Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/03/01SUMM~RY ACTION AGEND~ Cil"Y OF ANAf~~IM PLANNING C011/iMISSION MEETlNG MONDAY, iVIARCH 1, 1999 11:00 A.Il4. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIi~INARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, ESPING, KOOS, NAPQLES, WILLIAMS COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Cheryl Flores Kevin Bass Kim Taylor Don Yours4one Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Rob Zur Schmiede Richard Bruckner Brent Schultz Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Deputy Planning Director Senior Planner Associate Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Redevelopment Community Development Deputy Director Redevelopment Plannino C~mmission Secretary Senior Secretary 03-01-99 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None ~ 1. REPaRTS AND RECOMMrNDATIONS A. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE Determined not to ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN: Barry Permenter, Real Property Agent, be in conformance County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department, 300 with the Anaheim North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92707, requests determinati~n of General Plan at conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for f.he proposed sale of this time County surplus property. Property is located at 8200 East La Palma Avenue. ACTION: Chairman Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposed sale of surplus property for the purpose of developing a planned commercial office/light industrial center is not in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan at this time on basis that conformance with the General Plan was contingent with the approval of Item No. 8 of the March i, 1999 Planning Commission agenda and said item was continued ~eyond ti~a ~eadline required for action to be taken on this item. Recommsnded !hat the County resubmit a request for the Apr!I 1?_,1999 Planning C~mmission meeting. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated Item No.1-A has a deadline. Since this item has been continued beyond the deadline, the only action open to the Commission is to deny it at this time. Otherwise it would be deemed approved and then the County of Orange would have to resubmit a request. If the project is approved ther that second reyuest could be approved as being within conformance. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: ~ommission would need to find that the proposed sale of County surplus property was not in conformance with the General Plan at this point. Following the voting: Mary McCloskey, Ueputy Planning Director: She informed Commission that staff will be calling the County and notify thern the status of the project so they understand it was based on the project being continued. 03-01-99 Page 2 B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION tPREVIOUSLY-APPROVED~, Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3991 - REQUEST FOR Approved RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Salvation Army, 1300 South Lewis Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests a retroactive time (To expire 12-22-99) extension to comply with conditions of approval to construct a wumen's rehabilitation center in conjunction with the existin~ Salvation Army men's rehabilitation center and work therapy unit. This petition was originally appre~~ed on December 22,1997. Property is located at 1300 South Lewis Street. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmen4al documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Williams and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hereby approve the request for a retroactive time extension to expire December 22, 1999 based on the following: (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the currenk Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation, and that there are no current Code violations on this property. (ii) That the property is adequately maintained and further that there is no additional information or circumstances that would contradict the findings made at the time of the original approval. (iii) That this is the first request for an extension of time for this permit. This item was not discusseci. C. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE Determined to be ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN: John Paviik, Chief of PFRD Right-of-Way in conformance Processing, County of Orange, Public Facilities and ftesources with the Anaheim Department, 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests General Plan determination of ~onformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed sale of County surplus property. Property is located south of Orangethorpe Avenue at the sauthwest corner of the A.T. & S.F. Railroad and the Atwood Flood Control Channel. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the OCFCD's propos~d sale of surFlus property for agricultural uses is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR0011 KT.DOC This item was not discussed. 03•01-99 Page 3 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1546 - REclUEST FOR TERMINATION• Terminated A. John Low, Vice President, c/o Kilroy Realty, 4675 MacArthur Caurt, Suite 1150, NaNport Beach, CA 92660, request terminatian of Conditional Use Permit No.1546 (to permit a helistop). Property is located at 3250 East Carpenter Avenue (formeriy 3340 East La Palma Ayenue). TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99-32 SR7394DB.DOC This item was not discussed. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2294 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION• Terminated Laszlo Cserni, 2632 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2294 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant). Property is located at 2638-2634 West La Palma Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99•33 SR73978D.DOC This item was not discussed. 03-01-99 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT REPORT N0. 319 (PREV: CERTIFIED) Approved 2b. CODE A,IAENDMENT NO. 99-03 - AMEt~DMENT Recommended TO TITLE 18 "ZONING" approval to City Council 2c. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 98-99-11 Granted OWNER: City-initiated (Redevelopment Agency), 201 S. An~heim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Approximately 318 acres of property in the Brookhurst s~ib- area of the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area. To consider a proposed amendment to Chapter 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor"(BCC)" Overlay Zone) and to consider Reclassification No. 98-99-11 to reclassify approximately 318 acres to combine the proposed Brookhurst Commercial Corridor "BCC" Overlay Zone with the existing zoning of these properties. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99-34 ES9223A.DOC ":'FOLLOWING'ISA SUMMARY OF THE . ~ANNING COMMISSION ACTIONi Rob ZurSchmiede, Redevelopment and Property Services Manager, Community Development Department: The is for a proposed Overfay Zone along the Brookhurst Corridor, the extent of which conforms with the boundaries of the original Redevelopment Project Area Boundary for the Brookhurst Redevelopment Plan. It is an overlay that proposes to 1) alter allr,w~-;ble land uses along the corridor, 2} it renders certain uses that are currently allowed by rioht conditionaliy, that is a conditional use permit would be required for their approval, 3) it wouid codify development standards that were contained in the Brookhurst Planning and Design Recommendation Report approved by the Redevelopment Agency in January 1997. It is concerned with the placement of street trees in the oublic right-of-way along the corridor, 4) it also establishes a sign amortization prograr~ i. At this time they are proposing a non- ~ compensated program. A non-comoensated program requires no less tl~an a 15-year amortization period for any non-conforming signs. If the City would want to accelerate that amortization period, they could do so as long as the program was compensated which is a possibility because it is in a Redevelopment area. If funding became available, they could accelerate the amortization of non-conforming signs but at this time it is proposed to be non-compensated for a 15-year amortization period. The ordinance does allow for the establishment of residential uses on sites that are appropriate for residential along the corridor. These are primarily anticipated to be mid-bloc~; sites and the overlay ordinance would cap allowable residential densities of 15 dwelling units per acre in the event that a site was rezoned to residential. It would also require that a conditional use permit be processed for each of those residential projects and they would come before the Commission for review for conditions. Judith Ann Gollette: She represents WAND (West Anaheim Neigh~orhood Development Council). They have been working with the Redevelopment Agency for many months to come up with a plan that will state in writing what is allowed ~n this area. They want z standard to be known that West Anaheim is looking for a certain presence in the community. The Overiay project definitely demonstrates this. It is a benefit to all the City of Anaheim. They are hoping that it will be approved today and that it will be used as a format for other streets in the neighborhood. WAND is d~finitely in favor of this Overlay project c~oing furward. Jay Tillman Wiiliams, 11241 Chapman, Garden Grove, CA: He was appalled at the way the notices were sent out to all the property owners along Brookhurst. He did not know anything about it until one of his 03-01-99 Page 5 tenants told him. He asked if there is a requirement that property owners be notified by mail oP any public hearing affecting their property? Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: The notice that was sent out did comply with what the government code requirements are. When the area that is proposed tc be modified includes notification over a certain number of people which she thought was 1,000, the notice may be p~blished. Therefore, the City of Anaheim published the noticed and also did some postings. Rob ZurSchmiede: In addition to the published notice and posted notices, they also held a number of neighborhood meetings involving the West sidc community groups. They also presented this proposal to the Chamber of Commerce, the Redevelopment Commission, and there were a number of ineetings in the community in addition to the notices required under the government code. Jay Tillman Williams, 11241 Chapman Avenue, Garden Grove, CA: He did not receive anything in the mail and he is a registered owner of the property at 511-517 South Brookhurst. He has always tried to be a good neighbor. When they indicated the project was in the Redevelopment area, he sent a letter to the City of Anaheim indicating that if the City is interested in developing his property, then it is certainly for sale for a fair market value of the property. He is in favor of trees but instead of installing trees in the middle of Brookhurst, if that is the intention, he would think that the Fire and Police Department or emergency vehicles who need to have access by means of a corridor down the middle of the street, He asked for a list of all the names and addresses of the residents that received notices Chairman Bristol: Staff just indicated that this item was published in the newspaper and there were no individual mailings. There were over 1,000 residents affected so there was no individual mailing for this but it was published instead per the government code. Jay Tillman Williams: He thought if it was within a certain area that the owners of the property should be notified of a public hearing. Commissioner Boydstun: There has been several public meetings where everyone in the various organizations and residents were invited f~r their input. Jay Tillman Wiiliams: He would like to be notified of the next meeting and what is to be discussed Rob ZurSchmiede: Thay have ongoing communication with the groups that are active on the West side that are interested and involve~J in planning for the West side project areas, activities and programs. They would be happy to take Mr. Williams name and address and he would then be notified of all future meetings and activities. Commissioner Esping: Suggest Mr. Wiiliams might contact the representative from WAND Judith Ann Goliette acknowledged to Mr. Williams that she was the representative from WAND Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA: She is the Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council). She is also a member of Redevelopment PAC in West Anaheim. They have reviewed the proposal and are very satisfied with what is included. They have been attending Planning Commission and City Council public hearings fighting for things that they do not want to see in the Brookhurst area. It lists things that they feel are appropriate for that area and they will not have to keep returning to fight for things they do not want. They are very much in favor of this and have talked it over with their membership at their WAND meetings and went on record to stated that WAND is very much in favor of the Brookhurst Corridor Overlay and hope that the Commission will pass it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos: At the morning session they spoke about this plan extensively and he wdnted to make sure the change on the restaurant issue was incorporated. He explained to the audience that the existing ordinance has prohibited 'oars and cocktail lounges whether or not integrated within a restaurant 03-01-99 Page 6 and he brought up that this would preclude many successful restaurants from coming to the Brookhurst Corridor. He therefore, propose~ a change of language that bars and cocktail lounges are prohibited unless integrated within a full-service restaurant. This would permit such restaurants as Chilis, Marie Callenders, etc. He hope that it would be agreeable to WAND ands other interested. They would be happy to take Mr. Williams name and address and he would then be notified of ali future meetings and activities. That would be for both the CL and CO Zones. Rob ZurSchmiede: They concur with that language clan.fication. They feel it is a good chanc~e. Commissioner Bostwick: He feels the total prohibition of off-sale alcoholic beverages is too broad and may crea~e a problem where they do not get stations remodeled. Rob ZurSchmiede: They believe it is important to send a clear message that the number of alcohol serving outl~ ts along the Brookhurst Corridor at this point are too many. 1"here may be a time if they are successful at their attempts to reduce the number of outlets that could warrant allowing them to re-enter by some approval process. Although at this point it is iheir recommendation that they do prohibit any new ones from being established. If there is an existing service station with a mini market that serves alcohol, then they would not be prohibited from remodeling that station. If it was a new alcohol sales, then this proposal would prohibit that. They do think that an overall policy basis that that is a bad thing. The major purpose of that is to help implement the Redevelopment Plan for the Brookhurst Corridor. One of the major blight influences in that Redevelopment Plan was an identified proliferation of off-sale and alcohol serving businesses. They have mapped the number of alcohol outlets in the Brookhurst Corridor which is a very compelling exhibit and serves to support their recommendation that the "door come down" for the time being for additional outlets. They understand some of the Commissioner's thoughts on redevelopment of service stations and what makes those attractive to major oil companies but at this point given what they know about the number of outlets and what has already been approved, they feel the best course at this point is to send the message that no additional outlets will be permitted. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if it would be possible for someone new coming in to buy another liquor license from anather business rather than applying for a new one? Rob ZurSchmiede: Under the current ordinance if it is a new location then that would be prohibited. It is certainly an interesting proposition. The current ordinance does not aliow for that and he was not certain whether !hat could be codifiad and they had not proposed that. Commissioner Bostwick: Commission is well aware that there are too many alcohol licenses in that area but it is a question of how to restrict those who are trying to redevelop the area. How does it get accomplished to bring in people who are willing to invest money into the buildings and infrastructure without having the opportunity to have alcohol sales as part of their business. He wondered whether that would bring this area the developers who will be willing to redevelop the properties. Rob ZurSchmiede: They are aware that there is currently an intarest in gas stations in the City and at the same time there is a review of the City standards for development of gas stations on corner parcels on major streets. On a more immediate level, in addition to mini markets, a number of these major companies are proposing other land uses in connection with the gas sales such as fast food, car washes and they have seen some of those in the Brookhurst Corridor. They may be putting more importance on it than may be warranted because there are other land use possibilities other than mini markets with alcohol sales. He did not feel they are completely closing the door to Redevelopment of those corners by taking action today. Commissioner Williams: There are too many mini marts but a mini mart that is dispensing fuel is a completely different circumstance. . 03-01-99 Page 7 Rob ZurSchmiede: They struggled with that themselves based upon the comments from the Commission in December. One of the problems they were confronted with is how do to differentiate legaliy a stand- alone mini mart from a mini mart incorporated with a service station. Commissioner Williams: A gas station and a 7-Eleven come under a completely different ordinance anyway. Rob ZurSchmiede: The area where they began to have problems from an enforcement justification standpoint was the ability to say yes to one and no to the other. Commissioner Koos: He was glad to hear that they are interested in other uses for these corners because he believes that there are better uses than simply gas stations on every corner. He asked the inventory of alcohol outlets in the Brookhurst Corridor was categorizes in any way such as liquor, hard liquor, beer and wine, gas stations, etc.? Rob ZurSchmiede: The mapping was done as classified according to the ABC classification system. They looked at the visual concentration in this corridor. Commissioner Koos: So it is known which ones are with gas stations, etc. Some of the discussion this morning was regarding that issue and he wondered whether there is a clear definition problem or whether the problem is with all off-sales of liquor orjust with the liquor stores. Richard Bruckner, Community Development Department: What they have hea~d from the community is that there are too many off-sale permits and too many on-sale permits, and both are a problem. On the on-sale, they can more easily distinguish between bars and bars in restaurants. The community has an easier time segmenting those in different types of uses. On the off-sale, they have not heard a particular concern about the different types of uses, but simply that there are too many of them overall, particularly that they are open late at night. Rel~ted to that may be impacts to the immediately adjacent residential community. The residential single-family homes are right up against this commercial corridor. The fact that they are open late at night and there are too many of them have created this concern. hte did not feel the community has segmented them as they have the on-sale. In answer to Commissioner Koos' question, he apologized because during the morning session he did ~ot think they had them classified by types of uses, but it turns out that they do, and they used the ABC reporting information to complete the mapping. Commissioner Boydstun: This affects the people in West Anaheim more than anyone el~a. WAND is the most active group out there and she feels these people deserve Commission's help and support. She asked that one of the representatives from WAND give their opinion on the service stations selling beer and wine and how they feel it affects their neighborhood. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND; They are concerned about it because one company has purchased many gas stations in their neighborhood and they now want to convert them into convenience stores with ABC licenses. They already have 46 licenses and do not want to see anymore there. There are gas stations in that area that are not the same company that do not have the convenience of seliing beer and wine. There are also some small mini marts that are selling beer and wine. Allowing the gas stations to do this hurts both of these types of businesses. They polled some people in their organization and asked them whether they use the gas sfations for buying beer and wine. They responded that they did not and purchased it instead from the grocery store. So they are not being put in for the convenience of the most of the neighbors, but rather for the convenience of the company. They feel that having too many of these is not good for the neighborhood. There are other uses for some of these areas. Judith Ann Gollette: They have other gas stations that have already stated that they want to come into the Brookhurst Corridor or Anaheim area and do not plan on applying for a liquor license. 03-01-99 Page 8 The businesses applying for liquor licenses state that they can not make a living without the liquor license. So are they coming in as a gas station or as a liquor store. They question what to put on that lot. It is going to be a blighted area and fenced up with weeds. They have a proposition for that. If within a vear the developer or land owner cannot come up with a suitabie building to repiace the business that he is in now, then that business be torn down but in exchange for that that a greenbelt be put in that area and maintained by the land owner. Commissioner Boydstun: She feels it is important that they support these people because they have been working very hard and have been working with the City to try to get their neighborhood turne~d around. Commissioner Bostwick: He also agreed. He just tried to look at how not to tie their hands. They had a good discussion. Commissioner Koos: He is glad they had a discussion on this. It is obvious that this corridor needs strong a~~tion so he is strongly in favor of this proposal as ~resented. Following the voting: Commissioner Bostwick: He requested that the Redevelopment staff, when this is approved, send a copy of the City Council ordinance to all the propeRy owners in the Brookhurst Corridor. Richard Bruckner: Indicated that they have a newsletter and asked if a summary of this would be sufficient. Commissioner Bostwick: He felt it is important that the Redevelopment Agency send residents in the Broukhurst Corridor area a copy of the adopted Ordinance with a letter stating when it was passed and some background only v~hy it was passed. Selma Mann: Stated that the matter would be set for a meeting of the City Council. If there is some~ne in the audience that wishes a specific notice of that meeting should contact the Planning Department then they wiil receive tliat notice. IN F,4VOR: 2 people (representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development (WAND) spoke in favor of subject proposal. OPPOSITION: 1 concerned person spoke. :aC710N: Determined that the previously-certified ~IR319 is adeyuate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to Ehe City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. 99-03 adding the Brookhurst Commerciai Corridor Overlay Zone to the Zoning Code of the City of Anaheim and the reclassification of the subject properties to combine the proposed Brookhurst Commercial Corridor "BCC" Overlay Zone with the existing zoning of these properties an~ the modification of the draft ordinance submitted by the Community Development Department at March 1,1999 Planning Commission to prohibit bars and cocktail lounges unless integrated within a full-service restaurant. Granted Rec!assification No. 98-99-11 subject to the adoption of Code Amendment No. 99-03. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, indicated this matter will be set for a meeting before the City 03-01-99 Page 9 Councfi, . DISCUSSIOtS 7'lME: 37 minutos (1:44-2:21) Commissioner Eios~wick re~uested that, if and when, the proposed ordinance gets adopted by the City Council, the Redevel~pment Agency send a copy of the adopted Ordinance with a letter explaining when it was passed, and somE hackground on why it was passed to all the property owners in this Corridor. 03-0', -99 Page 10 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQU~REMENT ^rr~~•~~ Approved 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4075 Granted for 20 years OWNER: Raymond Runo Trust, Norma Hillman, Dan Neyenhuis, (To expire 3-1-2019) Lillian Runo,1120 Kenwood Place, Fullerton, CA 92831 AGENT: David Jackson,100 S. Anaheim Bivd., #125, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1575 West M~~ble Street - Fairmont Private School Property is 0.89 acre located on the north side of Mable Street, 270 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street. To permit the conversion of an existing 14,775 square foot industrial building into a private elementary and j~~nior high school addition to the existing Fairmont Private School with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of November 23, December 7, December 21, 1998, January 4, and February 17, 1999. GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99-35 R1098J e • e • ~ • Chairman Bristol: Stated, for the record, a letter was received today from Mr. Ken Price, President of Samson Motorcycle Products, Inc. (dated February 23, 1999), There was also correspondence received from the law offices of Martineau and Knudson (dated March 1, 1999). Commissioner Esping: Pointed out that some of the letters (5) received had an incorrect Conditional Use Permit No. and should read 4075. ApplicanPs Statement: David Jackson, Executive Director of Fairmont Private Schools, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard: Stated they are requesting the appruval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 to use the property that they are acquiring et 1575 West Mable Street. The approval that they are requesting would greatly improve many of the aspects of their school (traffic, pz~king, etc.) He hoped that his presentation today will correct some of the mistakes and incorrect information brought up at the two previous public hearings held. He emphasized that they are not increasing the size of the school nor the student population. They are requesting property for parking and other uses that will enhance their use and improve the parking and traffic situation. They are increasing the available parking by over 50% of what they already have, from 93 to 150 parking spaces, an increase of 57. With the extra parking it will improve the traffic flow and allow them to improve their pickup and drop off of students in the morning end afternoon. The proposal will also remove the 6 to 12 semi-trucks that currently arrive and depart each day that are owned by the current tenant. They will be reducing their parking between 12 and 24 vehicles each day dep~nding on the time of the year. The applicant will continue to improve the appearance of their property at Mable Street. They feel that they have answered all of the environmenta~ concerns that have been raised at the two earlier Commission meetings (December 7th and January 4th). In their letter dated December 21, 1998 03-01-99 Page 11 and also the traffic and parking survey that has been submitted on January 7,1999 by Daniel Benson and Associates, traffic consultan'., and many of the comments that he wili make today. He has met with most of their neighbors around their property to try to resolve any concerns. He feels that they have been very successful wi;'i most of the neighbors. There are a couple of neighbors that he was unable to meet with. One neighbor declined ta meet with them, two of the neighbors are still in opposition, and a couple of others he is not certain about. fHe submitted letters from neighbors .] Several of the neighbors did not have a problem with their proposal and felt that the things that they are doing N~'il improve the situation. They have aiso attempted to eliminate some of the problems that have been referred to by Samson Motorcycles. He was surprised that they indicated on their latest letter thiat they are still having problems some of their parents driving through there. They felt they have eliminated that problem sin~e the Christmas holidays by installing signs and having personnel posted there each day. They have noticed that the tra~c has improved with many of the other measures that they have taken. He requested that Condition No. 17 of the staff report be deleted. Tr~ey actually have a lease of 10 years with two 5-year options and they also have an option to purchase the building which they hope to do in the near future. It does not make sense having the permit for only 10 years since they are investing a lot of money and making improvements. In their applicant they referenced their Emergency Manual which was something that seemed tc~ be an issue. (He forwarded copies of the Emergency Manual to Commission.] In Favor: Lillian Runo: She is the wife of Raymond Runo. Before her husband's death he managed the buildings and she kept in close contact with the books and the business. After her husband's death i; was very easy for her to assume the manager's role. They have two buildings in the Fairmont School area. Cne is the subject property (1575 West Mable Street) and the other is at 240 S. Loara Street. Fairmont School has never been a deterrent in the leasing of those buildings and no tenant ~~as ever moved out due to the proximity of the school. The company that leases 240 South Loara has been their tenant for almost 20 years. She has visited Fairmont School several times and is continually pleased and impressed with Mr. David Jackson, his teachers and his staff. They have been able to motivate the students to have pride in their community, nation and school. The City of Anaheim has been recognized due to the uutstanding awards in the field of education by Fairmont School. Upposition: Chuck Curry, 5152 Avenida Encines, Carlsbad, CA 92008: ~He submittadletters to the Commission.j His building is located at 220 South Loara Street, Samson Motorcycle Products. His sister and himself are 25% owner at 2.25 South Loara building and have been in ownership for approximately 10 years. They have enjoyed stable occupancy over the years and a great investment except for the freeway construction which contributed to a long vacancy they had on the building before they were able to lease it to Samson. It has been pro,'essionally managed by Bryan Industrial Properties, who have been in Anaheim since 1961. They are very concerned with the proposed expansion of Fairmont School at 1575 West Mable. He has been a commercial real estate broker in San Diego since 1978 and specializes in industrial properties. He has also owned a property management company since 1989. He often sees petitions for schools to go into industrial buildings. They like industrial buildings because the rents are cheap but part of the reason the rents are cheap in industrial building is because there are no parked for other types of uses. There are 18 municipalities in the San Diego county area and these municipalities will ailow schools in industrial buildings provided that the schools offer classes to students on the off peak hours (after 5:00 03-01-99 Pa~e 12 p.m. or weekends). He does nol view a K-1 through K-9 elementary school use to be compatible to those hours. There are some serious parking issues with this property related to the common area driveway that excesses the property. There are al§o life and safety issues involved. When he was at the property he noticed there is a chemical tank behind the building next to the school which he is not certain what it contains. The;e is also the safety issue regarding the trucks. In October 1990 three children were seriously injured and one died in a cross walk at Valleyview. The parents of this school at that time cited increased development in the area as endangering the lives of their children. He feels when a school is allowed in ars industrial park they are doing the same thing. This could potentially create an increase in insurance cost for their project because some of the insurance companies are now starting to rate buildings and common areas as separate policies. It is going to create some compatibility problems as far as other tenants being able to come into their buildings. There are traffic and parking problems. In summary, this is a non-compatible use in this industrial park. It is not a rational conditional use permit request. The Commission needs to consider a focused EIR. The noise and safety issues need to be addressed as well as the pickup and drop off of students. They also need to look at a peak period traffic analysis, and consider increased vandalism and loitering problems that could be a result of this expansion. The b~~ilding was zoned, designed, and built for industrial uses and does not work well for a school. John Maresca, 1933 East Palm Avenue, Orange, CA: He is currently employed by Bryan Industrial Properties as Director of Marketing and on an independent brokerac~e basis, he also represents a number of tenants and owners in the area of Loara, Mable and Broadway. There have been a number of issues raised in the past such as tra~c, intensification of the school use, etc. H~ dealt with a concern that he felt stands above all others. In simple terms, if he came and asked to place an elementary and junior high school in an existing indust~ ial park what would they think? At the very least they would probably hesitate if not disapprove of the concept for obvious reasons, some of which have already been discussed. This is what the Fairmont School is asking for, the school is moving from an established place of operation with defined boundaries to now an industrial building that is part of a three building industrial complex. Current school operations and previous expansions have taken place within defined bour~daries, both natural and physical. As best as they can, the school is currently operating with those defined boundarias. The intended move to expand differs from prsvious expansions. This move is a move into an existing industrial park. By nature of an existing easement ihis facility and planned school expansion would be directly open to and adjacent to industrial uses. Is this the prECedent that the Commission wants to set for this area and the school? The objections t~at are being raised are not stated for eliminating the current school operations or even closing the school down. As awkward as it may be on occasion, the neighboring industrial uses have continued to operate adjacent to the school. This access is due to a large part because of fhe defined boundaries that have aiways been in place. In this requested expansion those boundaries will not exist. The unchangeable easement is an open boundary, such an open boundary can only increase hazards and make it more difficult for the industrial uses ta be adjacent to this use. This planned expansion by the petitioner is neither in their benefit or in the benefit of the neighboring owners and tenants. He felt the decisions made today may set an unwarranted precedent. The future of this area for many years to come will be determined by their cautious evaluation. The petitioner should no hesitate in providing an environmental impact report and study. No ~ne is asking that the school be closed down or not remain there but the approval of the requested school expansion and intensification of their use as currently recommended by staff and the petitioner should not be the decision of the day. Jerry Knudson: On behalf of 8ryan Industrial Properties and R.S. Hoyt Jr. Trust of the R.S. Hoyt Jr. Family Trust located at 146 East Orangethorpe, Anaheim. His clients have interest in building at Embassy and an interest in the building along with Mr. Curry and his sister at 220 Loara, tha building that shares the common driveway. This is the fourth hearing that they have attended. They do not see the concerns that were raised at the prior hearing (particularly on January 4th hearing) have been addressed. The only new item before the Commission is the Daniel Benson Parking and Circulation Study letter dated February 3, 03-01-99 Page 13 1993. He read a letter from Paul Singer to R.S. Hoyt, Jr. dat~d February 11,1999. (He submitted copies of ihe letter fo the Commission. j The parking study refers to the fact that the City of Anaheim parking ordinance, according to the staff report, requires 124.1 parking spaces, not counting space for assembly. The Benson study indicates that the day-to-day operations at the school and offices are just 64 spaces. Mr. Jackson pointed out that there will be no increase in the size of the school. The Benson study states that the demand in the future will be the same because th~re will be no increase in the number of students. This does not take into account that Mr. Jackscn stated at the last hearing that he planned to consolidate his teaching staff. The Benson letter includes six recommendations which are not included in the staff report. If the recommendations are disregarded then the Benson le;ter would also be disregarded. He stressed that the issuance of a conditional use permit must be consistent with the provisions of an adequate general plan (Neighborhood Action Group vs. County of Calaveras 156 Cal.App.3d, 1176,1184). This requirement of consistency is the "lynchpin" of California's land use and development laws. It is the principle that infuses the concept of planned growth with the force of law (de Bottari vs. City of Norco,171 Cal.App.3d, 1204). The subject property is located in an area designated as industrial under the City's General Plan and under the zoning code. The subject property adjoins nine industrial buildings to the north, and part of a long-established industrial park including their property at 220 Loara Street. The applicanPs property shares a common driveway designed for trucks and used by other vehicles for industrial transportation loading and unloading. The common driveway was created by an easement agreement which specifically precludes installation of a fence between the west side of the building on subject property and the driveway. This fact alone underscores the use of this building for school purpose~, including classrooms, is inappropriate and inconsistent with the ML Zone and the existing uses. The adjoining property owners and tenants have opposed the expansion of the school. This is the best evidence of the inconsistency with the General Plan. Prior testimony and presentations to the Commission have established that the proposed school use in this industrial complex does involve a sign~ficant change in use in a significant environmental effect. With the overwhelming evidence before the Commission they can not edopt a negative declaration, an environmental impact report is required. Nor can they make the findings of facts necessary to grant the conditional use permii. Anaheim Municipal Code Section 1803.032 requires a finding,"That the proposed use wili not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which the proposed use is to be located:' There 'ss no evidence in the record to support this finding. In fact, all the evidence in the testimony is that there will be an adverse effect on adjoining land uses. The California Supreme Court held that findings must be based on credible evidence which support factual and legal conciusions. (Topanga Association for a Scenic Community vs. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d, 506.) held to that principle. The Negative Declaration, Section 15091 af CEQA Guidelines provides that findings must be supaorted by substantial evidence in the record and the agency must present some explanation to provide the logical steps between the ultimate finding and the facts of the record. Finding 26(e) of the staff report is also required by City Code, "That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed if any, will not be detrimental to the safety of the citizens;' of the City of Anaheim. There is clear evidence in the record of the potential safety hazard to children. Conditions by implication in the staff report acknowledges that the proposed use is inappropriate and possibly hazardous. Condition No. 15 requires, "That the applicant shall submit a signed statement, approved by the City Attorney's Office, acknowledging that industrial uses are permitted, and may be located immediately adjacent to subject use:' The problem with this condition is that does not make the use any safer for school children and does not remove any of the inherent dangerous. It just recognizes the incompatibility of the uses. Industrial uses should not be a dumping ground. These uses deserve the same ~rotection and rights under the law that other zones receive. This application, if allowed, would be a violation of protection and rights to which existing industrial uses are entitled. This will be simply the first step in destroying the ability J3-01-99 Page 14 of 220 Loara and other industrial properties to be leased or used for industrial purposes. He felt this is a violation of the rights of owners enjoying a long-established industrial use and should not be permitted. 14 should not be permitted under any circumstances without an environmental impact report. Allen VanKirk, (residence) 638 Gilmar Drive, Anaheim, CA and (business)1524 West Mable Street, CA: He is the CPA and the Controller of Wilson Hampton Painting Contractors. The neighbor immediately east and south of subject property. He addressed his concerns as an employee who goes to work there every day and then one as a representative of the company. As a person he would like to restrict his comments prior io the freeway construction in the area. On many occasions he would be able to go to work only by going out Santa Ana Street down to West Street and then come back up Broadway because it was virtually impossible to get left turned in Mable Street from Broadway. He could not go on the other end of Mable Street because Loara Elementary School has a crossing guard and everyone wants to turn left off of Loara onto Broadway headed toward Euclid so only one or two cars gets through any signal. The situation has been aggravated since the new law took into effect regarding the stopping of traffic at school buses flashing red lights. The only way for him to get to work is on the east end of Mable. He has seen numerous accidents at that corner. As someone who goes to work there everyday it is very difficult to get to work. Their company has approximately 15 to 20 on site employees at that Iocation, the rest of their employees out on constructian sites. Their operations begin at 5:00 a.m. by getting materials and leaving. The office staff comes to work between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and some stay until 7:00 p.m. Their employees were parking on the street and the proposal was brought to them suggesting that the entire street be red zoned so there would be no pickup problems with the parents come to pick up their children. Ai one tirne there were cones out on the street by the school that designated elementary school to the right of the cone and junior high school to the left of the cone. There are always parents that wants to drive up the left side of those two lanes. It was virtually impossible on several occasions where he could not turn out of the yard and go right. After numerous calis to the Police Department they came out and would give thirty or forty citations and the situation would clear up for 2 or 3 we~ks and then return to the same situation. The red zoning did not happen, instead the school somehow had signs put up, without their knowledge, that indicated no parking from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Police Department has decided not to give citations if they are sitting in their car. Beginning at 2:50 p.m. they have a long line of parents coming in and it extends all the way around to Broadway Street, coming in from the east side of Mable. It has been frustratinc~ for them because their employees can not park on the street from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. and they have to move their cars into their yard. Their yard is a facility that does many things. The space is used for productive purposes and not for parking. More than half of their yard is full of their own vehicles because they no longer have space to park on the street due to the signage. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: David Jackson: Regarding the school buses causing difficulty from Loara Street, when the law was changed, they quickly did everything that they could to try to keep from being a hindrance to any of their neighbors. They made some changes along with some of the other property that they purchased. All of their school buses unload in the morning on their property so they are not hindering any traffic. Regarding Mable Street and signage, he personally met with Mr. Hampton several times trying to work out something that they felt would help improve the tra~c flow and help all of their neighbors. They ended up coming to an agreement and Mr. Yalda received a signed letter from Mr. Hampton, the owner of Wilson Hampton. They agreed to do some signage but did not put signage for "no parking" on their side of the street and all the way down the rest of Mable Street to Broadway, so they would still have street parking. They did put signs.across the street which has greatly improved the fraffic flow along ~ith many other measures they haVe taken, some very costly and they are trying to do everything they can, especially with the traffic problems which the freeway and Disneyland construction are causing at this time. 03-01-99 Page 15 Most of the issues brought up have been brought up before and he feels that they have been answered but there are some that he could make part of the public record. The opposition indicates that they are not trying to stop the school from being there now but that issue keeps coming up. They talked about the hindrance of havinc~ a school at that location. The school was there first, since 1955. They did no: ask the City to convert the area into industrial but they did not hr~ve the wherewithal to buy all the land around and so they have to live with it and they have been for all these years. To his knowledge they have not had any significant problems and they have tried their best to work with their neighbors. Overall they have had very good success. The major issue with the building ~~~d its use is that the opposition thinks that no one would think that students would not be entering into the parking lot or the transit area between this building and the other industrial building. They have had very good control. Their students do stay where they are assigned to stay. Certain areas have been off limits and they havs not had no problems or incidents with students getting into those areas. By having the building it gives them a greater buffer between some of the industrial buildings and, in particular, the ones that are most adamant about not wanting them around - it gives them a buffer between their existing buildings and the school's existing play area and classrooms. All the area will be strictly employee, not for parents or visitors, along with half of the building c~osest to those that will ba corporate type o~ces and not school offices which are in the main building. He is trying to understand why there is such opposition with primarily the one building that Samson Motorcycles is in and ones contro~lsd and owned by Mr. Hoyt and Bryan Industries. It is his understanding from Mrs. Runo and her son that are managing the existing building that the peop!e at Samson would like to acquire, lease or buy that building and that is part of the reason they do not want the school to have it. He had a cordial meeting with Mr. Hoyt and his attorney and staff. They went through all of these issues and he felt that they answered virtually all of the issues. One final issue came up that if they move into it then there is a good likelihood that their tenant, Samson Motorcycles, would move out. The school has made an offer and still makes that offer public that if that happens, then they would be very interested in leasing tfiat building and even entering into a lezse that would not allow them to use it for educational purposes or for the school. So they wculd lease it back and then could control the tenants there that maybe would not get along with their current uses. Mr. Yalda approved their traffic study and contacted Mr. Singer since he had done the traffic study for them ir.1993 which showed greater traffic generated because at the time they were going to have a high school there generating much more need for parking and traffic. They decided not to have a high school there and never will. Mr. Singer was unable to update the survey because he had just been hired by Mr. Hoyt and Bryan Industries. There is concern about a fence being put on the ~r;,perty line tetween Mrs. Runo's building and her other buildinr and the Samson building. There is an agreement written in the lease and they have continued to say that they do not want to do that. They will just be upgrading the existing fences and making no other changes. One of the issues regarding parking and traffic is what they are doing will lower the parking requirements and the amount of traffir, and parking that the current tenant has will be reduced 25 to 50% depending on the time of the year, including the moving of their administrative o~ce staff. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Yalda to comment on Mr. Kudson's letter regarding the on-site parking count as being invalid because the administrative staff will be moved to Mable. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Responded in looking at the required parking per Ciry code, they would be required to add 28 spaces for tha! particular use. They are adding 57 parking spaces. Even if all 28 spaces were used by the addition of staff, then they will have an additional 29 parking spaces which will help to alleviate some of the problems that they are having at the site. Perhaps the parking is off because Code requires 29 spaces per thousand square feet for assembly area which is 03-01-99 Page 16 not currently used when the school is in session. In other words, they do nbt have an assembly of 500 people every day coming to the site. Commissioner Esping: Asked Mr. VanKirk whether his business is required to provide parking on their property for their employees, and not just parking on the street. Mr. VanKirk: They do, but he does not have spaces for vendors to park. Commissioner Esping: Asked how many parking spaces he has available for his employees and how many employees do they have? Mr. VanKirk: They have apFroximately 15 to 20 employees, it fluctuates depending on what they are doing inside the siiop area. Commissioner Boydstun: It appears he dnes not have enough parking for his business. Mr. VanKirk: They do within the yard area if they do not have the employees working there. Chai; man Bristol: Asked how long he has been at the site? Mr. VanKirk: The building was built in the early 60's. He has only been with the company four years. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Mr. Yalda if Mr. VanKirk has enough parking on his property as required for the business? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Depending on the use, they would probably require 1.55 spaces per tho~~sand square feet. Perhaps they need to repaint the parking spaces to be able to identify the amount. Generally if the requirement is to provide a loading zone, they provide a courtesy service to all the prope~y owners fronting the property and could provide for the loading zone for 30 minutes but they can not be specifically for their customers but for anyone. Commissioner Kaos: Far the record, he and Commission Esping visited the site at the same time approximately a month ago. If this conditional use permit is granted then his understanding froin Mr. Jackson is ti~3t they do not inte~d to go for any more students. Although today he indicated that he is looking at acquiring property to the west and asked if that would be in addition to this proposal? Mr. Jackson: As a courtesy to their naighbor, they would lease it at the market value for a long term lease but with no use for the school so the owner would not lose any ~evenue and, therefore, the school would have the control. That they would sublease it to someone else and it would not be an expansion at all. Obviously, if they can not lease it then they would lose money but that would be their intent. They have no need or want for that property for their school uses. Commissioner Esping: It seems that they are in compliance in terms of the various codes as far as the number of parking spaces. It would be the employees that would be parking there. There would be adequate parking and the students would not be in that area. Mr. Jackson: Confirmed that this was correct. As they listen to their neighbors they realized that to try to keep peace with their neighbors and to protect everyone, then this plan made much more sense and gave them an opportunity to consolidate their overall administrative offices for all six campuses. Commissioner Koos: Asked if the students will be entering the building from the east side only? Mr. Jackson: Due to the wall being right on the property line they can not penetrate the wall because of fire code so there would be a door on the south (Mable Street side) and on the north side. On the south side the students would enter but not go any further than that and on the north side there is a wall where there will not be any access from that area to the parking lot, even their faculty can not come in through that entrance. 03-01-99 Page 17 Chairman Bristol: Asked if Mr. Jackson had already submitted the emergency plan to staffl Mr. Jackson: Responded that he just now submitted it to staff. This was an update of their existing emergency plan with other items they found they wouid like to make sure their students are protected in case of any kind of emergency. Chairman Bristol: At the last meeting he had concems regarding environmentai issues regarding hazardous waste to the north and had concerns about who was there first, the school or the industrial area, and he was infarmed that the school was there first. The opposition spoke regarding the environmental issues, such as hazardous waste that potentially abuts iheir school. He asked if he knew what was there? Mr. Jackson: He has asked each of the tenants what they had and had submitted a list from each of the tenants. There is only one tenant that is required to have a fire environmental license that has inspections because of the painting that they do, but none of the other tenants are doing anything that requires that type of inspection. He was not certain which tank the opposition was referring to. If it is a tank on the building that they are currently using that has anything to do with the current tenant, then they are removing everything that is there but they are not aware of any other hazardous materials. They know that whether it is a train or trucks, those possibilities can happen and that is why they instituted the updated emergency procedures. Chairman Bristol: Asked if he would knowingly put the students at risk next to an environmental hazardous waste area7 Mr. Jackson: No, they would not be around this long if they did that and it woi~ld be extremely poor business, unethical and against everything he believes, not to mention how devastating it would be financially. Chairman Bristol: Asked if any of the property owners had brought this concern to his attention before his current proposal? Mr. Jackson: He did not recall anyone who has ever said that there are any hazardous materials, etc. that would cause any problems for their students. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Requested rewording of Condition No. 1 to read, "That an "Emergency Response Plan" shall be created and submitted 4o the Fire and Planning Depa~tments:' The rest of the sentence will remain the same. IN FAVOR: 1 persor~ spoke in favor. Lette~s from Ambrosio Aguirre (Cus;om Creation Service), Jimmy Copeland (Quick Start), David David (Imperial Products, Inc.), and Duane Cao (Seatz Manufacturing Inc.) ~vere received in favor of subject proposal. OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition Letters from Ken Price (Samson Motorcycle Products, Inc.) and Gerald Knudson (Law Offices of Martineau & Knudson), representing Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc. and R. S. Hoyt, Jr., were submitted in opposition t~ subject propcsal. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 for 20 years, to expire March 1, 2019. Mudified Condition Nos. 1 and 17 to read as follows: 1. That an "Emergency Response Plan" shall be created and submitted to the Fire and Plar,ning Departments. The school shall be responsible for the 03-01-99 Page 18 implementation of this plan and for assuring awareness to all school personnel working with students. 17. That subject us.e permit shall expire with the lease on the property as indicated by the petitioner, in twenty (20) years from the date of this resolution, on March 1, 2019. VOTE: 7-0 Seima Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DlSCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (2:23-3:23) i OTAL (6 MEETINGS) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 hours and 55 minutes. 03-01-99 Page 19 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continu 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3-29-99 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4088 OWNER: Gilbert Ball Partners LP, 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1050, Irvine, CA 92612 AGENT: Meta Housing Corporation, Attn: Sean Clark, 4100 W. Alameda Blvd., #205, Burbank, CA 91505 LOCATION: 935 South Gilbert Street. Property is 0.8 acre located on the west side of Gilbert Street, 203 feet north ofi the centerline of Ball Road. To construct a 37-unit affordable senior citizen apartment complex with a density bonus with waiver of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum landscape se:back, (d) minimum structural and landscaped setback adiacent to a collector street, (e) minimum side yard setback, (~ required elevators (dEleted), (g) minimum pedestrian access. (h) location of private storage areas and (i) minimum required affordable units. Continued from the Commission meetings of January 4, and February 1, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. DOC • • • o • • Applicant's Statement: Sean Clark, Meta Housing Corporation, 4100 W. Alameda 21vd., Suite 205, Burbank, CA 91505: They are proposing a 34-unit affordable senior citizen housing complex at 935 South Gilbert. Meta Flousing Corporation is a developer of affordable senior housing. The principals of the company have developed approximately 7,000 units of similar types of affordable senior housing, in fact, the principal of their company was directly responsible for the 94-unit Heritage Park Anaheim Project dirPCtly across the street from this proposed project. The process began back to November 1997. It was their original intent to build a 37-unit senior housing project that was initially proposed to be z three-story building. Tfie reason for the last two continuances has been to try to accommodate some of the concerns that have been raised by the homeowners groups and at staff level. The project they now have proposed !hey hope will be a combination of all of the constraints and issues that have been presented. They have met a number of times with City staff and have met twice with the homeowners group, once in a formal session with WAND (WesE Anaheim Neighborhood Council) and the other informally with several members of WAND. Th~e area that they are proposing for this project is an appropriate use for a senior housing project. The building to the north of tlie proposed project is a 24-unit senior housing apar:ment. Directly across the street is a 94-unit affordable senior housing project. With the approval of this project they are creating a "defacto" senior campus. The proposal to place multi-family housing or apartment use on this project also seems to be an appropriate use for this site considering the location of commercial to the south, multi- family to the north and this project being buffered from the single-family residences along Bruce and Gilbert Street. They believe the design is sensitive to the neighborhood. 03-01-99 Page 20 The staff report notes that they are asking for a densify bonus and ti~ere are two issues related to that among the waivers requested. They have completed an affordahility convenent with the Redevelopment Agency. They actually did it twice, they did it once when they hac; proposed this to be a 37-unit project and just did it again when it was revised to a 34-unit project. Originaily the project was to be a 3-story building with at-grade parking. They understand that a 3-story building is not appropriate for this location and based on the comments received, they then restructured it to be a 2-story building with subterranean parking which is at a significant cost to this project which is going to require some type of subsidy. i'hey are going to be pursuing federal low income housing tax credits to finance the project. Sean Clark: The concerns of the residents are relative to any egress and access from Bruce Street. The residents have been very specific about any concerns that would generate any vehicular access or additional traffic un Bruce. The previous design had a gate on Bruce which has been eliminated but they do have a pedestrian gate on Bruce. It is only for emergencies because there is no secondary means of egress or exiting from the property. They will work with the homeowners to ensure that it will never become a problem. It will be inaccessible from Br~~ce an~ offered to alarm the gate in the event it is opened. The building to the north is a 24-unit project which is also a 2-story project. It was built 5 feet from the property line. The first design concept submitted 'showed the entire structure along the northerly property line at 5 feet from the property line. In the redesigned concept the majority of the building is actually stepped back a significant distance from the building to the north where only one unit now is actually near or adjacent to the building to the north. They have actualiy reduced the building height and other items such as increased public space. Aside from the economics of the project, it also needs to be a certain size for a senior nousing project to be able to have the programming and social activities that a project of this type needs to have. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Clark if they have any elevation information. He noted the Commission had concerns regarding the parking, elevations and the tightness of the building to the surrounding area? (Mr. Clark submitted elevations exhibits for Commission to review.] Jay Crawford, architect, 15375 Barranca Parkway, Suite F-101, Irvine, CA 92618: Originally they had a 3-story concept. In meeting with staff they had a lot of waivers and would probably not be able to go for the density bonus, so they redesigned the site plan and elevations to conform to staffs recommendations ~~ith a similar concept with a courtyard without the waivers except for those related to density and height limit. In speaking with staff again, they felt the configuration of the courtyard was not the best solution in terms of light getting into the project. So they redesigned it again for the third time and it became more of a"U" shape that faced south which brought exterior light to the interior courtyard area. At that point they met with Planning and Community Development and they indicated that they had a probiem with the 3- story concept. So they redesigned it again and put the parking under grade with a 2-story complex and it affected the tax credits, so they went back and revised it and came up with the fourth concept. Regarding the ramps, Community Development requested possibly two ramps. It seemed a little excessive to him to have two ramps for 40 cars especially for seniors. They aiso requested a ramp on the south end which is awkward from a p;anning standpoint because ihere is a driveway next door at the commercial project that is coming out of the same spot. There would actually be two driveways exiting almost at the same location which could cause some problems. That was the main reason for putting a ramp on the north end. There is a wood fence from the project to the north which is falling out and they are proposing to put in a new wall. In terms of sight line, they can install wrought iron towards the front setback to increase that sight line. He feels that problem can be worked out. 03-01-99 Page 21 He indicated in the findings it slated that they were providing 100 cubic feet of stcrage in each unit which is incorrect, Some of the units have 100 cubic feet but not all. That was changed where they are providing storage for all of the units, not just in the units but also in the garage area. There was a comment about the laundry which is located at tho recreation building being somewhat remote to the project. They felt it would be better at the recreation building since it is not a very big site and they felt it was not that far from the units. The seniors would also have a chance to socialize with other people. The unit aver the ramp area is the only unit that is within 5 feet of the property line and there was some concern about its impact on the neighbors to the north. They would like to pull the building back as far as possible but they need to get a certain number of units on the site and they do not feel these units are a large impact on the next door neighbors. Mr. Clark: The design concept is colonial. They have not yet included building materials. They will do that before a final design plan is approved. They have tried to provide a generous amount of public open space. On the parking structure below they tried to provide security access to all points, not only at Gilbert but to the parking structure below grade. There are 7 visitor spaces provided and the rema~nder of the space provides a gated entrance. This would be a security entrance to the parking structure as well as to the building. This would be a security facility for seniors. They are willing to work with the City and WAND regarding traffic issues or other issues. Opposition: Mrs. Carl Pritz, 920 South Bruce Street, Anaheim, CA 92804: Her residence is located to the north of subject property. The neighborhood is happy to see this going in. She asked that they install a pedestrian gate which can not be a walk through because presently there are apartments on the right side coming from Bruce. If there is a gate there where people can go in and out, it means their front yard becomes a parking lot. There are already a lot of cars there on Bruce Street tecause the apartments on the right side. She suggested some type of gate where they can get out but not an entrance gate where someone could park their car and leave it for days. She is primarily concerned about the parking on Bruce Street and wai ~ts a firm agreement that the gate will only be an exit pedestrian gate. Judith Ann Gollette, representing WAND: She thanked everyone who has been working on this project. The land has been an eyesore for many years. Their concerns are: • Density • Pedestrian gate onto Bruce • 'i"raffic flow onto Gilbert • Quality of life to the condos north of the proposed project • Quality of life for the seniors at this project She thanked Mr. Jay Cooper for going to the drawing board many times and coming up with a plan that they feel is workable. She apologized to the Planning staff for not getting back with them with WANUS remarks but she has been sick. The neighbors on Bruce Street are concerned with the pedestrian gate and any additional traffic flow onto Bruce. Bruce Street is now "red" zoned up to the cui-de-sac. They have been advised not to seek red- zoning for the rest of the cul-de-sac because of future use which may be a deterrent for people who want the complex itself. A major issue is the traffic flow onto Gilbert Street. She reviewed with Mr. Yalda the traffic flow at Giibert and Ball which is part City and part County. The traffic flow on Friday nights turning east to west (turning left) has a greater accident occurrence. With this complex there will now be 150 singfe units in a 500-foot radius from the corner of Gilbert and Ball. There is one commercial exit which is the alley behind the 7- Eleven. There is also the exit from Garden Park Medical Center which is on the south end. They will all be entering and exitir,g onto this 500-foot parcel of Gilbert. She has spoken to several people trying to see what they can do about the corner of Gilbert and Ball Road (Gilbe~t and Ball Corridor). It is too narrow 03-01-99 Page 22 to put in another traffic lane but it has been suggested that turning arrows would be instailed there. WAND is concerned about what is going to be installed there. They feel the amount of traffic added to the area is going to be significant, even though the Traffic Division has stated that the old medical complex that was there would have added more traffic than the senior complex proposed. Another concern is the ramp going into the subterranean parkinc~. Currently the first unit is 5 feet away from the north complex and the other two units are 15 feet from the fence. She asked Mr. Clark to remove the first unit which would give a 15- to 20-foot corridor to the north side of ihat complex. They are definitely concerned with the density factor. They would ideally liks to have a couple of homes there but realize what the reality is. They are going for a tax credit for senior units and there is a certain amount that they can put in and a certain amount of budget that they are working with. They like the concept of a"campus" between the units already there. Currently there are three proposed complexes and the marriage between the three is important. Originally the proposal was for a 37-unit Mediterranean villa complex. West Anaheim does not have Mediterranean villas so WAND askeu that they change the architectural facade into something that would fit in with the rambling ranch colonial architectural style that they already have which is reflected in their current proposal. They are pleased with the openness of the landscaping, fountain and recreation area that will be facing Bruce Street instead of the parking lot. They are welcoming them into the neighborhood and hope that something can be agreed upon. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Sean Clark: They are in agreement that the entrance on Bruce Street be restricted for emergency exiting and will make sure that the plans reflect'.hat change. They can also include other measures such as alarms on the doors. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Williams: Asked about painting the cul-de-sac"red"? Sean Clark: They can agree to that as well. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transporta!ion Planner: He thought the residents did not want that. Commissioner Williams: The residents wanted it but did not do it because of the future development of that property. Sean Clark: They would not have an objection to that if the City so desired and the neighborhood felt it was a significant issue. Regarding the driveway ramp, they did consider locating it in the middle of the project which was not practical because it did not allow thern to secure the parking area for the residents. They also ~onsidered putting the parking entrance to the south but that created greater conflicts with the commercial zone to the south of the property. The best location for the driveway entrance was at the north of the property. These are issues which they feel they can work with the Traffic Division in terms of assuring that there are adequate sight lines and the ability to exit out of the structure in a safe way and to make sure that pedestrians are not obstructed either. Another concern raised was the proximity to the north of the building. It is a tax credit project and unfortunately the types of tax credits that they are pursuing now are of the competitive nature. They are in a position where they are doing competitive tax credits because of the change from a 37-u~iit project reduced to a 34-unit project and also because they have placed all the parking underneath which added a substantial cost to the project but also reduced the income possibility of the project. This project will, therefore, depend on deep levels of subsidy and this 34th unit is important to the viability of the project. 03-01-99 Page 23 They have trfed to mitigate the impact of the overali project by reducing its size and pulling it back as much as possible. The only impact that remains is from the one unit. The impact of the one unit is nominal with respect to the impact on shadowing but lines of sight as well. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if they can change the units to 2-bedroom and pull it back away from the wail? Sean Clark: That was actually one of the options they considered, but it does still have a significant economic effect. The rent difference between a 1-bedroom versus a 2-bedroom rent is not that significant unfortunately. The other option they considered was taking one or two units and placing them over the recreation building but felt that it was not advantageous because they actually isolate the units away from the primary living space ; therefore, they abandoned that idea. Commissioner Rc;twick: Staff is recommending denial of the environmental impact because of the closeness to ti~e property on the north. If it is pulled back and redesigned, they would not have a problem with the imposition of this property onto the adjoining one with such issues as lack of privacy, lighting, etc. Chairman Bristol: Regardiny the Gilbert Street elevation, it appears on the parking plan that there is an 18-inch elevation on Gilbert Street but there is not indication of this on the elevation plans. Sean Clark: Yes there is. The parking structure is partially elevated 18 inches and then the building is on top of it. The solar study would show the overall building. It is a difficult project which they have acknowledged since the beginning due to the geography of the site and the layout with the cul-de-sac that cuts into the heart of tf;e site. They have struggled coming up with a plan that would work for everyone. Commissioner Williams: As{:ad if they are 3%: feet out of the ground with the parking which would make the ramp very shal~ow going down? If so, then he did not feel that the view of an automobile coming out would be blocked in any way. They would have a clear view coming out because the driveway would not be very steep. Sean Clark: He agreed it would be very shallow. Commissioner Williams: As far as visibility of a car coming up with its nose in the air, that would not exist, and the car would basically be coming up flat. Seam Clark: That is why there are not two units. Chairman Bristol: He asked about visibility leaving the site at the entrance, directly north on Gilbert Street and asked if there is street parking allowed? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: He thought there probably is avaiiable parking. Chairman Bristol: If parking is allowed, there is going to be a major problem on Gilbert if there is a car parked blocking the view. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: There is a condition requiring the ;applicant to conduct a study to ensure there is adequate line of sight. Chairman Bristol: They may find that a portion of the curb on Gilbert will need to be red lined. Commissioner Williams: Suggested they red line the curb approximately 20 feet to eliminate the line of sight problem. Chairman Bristoi: He is in agreement with Commissioner Bostwick regarding the setback on the north. Sean Clark: They have worked very hard fo get where they are now and he felt what they have now does not significantly impact the building to the north. 03-01-99 Page 24 Chairman Bristot: He disagreed. Sean Clark: The question is how does it affect it. Does it affect it in terms of lines~of-sight, shadows, etc.? Commissioner Bostwick: They are talking about a selback that is only 5 feet. Chalrman Bristol: It is a very tight area. Sean Clark: That is part of the reason they tried to pull it back as much as possible and left it with only one unit. He asked that Commission consider approving the item. Staff has recommended continuing the item for 4 weeks and if Commission decides to continue the item, he requested that this item be continued for only 2 weeks, if this is the only issue that remains. Commissioner Bostwick: The probiem with a 2-week continuance is that th~y would need to have the plans returned to staff by Wednesday. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: A 2-week continuance would be very iight. There has already been a recommendation committee meeting for the March 15th meeting on plans already submitted. 7he staff reports for March 1~th meeting would be due Friday which would mean 4he plans would need to be submitted tomorrow morning and staff needs lines-of-sight. There are other things they would like to see shown on the pians such as what would happen with oversized vehici~ parking and delivery trucks, the location of the laundry in proximity ;~ ": i~cation to the units. Therefore, she would recommend a 4-week continuance. Commissioner Bostwick: ?erhaps there should be a signal bell at the gate on Bruce Street where the deliveri~s could be made since it will be close to the office. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: He suggested that the applicant provide a circulation plan on what the slope is on the parking lot, including the line-of-sight. Staff has not seen the revised plans. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a 4 weelc continuance, seconded by Commission Napoles and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: 2 concerned citizens spoke. ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 29,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit a traffic circulation plan, drivewa~ line-of-sight drawings, and revised plans showing the revised location of the laundry raom and increased building setback adjacent to the north property line. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSiON TIME: 43 minutes (3:25-4:08) 03-01-99 Page ~5 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVE' 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4013 (READVERTISED) OWNER: CWCT, LLC A California Limited Liability Company,1451 Quail Street, Suite 210, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: The Clifford Companies, Attn: Loren W. Brucker,1451 Quail Street #210, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 8181-8201 East Kaiser Boulevard. Property is 6.2 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. To permit roof-mounted equipment for a previously-approved planned commercial officellight industrial complex with seven buildings. Continued from the Commission meeting of February 1, 1999. CONDITIONAL IfSE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99-36 Approved, as readvertised - I SR7403VK DOC • • e • • • Chairman Bristol: Stated, for the record, he read the minutes for P~anning Commission public hearing of February 17, 1999 since he was absent that day. (Commissioner Koos declared a conJlict of interest for fhis item since he owns property wiihin 1,000 feet of subjecr site.] Applicant's Statement: Warren Brucker, Clifford Companies, 1451 Quail Street, Suite 210, Newport Beach, CA: Their request for an 2mendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4013 came before Commission on February 1st where ~everal issue of concerns were brought up at that meeting. He read the staff report and is in agreement with the recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING iNAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject ruquest. Approved the modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 4013, as readvertised. Modified Resolution No. PC98-57 as follows: Amended Condition No. 16 to read ~s folfows: "16. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the P!anning Departmert marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 36, and as conditioned herein ° Added the following conditions: "23. That priar to final building and zoning inspections, Zoning Division staff shall inspect the property to determine compliance with line-of-site drawings and 03-01-99 Page 7.6 elevation renderings shown on approved ifne-of-sight photographs, Exhibit Nos. 16a (7 pages) and 16b (7 pages), and computer renderings, Exhibit Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 36, and as conditioned herein. 24. That the roof-mounted aquipment not exceed the height of the screening device enclosure. 25. That ali roof-mounted equipment shail be the same color as the raof. 26. That if Zoning Division inspections reveal visibility of the roaf-mounted equipment, grated screens shall be piaced on top of the equipment screens to cover and conceal the equipment. That the eq~~ipment screens shall be engineered to allow for the installation of grated top screens as may be required " VOTE: 6-0 {Commissioner ICoos declared a conflict of interest) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (4:08-4:15) 03-01-99 Page 27 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT March 15, 1999 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4101 6d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 99-01 OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company, Attn: Vincent Le Pore,13539 East Foster Road, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 AGENT: David Rose, 3870 La Sierra Avenue, #193, Riversid~, CA 92505 LOCATION: 300 South Brookhurst Street - Thrifty Oil Property is 0.51 acres located at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Broadway. Conditional Use Permit No. 4101 - to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing service station and to convert an existing accessory auto repaidcashier building into a convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waivers of (a) continuation of nonconforming billboards, (b) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway, (c) minimum retail sales floor area, and (d) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to interior boundary lines. Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-01 - to determine Public Convenience or Necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption within the proposed convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. 41 • • • • • • Two people were present (names not given) for this item. They did not give public testimony but indicated they will return to the March 15, 1999 public hearing. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 15, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 7_p DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-01-99 Page 28 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3663 (READVERTISED) Approved reinstatement OWNER: Interchemical Corporation, Attn: Donald Smith, 300 (To expire 1-31-2000) Continental Drive North, Mount Olive, NJ 97828 AGENT: Griffith Company, Attn: Bob Schulfz,12200 Bloomfield Avenue, P.O. Box 2150, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 LOCATION: 1160 (formeriv ~244) North Lemon Street Property is a.12 acres located on the east side of l.emon Street, 330 feet south of the centerline of Commercial Street. To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on March 7, 1994 until March 7,1999) to retain the manufacturing of road base material from asphaltic concrete and to retain one 160 square foot modular office unit. I CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC39-37 L SR1110TW DOC s • • o a • Applicant Statement: Bob Schultz, Griffith Company, 12200 Bloomfield, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670, Santa Free Springs, CA 90670: He chose not to give opening remarks. ~hairman Bristol: Asked the applicant if he received the staff report? Bob Schultz: He was unable to review it because he has not been at their corporate office for over a week. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: He notified the applicant that the time limitation on this permit would expire on January 31, 2000 and is he in agreement? Bob Schultz,: Indicated he was. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: When the applicant originally had the projec:t approved they had agreed to keep their material stacked within a certain confined area on the property. Therefore, the condition relative to sidewalks was again confined to the agreed upon area. However, they have been regularly stacking outside of that area and as of today those piles are still further north of the designated area. She recommended they install sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property unless they can confine those piles very quickly and keep them confined. Bob Schultz: The land owner applied for the conditional use permit in 1994 and in order to keep the height of the piles down they rented more property. At that time they indicated there were 8.12 acres of propert~ available for the conditional use permit, and he was not aware of what Ms. Adams was referring to until last week. Since that time Mr. Ted White, Planner, spoke with him and asked that this be completed within 30 days from last Wednesday, which he agreed. He has now decided to skip anotherjob and return to the site in 5 to 6 days. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: It is importan4 that the pile be removed since it is not in conformance with the boundaries that the conditional use permit was approved under. If it were to remain there for any 03-01-99 Page 29 ~ length of time then staff would need to readvertise the conditional use permit and consider that as a part of the approval. Chairman Bristol: Asked if Condition No.16, page 4, address that issue? He asked tne applicant to review the staff report. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Suggested that another option would be to continue the item untii it ihe applicant comes into compliance. Chairman Bristol: Asked if they have been complying with the other conditions? Cheryi Fiores, Senior Planner: Yes, this is the only outstanding issue. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the Previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3663. Modified Resolution No. PC94-34, as follows: Amended Condition No. 5 to read as follows: "5. That subject approval shall expire and become null and void on January 31, 2000:' Added the following conditiors of approval: "16. That there shall be no materials stored nortfi of the southerly 2.5 acres as shown on site plans marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; and further, that all current materials shall be removed from the prohibited area within 30 days of the date of this resolution. 17. That the operator shall clean the public right-of-way (Lemon Street) adjacent to the subject facility on a weekly basis, or as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department:' VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (6:06-6:12) 03-01-99 Page 30 8b. GENBRAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 362 Continued to Sc. RECLASSIFICATION NO 98-99-10 4-12-99 8d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUiREMENT 8e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 4096 Sf. 7ENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 98•234 8g. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO 99-01 8h. REQUEST FbR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 8a. 8c. 8d. 8e. 8f and 8u OWNER: City of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10th floor, Anaheim, CA 92805 County of Orange, Attn: Real Property Manager, PFRD Real Property, 300 North Flower Street, CA 92703 AGENT: Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Attn: Kevin Canning, 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso'diejo, CA 92656 LOCATION: 8200 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 16.27 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avsnue and Yorba Linda Boulevard. General Plan Amendment No. 362 - to amend the ! and Use Element of the City of Anaheim Genaral Plan to redesig~ate this property from the Hiilside Low-Medium Density Residential and General Commercial land use designations to the Comrnercial Professional land use designation. Reciassification No. 98-99-10 - to reclassify this property from the RS-A- 43,000(8C) (Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) and the CL(SC) (Commercial, Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zones to the CO(SC) (Commercial, Office and Professional; Scenic Corridor Uverlay) Zone. ~onditional Use Permit No. 4096 - to permit a planned commercial office/light industrial center, including a semi-enclosed restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, with roof- mounted equipment and building heights in excess of 35 feet with waivers of (a) minimum parking lot landscaping, (b) permitted type of commercial identification sign, (c) maximum area of commercial identification signs. (d) minimum site area per lot and (e) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone. Tentative Parcel Ma~ No. 98-234 - to permit an 11-lot (including one lot for landscapirig) subdivision for the development of a commercial office/light industrial complex. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-01 - to remove specimen Eucalyptus trees from this property with repiacement at a ratio of two trees for every one tree removed. GENERAL PLAN Ah!ENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. II SR7402KB.DOC & 03-01-99 Page 31 • • • • • • (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conBict of interest because he owns property within 1,000 feet of subject site.J ApplicanPs Statement: John Killan, Burnett Polygon Development: They are proposing an office/business park for this property. The plan was developed after careful consideration of the market demand, compatible uses for the area and their previous experience as industrial park and office developers, specifically of high quality business center in central and south Orange County such as their project at the Arena Corporate Centre adjacent to the Arena. They worked closely with the Redevelopment .4gency staff to come up with a concept for this site. They believe the use proposed minimizes the impacts over other types of possible projects within the area. As the staff report indicates previously the site has been zoned for a commercial market drug type center. They are in agreement with staff that the zone change from the General Commercial to Commercial Professional is a down scaling and thereby less extensive. They have also been working closely with the Planning staff ano have met with the surrounding property owners on four separate occasions and their development team to help create a plan that considers as many of the constraints as possible. The site has a number of physical and planning constraints. They have utilized approximately 70 feet of slope banks, severe grades, the Orange County Sanitation District trunk line which bisects the property and other constraints on the site and have located the building in a campus like manner and attempted to work with moderately scaled down one-story and two-story structures. Their commitment to the project is for quality. They have taken seven months on the design and redesign of the project. He thanked City staff and residei~ts for their cooperation on the project. Kevin Canning (Planning Consultant), Culbertson, Adams and Associates, 85 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo, CA: They have had a number of negotiating sessions with City staff and residents. As a result of the four meetings with the neighbors, they changed the architectural materials which incorporate softer tones, increased use of stone and changing of the window tint. Originally Building 15 was a single building that was over 200 feet wide and they split it into two structures to accommodate concerns 2bout massing of the structure. There will be no direct property access to either Jennifer or Old La Palma Avenue. They originally proposed an access but once they received concurrence with the Fire Department and Traffic staff, they were able to eliminate those and wiil also be increasing the landscaping a~d putting wrought iron fencing along the property line to address neighborhood concerns of pedestrian traffic from the park. They have agreed to meet with the neighbors about the landscaping area. They have a basic plant palette but are willing to work with them on the specific trees to be planted and possibly add new plant materials. The neighbors to the rear of their property will be more impacted by those plant materials so they will also work with them on the placement and type of plant materials. This is a small representation of a large blighted area located along La Palma Avenue that is still currently owned by the County. At the suggestion of the neighbors, they were able to coordinate both County and City resources such that Burnett Palygon will be designing a landscape plan thai meets City approval. They will install it and the City has agreed to maintain the property and the County has agreed to issue the necessary encroachment permits. The neighbors greatest concern was the height of the structures in relation to the adjacent residences. The plan submitted and reviewed by staff and neighbors had height differentials from one to three feet where the business park project was the higher property. The applicani informed the residents last Thursday that it was not physicall~~ possible to make any changes to that since there were drainage constraints, a retaining wall, locetion of buildings, and the general drainage requirements, They now have 03-01-99 Page 32 a revised plan that has lowered buildings from 1 to 3 feet by adjusting the grading, and increasing the height of the crib wall. They have included a request to allow roof-mounted equipment. The property is located within the scenic corridor. They feel they have a unique circumstance in that Yorba Linda Boulevard is 50 to 60 feet above the site. it is very difficult to screen the equipment given that change in elevation from a public street. He referenced color photos submitted that demonstrates that the groundcover along that slope adequately screens the roof-mounted equipment. They feel that they will be able to much more easily mitigate any noise or visual impacts bv roof-mounted equipment. He noted that the previous item before Commission was similar to their project where roof-mounted equipment was approved in the Scenic Corridor Zone for a nearby property and the types of conditions of approval that were attached are the same as the ones they proposed (that the equipment would be painted to match the roof and they would not center it in every building but would tuck it up against the parapets and the roof-mounted equipment would be no higher than the level of the parapet). They will be commenting on some minor clarifications on the conditions of approval following their rebuttal. Opposition: Bob Koch, 8124 East Woodsboro Avenue, Anaheim, CA: (Submitted /etters and comments in booklets for Commission's review.] He has been a resident at Woodsborc for 13 years. They are very concerned with the present plans. ' They have reviewed the favorable and unfavorable aspects and feel that this is going to decrease the overall quality of life for the neighborhood. They have organized themselves to have 10 speakers and then he will have some concluding remarks. They have had four meetings with the developer and appreciate the developers offering their facilities for the first meeting and coming to their home and staying late in the evening to discuss issues. The first two meetings were only with a small group of representatives. They were establishing a dialog at tnat point they thought, so they were not inclined to send letters and c~mments to the Planning Commission to let them know how the residents felt at that time. The second two meetings were held last week at their insistence. They were held so the entire neighborhood could see the plans. They referred to a letter from him that chronicles the history of the interactions and shows the points of agreements that they thought had happened along the way, many of which did not get responded to. They feel after carefully reviewing the final plans, it is clear that the developers have not adequately responded to most of their concerns. They did respond to some and have made a few changes that they requested; however, their concerns continue as to the density of the project and the size of the buildings. They felt the site is a tightly-packed project and they feel the project is going to generate some traffic problems. There is also an issue with the overall elevation. The changes in the rear elevation oo alleviate some of the concerns but there has been no plan to change anything in the front area and there are still some concerns at that point. They are concerned with the proximity of the buildings to the homes. They are concerned with the intrusive nature of buildings; the large cornerstone on the west corner building and Building 12 (on corner of La Palma and Weir Canyon). They are concerned with the roof-mounted air conditioning equipment, despite the comments Mr. Canning made, they feel that they will be unsightly and noisy. They are concerned about the inadequacy of the landscaping even though the applicant has agreed to work with the neighbors and they see from reports that there are minimal efforts being made there. They have some concerns about the potential R&D users. They are particularly concerned about chemical users. They will not be raising their concerns about the restaurant, but do have cuncerns about operating haurs, noise, delivery, traffic impacts and alcohol use, but staff has recommended conditional approval of a sit- down facility and that is satisfactor~~ to them. They do request however to be made aware of plans and be pa~t of the plans for the development of that restaurant. 03-01-99 Page 33 Many of them have lived in that neighborhood for 20 years. When they moved in most of the land that is going to be buiit for this project was slated to be part of the Yorba Regional Park. As long time residents they have a personal stake in the use of this land and feel that their opinions have not received appropriate responses from the developers. They do not oppose development. in fact, they favor the rezoning of the parcel from Commercial Retail to Commercial Office. They oppose what they think is irresponsible development of the land adjacent to their homes. They oppose the use of the lands for activities that are incompatible with their adjacent residency and are inappropriate and unnecessarily dominant to the landscape. They asked the C~mmission to consider their opinions carefully and give them serious attention as residents of Anaheim deserve. Lonny Quast, 8180 East Woodsboro, Anaheim, CA: He will address the is~ue of the density of the proposed project. The developer proposes 231,600 square feet of building space to be located on a small 16-acre lot and given the fact that their entire tract of homes is also on 16 acres and is only 120,000 square feet of building space, they can not image doubling the homes; plus adding 896 parking spaces required in this small area. They feel the project as proposed is too dense and that the developer is trying to squeeze too many square feet of buildings into such a small area of land. A major concern is the floor area ratio of this proposed project. Most cities abide by 25 to 30% ratio and this project is at 37% and is backed up to a residential neighborhood. They understand from their interactions with the City's Planning Department, that it is extremely unusual to have 231,600 square feet of building space on a 16-acre parcel. They consider this to be very dense concentration and a very large scale project. Also of concern is, page 2, Item D of the staff report, and the developer seeks a waiver of the minimum site area per lot, and per Code, 20,000 square feet is required per lot. This developer is requesting a reduction to 14,000 square feet per lot and iney request Ehat this waiver be denied. Considering the fact that the aver built development will border a residential neighborhood, they strongiy request that the developer reduce the percentage of the total square footage of the project to conform more with the standards of 25 to 30% floor area ratio. That small reduction would improve the overall desirability of the project and address several areas of most concern, especially the two-story building on the corner and Buiidings 15 and 17 directly behind their homes. Carol Appelt, 8137 E. Woodsboro, Anaheim, CA: Stated she has lived there for 14 years and wanted to share her concerns and the concerns of her neighbors regarding the proposed project and the ir.crease in traffic it will generate near their homes; of primary concern is tra~c congestion and the safety of their families. Concerning congestion, the tlevelopers conducted their traffic study in August of 1998 when schools were closed for summer and traffic was considerably lighter. Since that time, traffic on La Palma has increased with the opening of the Fairmont bridge this January and the continued development of the SAVI Ranch property. The developer's survey showed the heaviest use was between 4 and 6 p.m. with 2,059 eastbound trips on La Palma and 858 westbound trips between 7 and 8 a.m. Exhibit A, Item 9 on page 4 of the staff report shows approximately 3,905 trips would be generated by the development and that is in addition to the 2,059 vehicles currently using La Palma at its busiest. She felt given the constraints of this project, with those additional 3,905 trips per day, they will have a major impact on the neighborhood, especially in the early morning and late afternoon when the traffic is the heaviest. The only planned ingress and egress for the development will be iwo driveways off La Palma and both are in close proximity to Jennifer Avenue which is the entrance to their tract. To mitigate the increase in traffic, the developer will install a signal at the main entrance of La Palma which is approximately 650 feet from Yorba Linda Boulevard. They do not feei that is the total solution to the traffic problem and other measures need to be explored and implemented if tFie project is approved. La Palma Avenue through the Santa Ana Canyon continues to be an alternate route to the 91 freeway for Riverside and San Bernardino 03-01-99 Page 34 County residents who work in Orange and Los Angeles counties. Eastbound traffic on La Palma backs up near the post office processing center vihich is east of Kellogg and continues on through the signal at the Cinemapolis Center which is adjacent to Imperial Highway. She and her neighbors fear a similar La Palma and Imperial traffic problem will develop next to their homes if additional traffic measures are not required. Their second major traffic concern is safety. City staff is requiring a second entrance and Burnett Polygon has chosen to locate it 250 feet from Jennifer Avenue for right turns only. Because traffic currently backs up daily near the proposed location of the signal, only a few cars at a time are going to be able to turn left onto La Palma. Traffic will then back up within the complex and frustr~ted drivers wanting to access the 91 freeway will use the driveway closest to Jennifer. They are concerned these vehicles will turn right on Jennifer behind their homes and make a"U" turn to enable a left turn onto La Palma. They are extremely concerned for the safety of the residents exiting their tract of homes and for the families who regularly cross La Palma Avenue with their children to access Yorba Regional Park. For that reason, they want the driveway closest to Jennifer eliminated. The best way to address their traffic concerns is to reduce the scope of the project. The proposed development is too dense in concentrat~on for this particular parcel of land. Do not allow another tra~c problem to develop right outside our homes like the one thut exists at Imperial Highway and La Palma. Cal 7. Knoche, 8101 E. Woodsboro, stated ~hey have lived in their home since it was new; that he owns a business and has been involved in large projects, including the demolition and backfilling of the City Mall in Orange (The Block). They understood from the developers that they would have to bring in 500,000 yards of dirt; however, the staff report shows it closer to 250,000 yards. To import even this lower amount at 16 yards per load would require 15,625 trips, and at 60 feet per semi, that is 178 miles of incoming trucks and 178 miles of trucks leaving, over 350 miles of trucks just to bring in the dirt. They feel that this will have a tremendous negatiye impact on traffic patterns around their neighborhood. Phil Ebert, 8142 Woodsboro, for over 20 years, stated no one seems to be thinking about Yorba Regional Park. The storm drain which flows under La Palma Avenue dumps directly into the east end of the park and not into the river and within a couple hundred feet of picnic Yables and shelters. Presently very little rainwater flows through it, except that which comes off the street and percolates down ir,to the sand north of La Palma. Once this project is complete, it will drain all the 16 acres as well as all the sprinklers that go into the park, and the east end of the park will turn into a swamp and will never dry out. Someone is going to have to continue that 3G-inch drain pipe an extra 200 feet to the river, as a fix to this problem. He pointed out the drain pipe on the exhibit. Starting with the c~rner of La Palma and Jennifer, Mr. Ebert stated the present proposed elevation is 5 to 8 feet above La P~+ma which would place the building much higher than the adjacent homes and the cars headlights wouid ~hine directly into their tract. He realized it is difficult to drop the e(evation of one or two buildings without a~ainage problems, but they can drop the elevztion of the wf-~ole site with no problem. He added if the developer drops all the elevations that front on La Palma to at least two feet below La Palma at its lowest point next to that building, the storm drain they would use is 17 feet below La Palma, so there would be over 10 feet of fill dirt over the drain pipe and that would drop the corner buiiding and the adjacent parking by 6 to 8 feet and the residents would then only see the tops of cars as they go in and out of the tract and most of the 1 st floor would be hidden behind the top of the wall which is proposed along Jennifer, unlike the present plan. If they follow the same idea throughout the project, the elevations of tf~e buildings directly behind the homes wauld go to 3 to 4 feet below the homes, there would be adequate drainage and the developer wouid not lose any square footage except two or three which front on Weir Canyon Road and have the 20•foot retaining wall next to it, and they would lose maybe 1000 square feet which is only about 1% of the total project. The earth removal would be reduced by about 1/3 and the future tenants would gain because all the signs that front the buildings along La Palma would be closer to the line of sight instead of 30 to 40 feet in the air and the neighbors would gain by reducing the height of the buildings behind them, as well as not seeing a parking lot full of headlights. He thought it was a win/win situation. Rachel Premo, 8180 E. Woodsboro, Anaheim, CA: Stated she wanted to address the proximity of the buildings to their homes and to ask for the Commission's help for those so severely impacted by this development. She presented photographs. The first one is the view from her first story windows from 03-01-99 Page 35 anywhere in her house and the second one is from her second story windows and that shows what she can see now and what she would probably see if this development goes through. She stated they all live on the east side of the neighborhood and for the past twenty years have enjoyed the peacefulness of living adjacent to what they kindly refer to as the "ravine" and from their back windows they can see the entire canyon with its picturesque beauty of the green rolling hilis, the Santa Ana River and 'Yorba Regional Park. Many times a day she just stops to marvel at the beauty of this area and at night the view is even more beautiful with spectacular city lights from Anaheim Hills. Burnett Polygon has proposed that three of their larger buildings back right up to the homes, and considering the 20-foot height of these buildings and the fact that the developer also wished to raise the grade an additional four feet behind their homes, made the true height of these buildings at 24 feet, a full four feet higher than the Code would allow adjacent to this single-family neighborhood. They feel these buildings are too large and too close to their homes. After physicaliy measuring the proposed 40-foot setback and measuring up 20 feet, they find that from inside their homes, they will no longer be able to even see the sky from downstairs ~ecause nearly every window in their home looks out towards the rear of their homes and they will be forced to stare at the back of the building constantly, creating an enormous eyesore and a loss of that picturesque 180° view they now enjoy. Their new view will be the backside of a 125-foot by 30-foot high,10,000-square foot buiiding. As a real estate brokF~, she strongiy believed that the desirabiliiy of her home and her neighbors will bP neg =tively affected by this enormous concrete building su closely behind and they Feel that their property values will suffer along with all their happiness. They feel the proposed proximity of Buildings 15, 17 and 18 and the large size o~ those buildings will adversely affect the adjacent homeowners. They have faxed a proposed solution to Mr. Killian regarding the problem and submit their proposal for Commission consideration. They respectfully propose that the developer continue to se?k otFier alternatives to locate these buildings much further from their homes so they, as homeowners and citizens of this City, can live in harmony with this new development and their neighbors. She asked why on a parcel this size, would they locate those large buildings so close to their homes? Sharon Lazzaro, 8136 Woodsboro, Anaheim, CA: Stated she was concerned about Lot 1, the building ~n the corner of Jennifer and La Palma. The developer is proposing a two-story 35-foot tall, 120 feet long, ~ 2,800-square foot building on a small parcel of land behind her home as you enter the tract. She is opposed to the height of this building for the following reasons: From the length of the building and the height, it will totally eliminate their view to the south towards Yorba Reyional Park and the hills beyond which her family and immediate neighbors have enjoyed for the past 20 years. Because of the height of this building, they also feei that the second story will invade the privacy of their living areas. Entering into lheir tract, Jennifer is a very small and narrow street with a limited setback from Jennifer, this two-story building will over power their only entrance to their tract due to the unusual curve in the road and the narrow land. This two-story oversized building will not compliment thei~ homes, but detract from them. In addition, everyone traveling east on La Palma Avenue alony ~he Scenic Corridor will be faced abruptly with this massive building. Tiie bottom line is that the developer's want this particular building to be an icon for marketing purpcses af their expense. She a~d her neighbors are not opposed to a single-story building and feel this would be more in keeping with the spirit of the Scenic Corridor. Ben Parikh, 8176 Woodsboro P.venue, Anaheim, CA: Stated his home is located right bE;iind Building 15, and pointed to the location on the exhibit. He was concerned ~bout the roof mounted air-conditioning equipment on behalf of their communily and especially 11 of his neighbors. Their homes are located 10 feet to 40 fee; directly behind the project. There is a parking lot at about 10 feet. He referred to Buildings 15, 17, 18, 3 and 2 and the adjacent parking lots and they have large back yards or balconies and have enjoyed the natural Scenic Co~ridor view for the last 18 years. 03-01-99 Page 36 Roof-mounted equipment with screening walls add 4 to 5 feet to the building height and, therefore, will not oniy deprive them of their natural ~cenic Corridor view, but also force them to look at the air conditioning equipment and screening walls all the time. He asked Commissi~n to compare this situation with the visibility of the roof-mounted equipment to the traveling public on the Weir Canyon Road when people are zooming past. i hey do not want to duplicate the view of Super K-mart roof from the 91 Freeway. They believe the developer is trying to compare the Kaiser Permanente Facility and that it is on the other side of the road, pretty close to the freeway and they do not believe that situation is comparable. This will also create additional noise in the area for the 11 homzs directly behind the above-mentioned buildings. Please note that the City's Scenic Corridor Zoning on the property prohibits roof-mounted equipment. The staf~ recommends in the staff report, Paragraph 31, page 10, that the Commission deny the request for roof-mounted equipment in the project and require ground-mounted equipment away from the homes. They agree with the staff's recommendation. Jar Cynaumon, a170 E. Woodsboro, Anaheim, CA: She stated their home is one the homes bordering the development. They moved here 14 years ago and were assured at that time that the area behind them was a green belt and could never be developed and that was the main reason for choosing this house because they knew they would always have a great view and privacy. They can see the park across La Palma, as well as the hills and the green trees on the other side of Weir Canyon. Their view is spectacular and they have spent many :iights on their balcony just luoking out and it is very calming. She referred to Building 12, the largest of thP development; that it is located on the corner of Weir Canyon and La Palma in which i:; direct line with tl-~ back of her house and this building is enormous in height and length. It is 43 feet hiyh according to the plans but it starts at an ~!svation 20 feet above her hr ;e, making the building approximately 60 feet high from her vantage point. Th'.s is extremely high and will restrict her Scenic Corridor view which she will no longer have and because it is so long, it wiil further hinder her view and she will be looking at glass and st~ne instead of the trees and hills. Her second concei ~ with this buiiding being so tall i.5 security; and that she has not seen a line of sight plan from her hou~e, but any building that tall that is lined with windows on a second story facing her windows is s sec~ rity and privacy risk. The~e could be literally hundreds of people a day looking out those windows and dire~tly into her windows and they have no cantrui over who is in those offices. She felt this is a safety risk for she and her children and this building is tou tall and restricts their view and poses a potenlial invasion of N~ ^~~c~ oeing so close to their home. They wiil be forced to close their blinds and won't be able to enjoy the use of their pool and that is nat acceptable. They did not spend their life savings to buy the perfect home, only to have the developers take away their view and privacy to make a profit. No one in this room would want to be in their situation. Linda Cook, 8124 E. Woodsboro, Anaheim, CA: Stated a year from now, if th~s project is built, she will look south from her back yard patio and the rear ~f Buiiding 1 will dominate the horizon. G~~~e is present to address the neighborhood concerns regarding landscaping of tne buffer zones. The proposed minimum allowed landscape is inad;;7uate to effectively screen their residsnces from this massive development. They were told by the developers that they were actually exceeding Code with the proposed landscape, but upon further investigation, they have found that the only instance where th; " occurs is adjacent to the corner of Weir Canyon and La Palma which only adds to the developer's aesthe~~cs. She referred to Page 7, Item Z0, of the staff report, which states that 43 trees are to be planted to the west of the development, adjacent to the single-family homes there. Th;y understand that '3 trees is the minimum allowed by Code, but since !`~ese would be planted every 20 feet, the average homeowner could end up with only 3 or 4 trees, not enough to visually hide the look of this massive 26-foot high structure, only 40 feet behind them or to of~er any privacy. Also of concern is the area adjacent to Jennifer Drive. They are not certain of the number of trees to be planted there because the staff report combines the description of La Palma and Jennifer setbacks. Due to the fact that the general area is heavily wooded due to proximity to Yorba Regional Park, the developer should increase the screening for the sections of the project that can be seen from the neighborhood in order to blend inro the existing landscape. 03-U1-99 Page 37 Kirk Muller, 8186 E. Woodsboro, Anaheim, CA: Stated he and his family have lived ~ this address for the past 12 years and his home is adjacent to the proposed Buildings 15 and 17 which ~ planned for use as research and development facilities. Due to the proposed 40-foot distance between the R&D buildings and his property and the fact that the developer has stated his intent to sell these parcels, he has the foilowing concerns: 1. They, ~s homeowners, would like to be notified of any adjacent businesses us'ng chemicals or generating any bio-hazardous waste. They would like to be assured that the hours of operation for each of these buildings will conform to normal business hours of 8 a.m, to 6 p.m. Given the type of businesses proposed, they are concerned that the noisP levels may be excessive or exceed standards set forth by the City. With any R&D facility, there is always a potential for foul odors or noxious fumes to escape into the surroundirig environment. They currenfly experience predominantly westerly winds blowing through the canyons in the direction of their homes and, iherefore, would like provisions io be in place to ensure that their health and well being will not be at risk from these emissions expelled from these facilities. With the recent exposure to several children to medical waste near a similar facility, thPy want assurance that any and all bio-hazardous and chemical wastes are not stored or disposed of near adjacent homes where many children reside. They do not want any receptacles for waste materials or trash of any kind to be located between the homes and proposed buildings. Additionally, they want all waste ~eceptacles on the proposed developmer.t to be covered. In several locations, the proposed parking comes within 10 feet of adjacent properties and they would like restrictions to be in place limiting the hours ~f street sweeping, trash disposal, and external maintenance to normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. With their homes bordering so close to the buildings on the north end of the project, they would like safety and security measures to be in place during hours other than normal business hours. Bob Cook: We have a number of valid concerns that we feel have not been properly addressed by the current plan. They ask the rezoning reque~t be approved request and to either disapprove the project in its present form or to ~ ~quest a continuance and require thc developers to work with them to make changes in response :o the kind of concerns that they have brought up today. These concerns are not ill considered. Many of them are extremely important and go to safety and quality of life issues. Many of them can be addressed by extending the elevation changes that were made between their last meeting and this nieeting. They are talking about changing el2vation at the upper half and the neighbors propose that there could be changes in elevation in the lower half and further rec'~ice the elevation in the upper half. That wouid take care of many of the problems they have ~Nith height and obstruction of view; however, density would not be solved by that problem. They still feel ihat the project is too dense. The tra~c reports were conducted in A~; ust, an inappropriate time, before the Fairmont bridge was completed, and things h~ve changed drastically and fhey feel a new traffic survey should be done that is more current and appropriate. The remoi~al of the right-in/right-out access is a significant safety hazard and that is a very easy change to make to the project. i he heights of Buildings 1 and 12 are of great concern. They are massive structures and that could be alleviated by dropping come of the elevatian or by reducing those buildings by a floor. They are willing to talk to the developers about either of those alternatives. Ground mounted air-conditioning equipment is essential, and they have seen what happens in K-Mart. They spoke against the K-Mart issue when it happened because of the roof mounted equipment and exactly the problem that they brought forth to the Council at that time is in existence now and is an eyesore for everybody that goes by. 03-01-99 Page 38 The landscaping issue is a serious one because that has not been addressed in terms of the extent to which landscaping will be enhanced. The developer have been very kind and willing to work with then on what the landscaping will be but not to increase it above code. Finally the safeguards they are concerned about in terms of the R&D users, they would like to eliminate or at least severely restrict the R&D use and increase the office complex use and feel like that is a much better and more compatible arrangement with the neighborhoods. They are not opposed to development but we are opposed to the dominance of our landscape by the massive hardscape of this project. The finai plans do not mitigate their valid concerns. The developers have ignored many of them in order to push this project through. They want this project to succeed but do not want it to intrude on their community. Please iake their concerns seriously and vote in support of residents of a long-standing Anaheim community. (Commissioner Bristol announced a 5-minute break before proceediny with the item.) ApplicanPs Rebuttal: John Killan: Thanked the neighbors for organizing together. He addressed the comment that a project of this type should not exceed 25% density coverage. Typically an industrial park will range from 40 to 55 % and they are at 32% and have tried to strike a balance with the utilization of some second-story space. He wanted to emphasize that it is primarily an office park, and of the 231,000 square feet, 201,000 square feet is pure o~ce, with parking at 4 stalls per 1000 square feet. There is a mix of 23,000 square feet in the individual buildings. It typically is single-story with windows so can be easily transform to pure offices. The only commercial use is the 7,000-square foot restaurant space. They are proposing 896 cars compared to the previous proposed commercial center that had 880 cars and 156,000 sq, ft, gross building area. In order to accomplish the commercial frontage and meet the requirement for parking, they put all service and loading areas adjacent to existing hc .iF : wners. The project that was previously approved was twice the height of the building they have p~ ~. osed. Regarding the traffic issue, he introduced Mr. Jack Greenspan. He stated they did not arbitrarily choose the access points, and they worked with the Traffic Engineer in conjunction with the layout of the plan. Jack Greenspan. Lynnscott Law and Greenspan (traffic engineer), 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 22, Costa Mesa 92626: They established the scope of work with City staff, and the repo~t was prepared, reviewed and approved by City staff. Regarding the traffic counts, they were conducted in August. Traffic studies are not held for optimum times af year to make the counts. Even though there is no school in the summer, but within 5-10% of the volumes you might count in the summer is what you get at the peak of the year because people stiil go to work. For all intents and purposes, the counts are viable. Wit.~ respect to Fairmont bridge opening, they did not study the impact but from looking at the map and thinking it through, it provides another route, but he would submi! that for every vehicle trip it might add to La Palma, it takes a trip off Yorba Linda or Weir Canyon. He believes that the opening of the Fairmont Bridge will not affect the Yorba Linda/La Palma intersection, and it will definitely improve overall mobility in the City, and traffic patterns will just change. The project does impact the Yorba Linda/La Palma intersection based on City standards. They have proposed mitigation which has been worked out with City staff to define and widen Yorba Linda Boulevard going north to add 17 feet, add a separate right-turn lane and to restripe both the north leg and south leg of Yorba Linda Boulevard. That will bring the post project mitigation back to where the level of service is right now. That improvement will be done with fees paid to the Ciry that are tied to transportation. The fees are in excess of $832,000. In addition, the project will pay for preparation of the improvement plans for widening the south leg of Yorba Boulevard by 17 feet. It will pay for a retaining wall, relocation ofi signals, and relocation of power poles. 03-01-99 Page 39 With respect to the distance between the project driveway and Yorba Linda Boulevard, they recognize that most of the project traffic will be coming from that direction in the morning peak hour with a substantial volume also coming in that ~irection. Their estimate of the traffic they aniicipate at the project opening, plus project traffic, will totai approximately 1200 cars moving westbound in the moming peak hour. There is 900 feet of curb between where a car would stop at the project traffic signal and the west curb of Yorba Linda Boulevard. That is more than enough room to store any cars that would be stopped in the heaviest cycle of the peak hour. They estimate that 400-500 feet might be required if you had a very long traffic signal. The project is aiso providing a separate right-turn lane 160 feet in length which will take traffic off the street to turn into the project. Regarding the second driveway, it is a right-turn escape. The project will have two exit lanes at the proposed traffic signal, an exclusive left turn lane and shared left and right turn lane. They anticipate about 256 cars in the afternoon. The Ievel of service at that intersection will be level A so there will be no need to make a right-turn or the secondary right and right-turn out lane and go down to Jennifer and come back. ~ommissioner Koos: Asked if they did modeling aside from the counts completed in August, 2010 versus :+~~e project? Jack G~eenspan: Responded no they did not. Commissioner Koos: ;itated it would include all the MPHH buildout and might address some of the concerns if there was no ~iscernible change at the intersection. He asked Alfred Yalda to comment on the modeling. Alfred Yalda: Stated it was not done because the previous project was a commercial use that had a higher intensity than this use. They figured the traffic from the precious project was less and it was determined by the City Traf~~c and Transportation Manager that this study is adequate for this site. Commissioner Koos: Asked whether they went with the previous study because the existinc~ study had that analysis and since they assumed that this would be less? Alfred Yaida: Siated that was correcl, it ~;ras back in 1990/91. Commissioner Boydstun: She thought it was earlier than that. Alfred Yalda: Stated that the traffic study included all the sites that have already been approved in th~t area. All the surrounding traffic around Savi Ranch has been taken into consideraEion. He suggested asking the applicanPs traffic engineer to give them more detail on it. Commissioner Koos: Asked if ihey knew the impact on the intersection aside from assuming it is less than the previous project and asked if there were any hard numbers to provide to the public? Kevin Clark: Burneti Polygon, 200 East Baker, Costa f~lesa. He has worked with various grading issues on this site and vianted to address concerns about the grading and drainage. He stated the site is a huge hole and they are proposing to bring 230,000 cubic yards of import to bring the site up to grade. The previously-approved retail center was bringing in 400,000 cubic yards. They have cut it down by constructing a retaining wall along Yorba Linda Boulevard which tops out at 24 feet to meet grade along the homeowners' edge and bring thc~ site down a little more. Concerning tne issue of dropping the site by four feet, good engineering practice diciates that you do not sump a site unless absolutely necessary. They have held a minimum grade frosn the main driveway back to the rear of the site of 1/2 to 1% to keep the site as low as possible but to allr~w positive drainage. The homeowners are correct and they are planning to convey the drainage directly across the site by connect'^g the culvert under the railroad right-of-way to where it flows over land underneath La Palma then tie into that with catch basins to not adversely impact La Palma's drainage. They will be doing a hydrology study for both existing and proposed designs. They will not be able to get permits unless everything is approved. 03-01-99 Page 40 Regarding elevations, they are grading a minimum slope from La Palma proper to their site making the building 3 feet lower than the adjacent homeowner buildings. Regarding the issue of trying to reduce the grade separation between the homeowners along the westerly edge and their pads, they cannot drop any more without creating a sump condition. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how low they will be bringing their pad down at Building 12. Kevir Clark: Responded Building 12 is a 2-story over subterranean parking and it is finished floor elevation is 360.3 and the adjacent street is 366.1. Commissioner Boydstur: Asked about the homes? Kevin Clark: Stated the homes are at 345.7. Chairman Bristol: Stated the pad is 17 feet higher. Commissioner Williams: Stated not the parking structure, the first floor elevation. Kevin Clark: Stated not the park~ng structure, just first floor elevation. Commissioner Boydstun: 17 feet. Kevin Clark: Stated it is 510 feet up. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that they will have another story on the building and asked how high the top of the building will be over the homeowners at that point. Kevin Clark: Stated 43 feet. Commissioner Williams: Asked if they were 500 feet away. Kevir~ Clark: Stated it is 500 feet from their property line to the face of the building. Commissioner Williams: Asked how deep their back yards were because they are big lots. Kevin Clark: Stated they vary between 20 - 40 feet. Someone in audience stated 30 feet deep. Commissioner Williams: Stated that at 500 feet they are more than a football field away. Chairm~n Bristol: Asked to confirm whether lot 1 was a foot lower than grade for the residents to the west? Kevin Clark: Asked if he should review all the buildings. Starting at the top, Bui~ding 18 has a proposed finished floor zlevation of 348.5, and the finished floor of the existing lot is 349.5. Building 17 has a proposed finished floor elevation of 347.0, and pointed to three lots with elevations of 346.8, 346.3 and 345.5. Building 15 is at 345.5, lots adjacent to it are at 345.4 and 345.7. They have tried to meet the existing elevations with the latest changes. Kevin Clark: Stated Lot 1 is 347.5 at finished floor, and La Palma immediately adjacent is at 335 even, Old La Palma immediately adjacent is 342.2 and houses vary from 339 fo 345 averaging 340. Chairman Bristol: Stated the plans he is reviewing were different than the ones Mr. Clark was referring to. He asked Mr. Clark to clarify again for certain homes as they were pointing to plans on the wall. 03-01-99 Page 41 Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: Asked if the Commission chooses to approve this project today, that they add a mitigation measure that the finished floor elevations return to Planni~g Commission as a report and recommendation item before the precise grading plan is approved and that the finished floor elevations be such that they allow for drainage to conform with the Public Works Standards to ensure positive drainage for a secondary overflow. Kevin Canning: Commented the waiver of minimum lot size has nothing to do with the density of the p~oject, it comes from parcelizing and has nothing to do with the size of the buildings. If it had been a problem with staff, they would have manipulated li~es instead of following the center of driveways. Regarding percentages quoted, floor area ratio is 32% and landscaping ratio is at 33% and they were led to believe from previous comments from staff that it was a healthy percentage from the norm. He stated that Mr. Clark said the distance to the rear of the residential area was 510 feet but it is 145 feet to the rear property line, approximately 70 feet off of Jer.nifer. That is the tuck-under parking with ihe two stories above. Jim Williams, Ware and Malcom Architects, 18002 Cowan Irvine, 92614: Discussed architecture and der ,ity of buildings. Building coverage of the site is 32.6 % and is the lowest from a financial viability standpoint. Building 12 is a"statement building" and is the farthest away from the residential area. The roof-mounted mechanical equipment is less obtrusive on roof than on the yround and will not be seen from the street or the homeowners' property. It will be seen from the hill but they will provide landscaping to screen equipment. Alfred Yalda: Stated the existing General Plan, page 3 ot the staff report, took into consideration that the trips generated for the property would be 8,963. Page 4 also shows this project will generate 3,905, so there is substantially less traffic generated by this project. John Killan: Pointed out that a residential development could have been built on this s~te and if so, it would have been filled up with as many lots as possible. The residents could have had other back yards and homes as close, if not closer, than what they are proposing. They have circulated an exhibit called Newport Trade Center which became the architectural theme for this project and encouraged residents to look at that project because it is almost identical to this one. Kevin Clark: They will work with the residents on lighting and landscaping plans. There will be covenants recorded restrictinc~ the types of uses and a number of checks and balances within existing City procedures to insure that improper uses are not located withi~ those R&D spaces. Mr. Cook: Stated they accept the architectural design; however, did not agree with the comments about elevations and not wanting to sump the site with respect to the rear because the rear would not be sumped i` the front of the site was reduced. With respect to Building 1, the height issue will be significantly mitigated by dropping the elevation. The distance between the homes and Building 12 may be large but Building 12 is incredibly large and will obliterate the entire region. So ynu have to keep in mind that distance is not the sole solution to that problem. To compare this project to the previous project is a moot argument because the previous project was unacceptable. To be better than something that was bad in the first place is not to say a lot. Kevin Clark: Regarding grades, if they do lower grades in the upper part of the site, ~t lowers the grades in the front part of the site because they have kept the grades running along the main driveway and back at the minimum that the City of Anaheim will allow them to use to get the water out of the site. If they lower the back of the site, it effeclively creates a sump condition. THE PUBLIC HEARING V~'AS CLnSED. Chairman Bristol: Asked Ms. Adams if the elevations were as low as they could go on this site? Ylelanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: Responded she has not seen their latest plan so she is not sure if that is as low as they can go. 03-01-99 Page 42 Chairman Bristol: Asked about the 2-to 3-story buiiding (next to the Hughes) on Santa Ana Canyon and how far the building is set back (40 or 50 feet) from the wall? Cheryl Flores: Responded she would have to look it up to be sure, and the parking lot and playground were between the homes and the building, and thought maybe it was between 30 and 50 feet. Alfred Yalda: Thought it would probably be 42 feet if you just consider a drive island. Chairman Bristol: Asked if the building height exceeded 35 feet? Cheryl Flores: Stated all 3 of the buildings were 35 feet in height. She thought there was 7 feet of landscaping along the west property line so they probably had 50 feet plus the backyards of the residences also. Chairman Bristol: Stated he brought that up because that project is the same situation as this one on grade with Buildings 10, 17 and 15. Cheryl Flores: Pointed out that a comment was made about having more office use as opposed to industrial use and that could trigger a parking waiver and it would have to be re-advertised. Melanie Adams: Stated that given the concerns about the relationship between the single-family homes and the buildiny and the relationship of grades, it would be prudent to have those items pinned down before Commissions approves the project, rather than have it come back as a reports and recommendation i;em. The project on Santa Ana Canyon Road was a similar situation and it was quite intrusive into the neighborhood and that w~as even with bringing the grade as low as they could bring it and still provide secondary outlet. Chairman Bristol: Stated he did not want to have that situation repeated. He agreed with the neighbors regarding the immediate adjacent Buildings 15, 10 and 17. Building 15 may not be too obtrusive because it is only one story, but 17 is definitely too high. He questioned which building was 2-story. He asked if they could get a line-of-sight from the residences six feet in height. If you take the line-of-sight that they look at from Yorba Linda/Weir Canyon and look across the ones the applicant gave them, the landscapirg appears to be extremely high compared to the houses on the west and north. Chairman Bristol: Asked about the large photos submitted earlier. Kevin Canning: Stated the view was from one of the residenYs back yard behind Building 15 without the white area depicting a 6-foot wall. Kevin Bass, Associate Planner: Stated these were new elevations that staff has not reviewed yet and has not had a chance to analyze and incorporate into the staff report. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested to do "balloon tests" at the different heights. Kevin Bass: Stated they have done balloon heights and have computer-generated pictures which show line-of-sights from different anglas. 'fhere are a number of ways to present line of sights that Commission is requesting and i± require a continuance to provide the information in a valid form. Chairman Bristol: Stated Page 5, Paragraph 14 of the staff report concerns him where it discussed the fill. It does not seem to be lower on La Palma. Kevin Bass: Stated the intent of the statement was that the southeast corner of the property would still be depressed in consideration with that intersection. They have new grading plans that show the elevation will daylight about midp~int on La Palma. As you go further east the elevation still goes down below the grade of the street. It is shown on the elevation for Building 12 which has the tuck-under parking. 8ince the grade is still fairly level the parking goes down underneath the bui~ding. The parking garage will not be seen from Weir Canyon or from La Palma because the grade change has occurred. The pad below La 03-01-99 Page 43 Palma is at the driveway entrance, then it starts to rise towards being more even at both sides of the street. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how long would it take staff to get this information to Commission? Cheryi Flores, Senior Planner: If these are the final plans and they can have time to prepare a report to Commission, then this item could be continued to April 12,1999. This would give time for the residents to be able to review the plans and the concerns that were discussed at this public hearing could be identified to make sure everything is addressed. f:ommissioner Koos: Based on the testimony of the neighbors, it did not sound like the relationship has been nurtured enough yet for the applicant to come before Commission with less items of contention. Ne suggested the applicant meet with the neighbors and try to narrow down some agreements before returning to Commission. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transporiation Planner: Asked if Commission would like the applicant to review the driveway and perhaps relocate the driveway between Weir Canyon and the proposed traffic signal since there was some concern about Jennifer Drive and making a U-turn. Chairman Bristul: He agreed, plus the data that was presented may be too old. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: The applicant could also look into upgrading the traffic study regarding the opening of Fairmont and La Palma which would be helpful to Commission to see what changes have taken place. Chairman Bristol: This is a very massive project and it does not appear that the applicant, as good a job as they did, has resolved the neighbors concerns and they are not against this project but have some valid concerns. He feels that the line-of-sight and elevation are major concerns. Commissioner Williams: He commented that the appiicant has built quality projects. Commissioner Koos: He mentioned Yorba Linda there is a new building which is very nice, near Price Club, and the developer should look at that building. Commissioner Boydstun: Offered at motion for a continuance to April 12, 1999, Commissioner Napoles seconded th~ motion and motion was carried. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: She stressed to the developer that the plans will need to be to the Zoning Division by March 22nd and that would include line-of-sight from the residences, and revised plans to show elevations and an update on tra~c counts. OPPOSITION: 11 people spoke in opposition/correspondence was received in opposition. ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission meefing in order for the applicant to submit line-of-sight drawings from the resident's view, an update on traffic count, and revised plans showing building elevations and grade differences. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest) DISCU5SION TIME: 1 hour and 47 minutes (4:16-6:03) 03-01-99 Page 44 " "`^^^""" Continued to 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3-15-99 9c. CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4102 9d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 99•02 OWNER: Thrifty Oii Company, Attn: Vincent Le Pore, 13539 East Foster Road, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 AGENT: David Rose, 3870 La Sierra Avenue, #193, Riverside, CA 92505 LOCATION: 2800 West Ball Road. Property is 0.48 acre located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Dale Avenue. Conditional Use Permit No. 4102 - to establish conformity wifh existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing service station and to convert an existing accessory auto repair/cashier building into a convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waivers of (a) continuation of nonconforming billboards, (b) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway, (c) minimum retail sales floor area, and (d) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to interior boundary lines. Public Convenience or Ner,essity No. 99-02 - to d~termine Public Convenience or Necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption withir the proposed convenience r.-ar~Pt. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. DE7ERMINAI'ION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION Na. SR1040KP • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 15,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to provide revised plans which will eliminate a waiver of Code requirements pertaining to landscaping. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-01-99 Page 45 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECL.ARATION Denied 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4103 Denied 10d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR Denied NECESSITY NO. 99-03 OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company, Attn: Vincent Le Pore, 13539 East Foster Road, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 AGENT: David Rose, 3870 La Sierra Avenue, #193, Riverside, CA 92505 LOCATION: 727 South East Street - Arco. Property is 0.49 acre located at the northwest corner of South Street and East Street. Conditionat Use Permit No. 4103 - to establish conformiry with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing service station and to convert an existing accessory auto repair/cashier building into a convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway, (b) minimum retail sales floor area. Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-03 - to determine Public Convenience or Necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption within tY~e proposed convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99-38 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENGE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. PC99-39 R1039KP • • • • • • (Chairman Bristol dec/ared a conflict of interest because he lives close the subject property. Commission Boydstun conducted this item.] ApplicanPs Statement: David Rose, Regents Group, 3870 La Sierra, Suite 193, Riverside, CA 92505: He is representing Thrifty Oil Company and Arco Products Company. There is an existing Thrifty gas station at South and East Street that has been in existence for over 30 years. It uperated for a number of years with a mechanics bay and over the last 10 years a majority of the building has been vacant. The site in question has no landscaping. It has a pole sign that has been there for a long time. In July 1997, after coming out of bankruptcy Thrifty Oil entered into a master lease contract with Arco for a~l of their stations thr•oughout California. Arco has a requirement in its lease with Thrifty Oil to make the best financial case for each station and as a result there are three items on this agenda. There are four gas stations in Anaheim and they will all be coming before Commission to try to upgrade those stations. The proposal is to incorporate approximately 2,000 square feet of landscaping on the site where there was none and also to convert the existing building which is approximately 1,125 square feet ;nto a convenience store along with a proposal for a beer and wine license. Thrifty's proposal will be to buy an existing beer and wine Iicense. In the past they have been successful in purchasing existing licenses within the same 03-01-99 Page 46 census tract and ending up with a status guo or a reduction of total licenses in the City. They will be proposing that at this location as well. A majority of their proposal is to benefit the site. The two waivers requested are 1) for a reduction of the landscaping required next to an arterial street along East Street, east of the site. Code requires a 10 foot landscape buffer. The problem is that there is a 12 foot, 3 inch separation between the existing pumps and the right-of-way line. If they provided a 10 foot landscape planter then there would only be 2 feet to park a vehicle. Over a month ago while at City Hall he was informe~i that there was a proposed moratorium in Anaheim and he went on record before City Council indicati~ig that he had four plans siiting in his car. The next day he submitted the four conditional use permiPs. So they have been planning to upgrade the sites for some time. The other waiver request is for 2) the reduction of required square footage. The Code requires 1,200 square feet and they are proposing 1,125 square feet. There are no existing utilization of the building except for an office and a restroom which is not made available to the public and does not meet handicapped code requirements. They are willing to accept all conditions of approval after page 7 of the staff report, including limited hours of operation for the convenience store. They are trying to make an existing situation better from an economic and aesthetics standpoint. The staff report on page 5 recommending approval of the items that will bring the station into conformance does not make sense to the applicant because they have an existing business that they are operating in a location that that is not a major thoroughfare but rather a residential area. The original proposal did not propose a monument sign. They are willing to accept staff's recommendation for a monument sign. A po;tion of !ne sign actually extends beyond the right-of-way. The pole sign has been there for many years, the street has been widening whereby the sign now projects approximately 4 inches over the public right-of-way onto the sidewalk. Dennis Bickler, Atlantic Richfield Arco Products Company: Based on their agreement with Arco and Thrifty Oil Company they are trying to save all of the sites they can and based on the agreement there are certain upgrades they are trying to do at the sites and facilities such as landscapes, security issues, signage, hours of operation, possibiy food mart. Opposition: Marilyn Helm, 700 South East Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated they have lived there for 17 years and she has lived within a block of the corne~ all of her life and is speaking in opposition to this proposal. (She submitted a newspaper articles.] She is sppalled that 12 years after the rejection of the gas stationlmini mart it is being proposed again. The basics af the plan have changed, however, the company that is seeking to place this in their neighborhood is the same. The fact that this is their neighborhood and they are stilf here and concerned with this has not changed. She reference the newspaper article which refe~s to "Vision 2000" which is the future master plan and outlines 10 areas crucial to developing a sound economic base and a stable quality of life. The top goal of the next century was identified as being traffic and transportation improvements. The gas station usage that already e;tists has a negative impact on the drivers of the neighborhood. There are frequent accidents at this corner. The traffic conditions in this area are busy during peak hours. 7he existi~g method of traffic exiting of East Street m~king turns to the north is extremely dangerous. It also severely impacts on her ramilies safety. It is not safe pulling out of her driveway and backs out onto East Street because of !tie heavy traffic and blind spots. The cars pulling out of the gas station impairs their vision. Strategy No. 5 of Vision 2000 which is maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. No. 7 is to reverse the pattern of deterioration of light in the commercial znd residential areas in Anaheim. The business woufd impact negatively on the surrounding residential neighborhood. The ability to control the noise and 03-01-99 Page 47 usage of items sold within the store. Fven though they are on a major street adjacen! to an industrial area, this street usually slows and most of the adjoining busi~ess close at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. This usage will also impact the neighborhood with increased trash. (She submitted a plastic bag of debris.] She is currently impacted by trash that she has to pick up on her property. She does not feel the request is necessary since there is a 7-Eleven down the street, ;.vo block north on East Street and Santa Ana Street. it is not for the neighborhoods convenience, it is for the owners financial benefit. She asked that Commission deny this conditional use permit. Chainvoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Stated, for the record, a letter was received from Chollet-Guilbert family of 1280 East Crestbrook PlacP (dated March 1, 1999). Claire Chambless,1219 East Diana Avenue, Anaheim, CA: She has lived in the neighborhood since 1955 and at this address for 24 years. Her husband was not able to attend and several of their neiyhbors that were present earlier had to leave and several other neighbors could not attend. The~efore, she fee!s she is representing many people in her neighborf iood. Her two major concerns are safety and the trash element. There is an elementary school and junior high school in the area which results in many children walking past that intersection. She feels with the increased traffic and the beer and wine sold that there is a safety issue. Over two years ago there was a fatal shooting at the 7-Eleven. She feels convenience stores are the target for many robberies, etc. and it brings a brings a negative element into their immediate neighborhood. There are already four convenience stores close by and the Police Department feels that is the saturation point for their area. She asked that Commission deny this request. Betty Shoener, 801 South Dawn Street, Anaheim, CA: It is very noisy at that ccrner. She lives catty- corner from the station and the noise is very bad. There are many children going to school past this intersection. There is already a 7-Eleven down the street. She would like for this request to be denied. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: David Rose: They have four existing driveways, two of which are at the corner. Thrifty in reviewing the safety and traffic issues Thrifty voluntarily ciosed off two of the driveways. The two closest driveways to the corner of that intersection are F; oposed to be closed. They would only have one driveway on East Street and one on South Street. They took the tra~fic and safety issue into account in designing it and also the aesthetics because that is how they are able to place such a large landscape planter at the corner. Various companies such as Arco has done studies on that when sites are lit and found that they tend to be less inviting sites to gang members, etc. This site would also go through a new system of lighting as well as a full security system. Regarding the issue of the deterioration of blight. December 22. 1998 itie Federal Governmeni and the State of California mandated the replacement of all single wall gas,line tanks underground be double wall tanks. As a result 1 out of 25 to 30 stations in California shut down. Tha! is what is blight. This station has that potential because it is not a money-making station now. 7-E~even does not sell gas whereas they will be providing a variety of services at the one location. They will be providing a trash enclosure, which presently it does not have. One of the reasons code requires trees is to try to cut down on the amount of noise by using the trees as a buffer. Currently there is no landscaping and Code requires that they put one full sizc: tree every 20 feet along the west wall which they will be doing as weli as along all the property lines out at the street. The site will become more aesthetically pleasing as well as pr~viding some of the conveniences related to traffic and blight. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 03-01-99 Page 48 Commissi~ner Wiiliams: He feels this site is too small for a convenience market. There is very high gang activity in that area a~d the crime rate is f,;;~ ly high. Another (iquor license does not make sense for the community. He did not feel there was anyway the site can be upgraded ju~? as a gas station to make it aesthaticaliy conducive to the neighborhood. Melanie Adams: The street is not as wide as it is going to yet yet. East Streei is designated as a secondary arterial highway. Its ultimate right-of-way witl be 45 feet from centerline. The prooerty is c~rrently 33 feet from centerline. The applicant wouid not be reqt,ired to dedicate as part of this applica!ion since they are only requesting tenant improvements. She wanter~ to inform the Commission that snother widening is forthcoming. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: She would like to see th~ driveways closed and landscaping but she would not vote in favor of ihe beer and wine license. There is also no room for a mini mart. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked clarification from Ms. Flores that if Commission denies a beer and wine license fhen the convenience market is not allowed? Ch~ryl Flores, Senior Planner: Corract. Staff was able to review all of the service stations that have been approved since 1994 to present and there are no service stations with convenience markets in the ML Zone that have no; been approved for beer and wine. So if their beer and wine was not denied then there is no provision in the Code to approve a convenience market with a service station in the ML Zone. Commissioner Boydstun: If this is denied then would they still be able to offer the snacks, etc. that they currently offer? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Yes, they are entitled by Code for a 250 square foot area for packaged snack items. It does not include sei~-service beverages, coffee, etc. In this census fract there are five ABC licenses issued with only four permitted and th~y do have information available for the surrounding census tracis. It does indicate that two of the censue tracts to the west also have an over concentration and one to the south is at its maximum. OPPOSITlON: 3 people spoke in opposition Correspondenc~ in opposition was submitted. ACTl~N: Denied the Negative Declaration on the basis that there is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Denied Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining fe minimum landscaped setback adjacent to East Street (an arterial highway), on basis that there is no irregular configuration on property, and no specia! circum~tances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings to justify this waiver. Denied waiver (b) pertainir,g to minimum retail sales floor area, on the basis that this site is adequate in size, shape, topography to construc; a 75 square foot (or larger) addition which would bri~g the total square footage into conformance with current Code requirements. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 4103 on the basis that the granting of fhe conditional use permit would be detrimental to the ~aace, hsalth, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the Ci:y of Anaheim. Uenied Determination of P~;~lic Convenience or Necessity No. 99-03 for a Type 20 ABC Iicense for retail sal~as of beer and wine for off-premises consumption based on the following: 03•01-39 Page 49 (1) That an additional ABC license in Census Tract No. 863.01 wouid create an undue over-concentration of Iicenses in this area (4 permitted; 4 currentiy issued). (2) That this request is incompatible with the goals of tiie Redevelopment Plan. (3) That the peti~ioner did not demonstrated that this request would serve to benefit the public in terms of convenience or necessity. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairman Bris!ol declared a conflict of interest) Cha!rperson Pro-Tempore: Boydstun Selma Mann, Assistant Cih~ Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (6:13-6:45) 03-01-99 P2ge 5~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARGH 15,1999 AT 11:00 A.iIA. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Submitted by: Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~(mc,s.X„~sJ 7~wx.J Simonne Fannin ~ Senior Office Specialist ~a~~ ~~~~,~..`'. Edith Han•is Planning Commission Support Supervisor 03-01-83 Page 51