use that would ultimately make it a school in this location become inappropriate. In that case, the school would be the use that should move, not the industrial use. Therefore he thought it was a good argument to leave a time limit on it. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if they had a covenant of some type? Commissioner Henninger: Stated he recalled they were talking about that on another site somewhere else in the City. Cheryl Flores: Stated she thought it was with Fairmont School, which is on this property. Commissioner Henninger: Stated they should probably put the same covenant on this? Chairman Bostwick: Agreed.. During the action: Chairman Bostwick: Offered a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3506 that shall expire 5 years from the date of the resolution on May 18, 2003 and he added a condition that there be a covenant that the school would not object to any industrial uses that may be permitted in this zone. Commissioner Henninger: He thought it should provide notice to the school that there is a range of uses that are permitted in the industrial area so they understand that. There may be a future use that might come along that would make their school activity inappropriate. Chairman Bostwick: Recommended drawings for the ball wall return to Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item to return to Commission. Chairman Bostwick: Offered a motion to continue the Determination of Substantial Conformance for two weeks. He explained that the applicant will return as a Reports and Recommendation item with drawings that indicate where the ball wall is going to be located and how it's going to be mounted, elevations, etc. Commissioner Henninger seconded the motion and motion was carried OPPOSITION: None 04-27-98 Page 39 ACTION: Determined that the previously approved mitigated negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved amendment to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3506. Amended Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. PC92-65 as follows, based on the finding that the conditions under which Conditional Use Permit No. 3506 was originally approved still exist; furthermore, that the conditional use permit is being exercised substantially in conformance with the conditions of approval and in a manner not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood nor to the public peace, health and safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim: "9. That subject use is hereby approved for five (5) years and shall expire on May 18, 2002" Added the following condition: That the applicant shall submit a covenant, approved by the City Attorney's Office, acknowledging that industrial uses are permitted, and may be located immediately adjacent to subject use. The covenant shall indicate the permitted primary uses and conditionally permitted uses specified by Specific Plan No. 94-1 for Development Area 2, and shall acknowledge that the uses may be subject to change by Specific Plan Adjustment without further notice to the subject property owner. Said covenant need not be a recorded document. Continued the request for determination of substantial conformance for the parking Iot/playground use to May 11, 1998 for submittal of revised plans. Said request will be reviewed as a Reports and Recommendations item. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (3:47-4:09) 04-27-98 Page 40 13a. 13b. 13c. 13d. 13e. OWNER: Edward's Family Trust, Robert W. Edwards, Shirley E. Edwards (Trustees), 711 South Velare Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Denar, Inc., Attn: Bahrain Ghassemi, 1001 Sandcastle Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 LOCATION: 711 South Velare Street. Property is 0:61 acre located on the west side of Velare Street, 950 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Reclassification No. 97-98-17: To reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the RM-3000 Zone or a less intense zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4022: To construct a 1-lot 7-unit detached residential condominium development with waiver of minimum distance between buildings. Tentative Tract Map No. 15660: To establish a 1-lot subdivision for the development of a 7-unit airspace detached residential condominium complex. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 5-11-98 e s • • o • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the applicant to revise plans to address staff concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed 04-27-98 Page 41 14a. 14b. OWNER: Orange County Water District, 10500 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300 AGENT: Corona Recreation, Inc., Attn: Phillip L. Anthony, 4060 East La Palma Avenue., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 4060 East La Palma Avenue -Santa Ana River Lakes. Property is 125 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 347 feet east of the centerline of Tustin Avenue. To permit a 450' square foot mobile office trailer in conjuncticn with an existing fishing concession operation. 'Advertised as 4,500 square foot. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-68 Concurred w/staff Granted SR71 ® • e ® ® e There was no discussion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4020. VOTE: _ 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:10-4:11) 04-27-98 Page 42 15a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Denied 15b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 354 Denied 15c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-13 Denied 15d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 15e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.4004 Denied 15f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14259 Denied 15g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 15a. 15c. 15d. No Action 15e and 15f OWNER: State of California, 2501 Pullman, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Paul T. and Beverly S. Salata, Trustees, 98 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: CGC Enterprises, Inc., Attn: Camille Politte, 3248 Roblar Avenue, Santa Ynez, CA 93460 LOCATION: 4000 East Riverdale Avenue. Property is 10.5 acres located on the south side of Riverdale Avenue, 875 feet west of the centerline of Finch Street. General Plan Amendment No. 354: To redesignate this property from the Hillside Low-Medium Density.Residential land use designation to the Hillside Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 97-98-13: To reclassify this property from the RS- A-43,000(SC) Zone to the RM-3000(SC) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4004: To construct a 118-lot (including 20 lettered lots), 98-unit, detached residential condominium subdivision with waivers of (a) minimum structural and landscape setback adjacent to a freeway, (b) maximum structural height adjacent to asingle-family zone, (c) minimum floor area per dwelling unit, (d) minimum structural setback adjacent to a private street and (e) minimum distance between buildings. Tentative Tract Mau No. 14259: To establish a 118-lot (including 20 lettered lots) subdivision for the development of a 98-unit detached residential condominium complex. Continued from the Commission meeting of March 16, 1998. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-69 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-70 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-71 04-27-98 Page 43 DLL'OWING IS'A;SUMMARYOF THE;FLANNIN000MMISSIONacTlc, Applicant's Statement Camille Politte, 711 East Imperial Hwy., Suite 200, Brea, CA: Stated she represented the buyer of the property, Advanced Real Estate Services. Her office is located at 2348 Roblar Ave., Santa Ynez, CA: (Gave a brief slide presentation of the proposal.) Camille Politte: Stated there is a similar project recently been completed in the city of Tustin called Tustin Groves which was built by Shea Homes. Their team did the land planning and initial concept for this development. It is very similar to what they are proposing on the site. It's a relatively new concept in that over the past ten years in the home building industry they have struggled with some of the negative characteristics of condominium developments. Most particularly common walls, large homeowner association dues, a lack of a private rear yard and individual garage. The architects have come up with some solutions to a medium density detached housing product type that has a private back yard, private garage, separated from the adjacent homeowner, thereby the homeowner owns the entire building and does not pay homeowner dues. That is the concept and she will discussing this briefly. Single family detached in character, explained the only reason that they discuss it as a condominium in the community is the zoning code has not yet been updated to include these types of developments. In order to get the density they are proposing of 9.3 units to acre, they must label this a condominium. Simply because in the city of Anaheim there is no zoning code that allows higher than 6 units to the acre as a traditional single family home. Many communities throughout Southern California have changed their zoning codes. Mc Hastings (Zoning Manager] is actively working on this very same thing, itjust is not in place yet. This City has recently approved a couple of other projects similar to this in concept. The Olson Company has a development at Lincoln and Mueller that was brought before the City for approval. The Kaufman & Broad Development off of Lincotn has a similar density and concept. Seven years ago she represented another homebuilder, D&D Development, and back then they proposed 168 condominium units on this same site. CALTRANS had gone through the same process, they went through last summer, deemed this site surplus. D&D was a successful bidder at the public auction and they brought forward that development. The Planning Commission approved a request for a RM-3000 development and it was subsequently denied by the City Council in June 1990. The recession ensued and most of the homebuilding stopped. Fortunately, they are back before Commission in 1998, with a new homebuilder. Due to her experience she was retained. They were trying to come up with ideas for this site, knowing that it was going to come up again for public hearing. They had been contacted by Caltrans and were the successful bidders again. Advanced Real Estate Services from Lake Forest was the purchaser_this time. They manage 1,100 apartment units within the City of Anaheim and have•been in the real estate development for some time. They sat down with their site, and planners and thought about what they would like to see on that property. They obviously thought that the density should be sufficiently .less than it was previously. They felt a detached product would be appropriate, a single family character. They have dropped their density approximately 45°/n from what was proposed in 1989, however some things remain the same. The property is an irregularly shaped parcel. It has no public access. The two lots shown on 4234 and 4104 Addington were contributed by an investor that owns those two lots and is a member of the development team, so access is proposed off of Addington. That was the exact same access that was proposed in 1989. However, they have a new problem. This time the Planning Department staff felt that they need to widen those accesses. Unfortunately, they find themselves today in a situation where they own two Tots and have opposition in the community, so in all reality requiring them to acquire an adjacent lot and widening, that is impossible nor will that ever happen. They have also added to the proposal an adjacent parcel to the north which was not originally included in their development strategy. Now it looks as if it may be of some value for them to consider as an 04-27-98 Page 44 alternative access to Addington in the future. They have not proposed nor studied that in great detail but short of access out of Addington Drive that is the only practical access point. The staff report did a good job in giving some background on other developments like this that had been proposed throughout the community. She thought they are at the low side of the net density per acre of 9.3 that a detached single family product works. They looked at the overall area and to the west of them on the other side of the freeway were apartments or condos (RM 1200, RM 2400). Moving to the east the density gets much lower, and this site., because of it's irregular shape, posed some unique constraints. The development of this proposed product solves some of those constraints. Most obviously, they did not want to have visual intrusion into the rear yards of the existing neighborhood. So this .particular plan, although two story, does not have any backyard windows looking into the yards of the adjacent community and they felt that was of high priority. They also needed to cluster these homes because by the shape of the property. Circulation on site is challenging and they needed to have small cul-de-sacs. This development product lent itself adequately. They have a community open space on site, a considerable amount of landscaping on site in excess of what the code requires. That is why they are before Commission today with a product that they have proposed and why they think in a planning context that makes sense. There are certainly some benefits to the neighborhood. They have a large acoustical requirement and acoustical sound wall will be constructed at the cost of this development along the entire freeway frontage, which for several of the homeowners will mean that their property will no longer be labeled next to the freeway, which as many of you know, usually is a stimulus to the surrounding area for improvements and upgrading of existing properties. Obviously, relative to the homes next door on 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots, those homes will be a better value and offer more land than these smaller homes, yet these homes in today's prices will be sold at about the same or slightly higher. There are going to be certain types of people who will see the existing neighborhood as a great buy, and that causes people to sell homes., turn homes over, improve homes. This particular type of home also, attracts a particular type of buyer, they can say this with some authority because they have seen several other projects like this actually built and occupied. Because of the small nature of the rear yard, they do not usually find mature families with children. What they do find is seniors who are living in the existing community, with a 6,000 square foot lot or larger, wanting to stay in that community, not have to mow the lawn every weekend and have a smaller yard to take care of. They also see first time home buyers who do not have any children whatsoever, or singles wanting to get into home ownership, seeing this as a great alternative to a condo. Having a back yard, and garage are our typical type of home buyers. That is the profile we have seen purchasing these homes in other communities around the Southland. They feel that is a benefit to this particular neighborhood. There are obviously some major economic benefits. When the property, as it currently is on the state ownership, it has no property tax value whatsoever. The City does not-derive any sales tax revenue, property tax revenues, school fees, park fees, and while that is not a planning consideration, it is a very real issue and taking an average sales price across the development of $200,000 and 98 units, that is $21 million in property value that are currently that are not on the tax rolls. The school district which they are currently negotiating with, which we have not yet settled with, but their initial request is $8,300 per home. That's over $800,000 in school fees, which she would certainly think would benefit our school children. The park fees in the City are well over $400,000, and that does not take into consideration jobs and employment and new construction, plus all the secondary benefits. They are here to work together, and welcome the Commission's input on this. They feel a residential land use makes a lot of sense here. They want to be good neighbors, would like to reduce the impacts to the absolute minimum to the surrounding neighborhood and keep that as an overriding goal. Opponents John Sanderson, 4359 Hopwood Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is a resident in the Riverdale area that is going to be affected by this particular project. The corner of Hopwood and Bluerock is about the center of the .Riverdale area. The Riverdale residents have banded together. In order to try and make this somewhat easier and quicker to go through they have divided the comments into several sections. He will be discussing the traffic. 04-27-98 Page 45 The actual counts on Riverdale run about 1500 cars a day and that matches very well with the predictions from the model by the staff. The staff model is calling trips per day vs. the number of cars that travel so there are some discrepancies in numbers, but they are close, so they can accept that. The model also indicates that there will be a jump from 634 cars to approximately 1200 to 1700 cars. That is an lot of traffic to be added to that particular area. The counts that they have are done by the City of Anaheim and they are on Wednesday and Thursday. The staff report stated that this area is a coordinated public street system and he felt that was absolutely correct. By looking at any of the diagrams here you can ascertain that for yourself. If traffic is dumped into any part of it, it may come out at any of the outlets from the neighborhood. There are about 3 or 4 that actually dump out onto Riverdale. If traffic is applied at the back on Addington, it's going to spill out through the neighborhood. One of his personal concerns is that he lives on one of those streets that comes down from Addington all the way down to Bainbridge which is an adjacent street to Riverdale, it runs parallel to it. They are going to see a lot more traffic and not only on those through streets which are a direct worry to the residents, also coming onto Riverdale. They have had to wait on Riverdale as long as 30 minutes to get out there at peak traffic times. That does not show very well on the traffic count or traffic report unless you happen to be there waiting to get out of your own residence. He has been out there personally and has timed it as being 15 minutes. Other people have timed it at 30. They already have a problem there and do not really want to add to that problem. The residents were very concerned about this and a petition was circulated which will be discussed later. As he was walking down the neighborhood he had people coming to him wanting to sign the petition. Over the last year, on Riverdale itself, there were 64 traffic incidents reported. Of those, Anaheim Police Department indicated that 58 are confirmed and of those 16 were injury accidents. Riverdale, in it's own right is a problem. At one time it was a two lane street, one lane for each direction and inadequate for bikeway for children going back and forth to school. These are elementary school children. Motor development takes place in this period of time when they are going to elementary school. Right now the bike way is about this wide, and right down the middle of it is a ridge where the asphalt ends and the concrete starts. This presents a problem both to the biker and to the traffic. He does not know how many of these accidents are fatalities nor how many involve children, unfortunately he did not have that data. He asked that Commission consider that the road is not a good place to be adding more traffic and certainly not adding double from this side of the road that is already hard to get on. One of the other considerations that they also have are emergency vehicles. Planning staff obviously reviews and considers whether a fire truck can get in and out of a development. The previous time, there was a lot of concern about that. The fire truck that comes there is coming from a fire station next to Kaiser Hospital that is about 2 to 3 blocks away down on Riverdale, it's the furthermost down Riverdale. They have to come down and navigate through a subdivision, that's what they are normally prepared for. This will add another loop onto the subdivision and he was not sure if the streets are still narrow in the proposal or whether they have been widened. Last time I saw some data on that the streets they were narrow. A second story actually presents somewhat of a problem from a fire standpoint, because this neighborhood is all single story. There are some houses in the Riverdale area that are two-story. In fact in his area, it is a mixture of one and two story houses, but at the end of the subdivision, it's all 1 story houses. He went through and confirmed that himself. There are a few houses in that area right along the Bainbridge portion of the street that faces out towards Riverdale that are two story, but the rest are all 1 story. Even though there's no visibility from the a two story, a fire danger does exist if one of those houses catches fire. There is going to be problems if a fire breaks out. There is a reasonable possibility of being concerned about it. In the past year there were two gasoline tanker trucks that caught fire on the freeway. Both instances the freeway was completely closed., and in the last instance he recalled there was a flood of traffic all through the neighborhood. If that tanker fire had spread into their neighborhood, they would have had noway to get out. They are proposing adding 98 more dwellings, close to 200 people, which is not a good idea. Traffic also presents a problem during construction. He had not seen any detail description of how they intend to go about building these houses in there unless they get some special permits from Caltrans. They would have no access off the freeway. It will be a major problem if they are planning to go through that neighborhood with those trucks. Just the fact that they go through will be a disturbance to the neighborhood. What's not going to be temporary is when you take large construction type vehicles and 04-27-98 Page 46 further wipe out the roads. They already have a road problem where the asphalt is not adequately maintained. That will, in turn, not help the value of those properties in that area. Traffic access via the little piece of land was something that was tried the last time, and it was looked at with some concern from staff. it was determined that it was almost impossible to get roadway off of Riverdale through that piece of property. He doe not feel that has changed. Especially for the few residences that are right at the corner, that would be a terrible thing to do to them to have a roadway coming down right behind their house. Another concern is noise. The staff report mentioned a noise and sound abatement walls. The City of Anaheim and the County of Orange, both have ordinances against building new residential dwellings in environments that are noisy. The rules state anything over 65 CNEL, which is equivalent to a noisy office. His next door neighbor has an interesting problem, her property happens to fall in a place where the noise comes together as amplified. He has seen nothing in the staff report that indicates that somebody has actually gone out and done a noise study. He thought that needed to be done. Another concern is if there is any kind of hardship claimed by the developer because the residents are opposing it that should be taken with a grain of salt. Camille is very upfront, she has been here before, tried this once before. He concluded by requesting that Commission deny this project in it's entirety. Janine Tolly: Stated she is the Chairperson of URGE of Riverdale (United Residents Grassroots Effort). This was originally formed together to bond the neighborhood together in 1990 to come against the people that are proposing this same development afl over again, but in a different guise. They want to be acknowledged that they are present, that they're 28 people here who have taken time out their busy schedules and workplaces to come today. This was very important for them to be here and to back up the speakers on the various issues. She will speak on the school issue. She is very concerned because when she attended the November 12th meeting that was initiated by the developer at Kaiser Lakeview, there was really no mention about the impact upon the schools and upon the school district. She immediately called Bill Flore who is Facilities Director, for the Orange Unified School District which is within their geographical location of the district boundaries, and was told that she had absolutely no information regarding any development proposal or otherwise. She had not been informed of this. Neither had any of the school board members that she personally contacted knew about it. That concerned her because at the meeting they were told that Camille Politte and the developer had the best interest of their community as a whole at heart for this development. They should have contacted the school district because that is one of the most immediate impacts, other than traffic. Now the school district did contact Camille Politte after she contacted them not before. Secondly, it took quite some time for Ms. Politte to respond to the correspondence that was presented to her. She referenced to copies of handouts for Commission regarding counts. At Canyon High School there are 600 students. She is a parent of a 15'h year old son who attends Canyon High School. There are currently are 600 students over maximum capacity at Canyon High School. There are 300 students at EI .Rancho Jr. High School over maximum capacity, which is where her daughter attends. She is very concerned about the education of his children and the children of the neighbors that are being represented and those that could not come. They have stated that the proposed solutions as a result of this development coming in and the added children to the district of multi-tract was not an option because they either have two parents that are working outside of the home and they cannot provide them with childcare and/or they also have single parent family home situations where they have to work.. if they have more than one child it is very difficult for them to both be on the same track, both go to school at the same time. It would be next to impossible to have family vacations. So there is a severe family impact that this would cause. If the fiscal impact is not mitigated then they are not in agreement. She does not nor do the property owners want to pay for them not mitigating this. They are not going to pay "for them making money on the backs of us" for this development at all at a school level. She was also concerned about the interruption of the lowered class sizes that are currently at Riverdale Elementary School which is the immediate elementary school. One or two children coming into the classroom would cause them to not have that lowered class size of the teacher student ratio that is lowered. They receive funding from the state regarding that. They would no longer have that so the school would lose money. 04-27-98 Page 47 She is concerned about the possible traffic around the schools and the lack of parking for the parents coming to pick up their children, for Canyon High School who already has a parking problem in regards to the students who do drive. That is going to cause more problems for both of those schools. She also sees that there is really no allocation in the district's budget for new construction, nor new school personnel. 85% of their budget is now paying for school personnel. They only have 15% to work with and they have to do upkeep of the buildings that they have. There is no place to put portable classrooms at Canyon High School nor at EI Rancho. She did not know where these children are going to go. They are families that have children that go to the schools in this district and they will be severely impacted. Julie McCloskey, 4920 Campus Drive, .Newport Beach, CA: Stated she is an attorney represented the Orange Unified School District. She wanted to follow up on some of the comments made about the schools. First of all, they first become aware of the project about November 13, 1997 and at that time they did respond to Camille Politte telling her initially that the schools were overcrowded and that they wanted to discuss mitigation with her. Subsequent to that, they did have some conversations with Ms. Politte regarding mitigation, as of this date nothing firm has happened. They are still in the process, as Ms. Politte said. She wanted to make some comments on behalf of the school district, regarding their opposition of the project in the absence of any mitigation agreement. There are severe budgetary concerns and those relate to the capacity problems at the district level. She stated their concerns of the proposal as follows: They oppose the project as it is currently proposed because the Orange Unified School District is operating above capacity at the schools serving the project site. The schools that would serve this project are Riverdale Elementary School, EI Rancho Middle School and Canyon High School. Currently, both EI Rancho Middle School and Canyon High School are operating at a deficit of student seats. EI Rancho is operating at a negative 148 seats and Canyon High School is operating at a 256 seats. These units which are 98 single family detached units on a proposed zoning of RM-3000 allows up to 168 units on this site if it is approved as currently proposed. Two comment letters were submitted to the Planning Commission, the first dated November 13, 1997 (attached to the staff report]. The second one which she did not see attached to the staff report and offered to submit it for the record if Commission hadn't not seen it, is a letter dated March 4, 1998 from their office which goes into detail about the student generation factors and the cost of housing the new students generated by this project. To briefly run that down for you, we estimated that 98 single family units would generate approximately 38 students. They do no have capacity at either the middle schocl level or the high school!level to accommodate any of these students. When they first met with the developer which was about a month ago, they did ask for mitigation in the amount of $8.377 per single family dwelling unit, which is what this is, single family dwelling units. They emphasized that the district is entitled to request full mitigation amount for these units because there is legislative acts involved, which is the zone change, reclassification and the general plan amendment. They reviewed the staff report, specifically the existing proposed conditions of approval and found that those conditions of approval as proposed are inadequate to fully mitigate the impacts on the school facilities of the district. The reason is as follows: The first condition of approval is Condition No. 1 which merely suggests that all homeowners who buy into this project are informed of the fact that the school serving the project site may be overcrowded and that they need to take that into account. They consider that to be an inadequate condition of approval. The second condition which they do not agree with Condition No. 8 which basically states that mitigation statutory school fees will be collected for this project. Currently statutory school fees are $1.93 per square foot. In the comment letter they submitted on March 4th they calculated that if they were to collect all of the square footage as proposed, the school district would receive approximately $250,000 for improvements to schools or providing new facilities. They have calculated that the true mitigation costs is approximately $850,000 and that is to provide school housing for the students generated by just this project. The discussions they had with the developer are requesting full mitigation in the amount of $8,377 per dwelling unit. As stated before, those conditions of approval are not in the staff report and the reason they are requesting that the proposal as currently proposed be denied is because it does not have the proper conditions of approval in there to mitigate atl of the school facility impacts. Therefore at this time the school district respectfully requests that the Planning Commission either deny the project or if it should approve the project, impose on the project, a condition of approval that would go to a mitigation agreement between Orange Unified School District and the owner which is Caltrans, and the developer and that would be for full mitigation of the impacts of development on the school facilities of the district. They would request that such mitigation would take the farm of a mitigation agreement to be executed prior to the issuance of any building permits. 04-27-98 Page 48 Jeff Simko, 4305 East Addington, Anaheim, CA: He stated he would be discussing the residents concerns regarding the issue of density. He has lived on Addington very close to Redrock, in the heart of the proposed site. He was present as a concerned resident to make a few comments and close the discussion. Because of his busy schedule he was unable to reach Camille to ask her a few questions. He did not get the chance and did not know he would be speaking until yesterday. He asked why she is proposing a project that has a density and setback request posing most of the same problems that the residents and City Council rejected back in 1990. It seemed that it was a clear message that even this proposed density of housing would not be tolerated. Density is the issue. His neighbors are not against developing of housing with the same lot size etc. as the existing housing. That is already present in the neighborhood. They are against parading community problems. When a developer dismisses their concerns as pretty standard fare as Ms. Politte was quoted in last week's article in the OC Weekly, this does not help them. He also would have liked to ask her about the meeting last November at Kaiser Hospital in which he sat and listened to her inform the attendees that this project is a good project for the site. This was approached as if it was a new revelation that no one had proposed before. He recalled her trying her best to detach herself from the former proposal. Ernest Rahm, 321 North Redrock, Anaheim, CA: Stated he opposed this in 1990 and opposes it again. Stated this is all about profit and impact on the residents of the existing area. They have already heard that if this was at a different time of day, there would be more people here. They collected close to 600 signatures on their petition opposing this project. (He forwarded copies of the petition to the Commissioners.] He has heard there is a need for this type of housing and that this type of housing would have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Everyone knows what happens to 1,200 square foot condominiums after about 5 years, they become rental units with all the problems associated with that. He is not against somebody making a profit, in fact he thinks it is a good idea, as long as they don't steal or cheat somebody else.. But when they say it is going to increase the property values, somehow he does not believe that is being completely honest. They are well aware of the impact and when they tell you otherwise that is not being honest. It would be very interesting to know how much profit these promoters are going to make and whether the project will be built or nat. It is a shame that there is no report that somehow takes into consideration the impact that this would have on the home values in the area. He has not seen anything regarding the impact of City facilities such as sewer or water. John (Sanderson] did mention about the fire trucks getting in which was certainly one of his concerns. How do you get a large ladder truck around that tight bend to get it in there? With those two narrow entrances, if they had a fire in there, those residents would be trapped. It appears to be a bad plan as far as access to emergency equipment. The staff report address the difficulty that the trash collector would have, if trash truck has a problem, what's a fire truck going to have? What about the construction period? Asked how long would the residents be expected to have cement trucks :parked in the middle of the streets? How much of the street is going to be torn up? He thought one of the intents of the General Plan and the Building Code would be to take into consideration the impact on the quality of life and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. That is an area that has not been addressed. The bottom line of all these impacts is cast. What does it cost the City of Anaheim? What does it cost the residents? According to what he heard John (Sanderson] state, it sounds like they have about 1,000 extra vehicle trips a day. He would expect that about half of those are going to come down Redrock Street. It is going to be the easiest access. It is right down his street. All of a sudden his residential street has become a thorough fare. He thought a stop sign on Riverdale would help the situation. It is very difficult for him to get out of his driveway and suggested that if the project had direct access onto a major thorough fare like Lincoln or Tustin, some of these concerns would be mitigated. But it doesn't and there's noway to get that access. It is going to be through the residential area. 04-27-98 Page 49 He felt the issue of merging traffic eastbound 91 connecting to the southbound 55 needs to be addressed. A truck bypass route was mentioned, what is that going to require? Applicant's Rebuttal: Camille Politte: Stated as far as traffic issues perhaps she could address a question to Alfred Yalda [frafFc Engineering] regarding traffic issued. They did not really touch on some of the traffic issues and thought that would be prudent to do because most of what was heard was relative to traffic and traffic impacts. As far as traffic, they did conduct a traffic study. This project is not required to have completed a traffic study. She understood that the City has a policy and standard whereby developments are required to do traffic studies if they generate in excess of 100 vehicle trips in the peak hour, and asked Alfred Yalda to explain what the requirement are. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: Stated the City of General Element Plan requires that if the project generates more than 100 trips during the PM peak hours they then request that a traffic study be done. But they did not approve the traffic study that was submitted by developer. Camille Politte: Stated because they voluntarily did the study and it was not a requirement by virtue of the traffic standards, she simply wanted to point out that the project, while they certainly will not deny that any new development creates changes in everyone's life, the threshold of change is not subject to review by the City. The actual numbers in a PM peak hour, which is what people's lives are impacted by PM peaks not 24 hour traffic. If one went out and counted 1,000 trips a day they would be tedious. However, sitting in peak traffic is when you really notice the impacts and 84 trips in the PM peak is what is anticipated to be generated by the development. Again, they are under that 100 threshold. They also heard in their community meeting the comments about occasional problems left turning out onto Riverdale and proactively made a suggestion of putting a stop sign at Bedrock and Finch. Again it certainly is Alfred's (Yalda] prerogative not to have accepted the suggestion. Although there's no warrants for that, no engineering support for that, they felt that would help sometimes in the afternoon, people using Riverdale as a bypass to the Riverside Freeway. People coming out of the residential neighborhood trying to turn left against the traffic. A stop sign on that intersection would allow people to have a break in traffic. It would also slow traffic down along Riverdale. One of the issues that came up in their previous study was for having the access on Riverdale was vehicles speeds on Riverdale. The speed limit is currently a 40 mph posted street. The Engineering Department whenever they look at the design is 10 miles an hour over that limit. They believe, and so does their traffic engineer, that if they would consider an intersection on Riverdale by virtue of an intersection, you automatically slow trucks and cars down. Certainly if you have to come to a stop at some point along that road, you're not going to be traveling at 70 mph. So while they haven't researched in detail an intersection on Riverdale, they certainly believe one is feasible and could study that and believe it would be satisfactory. They just haven't gone down that road yet, but that's an option worth considering. From what she heard today and several of the speakers actually said, if they had access on Riverdale :and a limited .access on Addington, it might go a long way towards mitigating some of their concerns. Certainly some of their concerns won't be mitigated no matter what we do, but that is something that they should consider. A noise study was just briefly mentioned, they hadn't done an acoustical study. Staff does have an acoustical study. They are recommending approval of the environmental reports for the project because there are no mitigated environmental impacts. All public services are available. So that's not an issue. The acoustical noise study indicates that a sound wall can in fact be erected. That's another reason they designed the particular housing type that they chose because it has limited windows and they can use the actual construction of the home itself as a sound attenuating impacts without windows we can build it in a way to create a sound wall right within the home structure. They can really eliminate the acoustical impacts, and that's really not an issue. With respect to the school district, this whole Alex Bowe Study_and these numbers are somewhat new. They are still negotiating. She would like to continue the dialog with them, They have not completed that. They certainly know that if any development is approved it would have to have an agreement with the school district prior to issuance of building permits. That's pretty standard. They are not quite there yet, the development may change it's complexity by virtue of the comments of today, so they will certainly leave that door open and work with them down the road. Development occurs all over Southern 04-27-98 Page 50 California, all aver Orange County, all over Anaheim, so obviously there is some way for us to reach an agreement with the school district. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if they are going to bring this area up to a level equal to the grade of the single family dwellings? Camille Politte: Responded no. Their homes will be "in a hole" with respect to the single family. In fact, they have a site line section here and also at the Planning Department. (description) It comes up between them and comes down and there is a property line wall that is on top of the slope banks. Those single family homes have a slope bank that is on top. They come back down to the existing grade. Chairman Bostwick. Asked if they are planning to put a sound wall along the freeway? Camille Politte: Responded yes, they are required to do so. Chairman Bostwick: Asked how high is sound wall going to be? Camille Politte: Responded the acoustical engineering report does not indicate that because he does not have building plans of a very specific nature. Through experience, it is going to be in excess of 8 feet high. The walls along the ridge range from 10 to 16. She was basing herjudgment on down the 91 Freeway elsewhere. They receive that exact height when they are given the building plans with exact specific details. This is too preliminary in nature to tell them the exact height. That is why there is a variance requested for that. Chairman Bostwick: Stated in this morning's discussion there were concerns with their entry ways coming into the project because of the narrowness of the entry. Obviously they are creating corner lots onto a street and there is not a lot of room for side yards abutting another street which was a concern. Camille Politte: She would concur, the right thing to do is to have a secondary emergency only exit, eliminate the streets on Addington, and make a connection on Riverdale. Eliminate the whole issue. Chairman Bostwick: That is a problem from the Traffic Engineer's standpoint. One of the considerations, the entrance into this project further north, so that it wasn't right at the corner to where it's not such a sharp turn that it would be a definite right or left in or out. He thought that it is again very narrow because of the lot sizes. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they are installing any sidewalks on this project? Camille Politte: Responded there are sidewalks shown on bpth sides of the main street that traverses northeasterly, southwesterly, aII the way down the little individual cul-du-sacs. There are sidewalks that go down the main street. - - Chairman Bostwick: Stated she is stating that the houses furthest north, closest to the residents on Addington are set back 20 feet and they want a variance because they are two story, is that correct? Camille Politte: Responded that is correct. Chairman Bostwick: Asked how high they were? How high is the tallest eave? Camille Politte: Responded approximately 18 feet. Chairman Bostwick: That is pad is going to be where in conjunction with the property immediately north? That means they are going to be digging a lot of dirt out, is that correct? Camille Politte: Responded the site is so heavily covered with weeds that it is hard to see what's out there, but if one were to walk, it goes down in the middle and up to the freeway, it is in fact bowl shaped at this point. 04-27-98 Page 51 Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Stated on the plans Section GG shows their site higher than the adjacent tract. Camille Politte: As you traverse from the top all the way to the bottom, it varies all the way along with respect to the rear elevations. At the very top they are very close to grade, as they come all the way to the south they get lower and lower with respect to that. Those lots that she indicated that are tielow their grade slope up to a fence that sits on the top of the back of their property, and in many cases they come back down. They are not proposing to fill this site and make it level with the top of the fence line that is currently there. There will be a slope bank down to our finish pads on our side. Commissioner Henninger: Asked staff if they could point out, on the General Plan map, where the closest Hillside Medium Density General Plan designations are? (Kevin Bass: Pointed it out on the General Plan map -his explanation was inaudible because he was not near a microphone.] Commissioner Henninger: Referring to the map he asked Mr. Bass if it was a mobilehome park? Pointed out a senior citizen complex and he knows exactly where it is. He did not really see change in the plan here. Camille Politte: Stated Commissioner Henninger brings up an interesting point, and it's somewhat a dilemma. They are within the Scenic Corridor as defined by the Scenic Corridor Ordinance, they are not obviously in the hills, and had theynot been in that scenic corridor, the RM3000 would be consistent with the Low Medium Density General Plan. Simply because they are in the corridor zone the RM-3000 is no longer consistent with low medium and they must request General Plan Amendment to medium.. Commissioner Bristol: Stated the proposed project is too dense, it impacts the neighbors too much. He was not sure how they came up with this. Everyone there is going to impacted. They are going to definitely impact the streets. He totally concurred with the staff and with what the residents have said about this project. Commissioner Henninger: Stated it doesn't seem appropriate to change the General Plan here. In having said that, if they were to work within the general plan designation, he was not even sure that the exits they proposed along Addington would work. It still doesn't work even at a much lower density. The geometrics are really poor up on the northerly access point. He can perhaps envision something working off of Addington at a much lower density but not at those points and the preference would be to go off Riverdale, if there were some way to accommodate that, but that is also very difficult. This site is severely impacted by the fact that it doesn't really have any appropriate access. That's one of the main considerations needed when developing a site. Chairman Bostwick: That is what he was getting to with his question and some of the comments made this morning. The location of the access is definitely important. Suggested perhaps the samesize lots as what is next to it, that is at a minimum probably is what would be acceptable. Commissioner Bristol: She is telling him that if he looked straight across from Finch toward the back homes of Addington, what would be the elevation of their site in the middle?. He heard lwo things today. He heard that some residents wouldn't mind a little sound buffering, which makes sense. But on the other hand he was concerned with the Tine of site, where they put the homes to the very north on this proposal. He climbed the wall on Saturday and looked down onto this site and it appeared it was 4 or 5 feet from the top of the wall where as he looked the opposite direction it was about 10 feet. Camille Politte: She was trying to see where he was referring to on Finch. Is he sure that he was on Finch? Commissioner Bristol: Responded yes, the second or third house up 04-27-98 Page 52 Camille Politte: It's not Bainbridge? She did not mean to say that the homes are not going to see the homes, you will certainly see a portion of the second floor of the home but she misunderstood his question. Would their pads be the same elevation as homes? No. Commissioner Bristol: Stated no, he did not mean that. Camille Politte: She apologized for misunderstanding the question Commissioner Bristol: Going back to alternative use, what he heard today is that some people say that they would like to have a sound buffer here, but he did not think a lot of residents know what the grade of that site was going to be. She is stating something a little different, that if someone is in the back home to the north on Addington, and he is in the patio below, there's no way in the world that he is going to see that home, 20 feet setback. Camille Politte: In that site section, if they look at the diagram it runs right about through the middle of the site, widest part of the site. Because of the slope bank in the back of the existing single family homes you don't see over the back of their fence. They look right into their own slope bank. They are only one story homes. Melanie Adams: Stated regarding the CEQA determination, the sewer analysis is not complete. The applicant had determined how much sewerage would be generated from their site. But has not completed the impact analyses on the existing sewer system, so at this time a negative declaration would not be appropriate. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated when that was a new tract she owned a house on Sagamore. Traffic was a problem then getting out Redrock at times. Since then it has certainly multiplied. She can not support it. She did not see anyway that this many homes can go in there. She could never support it. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Based on what was heard today from the public and from the Public Works Department, he thought the Commission should reconsider whether the negative declaration for this particular project is appropriate and if they are going to decide an an action today, that they potentially consider denying that negative declaration with the project as constituted. Commissioner Peraza: Stated he agreed with the rest of the Commission that it is too dense and the access is not adequate and therefore could not support it either. Camille Politte: She stated they did not know with respect to the negative declaration, this is news to her. Unfortunately the Public Works Department had the sewers study for quite some time and apparently someone was out and didn't review the study in a prompt manner. They told them Friday afternoon at 4 o'clock that the study was adequate, but they wanted them to go out and put a sewer meter in a truck line because they didn't know the capacity of the City's line at this time. She would have loved to have known that a month and a half ago. She would certainly like the opportunity to at least answer that question, having not-had the opportunity, finding that out at 4 o'clock on .Friday. She is not quite sure wfi'at the appropriate process is with staff, but they would certainly like to have a chance to answer that question prior to going to council on appeal if that's in fact what they do. Commissioner Henninger: Stated Ms. Politte could respond to it at the appeal process OPPOSITION: Approximately 26 people present in opposition (5 of them spoke). Correspondence was received in opposition. A petition with approximately 400 signatures was received in opposition. ACTION: Denied the Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and found that there is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Denied General Plan Amendment No. 354 on the basis that: 04-27-98 Page 53 a. Surrounding neighborhoods to the north, northeast and west have a land use designation of Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential and are developed with lower density single family homes. b. The subject property is "landlocked" and as such, is not developable without purchasing single family homes on Addington Drive for access. Further, the adjacent residential subdivisions have been developed with a coordinated public street system as opposed to the subject proposal which funnels traffic through a single ingress/egress point. c. The subject property, as part of the SR91 Freeway right-of-way, serves as a buffer to the single family homes along Addington Drive. Evidence of the property's unsuitability for residential development is the sound attenuation measures required to comply with Council Policy No. 542, Sound Attenuation In Residential Projects. d. Development of the subject property could potentially encourage similar applications to develop marginal residential projects on other freeway property determined surplus by Caltrans. Denied Reclassification No. 97-98-13 to reclassify the property from the current RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agriculture; Scenic Corridor Overlay) and RS-5000(SC) (Residential, Single-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone based on the incompatibility with the recommendation to retain the existing Hillside Low- Medium Density Residential land use designation (which does not permit the use of the RM-3000(SC) Zone) and the necessity for several waivers from Code requirements in order to develop a condominium complex with the increased density as proposed. Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that although, the subject property is irregular in shape, its suitability for residential development is constrained because of its proximity to the Freeway with limited access to the existing public streets. In this case, there is no hardship to justify the proposed waivers because the property is not similar in land use character (i.e., freeway surplus land) to other properties zoned for residential development in the surrounding area. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 4004 based on the following: a. That the proposed use will negatively affect the adjoining land use by creating a condominium development with a significantly higher density adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood. - b. That the narrow, irregularly-shaped parcel adjacent to a freeway is not large enough to support the density of the proposed condominium development without the use of several waivers of Code requirements. c. That the traffic generated for the proposed condominium complex is focused through an existing interior subdivision street designed primarily for asingle- family development; moreover, that access must be provided by demolishing existing residences to create the private street entrance necessary to access this property which directly affects the surrounding single-family residences. Denied Tentative Tract Map No. 14259 on the basis: a. That the design andlor improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the existing Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation of the Anaheim General Plan; and 04-27-98 Page 54 b. That the site, as located adjacent to the SR-91 (Riverside) freeway and the existing single-family residential neighborhood, is not physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed 98-unit condominium complex without the necessity of several waivers from Code requirements. Additionally, the physical improvements required to access this site for residential uses requires the demolition of existing residences on Addington Drive and the creation of corner lots for residences previously designed as mid-block homes. Took no Action on Item 15g. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No. 14259 and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the items. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 28 minutes (4:12-5:40) 04-27-98 Page 55 ', MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:40 P.M. TO MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Submitted by: .. ~,,~,~ Ossie Edmundson Simonne Fannin Senior Secretary Senior Word Processing Operator Y~t t'uC~l-C `11~~CdCCeP Danielle Masciel Word Processing Operatcr 04-27-98 Page 56