Loading...
Minutes-PC 1983/10/17RQ L11R ME~TING 0! Z4i~ ANIW~IM CITY BLANNINa COMMI$824N RBGULIIR M6BTIN(i Th~ cequler m~stinq ot Che 1-nah~im City Planni~q Cammi~~io+ w~• celiad to order by Chairaom~n 9ouas ar 10=00 e.m., October 17, 1983, in th• Council Ch~mber, a quorum b~ii~g prea~nt and the Commi~aion r~viewed plane o! th~ itema on today's agends. RBCBSS: 11:30 s.m. RBCONVBNE: 1:30 p.m. PRLBENT Chairwoman: Bouas Commisaloners: sushore, Pry, Herbst, King, La Cleire, Mceucney ABSENT Commiaei~nere: None AL80 PRESENT Ron~ld Tho-npson Annika Santalehti .Toel Pick Jeck White JAy Titua Paul Singer .lay Tashiro Robert Ke11Ry Kendra Morries P~mela Starnee Planning Directoc Aseiatent Director f o~ Zoning 1-ssistnnt Director for planning Aaeiat~nt City 1-ttorney City Bnqinaec Traffic Enginaer J-aeociate Planner l-aeoriate Plenner Aseociate Planner Planning Commiselon Secretary Pro Tempore APPROVAL OP MINUTBS: Commissionec 8ushore otfered A motion, seaonded by Commiesioner Fry ~nd !lOTION CARRIED (Commiaeio~~,:rs La Claire and Mc Burney abetaining on approvel of the minutes of October 3, 1983), that the minutee of the meeting of S~ptetaber 7, 1983, be approve0 eut~j~ct to cor~ectior~e of the petitianec's name on Pagea 83-568 through 83-570 from Tony Guy to Tony Guiont page 83-610 ahowing Co,iun~e~ionec Buehore returning to the Council Chamber following ICem No. lt on Page 83-620, aecond paragraph line 7 ehould r~ed: "a~ 5+ acre instead of e 2-acre parcelt page 83-637 ehould include the peragcaph that Commiseionar Bushore clecified a co~flict of intecest on the River Valley Redevelopment Pcoject proposed redevelopment plan and abstaining on Conditional Use Pecmit No. 1838r and Commieaioner Bushore abetained on Page 83-638, Tentative Tract No. 11727 and clarify hie motion inatructing staff to ceview the illegel uae of garagea and parking problems on Pege 83-640 ahauld ha~ve read between Claudina to the east and Broedway to Santa Ana SL=eet instead of the 400 bluck of South Melroee as etated. ITBlS NO. l. 8IR NEGI-TIVE DECL~-R7ITION, Wl-IVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTyCONDITIONAL USE PSRMIT NO. 2459 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNBRS: KAiSER FUUNDATInN H03PIT1-LS, 333 South Grand 1lvenue, i3400, Los Angeles, C1~ 90071. Property degcribed as an irregulacly-ehaped parcel conaiating of approximately 9.6 acres located at the nocthwest corner of Riverdale ~-venu~ dnd Lekevier+ 1-venue, hdving ~rontages of approximately 628 feet on the north aide of Riv~rdale ~-v~nue and approximately 670 feet on the west side of Lekeview l~venue and further described ss 441 rlorih Lakeview Avenu~ (icaiser Foundation Hospit~l). 33-641 20/17/83 ~ ~IINUTEB. ANAt16IM CITY PL~-NNINQ COMMI88ION_,_OCTOBLR 17, 1983 83 642 ---...~~.. 2o pecmit ~xpansion o! e~i •xiatinq hoapital with waiv~c oF minimum numb~c o! perkinq epac~a. ConLinued lrom .1un• ~7, July 25, Auqu~t 8, and 8eptambec 19, 1983. There was ~o one indicatinq their preeenc• in oppoeition to eubject requ~at and eithough the atetf report wae not read, f,t ia relecred to and mede a pert oi kha minutes. ~rerry Burk, 333 S. Gcand, Room 3400, t~oe 1-ngelea, reFreaenting Kaieer Hoapital, eteted they ere proposing the eddition of two amall 1-story struc~urea to accommodate etorage apece plus relocation of some Af the exiating facilitiea f:om the present hoapital~ 4nd that the eduition would not reeult in any new beda or out-patient clinic fecilitiea. He stated they ~re aeking for e weivec of eucrent perking requiremente einee they acR not edding any petiente, beda or eerviceo. He ataked the TrefFic Report has been accepted by the City which indicetea the exiating 950 epaces arQ adequate. He eaked that khe approval allow them to reduce the number of ep+~cea propoeed becauAe the Pire Deoertment hae cequeated a turn-eround lnne be created in the northwestern cornec which would delete eome of the spacea and he believed the Tra:~tic Engineer aqreed thet iF they did not reduce the number to anything lower then 864 apacee, the recluction would be eccepteble. Commiaeionar Herbet RtAted when he paesea thie facility now, the perking lots ace alre~dy full. He ateted he does not agree with the Traffic Study bec~uae of the overlap wit:~ nurses changing 3hifta, etc. He atated he would go along with the redur.tion providing the applicant would agree that if more perking ie needed within the nexC two yeers, a pnrking atructure or additional perking spacea would be provided. He atAted some of the employees are parking in the cesidential. areae now. Mr. Burt etnted if and when the hospital recognizae more parking on-sit.e ie needed, they would bui]d e structure or purchas~ additional pcoperty wh,ich would be the only solution. Commissioner Herbst st~ted he wvuld want that condition impoaed now as a part of this conditionel use permit eo that when it ia proven that the employees are packing on the atreeta, they could teil Che hoapital to put in the etructure. Mr. Burt replied he did not think they .ould agree to a condition which would vest the discretion ee to when to build a parking atructure on the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Herbet atated it may never happen, but if it is shown withirt the next two yeer8 that there is a parking problem in the aree, the petitioner would have to provide the structure instead of allow~ng parking on Lhe public stceeta. Commiseianrr La Claire steted there may be another way and explained the Parking Study indicates a projected maximum of 180 beds in 1985 when the Garden ~rove health fdcility ie opened and stated if the applicant cannot agtee c~ provide a parking structure, then the conditional uee permit could be limited to 180 beds. 10/17/83 NUTBB._~N/1E1B2M CITY PLANNIN~ COMMIS8I0N. QCTOBBR 17. 1983 83-643 Jeck Whit~, Aeaiatant City Attorn~y, etet~d i! th• p~cmit i~ limited to a certein numb~~c ot beda, •ny sddition would require moditication or s new permit at which time th~ parking ~ituation could be eddraeaed. Chaicwomen Bouae stated tha hoapital is licenaed !oc 242 beda with Jack White expleininy the Stste haa licensed them for 242 beds. Mr. Burt steted he believad eome oF thoae 242 beda ero in auspense ~nd the original conditionel uee pacmit was for 242 beda. He etieted it would be a mietake to limit themeelves ko a cectiain numbec cE beda at thia time. Commieeionac La Claice atated the dacumentetion preaented to the Commiesion todey indicates there will be meximum 180 beda in 1985. Mr. Burt eteted the Getden Grove haalth fecility will not be built by 1985, even though khat ia what the rspoct saye and even esauming that wes cocrect, the project would erill be a best-queas eituetion baeed on the needs in the ar~a ~nd limiting it to 160 beda would be too etcict. Chaicwoman ~ouoa clerified that the hospital ~oea nat plan to move the licensed beds to the GArden Gcove heelth facility and they intend to keep tha 242-bed ].icensed hoapitnl. Mc. eurt atated there are nat plans to change the licansing of the hoepitel. Commisaioner King atated common eense dictates that if parking ie no`. pcovided, the facility will be credting ita own pcoblems. Mr. Burt stated they have almos*, al~ays had t~~ entiaipate the parking neede on their aitas and would have to go ahead wit"~~ ~ vacking atructure or acquire additionel packinq if thece i$ n need. Commiasioner Hecbat atated all he ie requesting ie ~ condition that if within the next two yeace it is shown addition~l parking is needed, they wil~ provide it end noted they are v~ry ccowded right now and i.f there nre additional pat~ente, there will be additional parking neede. He etated cars ace cucrently being packed on the streets in that area. Mr. eurt stated it sounds like the condition being pcopoaed would be acceptable. He stated two yeara would be plenty of time to make the detecmination regarding Farking and he aould agree thet if they need more parking, they will comply. Jack w~ite stated the condition ehould read: 'In the event, within the period of two yeara from the date of the appr~vAl of this permit, the City Traffic Bngineer determines that additional off-atreet p~rking apaces are required, that the owner shall inatall additionel pnrkinq on the premiaes to comply with otherwise applicable Code required off-street perking and that a covenant, in a form approved by the City Attorney°s Offi e and the City Traffic Engineer, be executed and recorded against the propecty to guarantee such parking inetallation." He stated in other instances the City has requiced that a performance bond be posted to guarantee the coet of inakallat:on ~f parking epacea. Commissioner Bushore clacified that the words of the condition should read thet the time limit begina at the completion of the facility and asked if the pro~ecti would be ph~sed. Mr. Burt atated they could not agree to the 10/17/83 ~_ ~ ~~ TB~. ~:":'IM CITY P1.i1NNING COMMISSION. OCT086R 17. 198'i 83-6~4 conditiic+n recomm~nd~d by the City Attocn~y end m~yb~ they should go back and ~alk about the projecCt thet th~e~ er~ two oinglt-~tory, 11,000-squara foot cttcuckure• ahich will pcovide supportive edministcetivt apeca tor the existing functiono o! the ho~pital and h~ bell~v~d th~ condition beinq discusaed is a little unfair b~csu.e it ia not relat~d to tha r~quest ai~d they ar• not edding any peti~ntis, clinic leciliiiee or ~mployeea end thet lese than 20 spacee will ba ramoved with hhe lane ro b~ providsd. Commiseionec Buahore stated providing e64 epaces ie 3.5 specea pec bedt And that Martin Luther Hoopitel ha~s edd~d e pnrking structure without adding eny bada to the fecility becauee parking wa8 i.nadequstet end tha~ the 2.94 specea pec bed is not adequate at 1-naheim Memocial Hoepitel right now. Mc. Burt stated he doea not think they will need the 86~ specea and the proposel would t~e for 950 apdcee iE the Pi~e Department had nok cequested the turn-acound lane and ha was not eure how many apaces would be needed to pcovide that lane. He stdted when the hoapikel was built originelly, edequate ancillary a~nd suppoct space wea not provided end this addtkional epace wi.ll pcovide more e£fective treatment fnc the e~cieting patient level. Chairwomen Douas stated it ia ccowded, but this expanaion doea nat add a need for additiona~l perking apeces. Commiasionec La Claire stated they are currenkly only using 187 beds and ~re not uaing ell the parking speces evailable end if they were to fill up the 242 'ads, parking would not be adequate. Mr. Butt etated based on theic belie~e on the wcy it ie appcopriate to deliver patient care, it is unlikely the hospital could operate with 242 beds filled. Commissioner Fry atated Kaiser Fermenente hae one oE the largest out-petient services in the country aad if the patient load increases, eo doMt parking needs end egreed that they probAbly do not need the 242 beda they are actually licensed for bacause of the out-patient load which will inccease accocdingly and the majority of those petienta will arrive by a~tomobile. Mr. Buct ateted they are most often in the poeition of ha~ving to exceed Code requirements and this hospital ia a little different aince it was purchased by them and not designed by them and when they decide they need more perking spacea, they will do ~hatevet ie necessary to provide it but cannot agr~e to the condition of having someone tell them when to put in more parking spaces. Commiesioner Herbst asked if the petitioner would want to be told if the City ceceiveg complaints ebout the parking in the area. Mr. Buct replied they do not know whethet or not they would agree with the Traffic Engineer. Commiasioner Herbet asked if they would continue to impact khe neighbochood if tihe City does ceceive compleinta about the parking and the Traffic Engineer surveys the acea and indicdtes there is a need for more parking apaces. He indicated he was inclined to offer a motion for denial of thia whole permit. Mr. Burt reaF~nded he did not think that is a fair cheracterization of what he has eaid. Commiasioner Herbet stated a 40t reduction has been requeated dnd the Traffic Bngineet would not eay there ia a traffic problem uniese there ia a ptoblem and all he is requeating is that the peCitioner would egree to pcovide more parking if the Traffic Bngineer says it is needed. 10/17/83 ~INU~; ~N1W ~IM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION. OCTOB~R 17, 1983 ~_83-6/9 Commis ~ion~r Bu~hoce ~t~ted it th~ exiatinq faciliky dos• have a packing problem which can be ~ubrtantiated, a condition can be added to the original conditional use p~cmlt requlcinq mor• peckin9 end 1E thsr~ ia a problsm, the ociyinel p~rmiG aan be r~voked unlea• they agr~e to provide sdditionel perking. Mr. Burr stated he beli~ve• Gh• City does have cantinuing juriadiction ovsr conditional use permita to oxamine the aite and opecetlon end if they find thet the conditions have chenge d, thex have the cigl~t to deal with it in some eppropriate ~sehion. Commiseionec Buahore stated he khought it i~ in the petitioner's beat int'ceat to ~gree to eome typa of reeaonable condition requicing that they proyid~ additionel perking, end if they do not agcee with the TrafFic Engi.neer at that time, they could come back to the Commiaeion end ergue their case and 1E the petlCion~r is right in what he is saying now, he did not see any problom with agreeing to the condition~ Commiseioner La Clsire ateted she would not vote in fevor of thia requeaC if it cannot be resolved with a limited number of beds or a parking atructure to be conetructed at auch time ea it ie needed. She atated the City likea having the opecation in this dreaJ however, the Commiasion hae eeen eitu~tiona wt~ece hoapitale have grawnt or that it ia poseible they cauld aell thie hospital to anothet organizetion whose neede could be much bigqer and the Commieaion would not have a handle to pratect all the citizene in that drae. She added that is the only way ahe could vote for thia request. Responding to Chairwoman eouas, Mr. Burt stated it might be apprapriete to request a continuAnce and perhapa discues the wording of the condition end the objecttves to ba achieved with the hoepital repceaentetives and City staff. He atated a two-week continuence would be adequate. ~CTION: Commisaiuner La Cldire offered ~ moCion, seconded by Commissioner King end MOTION C~RRIBD, thAt cansideration of the afore-mentioned maCter be continued to the regulerly-acheduled meetinq of October 31, 1983, ~t the requeet of the petitionec. ITBM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVB_DECLARATIQN AND GENERAL PLAN ~MENDMENT NO. 186 PUBLIC HE~RING. REQUESTED BY: O~K HILLS Rl-NCH, 40~1 Mac ~rkhur Boulevard, Suite 24g, Newpoet Besach, CA Q 2660. Property deaccibed as including but not limited to weir Canyon Road, Serrano Avenue, Monte Vieta Road, B1 Rancho Road, the Eaetern Tranaportetion Cor ridor Study 1-rea, and Monte vista Road. To conaider an 1-mendma~t to the Circulation Element by evaluating additions, deletions, and moc]ificetions including but not limited to the following: Weir Canyon Road, Serrano Avenue, honte Vista Road, El Rancho Road, the Eastern Tcansportati.on Cortidor Study ]~rea, end Monte Vista Road. There wece three persons indicdting tbeir presence in oppdsition to eubject requeat and elthough the ataff ceport was not read, it is referre8 to Rnd made e part of the minutes. 10/17/83 MINUT68. ANAHBIN CITY PLIINNING CAMMISBION. OCTOBBR 17. 1983 83-646 Jay Taahiro, A~aocist• Plenn~r, pc~~ented the atstE c~por~ to tha Planning Commiasion and explained thi~ amend~ent is to conaidsr modification to propooed hiqhw~ys for the circuletion element - realiqnments o! weir Canyon Road, Serrano Av~~ue end Mont• Vieta Roadi dsletion of B1 Rancho Road es s hilleide a~condary arterial highwayt incluaion of the Eaet~rn Transportation Corridoc Study Area and reneming a poction o! Mont• Vi~ta Road to Oak Hills Drivei that atia~~ coordineted a meetinq of property ownera (Bauer Ranch, Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Irvine Company, Oak Hille Rsnch, Wallece) City ot Orange and County of Orange and attec much discuasion et eubsequent meetings, all the eEfected property awnere and involved partieo egreed to the modificetione ~e pcoposed. Mr. Tashico atated the Planning Depactment and Bngineering Department etdffs recommend the edoption of Exhibit A because engineering studies conducted by OAk Hills Ranch indicatea that the propaeed modificetione Are Eeeeiblet the propoaed modificatio~a ace accepteble to all eEfected property ownera, City of Orange, County af Orange and City steffsr the impact on portione of the environmenta~ ensitive areee ia reducedt accesa to efEected propectiea ie improvedi grading ie reducedj geneKal loeationa of coedwaya ace identiti~dt epecific loc~tions of the robdweys are identiFiedi epecific alignments will be ~etermined at the time of the preperatio~ of more detailed land use pl~ns and neither the City noc the private property owner can develop plana for properties in queation without updating ~neheim's Circulation Element. Mr. Taehiro eteted the aubject amendment only identifies general locations and extonds the proposed roddways as specific alignmenta of roadways will be identified at the time the property ownere pcepare more detailed land use plans foc their properties. Kenneth Croker, 27d3 Mendoza, Coeka Mesa, C~1lfocnia, atated he ia a representdtive of the Angeles Sierra Clubi and that the Executive Committee of t~e Siecca Club adopted a resolution on January 17, 1980, which covera this acea in queetion and read as followa: 'The Sierca Club eupports the creation of a wildernesa county park in Weir Canyon and urges the Orange County Board of Supervieors reviewing the Plans of Parka to endorse the establiahment of such a park in Weir Canyon as a mitigation to the su~counding development. The Sierra Clu~ urgea the realignmenk of the propoAed nrtecial highwey aro~nd Weir Canyon in ordec to preserve the Oak groves intACt and to congecve this unique wildlife habitat, especially for birds of prey.' He stated Sierra Club repreeentativea still participate in the on-gofng County of Orange Weir/Canyon Park Road Study Advisocy Group. Ne stated they believe the arterial highway at this point is a grave threat to the integrity of the archeolagical aites (Orange County t793 and i7941. He stated they believe a negative declaration is inadequate and unacceptable because no attempt to evalu~te the biological and ecchaeological impacta of arterial highw~y construction on the norih and e~at aides of We.ir Canyon Roed was made~ that th~ preparation of an environmental impect report would have included pacticipation by afFected government ~genciea, property owners ~nd public interest gcoups who have demonstreted interest in the development of ~ ~eir Canyan and the County of Orange Weir Canyon Park Study ~dvisory Group has ~ not completed iks wock= th~t the County of Orange Planning Connnieaion and Boerd of Supervisors have not yet determined the boundariee of a future 10/17/83 TBS. 71~lAHaIM CITY PLJINNING COt~MI~ION. OCTOB6R 17. 1983 83-6!l7 r~gional perk in weir Cenyon or th• s~qu~ntial aliqnmentis of ect~risi hiqhway aagmsnt• snd the Bs~t~cn Transpottation Corc~dor• wi~hin the w~ir Canyon Park Road 8tiudY area and they would c~commend that Che City of 1-neheim Planning Commiaaion action be poatponed until thoae deci.siona have been mad~. He ata~ted all of th~ir obj~ctiona ere baaed aolely on th~ loaer half o! the Weir Cdnyon Roed alignment shown on ~he 6xhibit and they ace not oppoeing the other portion of the aa~andment. Sem Berry, Director of Sea end 8A9e Audobon Society, ateted he wae the repreeentetive fcom isea and 8ige to the W~ir Cnnyon Perk Road Study 1-dvisory Group. He etated they object ~or three ceasonst (1) the timing of the report bein9 meiled on the 7th, which thay recelved on the llth, and in an orgenization auch ba theics, it is difficull to get anything done on euch short noticej (Z) the County hea not aet the BeeGecn "rransportation Corridor end they do not know how the alignment would affect it end f3) the negative declaration ceAlly did not give the ceasons why atafE thinka there will not be any advecae impacte and stated they would like to aee the studiea used to auppott that recommendntion~. Gordon Rueer, 1221 S. Sycemoce, Sante Ana, stated he ia fcom the Sierra Club and works on the Weir C~-nyon Study Gcoup. He presented 12 elides showing the area and explained how Parcel D fits in with the generel scheme of peccele planned for park a~cquisit.ion and the entire Weir Canyon area and how the pcopooed artecial highway will cut into the park. He etdted they feel the negative decleretion ie inadequ+ate. Reaponding to Commisaioner I.a Cla-ice, Mr. Ruser expl.Ained the area diecusaed in the General Plan l-mendm~nt was not shown on the slide and pointed out the location of the proposed park which will start at the mouth of Weir Canyon on the south end and will touch Santia~go Cceek. He expleined Parcel A is being consideted b1 th~ County of Ocenge as khe prlme area for park acquiaition and Parcela B and C are part of the park and are within the s~here of influence of the County of Orenge. He explained the proposed chengea to the Ci.raulation Llement ahow very vaguely an artecial highway, Weir Canyon Expressway, cutting into the north end of Weic Canyon and the proposed park ~rea. He pointed out the a-lignments have not been decided and hoped the Planning Commiasion would exclude a~ny alignments within the Weir Canyon Water shed from thie General Plan Amendment. Mr. Ruser and unidentified speaker pointed out the alignments on the slide ar.d ex~lained they feel the proposed park areas will be very much affected by the approval o~ r,his General Plan 1-mendment. Bruce Harcison, Willi+~mson end Schmidt, representing Oak Hille Ranch, atated they have adk in on all the County Park Road studiea and one of the majoc ceasona tihey came up with the proposed alignment was to totaliy stay clear of anY of the aroas ahown on the alides. He atated the reason for the lower poction of the alignment ba~ck towards Weir Canyon was so that they could meet the Orange County Master Plan of l-rtetial Highways and the alignment of Weir Canyon Road ia off to the east to go around the side of the mountain ao when the County does cevi~e their pl~ns, Weir ~anyon ttoad can meet either with the Tr~naportation Corridoc or the sautherly exteneion of Weir Canyon Road which would be to the east of the canyon. 10/17/63 INUTQS. ~"' ~:~ ^:TY PI.IINNING COMMIl38ION. OCTOBltR 17. 1983 83-648 Conc~cning the gully which th~ oppoaition indica~~d hes nok been ch~cked environmentelly, he ~xplain~Q th~ align~snt o! Weir Canyon Rosd io d~lib~cately s~t to miss that ar~a and the cucrent ple~ by ths dev~lop~r ie ta meintein it ea an ~qu~strian tcail ersa. He etat~d he could point out on 311d• No. il whera the alignm~nt o! Weir Cenyon Road will be end how it fits tt~e hillo and mi~ses the gulliea. Commiesionec i.a Clsire steted ehe undecatende, but wsnted to make eura thR County etill had plans !or an arterial highwey through weir Cenyon and eaked where thet r,ed would be loceted. Mt. Nacrieon responded that the actual locetion ie not known, but at thia kime the Eastec~ Trensportation Corridor ie set in two poasible alignmanks, both eeatecly oC weir Cenyon pcopert however, ona doee cut ecroea the top of Wair Canyon end would impact the erea shown in the slidea on top of the hill end the oth~~r would be eeatecly af rhe next ridge a~nd ik would impa~ct the canyon iteelf. He added Weir Canyon, as euch, exiats only eouth of the major divide ar~d th.e alignment wae epecifically deaigned and intended to etay clear of this ecea beca~ae they knew the enviconmental isaues. Concerning the TreneporCation Corcidor end how the ~lignment of weir Canyon Roed might meet, he ~rxpleined the alignment of Weir Canyon Roed through the Oak Hil]5 Ranch ia turned to the eaet so thet it leaves the canch line and enters the Irvine Company property, and swinge eouth to meet the existing county arterial highw~y alignment or further east to join the propoeed Trenspoctation Corribur. He stated all of thesse alignments have been diecueaed witl~ the County of Orange and the Irvine Compeny and ik hes been shown quite preciae~y that the c~nnections can be mede et that point and there 1s a gre~t denl of flexibilityi however, if thie General Plan 1-mendment is not approv~d, dnd the existing alignment retained, they will be locked into running the road right ovec the top of the mountain which is whet thees people are concerned about. Uennis McCullough, t~rchitect foK Oak Hills Ranch, stated they have been working very closely with the City of J-nnheim, ae well as adjacent pcopecky ownecs, to reaolve this alignment issue and it is his intention to answer the concerna of the Sierra Club. He etated they do apprecinte their concerna and dgree with the envir.onmental concerns in the areat and that they have allotted 40t of the open space of the Oak Hilla pcoposed development to recreati~nal uses a~nd have contemplated adjoining the propoaed County park in Weic Canyon with gceen space and equestrian trails that go down towards Santa 1-na Canyon. He stdted they are very much concecned about the gully at the south end of the Weir Canyon. Mr. McCullough stated they feel the alignment requested in the General Plan 1-mendment ie superior to tt,e exieting alignment becauae environmentally they have reaolved the northern end of the canyon by not having to r,ut the hill down which is the viewshed from Weir Canyon ar~d it will remain a~s it is, even with the development of Weir Canyon Road. Z4iE PUBLIC HBARING W11S CLOSBD. 10/17/83 ~:.rt ' ~~ MINUTB$~_ F+iii~+ain ~;TY PW-NNING COMMI$$ION. OCT08RR 17.~, 1983 83-649 Commio~ionec Hocb~t asked stafE i! th~re hes been any diecuasion se to ths phaein~ o! the eo-call~d park aince th• pes~age o! Propoeition 13. .1ay Tashiro ateted City staEf hae been invalved in the perk +~nd coed etudy along with the Si~rra Club end the County ot Ocsnge end he underetands it hAe bean plecad on the back burner. He explaine~f they have come up with 7 ~ltecnetivea to the gsetarn Tcanapactation Coccidoct however, they ara etertfng another ekudy group to rsduc@ that to a eingle elternetive. He responded to Commiasionec H~rbst thst no decision hea been made about the park, but the County io coneidering it. Commissioner L~ Claire etated ahe hae walked that eree and it ie beautiful end thought it could be one o~ tha moat beautiful perka in Califocnia~ however, ehe did heve aecioue doubte it would ever come to pase and pointed out moat of the land ia owned by the Irvine Company and is in the CounCy of Orenge. She etated she hea reviewed Bxhibit 1- And the edopted Generdl Pl~n and felt thie would be an impcovement over the exieting General Plen end it bypasaes some of the cenyon. She atated ahe would agree th~t if the road went thcough the middle of the canyon, it should not be approved. She sreted she thaught approvnl of thia GenerAl Plan 1-mendment would be an indication to the County of Orange that the City of Anaheim doee coneider Weir Canyon to be very impocta~nt and would like to see a different a~ignment than having a roed right through the middle. She edded she underRtande the Sierre Club's concerna and appreciates what they have said, but this Alignment will afford the protection to the canyon which the City would like to Aee. Commi~sioner Herbst explained th~e Commiseion has juriadiction over changing the location of the propo»ed elignment of Weir Canyon Road north only. ~-CTION: Commissioner ~a Claire offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner Pry an-d~MOT10N CARRIEDi tl~at the City Planning Commieslon hae reviewed the proposal to emend the Cicculation Element of the Anaheim General Plan to consider modification to the propoaed highways of weir Cenyon Road, Serrano Avenue and Monte Vieta Roa~, deletion o~ B1 Rancho Road as a hillside secondary erterial highway, inclusion of the ~astern Tranaportation Corcidoc Study and renaming a major portion of Monte Vista Roed to Oak Hille Roadr and doea hereby epprove the Negative Declaration upon finding thet it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review pcocess and further finding on the basie of the Initiel Study and any comments received thet there ie no substential evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Jack White pointed out the negative declaretion paragraph in the staff report on P~nge 2-e did not include the required findinga by the Planning Commission that nhoul.l be cocrected to read the same as P~ragrAph 14 on Page 5-d of today's ataff reports. Commiasionec La Claic~a offered Resolution No. PC83-192 and moved far its passage and adopti~n that the ~-naheim City Planning Commission does hereby recortuuend to the City Counctl thet General Plan Amendment No. 186 Circulatioa, Exhibiti A, be approved. 10/17/83 N~U.TBSS`~Nl~„BIM CITY PW~1tiN~,NO COMMI88ION._OCTAS~R 17. 1983 83-650 On roll callr rh• lor~goin9 ro~olution wea pa~sRd b~- the loilowing vote: AYBSs BOU1-S~ BUSHORE, PRY, HERBST~ KING~ LA CLASRB, MC B~'RNBY NO88: NONB 1~BS~NT s NONB Jack White explained thia mettec will be ceEerred to khe City Council for ceview end public hearing e-nd notice oi that heering will be given in the esm~ mannec as ~oday'a heering. RBCES3: Z:45 p.m. RBCONVEN~: 2;55 p.m. ITBM N0. 3. ENVIRONMBNTAL TMPltCT REPORT N0. 2_59, GLNERIIL PL11N 1~MBNDMENT N0. A PUBGIC H EARING. OWNLRS: CITY OP AN11H EiM, P.O. Box 3222, Aneheim, C]- 92803. 11GENT; GFELLER O~:VELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., 228 West Main Street, Tuatin, CA 92680~ ATTENTIONs RALPH SPAR00. Pcopecty described as an irreyularly-eheped paccel of land conai$ting of app[oximately 6.4 acres, having a Erontage of approximately 253 feet on the south side of t~:lncoln J-venue, having a maximum depth of approximetely 800 feet and being located approximately 1500 feet e~st of the centerline of Rio Vista Stceet. EIR N0. 259 1~ND GPA N0. 177 - To consider e chenge in the current generel open spdce designation to low-medium denaity redidential. RECLASSIFICI-TION REQUBST: RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultu:el) 2one to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. CUP REQUEST: To permit a 47-space temporacy relocation mobilehome park with ;:aivera of maximum well height and minimum number and type of pecking spaces (both waivere deleted). There wete twenty aix pereons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and fifty persone indicating their preaence in favor and although the stdff repott was not rea~d, it ie referred to and made a part of the minutes. ChaicvromAn Bouas pointed out a correctiion to the staff report, Paragraph 7 which should [ead that the Circulatio» Element currently aesignetes aubject stceet es a lxal street and alao the laet words of the paragraph should be changed froro Orange (57) Freeway to the 3anta 1-na River. Doug Gfeller, 228 W. Main, Tuatin, explained their company ia the applicant and they are ~cting as the City'a egent and were requested by the City of Anaheim to pucaue both of the sftea, itema 3 a~d 4 on today's agenda, as potenti~l mobilehome relocation pasks. 8e explAined their aompany is involved beceuae they ate developing the conversion of the Lincoln Beach Mobilehome Park to condominiums and knowing the shortage of mobilehome epaces in the City, wanted 10/17/83 MINUTBS._ ANAFIEIM CITY PI.~NNING COMMI$SION. OCTOBER 17. 1983 83-651 to lind some way othec then e c~sh ellowance, !or any pe[son being relocated and that eny p~reon being relocat~d wauld be gcanted [icst riqht ot r~fusel to buy one ot theic unite. He added thie waa i~ 1982, and et the eeme ~ime the City waa vsry active with the Mobil~home Pack Task Fo[ce and thRy came up with th• cecommendatiion thet the City ehould try to find aome place within ita boundariea Poc e celocation park. Ne steted they conducted e aearch on their own end Eound two aucplus ~eccele in the Ciky end epproar.hed the City about them being uaed as relocation packe foc e detecmined p~ciod of time and they would be mede availeble only to thoee peraone being forced to relocate Erom the exiating pack And the period of time diecuaeed was 10 yeere. He ateted the City encoucaged them end an egreement wae ceeched for them to act es the City's agent nt their own coat, but in the event the aitea were not appcoved, they would be ceimbursed up to ~20,000 on the Lincoln/Santa ~na River site and s45,000 on the weir Cenyon site and they have epent more then thet emount both in costs and pcoject time. Ele stated the site at Ll~caln and the Sent~ ~ne River ie owned by the City and ie not being used and elthough whst they are propoeing may not be the highest and best use for the land, it wou.ld be more than what the City ig getting now dnd the Co;~.miseion'e decieions should be baeed not unly on the economics, but on the needa of the people af Anaheim. He stated the only thing they will be receiving from the pcoject is the fact that one of the things they negotiated with the City wae to provide the residenta of the Lincoln 8each Mobilehome Park with the firat righk of refusal. Mr. Gf.eller atated they have proceeded in a profeaeionel way wiCh the City ateff's help to find sites to try and resolve the pcoblem and iE it is approved, the benefita will be passed on to the reaidente nf the Lincoln Beach Mobilehome ~ack. He stated he would take exception to the comments in thE staff report that approval af this project could aeC a bad precedentr that the City has made ik clear they will be diacoureging mobilehome park~ convere:ons ~nd there are ~nly a few that they would considet allowing to b~ convected and he did not think appcoval of this today would create a aCampede of ownere wanting to convert because the City had ~p~roved a temporary celac~tion perk. eob Reese, Executive Vice-President of Gfeller Development Company, stated the two isauea ~re primarily economics and the human need. He referred to Paregraph 19 of the staff report pertaining to the estimated coat to provide needed off-aite improvementa of 5805,000 end at~ted it ia important to note khat this same amount of money would have to be spent for eny development on this pcoperty by any other developer. He etated they feel if theae coats were incucced and the park wae to operate as a truly tempor~ry relocation park, that the City would g~in a slight return, but the fect is that the improved giece of property would be more valuable in the future and the City would come out ahead aince the impr~vementa wou:d have been made ::~ today's dollarar that obviously the property is worth something today, especially if the zoning would allow residential use. He stated the economic iasue i~ an important issue and no one wants anything to be a gift from the City to a amall group of citizens, but they have tried to show th~t it can be economically feasible and that it can wock. Mr. Reeae atated the staff did an amezing job in the staff ceport summarizing the project and that this is a amall site foc only 47 coachea and even thouqh it may not be the highest use for the property, it would make a real dent in the number of cesidents being relocated from the Lincoln Beach Mobilehome 10/17/83 ti ~ . ~ Mx_NUT$B~ 1-NJWFTM CITY PI.LINNING _COMMIS&ION _ OCT088R 17,_ 1983__ __ _ 83-652 Pack. H• ste~ed thia is in a reaidential erea and this is a reaidential uee and th~y lelt it ia en ideal •ite for e nice ~interim uae auch as thie, and certainly all the raeidente muot undecatend it would bs e temporery uae and truly tha City is providing something here and i! thia is appcoved, the time peciod determined i~ the beginning muat be edhered Ca eo the City can make ita teturn o~ the pcoperty. Mr. Reeae etsted ~he mathods o! ending the use at the end of the period have nok really been diacueeed, but he felt it cen be done And he felt eince the City haa gone on cecord with their ocdinance, that they will not be encouraging convera~one ot other mobilehome packa end he did not think thia would get a bad precedent. Mr. Reeae explained they are not mobilehome park develope;o and had to put together a cost +~nalysis on what they Eelt wea reaeoneble and that thia wo~ild definitely be a joint a~fort between them And the City. Chaclea Thagard Rtated he livea at the Lincoln Beach Mobilehome park end ia in favor of this requeat becauee the reeidenta thece hdve had realtore offer them ~5,000 foc their coe~ct~4s and with the 55,000 they would be getting from the developecs, theY would only be getting a~10,000 return on their investmenta and ptobably 50~ of them e~e retired on fixed incomes and the otherA are ~•oung people who have inveated 525,000 to $30,000 for theic coe~ches and are atill paying foc them. He stated he thouyht the developer hae done a go~d job and he would like to aee thia project approved. Vin~ent Vlach, 2879 E. South Street, Anaheim, etated the ataff report, Paraqraph 24, indicates that a petition containing approximately 50 signatucea w~b received in opposition to this cequeat and he wented to point out that petitions conCaining at least 400 signatures were submitted dnd p[ee~nted a copy of one of the petitiona containing 143 sign~tucea which hed previously been submitted. He ateted the opposition feela the area should be left ae green belt or open spacet and it is a unique locatio~i which me+kes it a natural to retain as currently zoned. He atated the petitions indicated that the best solution is not alway•. to b~~ild something on every Ava~ilAble piece of land end the oppoaition was concerned about the increase in traffic which would endanger the lives of children, etc. and also about the adverse aftect on their propecty va~lues. He stated interested partiea have ahown overwhelmingly that they ace opposed to thie requests that City-owned property ia really property of the taxpayers and the decision ghould reflect the view o~ the majority of the interested perties. He stated if income ia the primety interest, it should tae developed with a nursery or something compatible with the greer~belt ot open space ana if it ie Ketained ee is, then 1.4 million dollArs would not hdve to be spent for improvements and the people in the area would not have other peaple looking into theic backyards. C.M. Thompson, 2912 Collier Lene, ~-naheim, stated he was not sure he is o~poaed to this cequest, but thouqht meybe the City has worked itaelf inko a corner and this miqht be the only thing they can do with this propettyr that this properky was the Burris sand pit when he meved there dnd it is a wide hole that has been filled with traeht that Environmental Impact Report No. 255 was pcepared for a mobilehome park and now there is tfiis requests that thia is a amall property and hfs basic problem is with the traffic even though it may 10/17/83 ~. A ~ ~ MINUTES. l1NAN~IM CI~X ~L_/-NNING COMMI$SION~_OCTOBER ~7~ 1963 _~_ 83-6g3 not be eny worsei thet he is not ebl• to a~e the prop~rty except lrom hie s~cond story windowrt that it was e big hole which waa tilled with non-deqradabls metariala euch as conccete and blacktop~ khat the otiginal enviconmentsl impect cepor~ included infocmetion from e aoile report which waa conducted only 10-~aet de~p nnd it did come up with ell typea qf materia~la and some foul-smslling mdLerials, etc.j and that the eecond EIR used the eame eoils cepoct, so nothing hae been done abouC teating Qe~per then 10 feett and that it !e getting higher beceuae m~tecials ~re still being dumped there. He sCeted he hes no reel oppoei.tion to the temporary uae Eor a mobilehome park with coechee that cen be jacked up when tha property sinks. Mc. Thompaon etated he wea concecned about pukting a residential zone on thie propetty beceuae in Che future, the developec could develop it within the Code requiremRnta and Chen there would be ell types of law suits because the property wi11 sink unless the old meter~al ie all cc.noved and that would mean moving e lot oE dirt. He indicated concecn about a temporacy mobilehome park bect-uae he felt anytime the City cloes enything tempordry, it eventually becomea permanent. Anthony J. DeFazio at~ted he lives in Space 34, and that he ia retiredt that the City approved the permit to allow the ficet owner to develop a mobilehome park on a dump site and ~ow the steff report indicatea thia sub~ect propetty will be utilizing a dump aite, so they will be moving the tenants fcom one dump aite to another. He stated it eeeme thie Commieaion has auch contempt for senior citizena of l~naheim and he did not think they had the riyht to move them from one dump site Co anothec end that the Commission ahould consider that the senior citiz~ns of this City are not juat people that ehou~d be gotten rid of. Mz. KharAtt atated he ie cepceaenting East 7~naheim Citizens for a Better Community and that the Orange County water Dietrict is opposed to this project. He referred to the refecence in the staff repoct thet it would cost 3806,000 to improve the site and it would take 363 years to amortize the cost and asked if that would be economically feesible. Sa1J.y Kosek, 2882 E. Standish, stated she would maintain Chat this amendment and project are not competible with the surrounding land uses and the projec~ would have an adverse impact on the aurrounding residentiel land uses. She stated all the Commissionera heve parents or grandparents and they would not want to see them dumped on the side of the roadt and that it is admirable to want to preserve Weir Canyon, but ahe would like to preaerve this area as it is. she stated the use would cause addi.tional traffic and a dangec to school children in the area. Teddy Mr^4., 632 S. Weatgete Drive, 1-naheim, atated her home backs up to thia area and that ahe was oriqinally told the entrance to thic mflbilehome park would not be on Lincoln, but on Sou~h Street, which is right at her corner and if that is true, the City will have to go to gceat expenee to widen South Street and ~he did not know about the sewers. She stated ahe ia concerned about the traffic flow in f~nnt of her ho~e. She stated ahe felt it is very unfair for theae aenior citizens to put them in this area because of the high Santa Ana winda and she did not think an unprotected mobilehome would be safe. She stated ahe though*_ people who have to drive e mile to get to the 10/17,~83 INUTB$• ANl-HBTFI CITY PWINNING.C(.Mw M~28~SION~' OCTOBER 17~ 83 83~654 main thocoughfar• would cr~at~ problema a~nd evantu~lly en ertranc~ would ha~• ta b~ ptovided on Lincoln. She atated h~r ideal ~olution !or the use of thia property would be e nuraery and sh• understood tha nursery op~rator on edjecent pcoperty wanted to lease this proparty and st~e thouyht that would be +~ moce compatible use and the City could be receiving money Erom the pcoperty. Paul Zavala atated he i• a resident of Anaheim and residea on Weetqate and ia concerned ebout the traffic eituation aince he underatonds thet eventually thay will be placing a trt~~Eic eignel at the intet8ectf.on of South And Rio Viete end that ie concecn ei.nce a lot of people do n~t went to stop et the traffic eignal and will be taking alternake routee thcough their reaidentidl erea. He staCed there ece a number of young familiea with amall childcen in the area. Mr. ZavAle referred to e~ notice khey had teceived reqa~cding the flood threat and in c~se of e flood, wetec would be at leaat 3 feet deep covering Orange Gounty and he did not know why a~nyone aould want to move mobi.lahomes into that area and etated it would raise coete to tihe County. He etatQd it is indicd~ed in the ataff repoct that it would be necessary to fill the aree to bring 1r above the flood level and it is eatimated, it would have to be reised 3 feet. He asked where all the watec will drein and thought it would be on Westgate and that they will be flooded out with the excees watec. He referred to the cequeated waiveca dnc3 wee concecned the people wi11 be parking in their residential area. He atated the Fire Department indicete8 that the proposed circulation foc a mobil~home pack ls unacceptable and there is probably not enough room for a turn-around area and they are suggeating a cul-d~+-sac or emecgency access to Lincoln Avenue and he thought that accesR would be used by people ~,ho do not abide by the rules. Terry warner, 2822 e. Standiah, etated ahe is a native 1-naheim resident ~nd was not opposed to the pcoject and has met some of theae residents and thought they would probably make vary nice neighbora, but that the residenta in the area bought their homea for the aesthetics and foc privacy because ~hey had quiet etreets and the way thia project is oriented threatens the reason they bought their homes. She atated ahe did not undecstand why the entrancg ie on South Street because it is almoet a de~d-end etceet and there is not a thocoughfare in khat area= that the~e ia another thoroughfare directly acrosa which is qingeley ahich virtually perall.els whet she thought would be a much better en~rance off LincAln. She atated ehe cealizea the Commission was very concerned when they were d~scusaing Raiser'a request with people perking on a residential street and she thought they ahould coneider tha~t in thie pro~ect. She adde~d she thought the people to the rear would be concerned abouk multiple-level structutes and asked if there was any aasurance there would be only single-family homes in the future if the property is developed and aeked if a 14-level condominium could be constructed under the proposed zoning~ Chairwomen Bouas clarified there a~te ordina-nces to take care of that situa~tion. Me. Werner asked if there is a guarantee that there would be only single-family residences 1n the future after the property ie rezoned aince the mobilehomes will only be there temporari.ly. 10/17/83 INOTB$._~N~~M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. OCTOBQR 17. ~983 83-655 K~ndca Morcie~, Aasiatent Plan~er, ~xplained th~ th~d~ eoninq d~signation~ to be considered nre RM-2100, RM~3Q00 and R8-5000 end the RS-S000 ia ean i nq to[ singl~-femily cesidential end • two-story r~~iden~e aould b~ constcuc t edt however, the multipl~-fam~ly zoneu would elloa on.ly one-story unlesa a vaciance ia granted thcough a public hearing pcocesa. Ma. war~~~r etatad in thal csAe ahe thought ehe multiple-family zoning deaignations would be pceferablet however, ehe thought tha Conaniaaian c~uld eliminet~ e lot of the oppoaition by ce-routinq ehe tralEic through Lfncoln rather than South atcee~. She atatAd she knowa she would ~robably be on one o! thoae atreete that will have the traEfic and thet South Street tn thet ~caa is atrictly reaidential. Dave Murphy, Spece 64, ateted the opposition is complaining dbaut inc reaeed tcaffic end pointed out there will only be 47 mobilehomea in th~s pe r k and moat of the ceeident$ will be senior citizene and would not have vehi cles. Joyce Emery, 538 S. Weatgetr, eteted one of her bigge3t concecns ia t he elevation with the propecty hsving to be gredod with ths entrance oEf Lincolnt that at ~he present time with not very many houca of rain, her backya rd is completely flooded and if that property le ceised, ahe would like to know where the exceae water will go. She etated when ehe purchas¢d hec h ome 13 years ega, she wae aasuced that that property would be park land and she underetanda with the paeeage af P~oposition 13, there e:e no funds av ail~ble for packs. She steted ehe has counted the people who use thet area ~ nd on any day thece will be people exercising, walkiny their animals, riding b i cyclea and children w~th fiehing p~lea and even though there aze no funds to develop a park, it ia being uaed es a park now and ahp works all day in an of fice end enjoys being able to get outdoors. She added she understanda thnt t heae aenioc citizens have their money tied up in t-air mobilehomes, but wa nted the Commission to coneider the Eect thst these propecky ownera hAVe evecythin~ tied up in theic homea and she wag also concern~d ebout their propert y values with older mob:lehomes being moved in behind them. Mr. Gfeller referred to ceferences about leaving the property as ope n space a;,d atated probably everyone who has evec moved in adjecent to vacan t property has wanted i~ to etay aa vacant pro. ~tyt howevec, he wes not aure t hat it would~pproprf~te in this aituation because of all the othec open space in that immediate area along the Santa Ana River. Concecning treffic, he stated he could underatand the oppoaition's concernr however, the traffic issuea are discusrod and the atudy indicates that this pcoject would not cceate any traffic pcoblems. He explained that study was based on 60 spaces and t~ey are only proposing 47 apacea and the estimated peek houc traffic we$ about 23 trips and he thought that would be vecy insignificant compered with the othtr residentiel uses that could be developed on the pcoperty. He stated the trnffic atudy was discussed with the ultimate development of the property and indiceted a treffic aignal on South Street would not be necessary. Co~:cerning the commenta regarding the tcaffic going through the residential area, he explained that was staff's pcefecence because of the emall ~mo~~t of traffic. Concerning the reduction in propecty values, Mr. Gfeller stated the re were exteneive hearinge befoce the County of Orange, aad there was never evidence pcesented that would indicate properEy values would decrease if a mobilehome 10/17/83 ~..y ) INUTEa. 1-NIWRIM CITY_~'INfi COMMI88ION. OCT08RR 17. 1983 d3-6S6 pack waa dev~loped ~djacent to the r~aid~ntial uo~~. He •t~ts.d s p~ceon would not ev~n bs ewar• rh~c• was a mobil~hom~ psrk in th• d[~A because tihey would ~ave to driv~ thcough the r~~id~ntiel ar~a to qer to the mobilehome and h• stetod rhey will b~ complying with Cod~ c~quir~ment~ !or setbacka and diQ not ~hink rhe rssidents' privacy in their backy~rds would be s!l~cted end atated thece Are no 2-atory mobilehome~ end i! the resid~ntiel deeiqnetion ia adopted, the ,~me eetbecko being •nforesd in the community now wi~l continue. Concerning the comment~ regarding the eoils report done aeveral yeace ago, Mr. Gfellsc steted the Soile R~port indicated that the eite hed ~ lot of conatruction dsbria auch aa concrete, ].umber, etc. and thet mekes it eignificantly different then the dump aite et ~incoln Beech Mobilehome Peck. He eteted thia erea will need to be ce-compar,ted and th~f will not be digging up the hole e~~d will be meeting City etendarde and he did not think thece ie any foundation for fear that this will be Another Lincaln Beach Mobilehome Pack. Regerding flooding, he eteted thie site will be ra~ised ebove the level thet will be considered a flood hazard foc 100-yQAC ac 250-year etorme and it would not afiect a~ny surrounding pcopertiaa and, in fact, the convecaion of thie sit~ fcom being vecant, whece there is na control over the drainage, to e developed piece of pcoperty as e mobilehome pe~rk with streets end impcovemente, would improve the current dreinege probleme ~or the neighbora. Regacding sewers, he steted thece is a~ eewer line in South Street and the capacity ia sufficient to handle this development. He etated another. a~lternative for thia property ia a high density residential uae with 112 unita and the exieting sewer would be eufficlent for thet development. Concerning the opposition's concerns with traffic, Mr. Gfeller atated this wi11 be a community of senior citizens and most of them do not even own vehiclea, and there will not be any teenegera driving up and down the atteetA in thia project. Mr. Gfeller stdted theee senior citizena are responsible citizena es shown in the care and attention they heve given to their existing coachea, even at the Lincoln Beach Mobilehome Park, an9 thought thece would be more concern with the new park. Mr. Gfeller atated they are not propoaing to develop or operate thie mobilehome prrk because that is not theic business, but they are acting as the City's agent in thia requeat dnd assumR the City would go out for blde and if no one elae is interested in developing this perk, they might be intereated, juat to follow through on the project but would not be developing it for eny profit. Mc. Gfeller stated he realizea the Conuniasion is in a difficult position trying to make this a temporery aituationt however, he felt after working with these cesidenta, they are probably the moat realietic citfzene their company hae ever dealt with and they fully understand that this would be a temporary situetion and that the aites would not be marketable or tr~nsferable and they could not be assigned to anyone elae. TEIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissiener Bushore, Mr. Gfeller etated Lincoln Beach Mobilehome Park wae developed about 19 yeara ago. 10/17/83 ~ ~ INI~1"~"- •"'.`~"RIM CITY PLJINNING CUMMI~$xON. OCTOBER 17. ~83 ~~i~ 83-65? Commiriion~r Buehor• st~ted h• rem~mb~~o in about 1968 wh~n th~ lsnd nt th~ L.incoln Beach Mobil~home Pack atert~d sinking. He r~f~rred to the commenta thet thsae ce~idant~ w~r• told khet thia vacsnt pcop~cty would be a perk and etat~d he wi~hed all c~al eatat~ aq~nt• w~re cequired to take a cou reain pcomising things that can ~ot be done. Na stated a politic.al decis ionwae made 3 or 4 yeeca e•~o and the Mobilehome Tr~k Force made a d~ciAion that ths City ,ehould look at the poaaibilirieo o! a temporary r~location pa r k, Ne etated with ell the lacte availabl~, the Commission muat mAke a dec ieion baeed on the higheat and beet uae of the land end how it efPects ell the people of 1-neheim and not just the people in the immediate ared and he thoug h t moet of the Commiasioners feel thai 1E thie prop~cty ia going to be uaed a t ellr it ahould be aome type of A ceaidential property end the etudies show it cettainly would not be the higheet and beet uee as a temporar; mob ilehome pArk for the benefit of all the taxpeyero oE Anaheim end the higheat end ber~ uae would probably be some high density reaidentiel uae which the peop 1 e e: ng South Stceet would not want. He edded ingreas should pcobably be ofELi~coln to take some of the trnffic off South Street. He edded he could notsee it being developed as a pack becauee of. ell the river bed which ia deeignated for public uae as bike trAila, hiking trails, etc. end if thia propert y le q oing to have a$ettling problem, mt-ybe it ehould be looked At d9 a park inglot far people using the river bed and thdt may not be satiafactory to the people in the area because it wi11 bcing in a lot more people from the outsi de~ Commiseioner Bushore stAted right now he doea not think he has eno ugh information to vote on this pcoject. He stated he remembcra aeeing thQ pcopecty when it was a very deep hole and wasn't sure that it shou ldbe ceaoned for multiple-family residential, and tha+t he could not vot e for this based on the hncd fects and the omall return to the City because i t would not be in the best in~erest of the entice "ity. H~ added it would be wrong to only make it available to thoae residents at Lincoln Be~ch Mobile homePerk because thece are other people being displaced thro~gh other mobil ehome park conversions. He stated those residenta et Lincoln Beach are prot ~cted no mattec when they move and they wece treated juet as fairly as anyoneelaet that he looked at the 119 apaces anc] ~hose people who have lived t hete 15 years or longer only total 17 out oE 119 and he thou~ght any one wh o moved in efter about i968 had to realize there was a pcoblem because of the einking portior-s of the parks that 7 yeacs is the average cesidency in tha t perk and he thought the people in Lincoln Beach had been adequately compen ~ ated and he did not see ~~here they should be give~ one thing Above what the ot herpeople would be qiven. He etated he did not think it would be fair to ot hercitizena in 1-naheim and he could not support the conditional use pecmit f o r the park nor could he consider reclessification because he did not feel therewas e~ough hacd facts. Commissioner Herbst stated every mobllehome park developed in Anaheim, except for the newer ones, were considered ae interim uses, but timea hav echb nged end they have become pecmanent uses and there ere a~ lot of pe~ple livin g in them. He stated he did not believe the Commisaion can consider tt~ieAa a tempo-nry situation and start anothec interim use because it will become permanent since there will be people living there whcn the time endeend there will be no place to move them. He stated he also looked at the ct~aractec of the pcopecty and cealizes that the winde do blow down that river arith fterce gusts and the only way this could be used for reaidential purposes would bc to 10/17/83 INUT~81_ ~~%~~s+M CITY PL]1NNIN~i CzQMMISSION. OCT086R 17. 1983 ~3'6 hav• a huqs wail to prot~at th~ aoaoh~~ wnd ~l~o thi~ w~a a dump ~it~ ond th~r• wea e big hol• at on~ tima~ and h• did not think just yoing down ~0 l~~t would be ed~quatie, ~v en thouy h it ia till~d with solid con~truction typ~ met~ciel. H• stat~d iP it ir not recompacted all ehe way to the bottom, ir will sink and noted th~re ere oChec similac pcopertisa in kh~ City which have had this probl~m. H s etatied unlaee aomeone lcom the privat~ enterpri~e can saeura the Commiseion that ths compection is going eo b• what it should be, he could not vore for thie project. He ste ted he did not think it's e good eite tor a mobilehoms pacl~ et lhis time, but it coulQ be used !or some other type o! reaidential housi nq becauee it is ecr osa tha etreot ~rom reeidenkial which becka up to the rive r t+ed end thie would be a aonkinuation of that, but that the other housing ia not eitting on e dump eite and unleas it can really be made eate for people to live thare, it should remain open ep+~ce. Commiasioner La Cla i ze indicated ehe was concerned about the type of till in Chia dum~+ site beca u~e the enviconmental impaGt repoct had indiceted thace ie refuee there, in add ition to conetruction type matecials, and asked if etaf.f had reviewed tha~ si tuation. Kendre Morries steted ae fac aA steff knows, at this kime, the only type of meteridla thece is c ~natruction debrls a~nd there is no organic meteriel. Commisafoner La Cla ~ re stated there is a n indication in thH enviconmentAl impact cepoct thmt one of the mitigation meaeuces is thP removal and compaction of the cefuse fill #oundetion. Anni.ka Sentdlahti pointed out Page 8 of the enviconmental impact report indicates the refus~ fill is compoaed p rimarily of constructian debria (mainly concret~ and espnal t) and miscellaneous tcasht fill mAterials cap the refuse fill and conaista o~ Eino to medium grai ned, dry to damp, medium silty sand with occasional ~~r~vel. She fucther stated th~t ia all the information ataff has at this time. Co~~.nisaioner La Cla3re stated ehe thought that is what is bothering the Commiaeion and they are thinking they do not want enothec mobilehome park on anothe~ dump aite. She etated ahe felt eventually if thia property is buildAble, ehe would agcee that if it is surplus property, and there is ~ot enough money to dev elop a park aike, srnaething ehould be done with the property becauae the City of Anaheim could ceally use the money to rnake other fmprovements. She atated ahe ie not ag ainat a different uae for the propertys however, ahe had he r doubts about it be ing a temporery mobilehome park end further she felt t he City Wauld be gett ing back into the same aituation they are curcently in, having to celocate mobilehome perk tenants. Annika Santalehti poinced out the environmentel impdct report discusaee the mitigation meaeures a~ Page 10 and ind icetes thet prior to any work on grading plans, a technical inveatigation will be conducted ta detail aubaurface conditione and to provide cecommendati ons with reapect to removal and compaction of ref use, fills, foundation deaign, expansion potential and slope stebility of any proposed cut and fill alopee. She stated before any construction would ever occuc, there would be a thocough evaluation of the facta to meke sure another situation 1 ike Lincoln Bedch wes not being created. 10/17/83 MINUTBB. ~N1W BIM CITY PLIINNING COMMI89ION. OCTO~BR 17. 1983 83-659 Commiasion~r King ateted h~ l~lt con~idering th• lAnd could b~ providsd !oc ~ c~rtein segm~nt o! mobii~homs p~ck own~r~ when the~~ ere orhec mabil~home pack tenent~ who a~e not aeinq c neid~rsd, could b~ coneid~red e diaccim~nation. Annike Santalahki qtAted thi~ is only one posaible solution to th• probiem o! re~ooeti~g mobilehome park tenenta and occsoionally coachee m~y be very di!licult to move into eny perk in thia er~a due to their ege, •tc. She eta~ed thie wag a tempocary solution ~r~d potentiaily eom~ one who might be moved into this perk might hnve to be reloceted aga~n et a letec dete end th~h ia e grsat concorn to atalf end i! eome tenent were to yettle in a~d ectually be peid relxetion benefits believing that they could remein hera for tt~~ next 15 tc 20 yesre end then have to be relocated, it would be e bad eituation and that is not the intent oi the celocation perk. Mr. Gfeller ateted their compeny really ected as the Commisaion's staff in thie req ueat end this wes all khe information they heve. He expleined the City of Anaheim did not make any commitmenta to the Lincoln 8each Mobilehome Park tenante regarding them having the ficet right of refusel and that waa an agceement between Gfeller Bsvelopment Compeny and the City end was drrived at becauee the City had eaked them to do the work et their own expenae end this wea one of the weye they could preaent a 1Qwer bill to the City for the work performed. Chairwoman Bouas asked how many tenanta from Lincoln Beach Mobilehome Park would probably move into this aheltier park if appcoved. Mr. Gfeller atated when they firet atarted working on the project, there were 125 apacea and there were 119 tenanta when the project was approved and at this time there are 86 tenante left in the p~rk and by the end of this month, there will be about 80. He atated eome of the tenants moving hc~ been Che reeult o£ the fact thAt they have already peid the relocation benefits to ~ emall group of people who left right aa~y and the others hnve just decided l•o relocate now knowinq they would be receiving the ben~fita ns called for in the conditiona. He atated of the 80 tenante left, he thought maybe 20 would be interested in thia p~rk, eapecially if it is the one on Lincoln becauae they are intereated in staying in the area. Chairwoman Bouas atete~ if they relocate to this park with the idea it wae a temporary shelter park and knew th~t it was for a 10-yeer petiod and Kere given a date they wou2d have to move, they would once again be faced with movingt however, the second time they would not have any relocation benefits. Mr. Gfeller atated they would collect the relocation benefits from Gfeller Development Company regardleas of where or when they moved, but when they did move out of the City's park, it would be without any rrlocetion benefits. Mr. ~feller stated the natural tucnover of people who moved for whatever reAaons would b~ about 100• in 10 yeare. ~neicwomen Bouas pointed out there are some tenants at Lincoln Beach who have been there foc more than 10 yeara ~nd Mr. Gfeller st~ted that would be a very low number. 10/f 7/83 INUTB$._~~ 6IM CITY PLa1NNINa COMMI8820N. OCTAB~R 17. 1983 83-660 Commisoionar 8uahoc• ak~t~d that is a qoad point that would work aqainet conv~rting thia into a mobilehome park b~ceua~ in 10 y~ara th~re mey only be 9 or 10 tenants e~ill living st the peck, and it would be linancielly impoaeibie to ke~p the psrk open. He atated the id~a ih~ to replac• the tenanta temporarily, but b~cauee o! th~ir big inveatment, the operator o! the psrk would went to fill up tha epec.~a and the ceel problem would ba in the future when the uae ends. He steted thie developer hes negatiaked the right ro protect the ona group of citizens end ~ot pcotect othec~ who may have a much worse eituakion end thet ie not feir to other mobilehome park tenenta who are beinq dieplaced. Mr. Gfeller eteted he would not ~gree einae that ie e cight he negotiated with the City and if the City was going to reimburse him up to 100! for hie coet, he would not have had to n~gutiete thet right of firat refuaelt and thet he did negotiate it as part of his finenciel be~efita. He stated they originally enticipated thet if the relocetion pACk wAS ~ppcoved, they would be eble to celocete the tenants without having to pay the benefitei however, as it turned out in the conditione, they were required to pay the benefite whether the tendnta moved to a permanent p4rk ~r to a ralocation p~rk. Commiasionec La Cleire ateted if this is epproved todey, obviously it will be sold Co someone else who will develop the park and dsked how Gfeller's righta will be enforced. Mr. Gfeller responded the City will have a Ground Lease on the propecty and the operator will have an Operdtor Leaee foc the mobilehome park and ehe reatrictiona wil] be included in that lease and they would be able to designate exactly which people woulA have the right to move there befoce the mobilehome park developer has to atert, so it would not be an unknown fector. Commissioner Bushore aaked if the City could negotiete an agreement su~h as this without firat putting out a propoa~l for bids or without a public hee~ing. Jack White stated it was done at a publlc meeting and it is a cantract where th~re is no requirement that there be a particular procese £or this type of ngreement and the agreement providea for e dolla~ amount maximum to be reimbursed in the event that the property ia not approved for conversion to a mobilehome park. In addition, it provides that in the event it is approved for an interim mobilehome pack, and only a poction of the park ia made available to Lincoln Seach reaidenta, the developec would be reimbursed for the percentage in proportion to the number of sp~ces that are Available to Lincoln Beach ceaidenta as opposed to the total numbec of spaces in the pack. Commiasioner Bushore etated th~ocetically a11 47 apaces could go to Lincoln Beach residents. Jack White reaponded that the agreement allowa the City to develop its own criteria and it ie flexible enough to provide there is no abso~ute gua~entee thak Lincoln Beach cesidents ace going to be admitted. Commiseioner La Claire nsked how the developer will recover his costs if the General Plan is not changed. Mr. Gfeller reaponded if the General Plan designation ia not changed, the City will reimburse him for the maximum doller amount per the contr~et which does not cover ell his coste. He st~ted he did not know if he disagreed with the City ~ttorn~y's interpretation of the agreement. Mr. Gfeller stated there has not been any diecrimination with 10/17/83 MINUTES. ~1~-HBIM CITY PLANNINa COMMI$SIGN. OCTOB~R 17s 1983 83-66 r~garda tio the righta to thi~ propecty bec~ue~ th~ contract waa approved between the City end Gfell~c D~valopme~t Company ~nd it i• not sometihing that would ba included in the dsv~lopment o! enoth~r mobil~hom~ perk conv~r.ion. Commieaioner La Clairs eteted the Plan~~ing Commiesion is vaque about thia perticular portion of tt~~ davelopment b~ceuee they were not included in that diacu~aion ~nQ epproval. Mr. Gfeller reeponded that went dicectly to the City Council end that was reelly wh~ce the whole idea wes inatigetedt that the Steecing Committee which included Cauncil membera did me~t vecy eerly and discusa the idee of e ahelter perk. Commissioner Hecbat stated there are appcoximately 32 mobileh>me perks in this Citl end thece are going to be other perk ownecs esking foc converaions and they have thet cight end if the City does approve e relocation park for Lincoln Beach reeidents, those ownere are going to request the same thing. Ne ateted the Planning Commiasion is not suppoaelto set precedents, but whenevec something is epproved for ~omeone elae, future applicents will refer to that approval. He etated the Co.~nieeion knowa that as existing parks get older and as land values get higher, the owners of thoae parka are going to be coming in for converaions and the Commiaeion will be faced with thie problem of giving the displaced reaidents a place to live at the taxpayer'e expense. He pointed out Anaheim has vecy little vACant land now and atated he did not feel it ie right for the City to make a shelter p~ck for juat A few people. Mr. GEeller stated if it were n~t for the fect that these residents wece being diaplaced, the City would not have identified th~t it had thia aurplus piece of pcoperty that could be developed and that wes what trigqered their intereat and willingnesa to expend funds which the City wasn't willing to spend, t~ detecmine whether the property is feaeible foc development, whether it be foc a mobilehone park or not, but if it had developable potential and could increase ita yield to the City. Commissionec La Claire stated the queation for the Pl~nning Commieeion is not really whether this is fair or whether or not someone is getting a special deal. She refecced to approval of the en~ironmental impect report and stated the only question she h~d about khe EIR was regarding fill and that staff and the developer feel thie EIR is adequate so she would not have a problem in certifying it= that the second iasue is the r,eneral Plan Amen3ment and it has been found by the City staff es well aa the agent, that Chia pro~e•'rty ia developttble and could be sold and the General Plan would have to,~mended in order for thak to happenj and that the third iasue ie the ceclassification and it has been suggested that the property ia suitable for development for low-medium denaity reeidential wbich could include A mobilehom~ pack. Kendra Morries pointed out the requested waiveca were deleted. Conunisaio~er La Claire continued that the only problem seems to be with the apptoval of the conditionel use permit for a mobilehome park and in order to short-cut thia and maybe put khe responsibility where it could lie, if the PYanning Commission doea not wrnt a mobilehome park, they can deny the conditional use permtt so the petitioner can dpp~al it to the Gity Council. 10/17/83 ~ .i MINUTE$. ANAHBIM CITY PLI~NNINfi COMMISSION. OCTOSaR 17. 1983 83-662 8he stated ehe would heve no problem apE. inq the EIR~ cisnecel Plen Amendment oc r~c1aa41Fication. Commiseioner eushore r~f~cc~d to Appendix 1- which ia ths geot~chnical invs~tlgation which indicetes they only went down 10 fe~Lt that e big problem for developecs ia wher~ to dump their dicr and if the City otf~ra a lree eit~, they uae it and there wae no control extcciaed et thie eite sa to whet wae dumped end there was no guecd ehere for 24 houra a day. He eteted he recells the eite wae at leaet 20 teet deep or mote and he did not think testing et 10 feet would be edequate. He a~kad why no one did boringa any deeper when the ~oaeibility of e mobilehome park hed been mentioned, eepecially becsuse of the rivec. He Asked I~ow the EIR can be certified when the Commiesion knaws the depth of thdk hole wea moce thdn 10 feet. Annik~ Santalahti stated apparently the EIR indiaated thet •verytimo they went down 10 ro 15 feet, they hit bottom, ao did not go any fucthec. She stdted the Cfty has no other informetion aoncerning the depth of the pit. Commiaeionec Bushoce suggested that the cesidenta who hr.ve lived thece know how deep it wae befoce it wds filled and know what it was filled with. He added based on whdt he cemembgrs about the eite, he could not cectify the enviconmental impact report tnday although he thought that was the oi~ly questi,on that was not answeced adequAtely and r~dded that the environmentAl impact report did fulfill all its obligetions. Annika Santnlahti stated if the General Plan Amendment is approved for more deyelopment than open apace, before any developer could get building permits, they would have to do a thocough analysie of the site and she did not think they would do nearly as much work for en environmentel impsct report as they would to evaluate the site for development. Commiesioner eushore eteted the environmentel impect report did exactly what it was suppose to do by pointing out the possible pcoblems and now the Commisslon muet look at the probleme to see if they can be mitigated. He stated the enviconmental impact report can only go as far as the information provided and that they were provided infotmation at 10 to 15 feet deep and it shows what fs there, but it does not show whr~t ia deeper. Commiesionec La Claire stated she had asked that question and the information wde that the site was filled with solid constcuction-like materials and there was not the kind of refuse you have ~t the Lincoln Beach Mobilehome Parkt however, they did only go down 10 to 15 feet. She atAted she thought staff wda right in that the developec would have to do additional testing if anything was ever built on thia propecty oc if it was sold or leeaed. Commissioner Bushore asked if thece was any one present in the audience who had lived in the a-rea who would have any inaight as to how deep thfa site wae oc what it was filled with. .terome Ballinger etated he lives in Yorba Linda, but that ~he adjacent property belongs to hie grandparents and he had played on thet site aa a little boy and thought it was 30 to 60 feet deep. He stated it was filled with a lot of things such aa asphalt, concrete, debris consiating of lumber, trees and ahrubs. 10/17/83 INUTE$. AN1W~I[!~ C~TY~NI~C4MI~I~$I91~ OCTOBdR 1~~3_ _ ___ 83-6 Commisaioner Buehore atet~d cartAi.n typee of tresh end treee would decompose end csuss th• esrth to sink. H• etat~d he did not ee• how the Commisrion could c~rtity th• enviconm~ntial impact r~poct with thia inlormation haviny e p~reon who had liv~d thece and knew what waa dump~d thece and he thought moat of the people hsa just u.ed it toc a dump .ite with trseh lcom their own backyerda, etc. Mr. Ballinger atsted thece wae no control over who or what wae dumped thece. Commiseioner Ln Cleice atated with thia Additionel information, she did not think the environmental impa~ct report could be cerCified. .1a~ck White ateted the only uncertainty in the Commiasioner's minda reletes to the depth end quality of khe field end compaction and it ie poselble to certify Che envitonmentel impect ceport since it does identify the SmpACtia and imposes mitigation meaeure$ that will overcome the adverae impact$. He etated the Commiasion could impoee, ae a condi~ion of approval of the ceclassificetion, a requirement that a detailed eoils e~gineer report be prepnred ae to depth and qudlity of the fill end the compaction in eufficient detail ns to be a~proved by the City's Building Department prior to the iaeuance of any building permite on the eite. He etated it ie not known et this kime what ie going to be bui1C thece eince thR Commiasion has not acted on the cequest Eor a mobilehome patk and no permanent uaes oc buildingb heve been diacusaed and until it ie known what structurea are going to be there, the Building Depattment officiels could ergue thet it ia prematuce at this time to detecmi~e what the compaction problem might be. He ctated if the Commiseion feels en enviconmental impact is inadequate until they heve more informetion, then they should not certify it, but leg~lly they can certify it with a cestrictinn as a mitigation measure if they wiah to move forward with othec itema. Commiesioner Hecbat stated if removal and 60 foot of compaction is necessary, then the cost figurea preeented would not be accurate and, in addition, if they had to go that deep, they would probably hit the watec level and that could create problems. He asked why the Ocange County Water District opposed the project for residential uaea. Annika Sentalehti reaponded that they were interested in the pruperty to be developed ae a pdrking lot to be used for a park. Commissioner F'ry asked is the diffecence with the land leasea with one being ~4000 and the other being ~36000. Bob Reese, Gfeller Development Company, responded that the difference is simply the ecpnomics of havlnq more units and the larger site actually would bear some of the costa more efficiently. Commissioner Fry st~ted two yeara ago when the Mobilehome Task Force was trying to and did arrive at an ordin~nce that was acceptable to everyone, there was talk of a shelter mobilehome park for the displaced tenants and he realizes there was never any official action, but the thought was alw~ys in the background that there was a poeaibility that there could be such a park, even though there was never a location designated, and now it aeems like the Commiasion is saying as a whole, that they do not went to get involved in a temporary mobilehoa~e park and he did not underst~nd why the change. 10/l~/83 ~ ~4 I INUTEB~ ANAHBIM CITY P..ANNINti COMMI$9ZON. OCTOQBR 17. ~983 83-664 Commiaaion~t Buahore ~+~id tho Mobil~hom~ Ta~k lorc~ haehMQ that idea over dnd ov~r but th~y did not mek~ a decieion or recommendation ebout e ehelt~r pACk b~cauae they navoc had khe hard tigur~s end this is the first time he has seen intormation on the subjact. Commisaio~er Fty atated evecyone wea talking in a pooitive nature eti thst time sbout th• poaeibility o~ s ehel.tec psrk end now the Commieaion is saying they are no lonqer intereated. Chairwoman Bouas atated the Teek Foccs did not talk in a positiive nature ebout e aheitar park. Commieaioner 8uehore etAted the Tesk Force wes givrn bits end piecee of infocmetion end were told a new environmental impact repork wes on its wey, but they nevec eaw it ~nd all the Teak Focce was told in genetel wae thet beeic facte eubstantiated that it wea probably not going to be coat effective Proposel, although they never sew any figuces ~nd it w~e based on a meeting ste~f fiad had with the develaper. He etated the figure of renta of ~550 per month wes discussed ~uat to make it pey far emortizetion of improvementa and theee figuces ere beacing thet out. He thought the Taak Porce would come to the seme conclusion if given the information today. Ch~irwoman eouea atated the Task Force did not have any facta end, in fact, the developecs on the committae expreased theic opinion that the City probably would n~t be able to get anyone to develop the perk becau$e it would be too expensive, and it was the general coneensus of the T~ek Force membere that there probably nevec would be a sheltec park. She etated thece was a queation of it being a temporary park and how long people should have the privilege of ataying theret And that it was to be consideced a temporary eituation end they would have to relocate to some other place eventually. Commisaioner eushore akated the real intent was to look at the hacd figures and if the figi~res made senae, then the mechenics should be looked at. Chairwoman Bouas atated the oriqinal idea came from the City Council and maybe dt this point, the Commission should make a decision to aend it on to the City Council for their consideretion. Coroaisaioner La Claire suggested cettification of the EIR with ~ stipulation for a deteiled soils engineer report and approvel of the General Plan P-mendment, at ledet in $pirit, to Iet the Council know thAt the Commiesion agrees that if the property can be eold, then it ahould be done and it ahould be reclassified ~o a reasonable density. Commissionet Bushore wae concerned with reclaasification of the property to RM-2400 and then having a developer come in later becauee of the cost of. removal of the dump site and request a higher density. He etated he did not think he wanted to aet a precedent until it is known whether or not the groperty cen be deyeloped and thought the reclassification would be putting the cart before the horse. Commiaaioner La Claire stAted she would like to avoid the question and let the City Council meke the decision but thought they will be looking to the Planning Commission for aome kind of guida~nce. 10/17/63 t ~ ,, 83 -6 NUT6g• 1-N11~1EIM CI_TY P~ NNINQ COMM188~0[i~~s6R iT• ~83 -- Commis~ionac H~cbrt steted h~ would lik~ to A~~ khe prop~rty r~main open spacs ati i~a,~t untii aom~o~~ oen prov~ that thex ~r• not going to hsve to qo down 60 l~~t, becsua~ it won't ~ver b~ d~v~lop~d as s r~~idential eres i! thak has to b• clone. He eaid ha i~ not aatieli~d with th~ environm~ntal impdct r~poct and ha would want to know it it cen be developsd saf~ly and aleo thAt a devalop~r osh be lound anQ he would noC w+~nt to e~• a residential deaignetion et this time. He atated hs could not certily the •nvicoamental impact report snd wants tht ~he~acenidiscns4etheneconomicespbut asde~lendtplannerihe~couldenot chenge it, Y see it ehanged. ~-Cr TION: Commieeioner Herb~t olfeced a motion, aeaondad by Commissioner Bushore end MOTION C1-RRIBD, tnat the Aneheim City Plan~ing Co~59aon~the~beeie hereby deny certificetion of ~nvironmental impact Repact No. that adequAte aoils teets weee not conducted to determine the depth and quality o~ the lill meterial. Commiseioner Hecbst offered Reeolution No. PC83-193 end moved for ita paaeege and adoption that the Aneheim City Planning Commiesion doee heteby deny Genetab e1~o w$rrantnchanqing'the openbspecetdesignetiionetoncesidentialel~nd availa 1 uaea. On roll call, the foregoing resolution waa passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUA3, BUSFiORB, PRY~ HERBST, KING, LA CL1-IRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE J1B3BNT : NONE Commieeioner Herbat offered Resolution No. PC83-194 and moved for :ts pASaage and edoption that the Anaheim City ~lnnning Commission does heceby deny Reclassiei~otwATrant ceclaseificdti natoec~sident•ial~lendnuseBation ia not a~vailab On coll call, th~ foregoing resolution was paseed by the following vote: I~YES: 80~~-5. BUS4~ORE, FRY, HBR83T, KING, L1~ CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE 1~BSL~NT: NONE Commissioner H ecbst offered Resolution No. PC83-195 and moved for its paesage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby deny Coniedie~ndltheeueeri+stnot•authorizedhinbthe8genecalhopencspacefzoneion wAa de On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 1~YBS: BOU1-S, BUSfiORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING, L11 CL~-IRE~ M:. BURNEY NOES: NONE J-BSENT: NONE Jack White, 1-ssistant City 1-ttierney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Pleneing Commission'a deciaion within 22 daye to the City Council. 10/17/83 IN~TBS. 11N11HdIM C1TX PL NING CUMMISSION, OrTOB6R 17. 1983 83-6b6 ITBM N0. 1. BNVIRONMSNTAL IMPACT ~EPORT NO• Z58 ~PREV. C6RT.). WAIVER OP CODE ~69UIREMBNT, ~ND CONDITION~L U8B PERMIT N0. 2498 PUBLIC HBARING. ONNERS: CITY 0! ~NAHBIM, P.O. Box 3222r Anaheim, CA 92803. AGENTs (~ BLL~R DEVBLOPMENT COMPANY, INC., Z~8 West Mein Straet, Tuetin, CA 92680. ATTENTIONs RALP4! SPAROO. propecty deacribed ~a ) PORTION "1-': 1-n ircegularly-sheped pdretl ot land consieting ot approxim~tely 10.1 acres, located at th~ nockhweet cornec of the pcoposed extensiona o! La Palma 1-vanue and weir C~nyo~ Road. Subject property is bounded on the north by the l~tchieon Topeka and Senta Fe Railway (ATSFRR), on the aeet by the proposed axtensi~on of Weir Canyon Road, on the south by the pxoposed extension of La Pelme 1lvenue, and on the west by Tract 9169 (a developed eingle-lamily reaidentiel RS-5000(SC) 2one eubdivis~on) a~nd PORTION ~H": 1- tcidngulacl.y-shaped parcel of land consisting o! approximetely 9.3 acrea located at the northeeet corner of the proposed extensiona of Le Palmn J-venue end Weir Cenyon Roed. subject property ie bo~nded un the north by the 1-tchison Topeke and Santa Pe Railway (1-T3FRR), on lhe southeast by pcopoaed exteneion af La Pelma 1-venue and the southwest by pcoposed extension of Weir Canyon Roed. To pecmit a 116-apacd temporary mobilehome relocetion park with walvers of minimum landacnped aetback, minimum number and type af parking epacea and waiver of Council Palicy No. 542 pectai~ing to aound (deleted). There wae no one indicating theic presence in oppogition to aubject cequeat and although the staff report was nat reed, ik is refecred to and mAde a p~rt of the minutee. Doug Gfellec stated this ia obviously a different location than the one pcevioualy discussedt and that it doesn't have quite so many of the immediate neighbor pr~blems. He atated the economic aituation ia different on this site and the question is whether or not the City wants to take a low annual return for e mobilehome park now or whether they want to aell the property for residential uses. He stated thia aite we$ deaignated for com~nercial uses, but it is their opinion th~t there ia re~lly no commercial uae for thia site immedietelyt however, it is an excellent future commercial site end will bring the Ciry a signifi~~nt amount of money because of the existing commercial businesses i.n the area and oth~r factora, and they did not think the City could achieve anywhere near the value if they sold it noW as commercinl property, but thought using thie aite as a temporary mobilehome park, makea more econc-mic eenae because it would give the City e ceturn on the propecty while they are holding it for the day when ik would bring a more eignificant return. He added if there is a cesh need now, they realize the City would want to sell the property cight awey. Mr. Gfeller stdted the development of a temporary relocation park on the~t site meana the City would ha~ve a haad etart on the dQVelnpment coets auch as gxading, infrdstructure, fencing, etc. that would be needed for the ultimate commercial development of the aite and th~ plan they have proposed was based on the ultimate use as a~commercial eite and a particular size sewer capacity would be developed and al8o the utilities would be adequate to ultimately hnndle commerc~al utilizAtion of the pcoperty. 10/17/83 MINUTEB. AN BIM CITY PLIINNING COMMI$S~ON_OCTOBBR 17._1983 _ 83-667 Mr. Gfall~t •tat+~d th• ~ignificant diEtarenc• is the economic~ and a~ould the City went to develop s Kelocation park, thsy would not be givinq up the oppoctunity ~o ssll th• land for ita highMSt and best us~, but would be making th~ deciaion to put in e~ lnksrim uae becAUSe iC ian't the right time to aell thA prop~rty. 1-nthony J. DaPaaio, 2925 Lincoln, Space 34, atated he is not oppoaing thia aite, but wea concer~ed about being moved irom one dump site ko enokhert that they went to look et thie ef~te and he ie in favoc ot the perkt thet the Commiaeion set e limit of lOt o! the peaple who would be given relo~ation benefits right a~way and that Mr. Gfellec is talking ebout epending milliona of dollecs for ditPatent thinga, but he doesn't have ~350,000 to ~400,000 to pay thaae people who want to move now dnd they have tc, weir until 1985 to get their money. He eteted thec• ece numerous people in ~~~e pack who would move now if they ~could get the money. He eteted he triod to call Mr. Spargo, but was told he could not ~et peid unless he was in the 10f and he would have to wait until 1985 and he did not think thdt wAa rlght and if that conditio~ wAs changed, the Ci.ty would not have to worry about eo meny people moving because a lot of them have places to move if they had the funda. Bob Reeae, Gfellec Development Compa~ny, atated a numbe[ of perk residente had other commitmenCe and had to leave the meeting, but they would represent khem. He etated he is the finencidl officer for Gfeller Developmenk Company and the monay they do apend comea Fcom loans and the celocation benefita required Eor the Lincoln E3each Mobilehome Park tenante is approximetely ~540,000. Edward Case~ Space 88, atated he aupports the requestj that if they were able to get the relocation money now, they would moveJ thet he hnd tried to talk to Mr. Spargo, but he aould not talk to him and he was told by the secretacy that Mr. Spargo would not telk to him about giving him the money now because they were not in the lOt. He explained when the park residenta were informed about the l0i restriction, both he and his wife were in the hospital and did not have an opportunity to eign up foc the l0at and that they do have an opportunity to move to a deairable location at Victorville, but can't get the money to move and he did not think it is right. Mr. Case further stated three residents on each side of the entrance to the park were included in the 10~ and he did not think that was feir. He stated if he could move now• it would be to A space where his coach aould be upgraded and it would be immediately worth more money than it is right now, but if they were to sell it and also if they were to move to a relocation park, they could not leave it to their grandchildren, eo it would become worthless to anyo~e but them. He atated if Mr. Gfeller did agree to pay the people the money to move now, this relocation park would not be needed. Pat 0'Brien, 1201 Melanl.e I.ane, Anaheim, eta~ted his property ie locat~:3d directly weat of the propoeed site and etated he wondered what problem would b~ solved with these ptoposed parkes that the person~ who had juat sp~,ken sounded like they did not want to move to n temp4rary relocation pack and he thought this would be just poatponing a problem end not solving it. He stated he and his neighbors ere totally oppoaed to the relocation pa~k. He srated the City codes for residential areas are to protect the individual pro~.erty ownere and he did not think wc-ivers ahould be granted. 10/17/83 ~ ~` .4 MIN~T~&._ 11N7~1_I_~IM CITY PLJ-NNxNG CONMI88ION. OCTOBER 17. 1983 83-668 Don 8lnclair, 161 B. arangethorp~, Spece 6, ~tated he is speeking on behal! o! his mothet end a relocetion pack ia need~d and theee peopls who er~ indicating that one is not needsd are not epeakinq tor everyone. He eteted he had tried to find e place for hia moehar, but ahs want~ to stey in her mobilehome which ahe h~s h~d tor 15 yeacs. Icene Lethcop eteted ehe livea in the Lincoln eeech Mobilehome Park snd esked where the Commisaion's compesalon haa gone which they hed two yesra ago; that evecyone eeid then thet they aanted to do eomething for theae people and not juat tu[n them out, but now ehe ie getting the feeling that they do not went to do enything for tham. She ateted they are taxpeyece just like everyone elae and they do need e ralocation centec beceuae thece ace a lot uf people 1n this park who do not own care end cannot dcive nnd hec husba~nd worke and they cannot celocate to another er.ea~ ~-nd thece are nu apac~a availAble in Aneheim. Ronald Baggott, 8137 woodsboro, 1-neheim, stated hia concern ie both ehort range end long range And he is opposed ro e 116-apace temporary mobilehome park beceuae it w~uld not be competlble with the single-family dwellings in the area and the size, ehape and topogrdphy af the aite ie impropec for development of thia type and alaa thR aesthetic view upon enLeri.ng the 1-n~heim Highlands wiil lowec the pcoperty valuea and there wiil be en inereese in trafgic congestion. He atated hie lang renge concecn is that the property in this aree ia curcently zoned for residenti~l egricultural usea and it ie in the Scenic Corridoc Overlay and he did not aee how this type development would fit into the scheme of thinga. He stated he ie opposed to nny other zoning for this prupecty. Mr. Baggott stated the map for the pcoperty does not ahow the proper alignments foc La Palma, Jenifer and Melanie becauee there hae been eome construction and perhaps thia was an old mep. Mr. Baggott preaented a petition containing approximately 150 eignatures of residenta in the area who are opE~~~ed to the project. Clerifying Commissioner Fry's atatement that the propecty is zonec5 commercially, Kendra Morci,ea explained the property is cuccentlY zoned RS-A-43,000 for reaidential uees, with a resolution of intent to commercial, limited. 1-nnika Santalahti expla~ined the Scenic Corridoc Overlay is applied to the entire City easterly of the intersection of the Rivereide and Newport Freeways and is an overlay zone, in addition to the existing development zones, which primarily puts certain eiCe and development conetra~ints on the property auch as building height, more landscaping setbacks, prohibite roof-mounted equipment, etc., but does not affect the underlyinq zone of the property. Sharon Lazzaro, 8136 Woodaboro. llnaheim, atated the back of hec houae faces La Palma and she felt this use wo.~ld not be compatible with tihe a[ea, not ohly because of the residents in the area already, but for thoae people who would be moving in. She stated these people would be atuck down ati the bottom of the tavine and it ~rould be 2-1/2 miles one way to the cloaest ahopping center and she pointed out most of theae residents from the mobi.lehome pack are eldezly and etated there is no public tranapocta~tion foc them to use. she 10/17/83 MIN~TRB. ANJW ~IM CITY PLJINNING COMMISSION. OCTOBBR 17. 1963 83-664 etat~d, how~v~r, ah• is not sncouraqing a bua rout~ on ~~ Palme. 8h• st~t~d thi~ propacty i~ located next to the c~ilcoad tcaaka and eny r~oid~~ts in the erea would ~ctually be loQkiny down on this mobilahome park. She atat~d th~re will be inr,G~ased tcafEic, ~~picially with th~ new bridge qoing ov~r which will meka it vecy ditticult to qst out on~o La Pelma, end also therR are echoole ~n th• area end additionel tralfic will be A problem Eor ths achool childtRn. shacon Hocan, 1251 JeniFer Drive, Aneheim, steted she ceeliLMe notices of the hea[ing were 4enk to people who livs within 300 Eeet oF the pro~osed sitet however, they would hevs hsd mor~ than 150 signatures on the peCition had a lot moce people been notitied a littls m~re cleecly. Sha atated ehe received notice trom e neighbor two atceot~ over end the ~oktces were aenc on the 7th and ceceived on the lUth which only gave them five daya ,~otice. Me. Horan atated ahe livae in the ~neheim Hille/8ent~ Ane C~nyon area and it ia a high fire acea and ther~ wea e m4ior fice thece in 1981 which came within a!ew hundred feet of thie ptopooed erea and along with thet came duat, dirt and amoke which was very unhealthy end ehe did not think it would be v,pry good f.or the elderly people who would be living in thie ~.~rk dnd also it~~~very , hard Eoc them to evacuete. Mertin Sappington stated it ia hia underatanding when the accese to ~eir Cenyon Road is finished, there ia gqing to be quite e lot of development in thie area, perticul~rly fcom Yorba Linda and he did not think this would be very profiteble for the City of Anaheim. He added moving these elderlY people to thia location woald maan a total reorientntion for them end ik ie quite u diatance fcom their pceaent community ai~d they will have ko find new shopping centers, doctore, dentiete, e~c. He atake' he also t~as a concecn about the City becoming a lendlord and thought that e.:~uld be left up to the private domain. Mr. Gfellec state~ there ere not vecy many e~pecific iesuos to addcess and he wae confused ebout the peaple'a eonc:ern for putting eldecly people f.er from shopping centeca or cloae to a fire haxard area and ateted he did not k~ow where thet means they ahouid be located. He s*.ated thie site would put them ne~..r a regio~al pdrk whece there is a lot of freeh air and almaet a~ rurel envirunment. tle stated he has some difficulty thinking e mubilehome par.k is eny less d~slcabl.e to loolc 3t than a houaing development and he thought with the City's atan~erda, it will be a gaod development and noted they would not be allowed to develop a mobilehome park that waa not laid out pcoperl~+ and if it did not have proper landaceping and did not meet the City's criteria. He stated he would have to diaregard all the comments about it not being compatible becauae he thought it would be compatible in eny reaidential area. THE PUBLIC HEAItING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bushore atated Fhe Conanisaion doea have compassion, but has to try ~o put themaelves on both aides of the fsnce. He stated it would appear from hard figurea preeented that this is not qQing t~ work, but that Mr. Gfeller ruade aome gcod poirtts about the property being worth more in the future wi~h the regional shopping center going in and Weir Canyon Roa~d going through very ahortlyt tha~t this eite is going to require eome site development 10/17/83 { MINUTBS. ANIWEIM CITY PL7INNING COlJMI,}~ION, OC'lOB6R 1~. 1983 83-670 itnprov~m~nt~ whiah could b• peid tor over a qtvsn period of tima end b~ ~mortia~d which could certeinly h av• some b~n~tit~ let~r on to ~h• City. He atated h• did not know how menY o! thes~ impcov~m~nts would hsv. to b~ do~• to th• prop~rty rsgardi~as o! what i a goinq to be built thete •inc~ thoa~ imp~ov~m~nt• r~lated ap~cilically to this project w~re not identilied. Hw reEerced to th~ MAll! and am~nit i ea and ofE-aite conetruction coste ae indicated in the r~port ~nd etat~d th~ r~port mentiona thinq~ like spee end racr~etional hall, but lorgete t Ris is to be a tempocery u~e and aek~d why those things are n~eded~ that th i, ia to provide low -cost houeing and even though it mny nut be dA much ae they hav• now, it would create e place toc them. He eteted there is a poss ib~lity the numbec o! unita could be incr~ased thcough a veriance whi~h would maks tha project more teaeible and if the herd figucee wocked, the ccitecia cou ld be aet later ee to who would qualify to move there fcom Lincoln Brach e~nd how long Chey could stey, etc. He ~.tated he felt this particuler piece of pcoperty needa more study. Commisaioner Le Claice steted ah e would like to ulecues the comments that khia uae would not be compatible with the area. 8he a.ated ahe ~hought ik would be compatible eepecially with the a~nenitiea, but s:~ce the Commiasian does not hAVe a aite development plan, th~y cannot make that judgement, hut thought fin~l development plene would be s~~bmitted to the Commieaion for their review. .lack White cl~rified that if thi e property ~~ae epproved ea a temporery mobilehome park today, it would rot necessz .ly come back to the Commiseion for review unleea epproval was s peci~icallY condiCioned requicing thet specific development plAns were t~ be reviewed by the Planning Commiesion. He pointed out the City is the pcop~[ty uaner and mAy wiah to dispose oE the propecty and disposal would be c entingenr. upon any arrangement made by the City. He et~ted he has some dee p concerne and reaervntions about the City of 1-naheim becoming a mobilehome pa ck opecntor. He etated the City would have to :.~ake some provisione foc the pcaperty with a leaee or by sel.ling ~t uc would have to have some contcol ovec t he use. He etated these conditional uee permite are neceseary before the pdrk can be eatabliahed, whether it be for the City of l~naheim or a privat e developer, under private awnerehip, ~nd the City will atill be involved if this ia approved today because they still control the property. Commiasioner Bushoce stated technically the City doea run meny operdtions in the City for profit and that is a benefit to the ontire Cfty nnd maybe there is potential here and that in tkse futuce ahen the impcovements are made to this property, it will be a benefit. Jack White $tated ep~rova~] of tt~ie requeat today daes not meen that there is going to automatically be a mob ilehome park there because there are other arrangements that need to be made fot khe eeteblishment of a perk and the firat iesue is primatily who is going to opPcate it. Commiasionet La C2aire stated i t may appear to the Lir.col~- Beach Mobilehome Park residente that Che Plenning Commisaion does not have compas~lon, but they do and that ie exactly why tihis reyuest ia before the Commiseion today. She etated ahe i.s very concerned th at theae residents will move in the-e for 5 to 10 yeara and then tha :.ame situation will acise again and they will be asking for enother ~elocation park and that is why ahe felt +~nay appear there was 10/17/83 ~ INUTl~B. AN_J1~i_RIN CITY PLJ1NIiIN(i CAMNI8810N. OCT0815R 17. 1983 83-671 an ~pp~cent chanqe o! h~~rt. Sh• expleined Mr. Gtell~r waa aaked by th• City to look inro the poasibil.iti~s ot ~ t~mporary mobilshome park and thiF e~~ms to b• th• only parc~i ot land that i~ AVA~.~Ab1A and it doeon't h~ve reme probl~ms as th~ parael on Lincoln end th~ro er• only tiwo properties in the City thet p~[h~~ps could b~ develop~d es e park. Commissionec King stet~d :ho et~tf repoc: indicatee the Redevelopm~nt 1-gency indicated a r~locati.on perk would aevecely limit the ultimete comrlation of the pcopua~d Riv~er Vail~y Redevelopmant Praject. Jack White etated he bslieved that con.~ant wea intended to lndicate thet the Red~velopment 1~gency'• plana far thie propecty di,d ~.ot includs a mobilehome perk as the higheet and beat uae of the pcoperty and as long ae the use wae permitted on the proporty, !t wou~d prohibit d~velopment of the property to ite higheat end beat uae aa identified in ~he cedevelopment plen. Commiseionec Herbat esked if there have baen 4ny projectiona ae to the mmount of treffic antlcipated to be coming over Weic Canyon acee into the erea ahen tha bcidge ia Piniehed. Jay Titue, Office Engineer, tesponded he was not eure right now whnt those projections were, but wds suce it will be coneiderable because Che coad will be extendRd to the erea nt the Regional Shopping Center enc! provide acce$s into Yocba Linda. Commiasioner Herbst ateted right now the area at the off-ramp oE Impeciel and the Rivarside Pceeway ie v~ry heavily congeated with kraEfic and its almost to its capecity and he thought with the development of Hughea and Rockwell, there will be an incceaee in pereonnel, adding m~re traffic to the ereat and that Imperial end :.ekeview are already impected becauae nf the hoepital. Hg atated he would disegcee this ie not an eree for commercial uses beceuse of the treffic end he did not think residential uaea could meet the aound attenuation policy especially with the cailroad tracks adjACent to the property and the traffic from Weir Canyon Road. He stated if he were looking at this site right now for reeidential purposes or A mobilehome park, he did not think he could find it compatible because of the sound attenuation problema and the traffic problema and felt com*,~ercial uaes would be the highest and best use. Commiesioner Buahore st~ted the mobilehome park wou2d have a time limit. Pnul Sfnger, Traffic Engineer, eteted that ultimately Weir Canyon Road is pcojected to be at aervice level B which le the highest congested level. He eteted h~ did not remember the actuel count, but Weir Cdnyon Road between La Palme and the Riverside Praeway ie in the neiqhborhood of 50,000 vehiclea and La Palma and weir Canyon Road is aomewhere around 35,000 v~hiclea and those ace very heavily congested locationa. HE egreed that a lnt of traffic vfll come down La Paln:a to the industrial area. Commiasioner La Claire etated the iesue is ce~lly whet~er or not the Commission wAnks s temporery mobilehome perk. Con~missi.oner Herbet etated he would disaaree and felt th~e iasue is lar,d u~e. He asked why the City would want to put theae people on the property in e mnbile~~ome park~if the land ;s not eatisfactory foc residen~ial us~a becaune of the noise and ~raffic probleme. 10/17/83 ~_ ~ IN17TB$~ ~ry~+6in CITY ?I~NNIN(i CO~IISSIONi OC'P081~R ,~,7- l~ 963 ~, 83-6 1-nnike 8an~alahti etat~d thi~ is~'t n~cesaarily th~e la~t pco~r~y that i~ pot~ntlal !ac a ralacation p~rk but that it is a v ac~nt pi~c• o~ property, but Ch~re ec• othec pcoperti~s which ar~ privat~ly w+ra~ad thet might b~ euitable !or e~mpo~ary celocatian park. Commieeion*c Le Cleire indicar~d ahe did nok thinlc it wea e likely pooeibility. Commiaelonec Herbst eteted Enviconmental Impact R~poct No. 2~8 which wr~ pceviously cereified did not considec houaing Lor that property, but considered commerciel ua~s. 1-nnika Santalahti sta~ted a mobiiehome perk ie a potenkial conditional uee in the commeccial zone. ACTION2 Commiasioner Herbet o!leced a motion tha t the Ar~heim City Plenning Commiaeion does ~~ereby deny th~ requeet !or waiver of Code requirement. The HOTiON PAILED TO C1-RRY with a tie vute (Commiesio nere 9ushore, Bouas ~nd Pry voting no and Commiseion~r Le Cleire, Herbat end iting voting yes). Commieaioner Bushoce atatad he thouglit the mette r ahould be continued becauae he did not think e decieion can bQ made based on the informetion the Commiesion has Codayt however, he would like to s~e the figucea broken down to find out if the improvemente would benefit the p c cpe ~. He otated he aees ~385,000 of the 1.8 millinn dolleca foc improvemc nt coete, amenities and another portion for bonde, f.3~,a and permits. He stated this will create affordable housing. Reaponding to Commiesioner tierbst, Commiseionor Suahoce etated he thought thie propecEy could be Auitable for housing on a temporary basis. He stated the coat should be ceviewed end then the Commission should look at the mechenics of permitting the project and ahould take ~uat one atep at a time. Commiseioner Herbet stated the Planning Commiasi on should look at the lnnd use and City Council ehuuld conaider ehe economica. Commisaioner 9ushore etated the City atill haa ~ he Mobilehome Park Task Force, even though they haven't met, and he did not wan t to see thie matter sent back ~o the Task Foccs becauae he d~d not think they i.rant to be burdened with itt however, if the developer is given khe right dir•ect~ion, he can hring the matter back to the Commiesion in a reasonable an-aunt of time and the Commiaeicn could proceed to the next steps that anaybe it is a~ waete of time, but here ia a developec a~nd the kenants expectir~y an anewer. Chairwoman Bouae steted the Council is goSng to have the Einal answer and maybe the mattec ehould be sent on to them. Annika 8nntalahti atated the developer hae indi ceted he does have some figurea availeble if the Commission is intereated in hearing them. Bob Aeese, Gfellec Development Company, ateted iE you look at the 51,787,000 components which would fdll out as a result of the mobilehome perk such aa sewera, stceet improve~s~~nts, utilities, wdlle asad other amenities (explaininq primarily the walls are neceasary for uounA att~nuetion) $400,000 would not he recovereble, but everythfng else is basically getting the property ready for sale ~e a developable piece of property. 8e etated of the 51,787,000 dollars, 5139,OOQ are coets to the City Anyway because of bonds~ fees and permits. 10/17/S3 ~,~ ~OTl1-N1~iaiM CITY PLJ1N I~ING C~„4lI,hI§~ION~ OCTOBQR 17. 1983 83-673 R~apondiny to Commiasio~~c Bushor~, Mr. R~~a• stated ba~ed on the rents end amoctiaetian, the pco~~et do~e not mek~ eco~omic s~ns~l thae thsir company doe8 not d~velop mobilehome peck~ end in thia caee, they are ecking as the City'a agant to proceaa the application. Hs etete~J excludinq khe ~400,000 obviously makee mor• a~nee end then addinq it back into the cent of the land leas~ payme~t of ;36,000 meking it ~~9,000 p~r yeer lend leaae peym•nt le a aiqnificant amount o~ mon~y. He stated if the perk is ec~ually e tamporery use and the tenenta ar~ r~quirad to aign aqre~menta that they underatend there will. be no benefita when they have to movf, the prapecty can be aold at th~e end of the tempocacy uae foc a lot moro m~ney. Commiasioner Buehore atated he knowe when the bchool aites dce going to be eold and _:~nverted, o~e ech.ol diatrict is actually going to look into the potentiel o~ rezoning the proparty to ita highest and beat uae before putiing it up foc aale whieh would mea~ moce money and that they would not even allow a developec to bid on ths aite without a epecific plan end the property would not be eold on e contingency. He added it these improvemente are made ro th~ pcapecty~ they would be mede at 1984 doll+sca and i~ the pcoperty is eold in 1995, the increased va~ue would ~e to the t+~xpayer's benefit. Commiasioner LA Cleice atated she ia wondering iE enyone would be intereeted in developing the proporty. Mr. Rease reeponded their company and etaff have been working on thia pcoposa~l Eor a long time and the queetion ie to find eomeone to operate a park end if aom~ona ie willing to mAnage it, the City cen make a management fee, but the bi+geut economic problem with e tempocary use auch es this, will be in getting a loen because Einancial inetitutions aill look a~t it as to how it is going to be paid Dack and the ataEf very accurately wrote in the repoct that the only way which mdkea senae is the amortization end at fsce velue that looks :~Ke a big negetive, but it reelly isn't beceuse the improvementa costs wi].l be coming back when the property is aold plue somet~ing elae. He added they have talked about the City dctually being the operetor of this park and whethec the City reelly wanta to do that is another whole iasuo. Commissionec Pry agreed of the two aitea di$cussed, this aite has a definite poasibility and the quastion today is whether or not the City will opecete the park or not, but with the figure$ ~es discuesed, that is a big 'if`. He added he thoughk the location and coete of improvements which wi21 have tc~ be done enyway, is definitely a possibility. Commieaioner Buahore offered a motion for continuancp so that tF~ coats involved can be further reviewed and asked if two weeks or four weeks would be appropriate. There was no second to the motion. Commissioner F'ry pointed out the hard costs are not a part of the Planning Commisai~n's charge. Commiesioner eushore atat~ ] the Planning Commisaion would not neceasarily have to act on t'.~at, but as a body it could be studied some moce to see if it Would be a benefit to bring it back. Commiaeionet La Claire atated the oppoaition doea not feel the Commisaion hae given their concerns enouqh consider~tion, but they have; that the traffic 10/17/83 ~ MINUTBS~_~N~lM CITY P~.~l+ylNa COMMISBION, OCTOBBR 17, 1983 83-674 will b~ l~ss with thia uae than it would b~ wikh eny oth~r commeccial d~v~lopmene an~ th~ propatty wi11 eventually b~ dev~loped as commercial o!lice oc commerci~l limit~d and if, indeed, this is an intecim uae ot ~ mobil~homs park toc ald~rly p~opl~, ther• will be fer le~s trefEic. Shs atattd tht aacond conc~cn we• noiee end there will be l~ss noiee becauae th~se will b~ eldarly peopl• who do not hsve wild psrties or a lot of t~enagers drivinq bdck end lorth in the atreeta and ~o noE play loud music, etc. Re9ardir,g the concern that ihi~ uae would be detcimental to their propecty valuea, she ateted eh• did not feal this would be any more detcime~tsl then the oth~~r zoningt that th~ propecty ia not going to be dev~lop~d ea aingle-family residential end is not going to be left aa e vecAnt property. 3he steted a temporary tw~ mobilehome park is not go~ng to effect their propecty valuee end it will be landacaped and well maintained and pointed out lend in the canyon Area is not going down in vslue anywey. She atated if the Commieaion thou~ht thia uae would be detrimentel to the eur.rounding propertiee, they would not even be aonaidecing it beeause they heve tucned down meny pc~~eet~ and done everything they could to protect the citizens. Ctiairwoman Bouas steted ahe thought this should be acted on eo it cen be considered by the City Council along with the othec piece of property. Commissioner Bushoce stated he did ~iot think th~t is necessary dnd it did not have ta be reviewed by Council at the eame timet that he did not think the Commisaion hae looked at all the possibilities on ~'•is site and felt it needa further exploration and that it might be suitab.le for reaidential uses, but he was not sure. Commisaioner Buahore offered a motion foc a 4-week continuance. He at~ted he would like more information about the amount of money that would benefit the City and which am~nities can be eliminated to help make the project more feasible. Commissionec King noted economice ace not under the Planning Commiasion's juriediction. Commissioner euahore stated e~onomica ie under the jurisdiction of the Mobilehome P~rk Task Focce dnd if the CoTmisaion cannot m~ke a decision, maybe it should Ue referred back to the Task Force. Commieaioner Fry offered a resolution for approv~l of Conditional Use Permit No. 2498. Jack White pointed out no action was actua~ly taken on the wdiver becaus~ thece was a tie vote and suggested someone make a motion to either approve it or continue it. Commiesioner Pry of~ered a motion, eeconded by Commisaioner Bushore and MOTION CARRIBD iCommisL'oner Herbat voting no and Commiesioner McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion does heceby grant waiver of Code cequire~ent on the basis that thece are special circumstancea applicable to the property such ns aize, ahape, topagraphy, locetion or aurxoundings, which do not apply to Qther identicelly zoned properties in the vicinityt and that strict applicdtion of the Zoning Code deprive• the property of privileges enjoyed by uther properties under identical aoning classification in the vicinity. 10/17/8~ i MINUT~~_7W1W eIM CITY PL,ANNING COMMI88ION. OCTOBBR 17, 1983 83-675 Coauai~~ion~c N~rbae •xplainad h• hsd votud eqainst th• waiv~c b~vaua• that would mean thi~ mobil~hom~ park would be b~cked ciqht up to within 6 feat. o! th• railroad traaks end witAin 6 leet o! w~ir ^enyon Raad. X~ndre Morri~e sugga~t~d changsa to the conditiona o! apprcval ii the conditional ue~ pecmit ia epproved. Com~i~aloner Pry ofi~cad a reaolution grenting Conditional Use Permit No. 2498 nnd the reeolution F~ILBD TO CARRY by tha following vote: On roll cell, the foceqoing resolutioit was paesed by the following vote: AYB$: BOqA3~ BUSHORB~ PRY NOB8: HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE ABSENT: MCBURNEY Commiseioner Herbet ofFer~d a motion ~o continue the matter for 1 month in ord~r for the seventh Commiesionec ko breAk the tie vote. Jeck White exclained the Commiasion can either continue thP matter until the miasing Plenning Commiesioner ceturns and familierizee himself with the recorda and can vote to bceak the tie vote or one of the Commiasionera can move to reconaider the reaolution to break the tie or the Cummiseion may aend the matter on to the City Cauncil without a recommendotion. Con, iesioner Hecbst offered ceaolution for denial of Conditional Uae Pec~it t:o. 2498 and the reaolution FAIGED TO C/-RRX by the fo2lowing vote: On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was paesed by the following vote: AYES: HERBST~ KING NOES: BOUAS. BU3HORE, FRY, L~ CLAIRE ABSENT: MCBUeiNEY Commiasionec 8erbet offered a motion to send the matter t~ the City Council withaut cecommendation and Jack white auggested the Commi~sion take a cecess in ordec for him to revi~w the Codcr dnd detecmine the proper aetion for the Commiseion to taice. RECBSS: 6:00 p.m. RECONVENF: 6:10 p.m. Commisaioner Herbst o~feced Resolution No. PC8?-196 and moved for. its paesage and adoption thak the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby deny Conditiona'1 Use Permit No. 2498 on the baeis that the prope~ty is located adjacent to e railcosd track dnd ia not euitable for reeidential purpoaes becauee of noise and tceffic co~cecns. CommiasionRr Bushore atated if thia cesolution carries that would mean the isaue becomea a political decision. 10/17/83 ~,I~lOTB$. /-N11H~IM ~CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION. OCTOBE~ 11. 1983 83-676 On roli call, th• loregoinq r~aoluti~n wea pa~sed by hh+ lollowinq voka: J-XBS: BOq118~ PRX, HLRBST, KIN(i, L11 CLJ-IRB NOS&t BUSNORB 1-BSBNTs McBURNSY J+~ck Whitv explained this mett~c he~ bsen denied and may be appeel~d to tha City Council within 22 daye and preaented th~ wcitten right to eppeal th~ Planning Commieoion'e daciaion within 22 dsya to the City Council. ITEM NO. 5. ~IR NBGATIVB DBCLI-RJITION, RSCLI-SSIPICI-TION N0. 83-84-7. WAIVBR OF CODE RE OIREMBNT AND CONDITIONIIL U3B PERMIT N0. 2~99 PUBLZC HE1-RING. OWNERS: GLORII~ H. MIL~LER, 80 He[boc Ridge D[ive, Newpott Beech, Ca 92660, DOROTHY H. H URLEY, 22 Chercy ~ille, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AG~NT: G.G.P. ASSOCII~TES, INC., 24982 Del Monte, Laguna Hille, CA 92653, ATTENTION: BILL PBNE. Property deaccibed aa a rectangulerly-ahaped paccel of lend coneieting of approxime~tely 1.74 ecces, having a frontage of approximately 272 feet on the south aide of Ball Road having a meximum depth of epproxim+~tely 279 feet a~d being located appcoximetely 260 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue and further descr.ibed as 2620 West Hdll Road. RLCLASSIFIC~-TTON REQUES^-: RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agriculturel) Zone ko the RM-1200 (keaidential, Multiple-pamily) Zone. CUP R2QU65T: To permit a 79-unit tpect senior cikizens) apartment complex with waivers (a) Tinimum building site aree, (b) meximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage ,(d) minimum ,:loor area, (e) minimum recreational-leis~~.A acea, (f) minimum area of private recreational-leieure aceae, (g) permitteo e~croachmente inLO required yerds end (h) minimum diatence between buildin7a. There was one person indicating his presence in oppoeition to subject request and although the staff ce~ort was not read, it is ceferred to and made a pe~rt oi thp minutea. Bi!.1 Pene, GPG Asaoci~tes, 5051 Bicch Street, Newport Beach, referred to Paragreph 28 of t1e ataff -~oork and indicated he thought there wae an error. Kendra Moccies, 1-saistant Plan~~~•, stated the density ahould read 56 unita per acce and not 79. Mr. Pene etated they are propoaing a well-planned, well-landecaped pr ipct which is completely funded through private funds and will be affordable. He etated they intend to keep and maintain the project. 8e refetred to other senior citizena projects which have been approved in the City of J~naheim and compared this project to those listed in the staff report and atated their requeet is leas than thoae approved in aevera~l ateas and they do meek Co~e requiremente for pdrking and cecreational leisure nr.ea. Concerning the plan to pruvide 608 of the units for senior citizens and 40t for the genecal public, he explained they are attempting L•^ get away from a completely age-segceqeted complex and want to blend mature adults with the aenior citizens which will bring the eenior citizens into the m4lnstceam of 10/17/83 . ,....,...,. , . . __~._._....W. .._ _.... _. ~...~.~., ~..._._..._ ....,~...,.. :~s. ~ lIINOT6$,_11N11F]62M CITY PI~NNING COMMI$SION. OCTOBER 17. 1983 83-677 th• communitiy and the proj~ct wili not heve th~ atmosph~re of s co~val~acent homa. He stet~d the pcoj~ct will heve one hsdroom ~ed etudio-type units. Mr. Pene referced to Paragraph 28 0! rhe ataEf ceport which relere to the deneity end etates that the infrsairuature tetreet, •eaare, water, storm draine, ~tc.) would be severfly taxed it this pcaject ia epproved. He expleinsd thevi ceel aince this project is pcimArily for oenior citisene and the units ac~~ one bedroom or etudio-type unite, there will be Eewar people reeidinq th~°rs. Conc~rni~g tihe conditiona, Mr. Pene atated thay would like to provide treos on Ball R~,~d inatead of in-lieu fees. Becnard eloom ateted he lives to the weat uf aubject property and has lived there foc twelve yeara end ceEerced to the required finding that the Planning Commiqrion muat make botore appcovi.ng the waiverat that th~ce are epecial circumstances dpplicable to the propecty such se eize, shdpe, topography, lxation or eurroundinge end stiated there is nothing unuauAl about thie property to wa[rent epprovel of the w~ivere. He stated four of theee unite would look ditectly into his pool, backyard and patio erea and pointed out the locAtion of hie property on the map. He stated hie privacy would be invaded if this is app[oved. Mr. Bloom stated hia houee ie only 5 feet fcom the pcoperty line and he did not know wh4ther the parking, e~a propoaed, would be carporte or et~+lla and thought landacaping should be pcovided in that aceA to provide a buffer and to limit ths view. He eteted l~e is agai~sk this pcoject becauee the patios ace deeigned to face hia pcoperty and anyone using the pat:o for bncbecuea, etc. will be expoaed to his area. Joe Goubart, GGP Aeaociatea, atated it was not their intent to have theae units peer down into the neighbor'a property and that they wpu?.d be mnre than l~appy to inccease the height of *.he wall to 8 feet. He stated thP ;~acking spaces will be covered and the entice perimeter will be covered pArking and he did not think the vehicles could be seen fro~ ad;acant properkies. He explained the primary reaeon for the balconies is to qive s nice architectucal feeling to the project eo e pereon driving around the project would not ha~•e the feeling of looking At bare walls and there will be a small storage area on the ba~co~iea. He explained the balconies w~ll bE 4 feet by 10 feet. He explained there will be aliding gldss doors out onto the patios and the o:~i} othPr Window would be a hiqh window in the bathroom end he did not believe tenante could loak out of that window, Regar~ing the landecaping, he stated they will be happy to provide a landscepe buffer if there is anyway it can be done. He added he did not think people will t^ looking over the wall into the neighbor's pool area. TF1E PUBLIC BEARING W1~S CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Goubart sta;:ed they have developed a mobilehome park in Hemet and have built adult apartmenC complexes, but they havP ^~t developed units for senior citizena and mature adul~s. He expiained th rtments they conetructed were about 10 years ago and they no longer own t 10/17/83 ~ ~ : .~ N,iiN~,UTE§~ 11N11HBIM CITY PLANNINQ GOMMIS3$ION, OCTOBSR 17. 1983 83-678 CommisalonRC Bushor• esksd Mr. Gioubart why h~ thought he could qe~ eomethinq like thi• appcov~d in Anah~im. Mr. (ioubert atated h• we~ nat trying to ineult the Commissioner's inteiligence and it waa not theic intsnt to creat~ som~~hing that would conflict with City Cod~a but aece try.ng to provide low-coat houaing and wae told 25• density bonus~s could b~ granted. Hs dtated th~y hav~ talked wi~:1~ the Houeing Authority, but do not havu a campleted egreement with them becauae they thuught the licaC order of businees wae to get eppe~vel from the Planni~g Coaunisa ion. Kendra Morriea explained the petitionec ia aeking foc A 53.8t denaily bonue and Mc. Goubect etated hie initial pcopoaal wae to develop 1.74 acrea. Commisaioner Buahore expleined the Codea ~re more than just guidelines that tell the developer whet he cen and cannot do unleas ceeaonable juatif.icarion can be ahown through a veri~nce and thia ie a fla~t, cectengular i.~ce of property And he thought the devel:~per ia tcying to get t~ ~ Commissio~ ko make some concessione. He asked if etaff had in£~rmed the developer about the City Council's policy pertaining to the 25*, density bonue. Mr. Goubarr ceapnnded he ~as not told about that policy. Commisaioner Buohore pointed out a letter was sent to the developec by Dean Shecer on Septembec 14th, asking that the plens be revised And offering to work with himt however~ the petitionec has chosen not to do that. Commissioner La Claire stated ths Commieaion ie going to be sticking really close to the Codes for density bonuees and auggested the dev~loper reviae the plans ao they would more or lees meet che Code, except for the 25+1 density bonus, and they ahould also ente~ into an agreement with the Houeing ]~:~th~city for the low-coek houaing. Kendra Morries pointed out the denaity b+~nua program is applicable only when the units are going to ~e :~rovided for low coet houaing and an agreement muat be entered into with the Housing Autho~tty and thia pcopoeal is not undec the guise of the density bonus progrem or the City Council Policy ceguleting th~t program. Commissioner eusho~e atated if the d~vel~per hed worked out an agreement with the Houaing ]~uthority, they would have included that in the 4taEf repc.rt. Commiasioner La Claire atnted that ie the reason she had suggested the developec revise his plan so that it either meeta Code a~ he works out an agceement with Houaing and then comes back ' approval with the 258 bonus, but no more. Mr. Gaubart stated he had met with the Housing Authocity on three different occasione and theC Kate Adame in Houaing had indicated to him that he muet firbt get approval ~rom the Planning Commisaion before wocking out an agreement. Commiasloner Herbet stat~d several 100~ aenior citizena projecta have ~ee-t approved in the City with quite ~ few var'.ancea, but they wece for aenior 10/17/83 t. INUTS3. 11NAHBIM CITY PLJINNING COI~MI~BION_„_ OC rCTOBBR 17 _ 1983 83: 7+~9 citiz~na and they do not requir~ se much opace or packing, but he would not be in favor o! thia project wifh e mixture ot agea beaauae thece would be no aey to control it an~ l+~tor ~he unit~ could be rented to college etud~nts, etc. He ata*.ed khie ie a nice cectanguisr piec~ o! property which could be developed in Accocd~nce r,:.th City standerda. Mr. Goubart atated it ie not thei.r intenC to heve conFlicte with the City And through their atudi~a dscided thsy wented to Provide aenior citizena houeing and in their opinion, wanted the mix Uf agea eo AA ~ot to cre~te a convalescing etmosphece in the compl~x. Commiesioner Herbat pointed out moet senior citizens like theae eenior citizena proje~te. Mr. Goubart steled they feel they wi11 be able to co,~tro: the tentAl units becsuae they will own and meintain the complexes. He ~dded they have no objection to developing e completely 100t senior citizen project. Commiasioner Buahore euggeeted a continuancs in order foc the developar to work with the ataff and b[iny be~ck a plan that would be more Acceptable. Mc. Gc~ubart referred to two other projecte appcoved by the City which h3d I~ighec densities than cequested in this project. Commiesioner Buahore poi.rted out those projects had special circumstancea and noted the Commiasion doe_~ not agC precedenta. Commiasioner Pry atated this property doea not have eny apecial circumstences. Chairwoma~n Bouas noted thoae other pxojects did not I1AV@ 8 waivers in Addition to the denaity bor.us. Commisaioner eushoce asked how long a continuance the petitioner w~uld need and auggeeted he meet with thn Planning and Housing Depdrtment etaffs. Mr. Goubart re~~lied they would need a 4-week continuance. He ~s~:~d if they co~_d go before the City Council in the inter;,m. Jack White, Asaistant City l~ttorney, responded tf,ey could not go to khe ~aa;ion until after the Planninq Commisaion has acted on the project. He atated as long as this pcoject ia for aenior citizene, he would recommend that a covenant he ~dded that when this is appruved, the covenant, ir~ e form approved by the City Attorney's C~fflce, restr,icting che rental of either 47 of khe uni~.s, oc lOQB ~r ,rhecever the ~~imber will c~me out to be, to peraons at least one of whom in eacn unit ia at leask 60 yeaca of a~ge. This centel ceatriction ahall remain in exietence for no leae than 40 years. ha added khis will insure that tt,e unlts are, in fact, ~+einq rented only ta senior citizens. He etated fhls would not be easy tu police, but would give the City some guarantee tl~at ~;is project was not going to be converted. ~-CTION: Commisaioner King offered e motion, sec4ndad by Commissioner Buahore and MOTION C1~RIBD, that coneideration of the ebovr:-mentioned matter be continued to t~e meeting of November 14, 1983, et the request of ti,e petitioner in order to submit revised plans. 10/17/83 p,Y,?: 6 MINILTe_ B.,,~1,(1~i8IM CxTY PLIINNING C~MMI88ION. OCTQBER 17, 1983 _ ___ 83 •6~0 ITSM N0. 6. ~FIR NBGJITIVB DBCLIIRATION 11ND CONDITIONJ~L U8E PL'RMIT N0. 2501 PUBLIC HBl-RING. OWNSRB: SNAO HSJ-NG LIU, BT J-L, 9710 Hoover 8tr~et, Loe l~ngelea, CA 90044. Pcopacty deacribed as an irreqularly-ehaped parcal o! land coneisting of Apptoxima~tely 1.1 ecre, 916 South Beach Boulsvard (Ruetic Motel). To expend an exiating motel. There was no one indicating their preeence in oppoaition to subject req~~est end elthough the ~ta~ff report wea not -~~•' ~: la referced to and mnde a pdrt of the minutes. Paul Millec with Brockman, immerman, 224U Whittier Boulevard, Le Habca, indicdted he was representing Mr. Liu and they went to add 41 unita to en exieting motel, plus a lobby at 916 8outh Beach Boulevard. '1f1 E PUBLIC H E11RI NG WAS CL03EA. 1~CTTON: Commisaioner King offered a motion, eeconded by Cammisaioner Buehore ~+nd MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney ebaent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion has reviewed the propoeal to expar.d an existing motel located on a ircegularly-ahaped paccel of land .^.onaisting of epproximetely 1.1 acres, he~ving a frontage of approximately 94 feet on the east aide of Bench Boulevard, and £urther deacribed da 916 South Beach (Rustic Motel)~ and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has coneideced the Negative Declaration together wi~h eny commente received ducing ~:ne public review procees and further finding on the baeis of the Initial St~.~i,y end any commente ceceived that c.here is no eubstantial evidenae that the project will have a aignificant effect on the environment. Commiasioner King offeced Resolution No. PC83-197 snd moved foc iks peseage and adoption that the ~-naheim City Planning ~ommiesion does hereby grdnt Condit~ional Uae Permit No. 2501 pucsuant to Seetions 18.03.030.030 thcough .035 of the l~naheim Municipal Code and aub~ect to Interdeparkmental Committee recommendatic,ns. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~-YES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, `"'Y, HERBST, RING, L11 CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY Jack White, ~-sstatant City Attorney, preaented tfie wxitten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DBCLJIRATIO~~, WAIVLR OF CODE REQUIREMENT 1-ND CONDITIONJ~L USE PERMIT' N0. 2502 PUBLIC BE~RING. OWNERS: WILLIAM C. 1~ND CYN~IIA L. TAORMINA, P.O. BoX 309, 1~naheim, CA 93805. AGENT: SET FREE QiRISTIAN PELLOFISEIIP, 320 Nocth Anaheim Boulevard, 1-naheim, CA 92805. Property deacribed as an irregularly-shAped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.78 acre, located at the southeASt cornec of Ad~le Street and l~naheim Boulevard, 320 North Anaheim Boulevard (5et Free Chcistian Fellowship). 10/17/83 ~irUT88. ANAHSIM CITY PL. AN,NINO COMMI88IQN. OCTOBER 17. 198~ __~ 83-681 To r~tein a church with waivec o! minimum numbec of parkin9 •Paces. Th~r~ wsa no one ind~ceting their pre~encs ~n opp~.c~ltion to anbj~ck requeet and although the stat! ceport wes not ceed, it .a c~terred to and mada e pert of th~ minutea. Steve McGutr~, 1122 Chateau, ~nahaim, atated they ar~ pro~~eing a Chriatian fel:owehip on tt~ie pcoperty and do not leel tl~ere will be any problem with the packing. He explained thay hava eubmitited ~tatementa lcom severei of their neighbore who have agceed to ellow them to uee their parking tecililies if nscaeaACy and thos~ included the George Weehington Community Centec, Fec~andos Foode and ~laseic Wheels. He etated the Code requicea 113 packing epecesi however, 79 of tlioea specas are for the furniture business which ie ~irectly adi~cent to theic facilitiee end the furniture businees is basic~Ily e w~rebouse with only two employeea on ait•e and vecy little walk-i~ treffic. He exp:ained theic uae will tequite 34 epaces and they have provided 24 on-site. THL+ pUBLIC HEl-RING W]~S CLOSED. Commiasioner Bushore explained the ad~ecent property awnece who heve given permieaion for the npplic~nt to use their parking sp~ces will ha~e to aian An agreement to be recorded with the City f~c recipcocel parking. He aleo asked if the pereon who gave permisaion for the George Wa~shington Community Center really has that authority. Jack White, Asaistant City Attorney, explained ceciprocal parking agreamenta have been required in the past, ~ut he did not see that as a condition oE this cequeatt however, if it is included as a condition, it will be a requirement oE the property owners. Reaponding to Commiesioner Herbat, tic. McGuire explained they heve been in thia building for appcoximately 1 month and are renting the fa~cilit; on e month-to-month basis, but he did not believe it would be a temporacy situation because the pasto~ is from Anaheim and intenda to stay in thia ~rea and the congregation fs appcoximately 100 rr~~mbera. He stated on September llth they had 48 vehicles parking on the rraperty ~nd on Fernando's propecty and on J-nahei~w Boulevard. Commfssioner King pointed out the Traffic Engineer does not agree with the applicant's report and has reviewed the report anr.; recommends denial based on inadequate parki~g. llr. !lcGuire explained 34 apacea are required and tney are providing 24 and they have access to 10 other spaces on Pernandoa acroee the etreet and can provide the Cede required number of spaceA without using any of the othec racking apacee in the area. He explained to Conuniasioner Herbet thet they have two meetinqs on 8unday at 10:00 a.~a. and 6:00 p.m. and moat of the bueineseea in the nrea are closed on Sunday, so the use will not impact the neighbarei that they have Bible studiee on 7'hursdays in people`e homes in Anaheim ~nd Fullerton, so that would not impact the ares and 5undays are the only times th9y do heve a lot of people coming to the facility. He atated they do not ~xpect ~s ~henomenal congreg~tional qrowth, but i.f they did, they would aplit and this v-ould not develop into a maseive congregation. 14/17/83 MINUTBB, AN1W E1M CITX PLANNING COMMI88IQN~,OCTOB~A 17. 1983 83-68x CcRa'~atoner Herbat akated outside of ho~pitals, churchea have creet~d mote cretfic probl~me then eny oth~r use in ~naheim because of ~h~ic growth end that is an area the Commia~ion is concerned about. Roeponding to C~mmie~ionac King, Mr. McGuice etated they do have quita a few members who walk. Commiaeioner Herbat etated he would have no problem grentiny thie cequeat for d one-y~er peciod to give them e chance to ehow how it will operete and find out if t~ere will be eny pa.cking problema in the aroa. Commisaioner La Claire etated the Commiasion will know ff there ete eny kraffic pcoblamg and eaked if the petitionec will be willing to go elong with the one-yeer limit. Commiasioner Herbet explained if it ia granted for a one-yeer period and there ace complainta before the one year ie over, the permit can be revoked and Commisaioner King explatned the permit will terminate ~t the end of onP yedc and the petitionec wil] have ko ce~pply. ACTION; Commisaioner Herbnt of~ered a motion, aeconded by Commiasionec King and MOxION CARRIED (Commis~ioner McBurney abaPat), that the An~heia~ City Plenning Ccmmiseion hae reviewed the proposal tu retain a church in e CG (Com~ercial, General) Zone with waiver of minimum number of. packing space$ on dn icregul~rly-ahaped parcel af land consiating of approximately 0.75 acre located at the aoutheast corner of Adele Street end Anaheim BoulEVard, having approximdte frontagea of 231 feet on the south side of Adele Street and 135 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulev~rd and further deacribed a~ 320 North Anaheim HoulevardJ and doea hereby approve the Negetive Declaration upon finding thet it has coneidered the Negative Declaration together with any commenta received during the public review procese and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is no aubstantial evidence that the project will h~ve a aignificant effect on the enviconment. Commissioner Herbet offered a motion, seconded by Commiesioner Pry and MOTYON CARRIEA (Commiesioner McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Connnfesion does hereby grent waiver of Code require~ent on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in ttaffic congestion in the immediate ar~a nor advereely affect any adjoining land uaes and the qrenting of the parking variance under the conditions imposQd, ff any, wi11 not be detrimental to the peace, health, eafety or general we2fete of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commiasioner Herbst offered Reaolution No. PC83-198 and moved for its paesage and adoption tkiat the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion doea hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2502 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through .035 and subject to Interdeparfinental Committee recommendations for a period of one year. On roll call, the foregoing resolution wes passed b~ the foiiuw!~g vote: J~YES: BOUa-S~ FRY, HBR85T~ KING, LA CW~-IRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCBURNEY ABSTAIN: BUSFIORE 10/17/83 ~ T MINUTBB. 1-NAHRIN CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION. OCTOBER 17, 1983 89 683 ITSM NQ. 8. SIA NEOATIVB A6CL~RATION. RBCL1-S IFICATION N0. 83 84 11, WAIVFR OP COAE RB~OIR3MBNT AND CONDITION~L U8B PSRMIT N0. Z503 PU9GIC HBARING. ~NINBR: D~RRELL L. i~B~iBR M. CLARDY, 809 Megnolie Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property desccibed es a r~ctangulACly-ahap~d percel of land con~isting o! epproximar~ly 7200 squete feet, 809 South Magnolia Avenue. RBCLASSIFI~ATION REQUEST: RS-7200 (Reaiden~tal, Single-Family) to the CL (Commer:ial, ~imited) Zone. CUP REQUEST: To permit comm~rciel uae of e reaidentiel atructure to estsblieh e aelf defense echool with caretaker's quertera with wsivera o! minimum lendeceped eetback and mi~imum aidey~rd Q~tbeck. There were two pereona indlceting Cheir preaence in oppcsition to eubject request and •~lthough ~he atafE cepo[t wee not read, it is referred to end made a pert of the minutea. Derre~l ClArdy, ownec, atated he ia propoeing to ekart a seaf -deFense achool with e caretaker'a qusrtera with e minimum ~etback i~ the tco~t of 1 foot and 4.5 feet on th~ eide. Eileen Moritz, 808 S. Renmore ~venue, eaked about the fencing end perking becauae ehe livea di:ectly ta the rear. Kendra Morries, As~ietant Planner, explai:ied the plana to Ma. Moritz ~nd explained Ms. Moritz's property abuts aubject property and a 6-foot high block well will be provided along the entire property line. Ms. Morltz reaponded thet her questions hed been answered. Prank Riggi, 92112 Chrietine Drive, Huntington Beach, etated he owne t~~e property ~t 926 South Magnolia and wae concecned with cesoning nf thia propecty to CL becauae it could create the same embarresaing aituetion as the area on Brookhurst north of Lincolnt end that he w~s opposed to the reclessification. ~nnika S~nta2ahti, Aasistent Director for 2oning, read two lettera which were submitted by the people who had attended the meeting and had to leave early. The copies of lette~e from Ralph Jahnke, 2579 iv. Romneya and Shannon Perdew, 2575 W. Romneya Drive are in the Planning Department file and Cheir main concern was parking with 75 additional vehiclrs in the area pec day. Mr. Clardy etated they heve six parking spaces on-site and one third of the st~~enta are children Who do not drive and with 75 studente, there wi~l be no more than 15 pceaent at any one time for any one aession. He etsted parking is av~ilable 410 feet to the north of Magnolia Avenue. He at~ted when the p:opecty :$ widened in front of hia property, he will have more parking and also the property owner to the north where the real estete store ie located has indic~ted he can use that parking, but ahe did not want to give anything in writing Geca~ae when ehe $ells hec pcoperty that would be n reatriction or inf ringement on her property rights. He explained thak office ie closed when he ie open. He explained hia school will only be open Monday throu4h Thursday, fcom 2:U0 p.m. to 7;00 p.m. with no late night or early morning houra. 10/17/63 ~INSiTI~B. A ANRIM CITY pLANNING COMMI$BION. OCTOB1iR 17. 1983 83-684 ~4I6 PUBLIC NBARING W1~,g CL08ED. Commiaeionor Pry -roint~d out it is indic~t~d th~c~ will be 1S siud~nto at one e~as:on and that ~ome oL them mey b~ 6 yeara old and iF t~~ir paranta are qoing to be bringinq t,hem, the~ wiil ba aitting and wait~inq, so additional perkinq will be n~eded and h• tt~ought the packing •ituetion would be just horrenduue. Mr. Clecdy responded thae Par~nts norma~lly dcop the childr~n off and do not weit !or themt that the 8esrion lasta two houca tor dn ~ight yeer old end tih~re ia no overlap ot studc~nta waiting Eor a cless. Commiaeioner King pointed out tT,e petitioner ia not requeati.ng a perking waiver. Kend~e Mocciee explainad etaff celcula~ted the parking on 5.5 apecea p~r 1000 eyuace feet and that ochools requice 1 epace Eor ever.y 10 aquare Feet of inetcuction erea. Commiasioner H acbst esked about construction of the studio in front with Mr. Clacdy reaponding it will be a block building. He alao explained to Commiesionectlerbst that the setback ~a neceesacy beceusa of the exieting building anG the ~ew building wfll not be encroaching into the aide yard. Kendra Mocries explained if the perking was celculated for a school, it would be for tt~e 1142 squere foot acea and 113 spaces would be required and tha~t is using the buainese, trade school, or education~~. facilitiea parking requicement~. Commieeioner Herbat clarified tha-t thia new b-~ildiny will only be ueed 4 da ys a week from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.s however, he wAS concecned ebout approving the waiver for conatruction of a new building in case the property is eold and eomebody wanted to put in a commercial use that would require moce parkine~ than this defense echool. Kendre Morcies explained the new user would heve to meet the parking requicemente based on the type of uae end any other retail use would require 5.5 spaces per 7000 square feet. Mr. Clardy responded to Chairwoman Bouea that he plana to live in the tesidence himself. He explaine8 to Canunieaionar La Claire that he has had a business like this at the corner of Magnolia and La Palma for e~ght years a nd he did not think there wuuld be a parking problem be~ause he can direct most of his atudente to park and walk the diatance if there ia a pcoblem. :hairwommn Bouea clarified thnt the parking would be on the atreet. Mr. Clardy explained that would be everyday excepi Wedneedays. Chairwoman Bouas wanted to know what other use~ wou2d be infringed upon in the acea with cers parking on the etreet, Nr. Clnrdy etated there ia a church on one side of the street and a beauty saion on the other eide• He etated he tried to get pecmission to use the church perking beca~use it ie acroea the etreet, but did not get a~ response from them. 10/17/83 i ~ ~ i • ~~t l1TB°- 11NAH6I~~,ITY_,_ P~1INNING_ CqMMI8820N. OCTOBaR 17. ~9~~ 83-685 Commissioner H~rb~t expl~inad when th• Conaniaaion conoid~ra par king apecea, th~y are norm~lly on-aite p~rkiny rather eh~n on the +~tcest. Commi~sionec La Cl~ics co~pec~d thi• r~quest with th~ previous r eyuest where s conditional uae permit wa• ycant~d f or. one y~ar and explained i n this aituetion, the p~titioner wants to conatruct a building end the t ie completiely dittecent. Mr. Clardy ~tat~d the lady who run• the b~euty shop must be uaing on•~treet pArking. Commis~ioner Herbst atated he thought it would be aetting a pcece~lent l•o allow thie ~ew c~nstcuction becauee evsryone rig hk on down the s•".reet would want the aeme privilege. Commisaionec Bushor• ata ~ed the living erea is not being counted end !f it were ~ver to be ueed !or canmercial usea, and wae braught up to Code with a anne change, d new parking ra tio would be us~d edding the house. Kendre Morciea atated if the petitioner wanted to convett the e ntire area in the future to some othac ceteil use that would be allowed by th e zoning, 12 parking apacee would be required ar~d the petitianec would have to come back Eor a pr~rking weivec to expand the use. Reaponding to Commieaioner La Cleire, Mr. Clardy expleined he would usually have 5 to 6 children in a seaeion and that the maximum numbec o f studenes would be 15 and he would think there would be aix or seven veh i cles per aeseion end the parenta drop ttse children off and Fick them up leter end eome of the parente even car pool. tie explained the classea ere gr ouped together according to the 1RVe1 with beginninc~, intermediate end advancgd claeses and he likes to hav~ the more advanced students in the evening. Paul Singer, Tcaffic 6ngineer, responded to Commiaeioner King t het he thouqht b spaces were proposed and explained thet no parking ia allowed on Magnolia at that location. Chairwomen Bouas clarified thet the petitioner hea indicated t he public perking was 410 feet to the north. Mr. Clardy atated he haa a lot of studente who would wa2k that distance. Commiasionec Buehore etated he has a problem wlth reclesaification becauee of what could happen in the future because this will be e nice commercial building ief the front and stated based on the teetimony given, Lhis mey be a propecty which should have a conditional uae permit with a one -year time limit. Commiesionec La Claire stated she would not object to the one-yeac time limit on the CUP because ahe was conc.erned about the perking= howeve r, unfortunately, the petitioner would have ~o mAke a b1g inveatment in the property to imgrove it. Commissionar Bushore etated the Commieaion does not want to see the eame thing happen here thAt happened on Brookhurat which the Commisaion i s ve ry concerned about and the property has e reaolution of intent to C-.L an~ if it was rezoned to C-l, the petitioner would heve to tear down the exieting s t ructure and build a nea building, but could not live on th= property and he thought this ia setting a bad precedent on thie block. 10/17/83 SNUTB8. ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBBR 17. 1983 __ 83-686 Commia~ionsc Hrrbat indicat~d h~ thought it woul~ b• consiQered "apot aoninq". Coaunivsioner Bushore atatod he Eeel~ ~h• opsration is tine, buk combined with living on the premia~e, th~ nu~ber of atud~nta, the construcrion and the cesalution oE intent, th~re are juat too mAny complicstiono. Commieaioner Bushore ataCed he thought e r~ciprocal perking agreement ahould hav~ ba~n r~quire~d on the previoua hearing And thet the peraon running the beauty s~lon from hec home mi~cepresented the use end it is eomothing tolelly different and thexe ie e p~rking problem and thet ia exactly what th~ Commiaeion ie efreiid will heppen hece. He etated e reciprocel parking agreement would help the situation, but the adjecent prope~ty o-mer doea not want to give it be:ause it would $tey with the pcoperty and the petitlonec would not want to qo ehead with che project foc a one-year period. Reaponding to Commiseioner Le Claire, Jack White expleined for en agreement to have eny vdlue to ti~e City, it muet be recorded againat both pecc~la oE property and it cou;~.d be of a limitod duration and doea not heve to go on foraver~ and that u~~uelly a c~ndition requiring a jolnt uae parking requirement ia included foc a~9equete packinq to be pca~ided nnd meintained et all timea during the exeKCie~ of the conditional uae per~it, ao if the conditional use permi.t is termi.neted, the parki.nq agreement could be terminated ~ithout ery problen~t however, if the parking agreement was terminated, the Clty would require thAt alkernative parking would be provided or, if necessary, wou:td be lookin~ at tecmination of the conditional use permit. Chairwoman Bou~s e~kec if the peClkioner would like a continuance in ordec to try and get a parking agreement with the adjacent pcoperty owner oc try to find so:n~ othec place to provide that parking. Mr. Clardy aaked how c7oae the p~cking would have to be, pointing out the public atceet ie 410 f~et to the north. Commiasioner Pry stated there are no requfre~oents, but he would think it ahould be within 100 feet of the property to be reasonable. Mr. Clerdy responded therp ie no one that would give parking within 100 feet because there ace houses on both aides of the atreet. Commieaioner La Claire nointed out there will be 15 studente there at any one time, but in a beginnec class, ~here could be o~der people, younger people, chil.dren, etc. end it ia true parenta would drop the children off and not stick around foc two hours and if he does intend to only have 15 s~udents, then only 6 or 7 would ~rive a car, and there may be room, but ahe would like to see a perking agreement. Commiseionec nushore stated he was involved in thia type activity when he was younger And asked if the,y would be holding demonatrations for the parenta or holding matchee for competition. Mr. Clardy responded the~ would not hold any matches, but might hdve a demonatrdtion to show the parenka but that would be held at another facility ~nd, in fact, he plans to h~ve a ahow in January, but will rent the church d~wn the stireet. 10/17/83 NVT68. ~N~ BIM CITY PLANNI NO COMMISSION. OCTOBQR 1~. 198~ 83-68 Mr. Clardy atated the leciliLy a! Msgno.lia and Le Pelma waa a comm~rcial bui idinq ~nd he ~a not ther• any longer. Jac k Whit• ~xpleined ea !ar a~ th~ parking actang~ments ace conc~rned, th• dec iaion is wid~ op~n becauss Plenning stelf has alr~ady anelyaed the ait uation end d~C~cminQd that technicaily it meets pecking Code r~quirem~nte eo a• to how close it mu~t b~ to khe proparty, is e detecminetion the Commiasion must make. Responding to Commia.ioner L~ Cldire, Mr. Cldrdy explained he hse alceady purchsaed the property. Commiseioner La Claire oteted there ia nothing in lcont af the Commisaion which indicates there will be a parkinq problem and Commiasioner King pointed out no parking waiver ia requested and euggasted e two-yeer time limit rathec than one-yeac. Commiesioner 8uehore stated he did not khink dny oE the Commieaionera heve a problem with a time limit, but he did not think the petitioner would be wil ling to invest that much mo~ey iE he did not know whether or not he would have the permit efter one oc two years because the Cammisaion could revoke the permit and he could have a big mortgage paymen~ end no businesa. He added the Commiseion does not want to cceate ~ parking pcoblem on the block and aet a precedent by appcoving this requeat. Mr. Clardy stat~d hia etudents would be willing to walk the 410 feet for exercise since this ie a aelf-defense type school dnd wh~n they come to claea they expect to work. Cotnmiesioner Buahore referred to the previous heacing where other applicante hav e referred to other approvala which have been granted to others end ahould be granted to them and although this busineae per ae might not create a pcoblem, Lf the Code has been waived, othera might request the same thing and p:oblems would be created. Chairwoman Bouas pointed aut no waiver is requested. Mr. Clardy reaponded he was undec the impreesion from st~ff th~t 6 parkin~ spaces were required and he had to cut 6 feet off his houee to provide them end he would not even be here if he did not have adequate parking. Commissioner Bushore pointed out the house itself is not being ~aunted ir the pa rking requirement and co uld be used commeccially later on. Responding to Commisaioner La Claire, Jack White explained the uae can be li mited for a certain ptrri od of time an~ obviously the conditional use permit would be limited to th4a ~ acticular type bueinesa~ and the property could be used for any use that is pecmitted by thd un~erlying aone, groviding it meets the requirements and adequa~e parktng ia provided and 1E this building is conakructed, sufficient parking wi]1 be Qtovided to :rteet Code for businesaes that are permitted usea in that zone, but it ie more likely he is constructing a single-purpoee building and if, for soaie reagon, this bueineas ahould teraainate or the conditional uae permit qhould expire or be revoked, the 10/17/83 ~T68. 11NJ1HBIM CxTY_~~A~i~1_~_1~_G COMMI88I0l1, OCT08~R 17. 1983 83-68 building i~ qoing to hav~e aoms M~rk~tabi• value b~cauo• it will me~t !hs Code es to ths vari~ty o! u~es in l:har son~. He suqq~st~d limitinq the use permit tor s p~riod o! Cim~ and notsd iC this p~rmit, like any oth~r on~, can be revoktd ii it caua~s proble~ns in the neiyhborhood with perking or anything ~lse and anytime anyone makss a big inv~atm~nt in th~ir prop~rty, they must c~aliso end ahould c~alit~, if they hav~ a conditionol ua• perm~t, that doea not gue-ra~te• tham the cight even if ~h~ra is no time limit imposed becau~e i! th~y are aprrating i~ a mannar that ia detrimentel to th~a public'e health, a~gety or genecal weliere, the pfrmit cen be cevoked or conditione attached and if there is a p~cking ~~oblem thet developa betwesn now end rwa y~a~ra, the CommiASion cen call the permit beck in foc ceview er,d enother heacing and either revoke it oc require the applicant to provide additionel parking with e parking a-~reement at enother location. Commieaioner La Claire indicated ahe wes reedy to make a motion with a :ondition for a p~riod of one year so thet he can come back to determine whetlter or not thare ia a Packing problem and if there ia a problem, he ma~y get a pArking a~greement fcom aomeone dt that time. Jack White euggeated he might want to atart looking for parking right awey. Commisaioner Duahoce asked if the petitioner plane ta live in the home permenently. Mr, Clardy responded he would like to build the building and maybe lnter tear down the houae and put in additional parkinq. Commisaioner Buehore explained that he hed mede an 8;00 p.m. appointment and would have to leave the meeting And daked to be excused. Theceupon Commiesioner Bushoce ?eft the meating at 7:25 p.m. and did not return. Commissioner La Claire indicated ahe would like to have th~ one-year time limit on the permit in ocder to review it to see if there had been any eomplaints fcom the neighbora and if there has been a packing pzoblem so that the Commiasion could cequire him et that time to get en agreenrenk and that doesn't mean the Commiseion won't grant the permit again, but she would like the opportunity to review it. .1ack W'r~ite explained limiting Ct.e conditional use permit for o~e year ~eans that ~tt will expice in one year and we will be holding another hearing one year from now and going thr~ugh this whole ~rxess aqain and in thati kime the applicant will have proven whethec or not there ia a parkic-g problem or any other difficulties. Mr. Clardy explained he did not come in for a waiver of parking, and that he hed parking to meet Code requirements and has reque3ted a waiver of the setbacks and wouid like to know whether or not he m~~eta the pnrking requiremente or nnt. Commissio;iec lting pointed o~t the Pianning Commie$ion is concerned about qrowth, thinking he will be getting more stude~ts in the futute. 10/17/83 ~; MINUTBB, AN/WBIM CITY PLANNZNG COMMIB~IUN, OCTQB$R 17. 1983 83_b89 Mr. Clerdy •xpleihed 15 ekud~nts would br the maximum he could t~sch a~t on• time and thore ia snough pecking !or 15 and eome ot them do not drive their vehicles to the clase. Mr. Clardy slao etated thati he doea hopa to expand end he wouid plen to teAr the houee down end provide moce perking i! that ie the caee. He stet~d agai~ he did not come ir~ esking for nny parking waivera end did not underatand why that ie the isaue. Commieaionec Herbst etated he thought Cammieeioner Le Clsire wee on the right treck, but did not feel the Pl~nning Commiesion should tie this conditional use per.mit to a~ on~ y~ar period becauae it ie a~ conditionel uae permit end th~ Commiesion has a hendle end can c9view it if pcoblems ere cteeted. 1-C2ION: Commiasioner La- Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Herbet and MOTION C1-RItiED (Commi~eeioners Auahore end McBucney ebsent), that the 1-nAheim City Planning Commission hes reviewad the propoeal to recles~ify aubjeet pcopecty from the RS-7200 (R~eidentiel, Single-Family) 2one to khe CL (Commercial, Limit~d) Zone to permik commercidl use af a residentiel structure ~o eetablieh a aelf-deEenae school with e cereteker'e c~uarters with wa~iver of minimum l~ndecaped setbeck end minimum aideyard eetback on a tectangularly-shaped parcel of land coneieting of approximetely 7200 sguare fe~t, having a f.rontage oE appcoxlmately 60 feet on the weat side of Maqnolid Avenue and fucther deacribed as 809 South M4^nolia AvenueJ end doea hexeby ~pprove khe Negative Declaration upon finding that it haa conaidere9 the Negative Declaratian togekher with Any commenta recelved during the public r~view process and furthec finding ~n the basiA of the Initial Study and any commante received that there ie no aubatantial evidence that the project will have a aignificant effect on the environment. Commisaioner La Claice o~fered Reeolution No. t+C83-199 and ~noved for its pessage dnd adoption thet the ~lnaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby grant Reclaeaification No. 83-84-11 subject to Interdepartmentel Committee reconnnendAtior.s. On roll call, the f4regoing resolution was passed by the follnwing vote: AYES: BOUJ~S~ PRY~ HERBST, KING, L11 CLAIRE NOES: NONE A9S~NT: BUS~lORE, MCBURNEY Commfasioner La Cldire offeted a motion, aeconded by Commissioner King and MOTION C1~--RRIED (Commieaioners Buahore and McBurney ebsent), thet the Aneheim City Planning Commiseion does hereby grant wsivere of Code requicement on the basia that khere are epecial circumatancea epplicable to the property such as eize, ahApe, topography, location or surroundings which do not epply to othec identically zoned property in the vicioity and strict spplication of the Zoning Code deprives property of privileges enjoyed by other properties und~c fdentical zoning cla$sification in the vicinity on the baeie that the gtructure is existtng and was built to Code requirementa at the time. 10/17/83 M~N11T68, ANIWBxM CITX PLANNIN(3 COMMI8820N, OCTOBQt~17. 1983 ~~~8_3 690 Co~unissioner Ls Clsire olt~red R~aolutio~ No. PC83-200 and mov~d !or its pas~~ge end ado~tion ktist th• 1-n~h~im City Planning Commiaaion dO~A her~by gra~t Conditional Uae Pecmit No. 7503 aub~act to Int~cdepactmentel Commltr~• reaommendekiona and purauanr to S~ctione 28,03.030.030 thcough .035 0! the 1-neheim Municipal Codf. On roA1 call, the for~qoir~g reeolution wae passed by the lollowing vote: AYB3: BOU118~ PRX~ H~RA$T~ KING~ I.11 CLAIRE N0B8: NVNB 1188LNT: BUSNORE~ MCBURNBY Jack White, 1-saietant City Attorn+~y, praaented the wtitten right to app~el the Plenning Cortsmiseion'a decieion within 22 daye to the City Counci~. ITBM N0. 9. EIF. C]-TEQqRICALLY LXSMPT-CL/13S 5. AND VAItII~NCL N0. 3355 FUBLIC KBARTNG. OWNERS: NI!(IPOROS AND GSORGIA VALASKANTJIS, 6931 E. Avenida d~ santi.a~g~, J-neheim, CA 928U7. Property deaccib~d as a reetangulerly-eheped parael of land con,aieting of approximately 0.9A ecre, 6931 Eest 1lvenida Qe Santiago. Wniver of ~ninimum aideyard aetback to retein a cabdna. There wa~s no one indicating their pcesence in opposition to aubject requeet and ~lthough thr ateff report wae not read, it is referced to a~nd made a part of the rninutes. Forest Fountair~, attorney representing the owner, explained the application ie for ~ veciancc. ~a: a minimum aidsyard setbACk becauae the applicanta have constructed a pool-side cabAna Atcucture on the pcoperty line adjoining the neighbor's pr:~~pertyt that the nei~hbor was present to ebout 5:30 p.m. and had to leave ~ut did leave a notaciaed affidavit i~dicating they have no problem whataoever a-!th the structure. THE PUBLIG ~~EI~RING W]~S CLUSED. Commiasior~ec Herbst asked why the akcucture was b~ilt without building permits with Mr. riountain responding thet i.*. was because they were not aware a permit w~s cequired; howevec~ they have sin~:e obtained a~pproval by the Building Inspector that the structuce dces mest Building Codes except for the aetback. It was noted t~e Plarining nireatoc ar his authorized representative hea determined that the proposed projact fells within the definition of Categor.ical BxemFitione, Cless 5, as defined in the State Environmental T~ipact Report Guidelines and fa, thecefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to pre~pare an F.IR. ~CTIGci: Commiasioner Ring offered Reaolution ho. PC83-201 And movsd ~r it~: passaqe and adoption that the ~-naheim City Planning Commfsaion does~haceby ~rrant Variance Nc,. 3355 on the basis that their are apecial circumst~nces appl:cabte to the property auch as size, shape, topogr.aphy, locetion or surroundfnga wbich do not agply to other identically zoned pcoperties in the vicin3ty aad 10/17/83 ~' l~~TRB.,~-NANEIM CITY PLANNINa COMMI8BION. OCTO~R 17, 1983 83-6 stciat Ap~lication o! th• go~inq Cod~ depciv~a~ the pcop~cty a~ privileq~s ~nioy~d by oth~rt prop~rti~a in id~ntiic~l soninq c1~4sitications in eh~ vicinity and on th~ beois tha~ th• adioining neiyhbar does not ha~.~e any complainta aDout the stcucture ~nd ~ubject to Int~tdepartm+~nt~i Committea r~conan~ndAtions. On roll call, khe toregoing r~eolution was p+~eaed by the tol~~ow~rr~ votie: 1-YBB: BQUAT~ FRY, HBR88T~ KING, L11 CLJIIRE N~BB: NONE ABS~NT s F1USH ~RE, MCBURN~y: ITBM N0. 10. LIR CATEOORICAL BXEMPTION_ -CLI-38 5,~ J1:~D V'AR:IANCE N0. 3356 PUBLIC HEl-R7.NG. OWNERS: GAA)' M. 11ND DBBORJW M. St10DGR1-3~, 6Z86 Camino Manzano, Anaheim, C1- 92807. Property deaccibed as an icreqularly-ehaped parcel of land congisting of uppcoximata:y 5,500 aquate Eeet, 6286 Cemino Nanaeno. Waiver of mnximum lat coverege ~o conatruct a cooa~ addition. There was no one indice~ing kheir preaence in oppaeltiaro to aubject requeet and although tt~e steff ceport was not read, it is reterred tu and made a part of the minutee. Gary Snodgrasa, owner, stated they would like to get a vaeiance f.or maximum lot coverage to build a fnmi]y room and dining room and the maximum lot coverag~ permitted ia 35a and they ace propoaing 43t. TN E PUBLIC H F.ARI NG WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Pl~nning Director ar his authorized representative has 3etermined that the propoaed project fells within the definition of Categocic~l Bxemptions, Clase 5, as defined in the 5tate Bnvironmental Impact Report Guideli~es end is, therefore, cetegorically exempt fr.om the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commisaioner Ring offerad Reaolution No. PC83-202 artd moved for ita passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Comrriseion does hereby grant Vaciance No. 3356 on the baeis that their ere ~pecial circumstancea applicable to the property such a~s aize, shape, locr~tion and surroundinge which do not a~pply to other identicalJy zoned propertiee in the vicinity and stcict application of the Zoning Code depcivae the pcoperty of privileges enjoyed by other propertiss in identically zoning cla~asification in the vicinity, and aubject to Interdepar~Lmental Committee reconuaendations. On roll call, the foregoing reaolution aee peseed by ':he following vote: 1~YSS: 8AU1~S~ PRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLI~-IRE NOES: NONE ]1B&ENT: BUSHORBi MCBURNEY 10/17/83 ~ $ IhllT~B. AN1We~,~, C,~TX PLJ1~iN~N(i ~C~QMMI IQNR~ 0~'~'~'akR 17. 1983 83-6_~2 TBM__N0. 11. BIR CATSQORICIIL BxBMPTIQN-CLA$8 S, AHD VARil1NC6 N0. 3357 PUBLIC N6ARiNG. OWN~R: JOSBQH (~JINDOLPO, 1316 N. B~xter 8tr~et, An~h~im, C1- 9Z805. ACiBNT: RONALO NEIG86N, 1641 Su~ Citcle, Corona, Cl- 91720. Pcopsrey deaccibed As s r~ctangularly-sh~ptd psrc~l o! lend consi~tinq o~ epproximately 7,304 equer• l~et, 1316 North Ba~xt~r 9tr~eC. Waivera ~~f minimum aidoyard eatbsck snd minimum cearyerd i~etback to conetruct a room addition. There was no one indicating their presence in oppoeitian to aubject requeet and althougl~ the steff repoct wa~s not cead~ it is cefecred to and mede a pert of the minutes. Ronald Neilsen, 1641 Sue Circle, Corona, stated they would like e varience to conatruct a femily caom 3ddition which would be adjoining the garage and the eetbacka would be in violetion of the Cod~ and this ie the only poaition !oc this on the property. 'PHB PUBLIC HEJ-RING Wl-S CLOSED. Commissionec King stated he would ready to move if the property owners to the eaet and south were contacted end heve no objectiona. Mt. Nellsen responded that he had not personally contacted the neighbors and did not know whether or not the owner haA, but they did ceceive e notice of this hearing. Commissioner L~ Cleire p~inted out thia ie juat ~ technical variance because the gerege is nlready ex~sting and the veriance is necea$azy becauae he will be atteching d coom between the house and gacage. It was noted the Pl~nning Directoc or his euthorized repcaeentative has determined that ,.he proposesd project falla within the definikion of Categoric~al Bxemptions, ~i+ree 5, as deFined in the StAte Environmental Impdct Report Guidelines and i~.i, therefore, categorically axempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Commissioner King ofEered Resolution No. FC83-203 and moved for its p~ssage end adoption thet the l~neheim City Plenning Commission does hereby gtant Variance No. 3357 on the basis thet there are special. ciccumstances epplicable to the propecty which do not apply to other identiceily zoned properties in the vicinity and that strict applicdtion of the Zoninq Code deprives the subject pcoperty o£ privilegea enjoyed by other id~nticnlly zoned propertiea i~~ the same zoning clasaifica~eion, and aubject ko Interdepartmental Committee recommenda~tions. On coll call, the foregoing resolutian wae paased by the following vota: 1~YE8: BOUAS~ FRY~ HBRBST, KING, L11 CLl-IRB NOES: NONE 1~BSENT: BUSEiORB, MCSURNEY 10/17/83 MiNUTB8, ANJW BIM CITY PL~NNINO COMNIB~ION. OCTOSQR 17. 1983 83-693 PUBLIC H BARING. OWN~RS: KSNT LANU COMPANY, 10801 National Boulsverd, Loe Ang~les, C~ 90G64. AGBNT: RBPU~LIC DEVBUOPMSNT COMP~NY, 1275 Esat Csnter Couct Drive, Co~~~na, CA 91721, ATTBNTION: PRSD 0. KOENIG. Property daecribed es an irregulsrly-shaped percel of lend consisting of appr~~ximetely 9.9 acree loceted at the northeaet cocner of 3ante ~na Canyon Roed and Weir Canyon Road. Weivers of minimum etructucel eetb~ck and minimum lendaceped aree to construct d commecciel cEFice complex. Thece was no one indicdting their preaence in oppoaition to eubject reque~t nnd elthough the staEf report wae not re~d, it ia reEerred to and made a pert of the minutes. Robert Galloway, Sr. Vice-President Kaufinen and Bcoed, 10801 National eoulevard, Los ~ngeles, atated this request is Eor vecinnces in connection with PArcel N~. 10 of the B~uer Ranch pcopecty. He stdted they heve worked with staff and have an agreement oc underetanding regerding conditionet however, he would like to clarify the wor.ding of Condition No. 1 pertaining to the payment of tcee planting fees along Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road and explained they will be bonding for ell the improvemente along Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weic Canyon Road rights-of-way, including landscaping, and he thought this condition m:ght be repetitive beceuee of all the previoue conditlone which they have agreed to in the Public Pacilities Plan and tr~ct map appcoval. Concerning Condition No. 7 regarding the payment of w~ter aseeasment fees, he explained during the last 2 to 3 months they have submitted close to 2 million dollars in cash and lettere of credit to the City foc the conatruction of a 36 inch wntec main which ie being const[ucted fcom 2 miles to the west for all of Bauer Ranch 3?6 acces and the transmiesione fees amounted to $300 per acre will have been paid when the water main is built and they will h~ve a fairly substantinl reimbursement coming back from the City and they will have to pay the water tank stora~e fees for the 30 million gallon etorage tank planned aomewhere south in the futuce and that is a substantial accenge fee to be paid on the entire 7000 acres. He etated again that condition ia included in their agreement between KAUfman and Broad and the City Couocil which was approved by the City Council about 2 months ago and the water tank storage feea will be paid either when the City needa some money to design the tank or they will be paid no later then when the last tcect map ie recorded ~or the Bauer Ranch. He stated he thought that wording ahould be added to Condition No. 7. Mr. Ge~lloway atated Condition No. 8 refers to the street efgninq fees on Santa Ana Canyon Road end that basically fdlls in the same category and they will be bonding for those improvementa on Santa ~na Cenyon Road and ~eir Canyon Raad which are adjacent t~ Parcel No. 10. He referced to Condition No. 17 whfch indicatea thet ~tie conditione muet be complied with within one yeor And explaine~ when the bonda are poated, they will have a minimum of two yeara and at the City's diaccetion, they can call thoae bonds in at any time and have the improvement~ installed. 10/17/83 ~~fi I~IUTBS. ANAH6IM CITY pLANNSNG COMM288ION. OCTOB6R 17. 1983 8~-694 Mr. Galloway •~at~d th~y wil~. b~ rai~inq santa Ane Canyon Rosd 2S l~et in ord~r to eccommodete the 36 inch wat~r main end it •hould be in operation with hydrents charq~Q aome time in Eebru~ry oc March o! n~xt yeer and they hope t~r hsve houa~~ r~sdy !or ~ale +~round that ~am~ tim~ and al~o the Clty i• plareninq a aswer aaroe~ th• riv~r to tie into th• new bridge b~iny con~tructed end it wili errive et Santa Ana Canyon Roed and Weic Cenyan Road around sp~ing c~ naxt yeer end once thsae are in, thoy can build the impcovam~ntiA on 8ante 1-na Canyon Road end weir Canyon Road end lt ahould ba ~ev~rel montha attet thet they will ~11 be inetslled, but they will be bonded for and he thought the one yeac time limit could be a little tight. 1-nnika 3entaleh~i, Aeeiatent Director for Zoning, expleined the conditione regarding the completLon of certain othec conditions within one yeer of time of epproval if it ia epproved is a stendard condition end if e develApec Elncla he cennot develop the property during tha one yea~r peciod, he ia free and it ie very typicel to requeat an extension of timc on the entire varience. Secondly, regarding the conditions referred to, Ms. Sentalehti eteted ahile they ell may be cequirementa of previous approvels, th~y ~re also neceesery to be compieted in connection with thia project, elthough that may aeem cedundsnt if, in fect, the fees ace paid by the time bui191ng parmits are aought, ~h.ta condition would have been eetiefied. Annika Santalahti atated she would like to meke two chenges to tf^e conditions, firat, Condikion No. 15 should read as Followa: •That no medicel or ~lental officee, reta~l or reaiQential u:~ee $hall be allowed nn subje~t property unless plane have been eubmitted to the Plann:ing Department prior to buildirsg permita, ahowing additional parking and also that this partici~lar reatrict:on ehall be recorded on the property prior to the iseu0''~f~ building permits, unleas, in fact, Eor each aite they ahrw adequake parking to allow Any u:~es shown.' She point~~d out commercial office uees have a lower perking etandnrd than uther uaes. Ms. Santalehti stated the othec change ie the e~~ttion of a condition that h+~~ been addressed in ather site approvels in cannectl.on with the Bauer R~nch to read as follows; "That prior to buildl~ng occupancy, ttaffic signals shall be installed at the access road of 3ants l~na Canyan Koad ae we11 ae at the intersection of santa Ane Canyon Road and t~e,tr Cenyvn Road and a bond ah+~li be posted to quarantee Lhe lnstallation oE those ~xaffic aiqnals prior to issuance of the building permita.• Mr. Galloway reaponded they will be poetinq e bond enyr~rey rnd would like to have it left up to the Traffic ~ngineer's discretion as ta when the signal would be required, pointi~g out he ie concerned wit~ tl~e wording, 'that it would be required prioc to the time of occupancy ;~ the first building." Paul Sinqer, Traffic Engineer, expleined the homQS to the aourh on 8~nta Ana Cenyon Road guet acroas the str~et ond thiR proposed commercial deve2oprnerzt will happen ebout the aame time and the combination of thpae two will impac~ the area end eignale wili be required ak the time of first occupancy of the commercial development and that also triggera the eigndl ~k 3enta Ana CanyoR Road and Weir Canyon Road becauae that is the pcimacy diatribution area. 10/17/83 M~NU'PK~. 1-N1~iEIM CITY P~.ANNS~~ COMM'.ASION, lr:TOBRR 17. I903 83 _! 5 Mc. Gallowey ateti~d 8anta Ane C~nv~n ltoad end W~ic Cenyon Rosd are mejoc thocoughtaree nnd aome day ~h~ra will b• e lot of tcalfic th6te, but it 1111 be auit+ eoma ti~rts b~tore addikionel trelfic comea on fhrough and it will nat happfn o~r~rnight wi:h the dev~l~pment ~! thq ~iret buildinq on Percel 10. He added t[af~ic trom rho aouth juat will not exiah until~ the devela~ment ~~f th~ Wallace +~nd pouglas Renches bocA~iee th~rs is n~athing in khete now. He atated the signele will be bond~d and thet i» nu problom, but inatellfition of the aignale ie e prrbler end he ~aau:d like aa:ne verificetio~ thet their tcafEic qeneration neceaeiketee that insrellatioi~. Paul 8inger, TraEfic ~ngineer, etated he would egree that we would not want ta eignblize e f.lel~! ena thet ia not the intertt and thet he underetande 9auer Ranch ie pre~ently being grAded and khere ie aminent development of the r~aidentiel erea. Mr. c.alloway ~Lated 3reding on the Bauer Rench ia going on riqht now and they feel. the mackE+t haa errived end they will have had to put 12 million dollers in tP.a groun~l before they can deliv'er the firet houae and they hope to do thet in the agring of next yaect that they are grading on both sides of what will be the future t9eir Cenyon Road, but on the weat aide they will be teking close to 1 mi.llion ya~rda of eerth whi~h is che site of the future regional ahopping centar to raiae Santa Anr- Canyon Roadt theC there is no commercial con~tructicn going on on the weat side, but they have stertea in areas 4 and 5 and haps to o~en modele in January or Pebruary and will have the firet people moved in in the spring an~l dre looking forward to aelling a lot of house+a end moving a lot oE p~ople to 7~naheim. He stated they will be building 312 homes and if they had r.hem all built and sold by next ~1une, there would be no pcobler.~ putting in the traffic aignels, but that just will not happen. Jack White, 1-ssiar.ant City 1-ttorney, stated he was concorned about this whole ,9lacueaiont that t~onds are just e piece of paper thet aaye the improve-~~ents will be inskalled within a certain r.ime, as apecified in the bond which ia uaually one year or two yeara or in accordance with the cequirements of the Municipal Code or in accordance with conditions of approv~l of either a conditional use permit or a tract map or whatevec other permits the City w;lll be giving. He stated he ia concecned with tt~e developer'e comments that the bonda have been posted in tt~e paat and they really cover thie, but they want the Traffic Engine~er to tell them they do not have ta put. them in until later. He stated bonda are contractural obligationa that guarentee :+hen the improvements are to be put ~n. Mr. White steted these conditions ace propoaed for valid reasonr; and aa far ds the timing of certain commitmenta, if the bonds which have been previously posted meet those criteria aa fAr as to when the improvemente sre going to be instnlled, then the bond sava that on the face of itr an~ thet is accepta~ble. He atated he does not know what the bonds say or will aay, but does know what this condition asys and if it is not madified, the bonds will comply with the condition. Mr. Galloway atated the bonds tor that pcrtion of 5anta Ana Canyon Road have not yet been poated, but they will be as these mdp8 are recorded and if Commission wants to qualify the bonds, they can be fille~ within a certain period of time, that could ~s 8one and there have .~en canditiana that says certain things to be dc+ne at the diecretion of the City EnginePr or i~stallation reqnired as demanded by the City Sngineer and as long as the 10/17f e3 i i I~UTBS. ANlW BIM CITY ~LANNING CpMMI$SION. OCTOBQR 17~ ~83__ _ 83-696 bonda ~ay~ that, h• would heve no probl~m with it. H~ stet~d i~ statf wenta the conditlon changed, it can be word~d ao that it would ba agre~able to everyone. Mr. Ga~lloway etated if it !s not required juat now, why wast• the money end then the City would heve to msink~in th• sign~l and they wiil b~ hnppy to poat the bon~ guarant~eing ik will be donR when the Traltic Engineer requiree it. Peul singer ateted thie condition waa included becauee the City doea not have eny triygec macheniem to c~qui~• the inatall~tion o! the treffic signel ~nd khia is ectuelly the firet opportuni~y to require compliance with the development plane and the Public aacilitiea Plan requicing cectein improvements to be made end thla ia probebly the labt opportunity tha City will have to eay now ie the time to put in the aignal. H~ ateted if thece were aome ather method to put a tciggec on th~ bonda eo that when nor.mal traffic wacrante Che eignal, the City can seclere the eignAl will be inetalled, that ia even better and asked how long the bonde run. Jeck White reaponded if the bonds seye on ite fdce that this will be done whenever and in the paet, the City has kried to be careful ao they do not hevR to worry about how long the bonde run antil there i8 a default thet occurs and a def.ault does not occuc until either the time expirea or upon dem~nd that ie not met end under writcen obligation, the City has up to 4 ys~re to collect on a bond. He etated if it ie acceptable to the Traffic Bnqineer and to Mr. C~-lloway th~t the bonds ahal] i~dicate the aignal will be installed u~on demand of the Traffic Engineer. He cl~rified that Condition No. 19 will require that the bond will be required to be posted prior to the issuance of building permitet that the installetion of the eign~l will not be required until demand ia made by the City Engineer. Mr. Galloway reeponded thAt that condition will be acceptable. Jack White also asked that the figure 8 be deleted from Condition No. 18 air,ce it ia included in Condition No. 17. Mr. Galloway ref~rred again to Condition No. 1 requiring that fee for tree planting fees be paid and stAted he thought that was the same fee included in the bonding for the improvements on Santa Ana Cenyon Road and if that is the situation, he would have no problem with that condition, but wanted to be eure it ie not an additional fee and also the water fees cequired in ConditiQn No. 7 are not additionAl fees than those they heve already committed to pay as spelled out in the agreement with the City. Following ~ brief diacussion with Mr. Galloway explaining they will be completely landsc~ping the medians and parkwaye of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. There wes confueion as to whether oc not these are additional feea, and Ron Thompson, Planning Airector, explained there is no intent that they would have to pay the fees twice and if they plant the treea, the fees would not be required. Mr. Galloway steted they have hired a landacape architect to mast~r plan all the landecaping for the Bauer Ranch and it will be designed to meet City requirements so the area will look ma$t~r planned and clerified ~gain he do~s not want to be requiced to pay the fees twice. 10/17/63 MINliTBB. AN~1HB2~! _CITY PL11Nl1~NC COMMIABION,_ OCTOQ61t ~7.__1~Q_3 __ __ __ _@~-647 Conunioaioner H~rb~t ~tated thi• would he ~u~C like d~dir.atinq land inat~~d of peyinq th~ park and r~cr~aLion l~es and J~ck White expl~in~d the co~dition will be r~wacded to take cace ot thae conc~rn. Al Cruz, McClellan, Cru: and Gaylord, 3452 B. Poothill 8oulfverd, ~aeadena, e~xpleinad h~ ia present to sddc~as the lendeaApe and a~tb~ck• rpuirement~~ and the apecial circumekences applicebl• to this pcop~cty ~re the~ it is irrsqulerly-ehepsd end ~hat ie the baQi• !oc this reques~ end thet one oi the ceesons foc the setbeck r~quirem~nte i~ to pr~sarv• open apace. Mr. Ccua pca.ented severel elidee ahowing the erea and oimiler projecta developed by their company. He etated they propoee to divide the propecty into 10 percalo end the intent ie not to line the buildinge up. Concerning conditione, Mr. Cruz cefF:rred to Condition No. 6 p~rtaining to vehicular eccesa righte to Senta 1-na Canyon Roed and Weir Canyon Roed and to Condition No. 12 pertaining to driv~eway locstione and Condition No. 13 ralating to reviaed plane lndicating appropciete Eire acceee to Building No. 10 to be approved by the Fire Chief. H~ atated those are theic concerna also and they concur with them. Relative to having eafe, adequate dnd convenient trafEic circulation~ however, what th~y heve ahown on their exhibit might be subject to change becauae of the additionel 25-foot opening. Paul Singer etated he hAd diacusaed the cequeet for edditiondl ecceas for Sante 11na Cenyon Road with the applicant thie aftecnoon and had explained ~hat an accees to Lo~t 10 would be posaible to do aefelyl however, i~ could only be an ingresa, and could not be an egresa becaua~ of all the high epead traffic and the controlle~d opening at that point on santa ~na Canyon Road would not be very safe end he would n~t be very comfoctable with it end it would be $ubject to collisions that would be abaolutely unnecesaecy. Mc. Singec etated he diac4::.aed with the applicant a provision for a 150-foot sekbdck ~or dny dxiveway i,nto eny of the lota from the prapoaed etreet and explained it i8 abeolutely necessnry because of atacking of traffic waiting for the treffic signal and if a vehicle did try to pull out ot the dciveway, as shown on the plana, then he would create a hdzard and back-up traffic through Santa 11na Canyon Road and expose ur.neceesacy colliaions. He stated it is his recommendetion th~t eccess be limited to e min~mum of 150 feet away from the property line and if the developer seeka an edditional ingreas point, it could be conkcolled with a deceleration lane on Santa l~nA Canyon Road at Lot No. 10, providing it is ingreas only and if tire busters or eome other device are instel;ed to prevent egress. He reeponded to Commiasioner Herbet that an additional lane would have to be conatructed. John Sauer, Vice-President/General Manngec, Republic Development Company, 1275 Bast Center Court, Covina, atated they feel they heve shown a very quelity pcoduct which has been very succeasful for ~~heir company and they ~ould like ko heve the opportunity to provide it to the City of Anaheim. THE PUBLIC HB1~RlNG W71S ~LOSED. Cocuaissioner La Claira asked ahat type of control the developer will have and if the lots will be aold individually. 10/17/83 ~NIlTeB, AN1WBtli CITY PL11N.,NIN~ CO_ MMI88ION. OCTOBIl1~ 1~. 1983 ~ ~ 8~ 3-698 Mc. 8au~r c~pli~d q~n~r~l~y th~y a~ll th• l~nd with a contcac:t to con~truct th• building~ so th~y will hev~ aompl~ti• control nv~r the proj~ct. H• s~ated Lot No. i!a ~lr~edy pisnnaa and th~y int~nd to have eh~ir corporat~ oflicaR loaati~d eh~re ao they will b~ there to supervia~ the encice proj~ct. Commisolon~r La Clair~ •tiated •h~ unQ~r~tanda th~ naed tor th~ weiv~rs and thought thi~ projsct look, c~~lly qood snd Ahe i~ proud to hav• it in the Citiy oi ~-nehtim end ia ~uce it will b~ a top quality projec~. 8he augg~sCed e becm on the Banta 11ns Canyon eide. Nr. Sau~r ateted th~re will b~ a•liyhr •lope ther• enyway which would provide a b~rm and he did not think that wou1Q b~ a problem. Commisaioner Herbat asked i! the final grede o! thie Propert}~ wouid b~ higher thnn Sente 1-na Canyon Road. Jerry McCune, Republic Dev~lopment Company, Dicectoc and Project Manager, ~teponded that the ~l~vetion oF thie propecty wili be both above end below 8ante 1-na Canyon Road and th4re ie a alope on the eastecn end o! th~ property and it will be ebove 3ente Ana Cenyon Road end there ia only one acea where he tihought a becm might be a~propriate in the vicinity of Lot No. 1. l~nnika Santalahti stated the Code requirement ia toc a 20-toot wide fully lendscaped setback in the Scenic Corridoc and the ultimate given ie a 3-foot berm when auch a berm can be an effect~ve addition to the landaceping, ao the besic etand+~rd is fully 20 feet and nat 14 feet. Mr. NcCunA reaponded to Chairwoman Bouas, that in his opinion there ia only one area where n berm would be effective and clarified that the elopes will be landscaped end there ia juat e portion of Lot No. 1 generally in the builc'ing a[ea where a berm could be appropriate. He tesponded to Commisaioner La Clair~e that the wedgee shown on the plan elong Senta J~na Canyon Road indicatea elopes up and down. Commfseionec La Claire clarified that the whole 20-foot section would be landecaped between the buil@ing and Santa 11na Canyon R~a-d excePt in the parking area and asked why a berm could not be provided. Mc. McCune steted a berm requires moce epnce and they did not think it Would serve any purpose in this perticul~r development. Mr. Gelloway atated unfoctunately they did not have e masLer plan in the development Parcel No. 10 and the setbacka wece not provided becauae the developer was trying to edd chacact~r to thia development end the setbacks are neceasery to give eeparatio~ to the buildingc, but in this configuration, the westecly one third of Paccel No. 10 being developed by Republic is across the street fcom a pack and open spaee whieh will be left in ita natural state and that is on the weet ~ide and 1-rea No. 5 is on the eaet and ie elevated and will be a landscaped berm about 20-teet high. He stated he did not think a 3-foot berm would heve any re~l affect. 10/17/$3 .~• , ~. , > INUTBI~._11N1WQIM CITX PLIINNINO COMMI88ION. QCTQBBR 17. 1~3 ~_ ~ 83~¢99 I~C~TIONc Commie~lon~r !ry ofl~red a R~aolution No. PC63-104 and mov~d !or ite paaaaq~ thet th~ 1-naheim City Planning Com~ni~aion do~s her~by qc~nt Veriance No. 3358 on th• basi• tihet kh~r~ ~ce ~p~cial ciccumaLanc~e Applicsble to ths prop~rty auch es sta~, sh~p~, topoqraphy, locetion or ~urceundl.nqs which do not apply to oth~r idantically son~d properties in the vicinity s~d on the baai• tihat atrict appliaetion o! the Zoning Cod~ d~prive~ the property o! privilegee enjoyed by other pcopsrti~e in identical ~oninq claasitications in rha vicinity and subject to 2~tecd~partmsntsl Committee r~commendation• including Condition No. 19 requiring inetallation o! traitic ~ignals and moQilicetion to Condition No. 15 and l8 as pt~vioualy diecues~d. R~sponding ro Chairwoman Bouas, Commiaeioner La Claire etated appcov~l will be foc the plena as aubmitted with no eddi~ional acce$a on 8ante ~ne Canyon Roed because the developer indiceted they would bring thak plan back tor approval of the accees. On roll call, the foregoing reeoluki.on wae peaaed by the following vote: l~YES: BOUJ-S, PRY, HERBS'r, KING, Ll- CLAIRB NOE3: NONE A83ENT: BUSHORE~ MCBURNBY ITEM N0. 13. EIR CATBOORICI~L EXEMPTION-CW13S 3. 11ND VARIIINCE N0. 3359 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: MAX 1-ND JOYCB ROGERS, 5960 E, Mareha Circle, J-neheim, Ca 92807. AGENT: JOANNE S. ROCKS, 6200 E. Canyon Rim Road, Suite 207-C, 1~neheim, C1~ 92807. Pcoperty described as a r~ctangula '.y-ahaped parcel of land conaisting of epproxima~tely 7-210 square feet, `~U B. Maraha Circle. Weiver of minimum structural height to cetein an outdoor basketball beckatop. There wes one pereon indicating his pcesence in oppoeition to aubject raquest and although the ataff report wae not read, it is ceferced to and made a part of the minutes. Max Rogsrs, 5960 E. Maraha Circle, ~-naheim, owner, explained thia requeat is for a vatiance and enctoachment permit Eor a basketball ba~kstopt that he moved to the Annheim Hilla area a~a~roximately 6 years ago ~nd this is a v~ry nice n~ighborhood and they hdve extremely ntce neighbors. He stated they were told there would be a City park in the area, but realize after the passage of Propoaition No. 13, there are no funda available for a park and they, like most of the families loceted on thia cul-de-sec street, woald l.ike to keep theic children in the erea to play and that the lots ere very em~ll and there is very little room for cecreational activitie$, eo he instelied a basketbeli beckatop on what he initidl2y Chought wae hie property and wae not awAre khat a permit wae required at the ti~ne. He etated the kide play in tAe street and have been doing that since they moved there 6 years a~go and they play all kinds of ga~mes other than baaketball. 8e stai:ed he did not mou~t the backstop on his gar~ge becauae thet would offend his neighbors because it would be unsightly. 10/17/83 MINUT~B. ~N11H 6IM CITY PLANNINa COMMI882QN, OCTOBBR 7. 1983 83 7Q0 Mr. Rog~ra st~t~d h~ dia t~lk with hia n~ighbore h• thought woulcl b~ moet ett~cted by the backstop bslore he conakr.uat~d it and that he wea moc• concerned about th• unaightlin~a~ o! it than whether or not en sncroechment petmit wss c~quiced lrom the Ciry o! ~naheim. He at~ted ther• hea only besn one complaint about thie backatop nnd a p~tition wra aubmitt~d to the Commlaoion signed by ell hia neighbors who do not object to the inatallstion. He ateted tht:3 ie e dead-end street end it ia quite difficult to even get up Go the houae and sny vahicle could nat get up a lo~ of epeed. Mc. Rogers ~xplained rhe 7-foot encroechment ia primerily ths eidewalk And e person would heve ta be verX tall to bump hia hedd on the atructiure if it waa out ovec the eidewalk. He referced to pickurea of Che attucture and etated it would not interfere with vehiculer visibility oc ~ccesaibiliky and i*. ia a movable object end he did not think it should be coneidered a pecmantnt atructuce in rhe right-of-wey becauae ft turne back into the treee and ehrube and cannot be seen from the etreet when they ere not pldying with it. He aaid the rule of the neighborhood i$ that it hae to be put back when they yo inside evon for ~ drink of water. Mc. Rogece referced to the Traffic Engineer'e recommendation tor denial becauae the ~neheim Municipel Code pcohibits ball gamea an public etceete anywher.e in Anaheim end stated he would guggeat thet the Tre:fic Engineer gek out from behind hie deak and go out onto the atreete of ~naheim because ball games ere played on etre~ta in ~neheim every day. Concerning special circumatancea required to approve the cequeet, Mr. Rogers etated he thouqht the apecial circumetances are thet the property is very small end t he structure could not have been placed anyr+here elce on the property due to the size and topography and aleo that the atceet is e dead-end stceet. Concerning safety, Mr. Rogeca ceferred to an incidenk two yenre ago wherein a small boy was ebducted, moleated and skranqled at the Pizza Peclor. a4~acer,~ to the high school ~nd indicated he wante to make eure this doeen't happen t~. che children in this neighborhood. J.J. Car:iss, 5921 ~. Matvha C+rcle, Anaheim, ref erred to the fa~~ thet a environmen~al impact report wa~ not required on this project dnd atated inde~:d there ;a an environmantal impactj that thie ie a street of homeo valued in exceas of a quarter miliion dolle~a and they are well kept with manicured l~wns, etc. and the slopee are controlled by an esaociation pai~ for by the homeownerst that the construction of thfe basketball backstop in the middle of the block f a somewhat of an environmental shock, as well as an enviro~~mentel impect and it ia d large pole appcoximately 6 inchee in diemeter and aheped somewhat 1 ike e large boomer~nq with a backetop and basketball hoop on top end it is planted i~ the ground above the level of the eidewalk and is on an axis and turne and it does covec the aidewalk and extend out into the etreet. He stated as en original homeowner, they were presented copies of the CCBRs and tha~ if the applicant hed referred to the City'e ordinances and applied for a vatinnce, he would ha~~e found out there are restrictions governing the setbacks of 25 feet and also restrictiona governing the height at 36 inchea. H e stated all the homeownera signed an agceement, $o he did not think the applicant could plead ignorent to the fscts. 10/17/83 ~j~ 1 INUT68. ~1~1J1H~I_t~ C~TY PLJINNIN(i COMNIBSION, OCT088R 17. 1983 83-701 Mr. Cacli~• atat~d khia devic~ ie prim~rlly uaed by young childr~n whos• play •ndanqecs th~ pa+~sinq ot v~hialea uaing the •tc~ett tha~ th~r• ar• 7.8 home~ on th~r d~ed-~nd etce~t snd v~hicl~s tr~m 10 ot thoae homss mu~t paee thi~ baak~tbsll ttcuctur• which meanA SZ vahicl~a b~longing to the reoid~nta, plus visitor'• vshicl~s, d~liv~ry truck~, traeh ttuckr, •tc. have to go Past it evecyday end nak only ar~ the childc~n lives endeng~red, but ik i• en additional burden of ceeponaibiliky impoeed on the dciv~rra o! th~ee vehiciea~ Mr. Rogers indicated h• waa conc~rned about th~ dangec created by the high winda which could cauae khe device to break looae end Eall causinq in~ury or demege to the propertyt thet in th• 7 y~arg he has reaided there, he hee had to replace ~ortions of hia roo! thrse diEferent timest thet the atructiure ia close to en exiating light etAn~ which could be etruck end eleo the trash trucka could atcike the atructure. He eteted the ovecall aeathetica of the neighborhood eufEer from this d~vice end also the question erieea ae to whdt veriances may be ceque~ted next. He steted he thought the City's zoni~g requiremente should be adheced to and poinCed out a aucvey he conducted indicatea there ere 73 besketbell hoopa aupplied in the perks and echools in the immediate vicinity, one being et the Cenyon H igh School end one at the junior high achool which 4re lese than 1 mile and the seme children who use this basketbAll etruature attend thoae achoola every~ay and welk by themselves. He r~tated he feels the eeethetice af the neighbochood are infringed upon end he believea his property has been devAlued And he felt thia cequest ahould be dRnied. Perdinand Neas, 5961 MarahA Circle, l-naheim, gteted if anyone ehould have a gcipe about this basketball etructure, it would be him, but that it was done in extcemely c~ood taste and he doea not see anything wronq with it whatsoever and if he did believe there wae anything wrong vith it, he would be the Eicst one to complain. BArry Shandre, 5931 E. Mareha Circle, etnted he ia e member of the homeoKners association and that one complaint has been filad which brought the situation to thia pl~ce and there have been no other objections from dnyone elee in the aeaocistion. He etated he ia also a neighbox and hes liv~d in the neighbochood fcom the beginningt that it ie a cul-de-sa~c street and he has no children who play and he hasn't played baeketbal2 on the skructure, ao his opinion is reasonably unbiesed. -ie atated the Rogers have ehown themeelves to be tremendous cQmmunity people and have contributed to the neighborhood in many wayss that the beaketball atructure was inatalled for the enjoyment of all the childrent that this ia A cul-de-eac str~et and all the children play in the street end there is very minimal treffic end if. the backstop ie taken away, the childcen will play in the street enyw~y end would aimply change the qame~ thet the parents of the children who live there eupport this request because they feel it is ~afer for their childcen to play thece ~han aome place else. Eie stated there are 18 houaea on the etreet and there ie a petition aigned by 17 of thoee homeowneca who favor the basketball backstop. He stated the compleint was not in the interest of the community and the communi.ty itaelf i~ askinq for the verience And that the complaint was not a velid one. 10/17/83 ~ I~lUT6~. 11N1WQIM CIxY PLANNIN(i COMMISBZON. OCTOB6R 17. 1~8~- _ 83-70Z Dav~ While, 5981 6. Mecaha Circle, stat~d Mr. Roq~r~ aakeQ him b~tora he actually built bhe etructu~e end ht wsa init~ally aonc~rned ebout th~ eeathetice u~Eil hs c~elly aaw the ple-na and d~cided it would be better than puttiog ~he backatop on th• gareq~t that other peopl• agread end signed the petition and do not ~e~l this ia ~ ha=ecd and children will be playing in the atc~et whethsr it ia thece oc not and he hop~d the r~queat i~ approved so he would not have to go down to Canyon High 8chool to pley beeketball. TH E PUBLIC H F1.KI NG WAS CL(~~ED. Co:~~misa!onec Herbst stated there ia no wey the Planning Commiesion cen eppcove a vaciance in a public right-of -way or public etreet becauee the City would probebly be conaidered cesponsible foc the children playing in Che e~ceet and there ie no way it can be done legally. Ne etated he eppreciatea what the epplicent. is trying to do, however. It wae noted the Planning Director or his Authorized repres~ntetive hea detecmined thet the propoaod praject ta11e within the definitian of Cetegocical Bxemptions, C:ese 3, as defined in the Stete Bnvironmentel impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from khe requirement to prepare en EIR. ACTION: Commis~ionet Hecbet offered Reaolution No. PC93-205 end move~! for ite pasaege and adoption that the ]~neheim City Planning Commiesion doea heceby deny Variance No. 3359 on the bd$i$ that pureuant to Section 18.16.010 0! the J~neheim Municipa]. Code -'Ball games are prohibited on public atceets in Jlneheim end also on the baei8 that there are no eper.ial ciraumetances npplieable to the pcopetty sueh aa aize, ahape, topography or euccoundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the vicinity and strict epplication of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other pcoperties in the identical z4ning c1~s~ificAtion in the vicinity. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 1~YES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ L11 CLIIIRB NOES: NONE ~-BSENT; 9U5HORE, MCBURNEY ~ack White, ]lsaistant City Attorney, preaented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's d~ecision within 22 daye to the City Council. Mt. Royers referced to the recommended interdcrartmental Committee recommendation a~.. the requirement that the owner obtain approval from the City Council fc: an encroachment permit ea required by City Council Policy No. 202 end asked if thia meane he would liave ko go to the City Council for approval. Commiseioner Herbst poinked out the Planning Commiagion cannot. change City Council's culinge. 10/17/83 l ~ t iT !1 NO• 14. BIR NBCiJ-TIVQ D4CL71R1-TIQN J-NO V~RIANCQ N0. 3360 PUBLIC HBIIRIN(i. OWNdR: lIttST 1-MEAICI-N TRUST COMPIINY, P.O. Box 267, 3anta 9ox 4241, 1-nah~im, CA 92801. J-na, CA 9Z702. 1-GENTs R~YMQND MJ-9CISLr P.O. Prop~rky described sa a cectangulacly-shap~d paccel of. lend coneistinq o! appcoximately 6,120 square fe~t, 828 South 1-ndheim Boulevsrd. Weivera of ineximum ~tcuctunalsh~Ce~t~o conatcuctdey3runittepertmentpc mploxa location of requiced parki g p Tbere was no one ind~feCenor~hw~a notsreaA,iit is~celecced touendcmede~aepart and although the atd P o~ the minutea. ~e,cy MAaciel, 420 Euclid 8treotr 1-nahaim, sgent, waa present t~ enswer any quastions. TfiB PUBLIC HE11kING WAS CLOSBD. Commiesione~ Herbak esked about the tandam parking apacea. PAUl Singec responded thAt he did discues the ten~+em spaces with the applicant end they are going to be aseigned to aepar+~te ,~ita ae la customarily done. ACTIpN; Commieaionec ~i$~lanecsrBush cetand/McBurneyd~bsent~,itha-tntheF~y end MOTION C7IRRIED ( Anaheim City Planning Commiesion has ceviewed the propoaal to conatruct a 3-unit apartment complex with aaivere of maximum etcuctural eeaces/onia~mum aideyard setback ancl permitted location oE cequired packing p rectangularly-sheped parcel ofroximatelyi421feetf npthexeasteaidelof naheim fset, having a fcontage of app eouleverd and furthec desccibed ae 828 South l-naheim Boutevard~ and doee hereby approve the Nega~tive Dacleration upon finding that it has coneidere~~ the Negative Decla~tekion tOfindingwoo theYbasiaeof~thecInitialUStudytendpanyic review procesa and fucther commenta received that c~eon thenenviconmental evidence thdt the project wili have a significant effe Commissionec Hetbet offered Resolutpia~ningpCommiasionddoe~eher8byigrant88~ge and adoption that the 1-naheim City licahle Vatiance No. 3360 on the baeie that there are specfal ciccuwstences aPp to t.he pcopecty such as size, shape, topogcaphy, location oc surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vici~nity= and that atrict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges en~oyec] by otihet propectiea in identical zoning clessificatlon in the vicinity, an~d sub~ect to interdepartmental Committee recommendatians• On roll call, the foregoing reaolution wa~s Passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: BOU]~S~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ Ll- CLAIRE NOES: NONE ASSENT: BUSHORE~ MCBURNEY 10/17/$3 MIN~TB8, ANANRIM CITY PLANNING CAMM288ION. OCTOBSR 17. 1983 83 704 IT$M NO. 15. QIR N0. ~17 fPRaVI0U8LY CBRTIlI6D) AND TBNTATIVS NAp OP TMCT N0._~,119~ ZTAT~-1~tIDB DBVlSLOPBRB, 5182 Katella 1-venue, 1106, Los Aiamitoe, Cl- 90720. AGENT: SUN-MY BNOINBRRING, 12S We~t Gresn Street, Paeade~a, C11 91105. Prop~c~y d~scribed ae a rectenqularly-aheped parcei o! lend consioting ot approximately 18.6 aarea, the form~c 1~pollo .luniar High School. To eoteblish a 4-lot, 332-unit RM-3000 2onR condominium subdivi.eion. There wes no one indicating theic pcesence i~ oppoaition to eubject requaat and elthough the staft ceport was not read, it le ceterred to and mede a pntt oE the minutes. 8usan Bemis, Star~-Wide Developera, 5182 Ketelle, Suite 106, Loe ~lsmitos, expleined thie request is for epproval of the tentativR kract map and that the CommiOaion hA,a al~eady approved the environmentel impnet report, the reelas~iffiaation and the vacienc:e. She edded they will be Aubmitting reviaed plans knowing the Conunieaian wae not redlly pleesed with the plena ea originelly appruvedr however, that wil.l not aftect the trect map. Kendre Morciee, 1~ssiatant Planne~, asked that e conditiun be added ~equiring that p~ior to approval of the final tract map, the developer shell enter into an bgreement with the City of 1-naheim purauant to Government Code 6ection 65915 to pcovide that not lese than 83 of the residential unite ehell be eold as low or moderete income houeing as detlned by Government Code Section 65925 end with appropriate cesaie conErole ae npproved by the City of Anaheim. It was noted EIR NO- 247 vas previously certified by the City Council on December 6, 1981, in coniunction with GRnecal Plan Amendment No. 166. I~CTION: Co~amiasioner Herbst offered a~ Aotion, eeconded by Coe-miaaioner Fry and MOTZON CARitIBD (Co~amissioners Buehore and McSurney absentl, thet the 1-naheim City Plannirig Cowafseion doea hereby find Chat the proposed subdiviaion, together with its design and i~ptove~oent, is consistent with the City of 1lnaheim General Plan, pursuent to Goverruaent Code 8ection 66473.Si and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 11936 for a 4-lot, 332 unit condominiu~e aubdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That should this subdivielon be deve~oped ars more than one subdivieion, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in ten~etive form fot approval. 2. That prior to epproval of the finel aap, the owner of subject property ehall post a bond to guarantee the inetallation of a modified cul-de-aac at the terainus of Kingeway 1-~enue and !lxra 1-venue as required by the City Engineer. 3. That all private atreets al~all be developed in accordance with the City of Jlnaheim'a S~andard Detail tio. 122 for private etreets, including installation of stceet neme signs. plans for the privete street ligbting, ae required by the standard detdil, shall be submitted to the euflding Division f~r apptoval and included with the building plana prior to tt~e iaeuance of building permits. (Private atreets are those which provide pri~aa:y acce~s and/or circulatfon within tbe pro~ect. 4 ~ w Ml,IN,_UTYS. ~N,~1R,_H~IM CITY PW~iNING COM IB ION~ OCTQ9BR 17. 1983 ~~--705 ~. That pcior to iinal traat map eppcoval, str~er n~m~• shall b~ appcov~d by th• City planning Department. S. That tempocacy atc~eC nams ai9na ehall be inetallod prior to sny occupancy i! p~rmen~nt atreot name •iqna have not baan inetellad. 6. That drainage o! aubiect prop~rty shall be diapoaed a! in e mannRr aatisfactocy to (a) ths City Sngineer. (b) the City Engineec a~d the Orsnge County Piood ConCroi District. 7. That ~+rior to tinal tract map eppcovel, the original documenta ot the covanents, conditione, and reatrickione, and e letter eddr~aaed to the dev~loper's title company authorizing recocdbtion theceoi, ahall be eubmitted to ~he City ]lttorney'e OlEice and a~pproved by the City 1-ttorney'R affics and Engineering Division. Said documenta, ae appcoved, wi'l1 then be liled and cecorded in the Office of the Orenge County Recorder. 8. Tt~at pcior to epproval of the finel mep, the vehicular accees righta, except at ~pproved eccees pointa, to Myra 1-venue and Kingaway Avenue ahall be dediceted to the City of Annheim. 9. That pcioc to final tract map approval, the applicent shell pc~saent evidence satlefactory to the Chief euilding inspectoc thet the pcoposod pcoject ia in conformance with Council Policy Nua~~ec 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Project3•. 10. That prior to approval of the final mep, the applicant shall present evidence setiefnctory to the Chief Building inspector that the reaidential units will be in conformance with Noise insulation Standacda apecifiAd in the r.alifornie 7~dministrative Code, Title 25. 11. That prioc to appcoval of the final map, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Aneheim puceuant to Government Code Section 65915 to provide that not lesa than 83 of the reaidentia~l units ahall be eold aa loW or moderate income houeing as defined ~n Government Code Section 65915 and with appropriate resale conkrols as aPproved by the City of Anaheim. ITEM NO. 16. REPORTS AND RECnMFlEND11TION8 1-. ~ONDITIONJ-L USE PBRMIT N0. 1705 - Requeat from Roy A. and Clyde ~-. Fogler for a retroactive extension of time for Conditional Uae Pecmit No. 17Q5 for property located on the east aide of Red Gum Street, epproximately 390 feet south of the centerline of La Jolla Street. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, eecanded by Commissioner La~ Cl and MOTION C~RRIED (Commiseioners Bushore and NcBurney abaent), that the 1-naheim City Planninq Commiasion ~oes hereby gra~nt a two-year reLroactive extension of time for Conditional ~se Permit No. 1705 to expire on May 9, 1985. 10/17/83 ~, ~ ~INt~T1~8, ANIWI~IM CTTY PLl1NNING COMMI8810NLOCT09aR 17. 1983 , 83-7Q6 B. C$}~1DiTi0N71L OSE PaRMi~T N_O+, 4369 - R~qu~~t lco~a Rioh~rd Hanaon io~ a r~tcoactiv~ •xt~naio~ o! tia~ on Conditionel Us~ p~r~nit No. 2369 foc pcop~rty located at 1ZS South Harbor Boul~vacd. 11CTi N: Conu~ission~r Ary ott~red A motion, •eCOnded by Commirsionar La Claice AnQ M~iON CARRZED (Commiesion~ca eushors and McBurney abse~t), thet ths ~-nat~eim City Pianninq Commis~ion do~e hec~by qrant a ona-year r~tcoactive axtenalon ot time for Conditional Us• Permit No. 2369 to expir• on S~ptember 8, 1984. C. CONDITIONl~L USE PBRNIT NO_191 - Requeat lrom John Wernig, 9outhlend Cocp., tor tecmination of Conditional Uae Permit No. 2191 !or property located ~t 1001 Nocrk~ Hart,or Boulovacd. 1-CTION: Commiaeionec Fry oEfered Reeolution No. PC83-207 end moved for its paeaage end adoption that the 1-naheim City Planning Commiasion does heceby terminete Conditio~al Use Pecmit No. 2191. On roll cell, the focegoing reaolution was peased by the followi~g vate: 1~YES: BOUA3~ PRY~ KZNG~ LA CLIIIRE ~ t,y..,4..~' NOES: NONE 1-BSENT: BUSHOkE~ MCBURNEY OTt1ER DISCUSSION: Chairwomen Bouds appointed Commisaioner Buehore to the Camnwnity Wide Community Development Block Grant Citizena Participetion Commi:tee for the 1984-85 program. ADJOURNMENT: There being no furthar bueineas, Commiaaioner Pry offeced a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Ring and MOTION Cl-RRIED (~ommiasionere BuAhore and McBurnoy absent), thet the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Reapectfuily subm~tted, G~.c~/k~ ~ ~~f,~ Edith L. Harris, Secretary Andhrim City Planning Commission ELH : lm 0009m 10/17/83 1 Y. C ~ ~