Loading...
Minutes-PC 1987/04/27REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMLSSION The regular meeting oL the Anaheim City Planniny Commission was called to order by Chairman McBurney at 9:00 a.m., April 27, 1987, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's ayenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: ALSO PItF.SENT: Chairman: McBurney Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Lawicki- La Claire, Messe Annika Santalahti Joel Fick Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titus Paul Singer Debbie Vagts Ron Evans Jack Kudron Mary McCloskey Linda Rios Greg Hastings Edith Harris 7,oning Administrator Planning Dirertor Deputy City Attorney Office Engineer Traffic Engineer Leasing Supervisor Assistant Fire Chief Parks Superintendent Senior Planner Assistant Plannec Senior Planner Planning Commission secretary AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy of the Planniny Commission agenda was posted at 8:30 a.m., April 24, 1987, inside the Eoyer windows and in the display case located in the lobby of the Council Chamber. PUBLIC INPUT - Chairman McBurney explained at the end of the agenda any member of the public would be allowed to discuss any matter of interest within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, or any agenda item. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL - Cort~missioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the minutes of the meeting of March 30, 1987, be approved as submitted. It was noted that the applicant for Item No. 1 has requested that that matter be trailed until later in the meeting and there are several people present in opposition. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of item No. 1 be trailed until after Item No. 9, as it is expected that Item No. 10 will be a long hearing. 87-350 87-351 MI N_ U"~PESr ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMTS_SION, APRIL 27, 1987 __ ITEM_N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (REAUVERPISED) AND VA°?..iANCE N0. 3642 (READVEHTISED) w PUBLIC BEARING. OWNERS: RUEBF.N de LEON, 11095 Meads i,ve. , Orange, CA 92669. AGENT: HUGO VA2QUF,Z, 2240 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app roxlmately 0.67. acre, 207 and 211 N. Coffman Sr.reet. Waivers (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimu m structural setback and (e) required recreation-leisure area to construct a 2 - story, 12 unit "affordable" condominium complex. Continued from the meetings of March 2, 16 and 30, 1987. it was noted the applicant for Item tea. .1 had not yet arr ived after the hearings were completed f.or the rest of the items on the Agenda, except for Item No. 10, which was expected to be a lengthy hearing. There were several people present in opposition, and it was the general conc ens es of the Planning Commission to hear their testimony. Commissioner Herbst stated these people are present to speak and they have been here before and h e did not want to make them wait any longer. Commissioner La Claire had left the meeting following item No. 5. There were eleven people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; however, the applicant was not present, and alt h ough the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the m i nutes. Chairman McBurney opened the public hearing on Item No. I. Ruth Motley, 203 Evelyn Drive, Anaheim, presented a petition signed by 60 persons opposed l-o this request. She stated the petition expresses their concern is mainly the density in the area, particularly since whatever development is permitted as the first ane on the west s i do of Coffman, will set the precedent for future development on that street and also, they are opposed to all the waivers and feel the two stories wou 1 d be too close to the single-family dwellings in L•he area. She stated they f eel the density at RM-1200 on the east side of Coffman is just too hiyh an d it should be rezoned to RM--2400, the same as on the west side of Coffman. S h e stated Code requires 12,000 square feet of recreational open space and this p roject proposes about one-half of that. She stated they would like to reques t this property be rezoned to Rt!-2400 or that the units meet Code because of the density and they would requesk no affordable units be permitted. THE P:JBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman McBurney stated he would not like to see this project developed as a condominium project using the RM-2400 Codes and if the petitioner wants a condominium project, it should comply with condo~*~inium standards. Commissioners Ery and Messe agreed. 4/27/87 87-352 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 27 1987 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated since the Commission has closed the public hearing, the evidence has been presented which they ace to consider in making their determination. AC_ TION: Commissioner Fry offer e d a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to ccm struct a 10-unit (previously 12 units) "affordable" condominium complex in the RM-2400 Zone under authority of Gov ernment Code Section 65915 with waivers of minimum building sitr. area per dwelling unit, maximum struc~`ural height, maximum site coverage, maximum structural setback, and minimum required recreational-leisure area on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatQly 0.55 ages, having a frontage of approximately 122 feet on the west side of Coffman Street, approximately 490 feet north of the centerline of Center Street and further described a~ 207 N. Coffman Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with an5~ comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of 'et~e Initial Study and any comments received that there is no s~~bs*.antial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environ.nent. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-96 and m~,?ved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3642 en the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as site, shape, topography, location and surrounuings which do not apply L-o ott:er identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive L•he property of privileges enjoyed by other f,roperties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by tt~e Eal.lowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, L.AWICKI, MC GURNEY, ME SSE NOES: NON F. ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right ;o appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESSED: 2:15 p.m. RECONVENED: 2:25 p.m. ITEM N0. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3644 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOHN R. TOWNSEND, 8310 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680. AGENT: TAB E. JOHNSON, 302 W. 5th Streer_, Suite 302, San Pedro, CA 90731. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.34 acre located at the southeast corner of Western Avenue and Ball Road. Waivers of maximum structural height and minimum landscaping of required yards to construct a Circle "K" Convenience Market. 4/27/87 MINUTES, .ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 27 1987 r 87-353 Continued from the meetings of March 2, 16 and 30, 1987. It was noted the petitioner has requested this matter be withdrawn. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request to withdraw Variance No. 3644. ITEM NO 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAtJ AMENDMEN'P N0. 225 (READV~) INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, C.A 92805 To redesignate Fairmont Boulevard between La Palma Avenue and Santa Ana Canyon Road from a Hillside Secondary to a Hillside Primary Arterial Highway; and to add as a Major Arterial Higi~way, West Street between Manchester Avenue and Ball Road. Continued from March 30, 1987. It was noted the petitioner )gas requested a continuance to the meeting of May 11, 1987, in order for the item to be readvertised. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of May 11, 1987, at the request of the applicant in order for the matter to be readvertised. ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11780 (READY. ) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: NICOLA A. BORTIS AND SIDA BORTIS, 708 E. Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: JOHN D. ROSE 5 ASSOCIATES, 770 S. B[ea Blvd., Suite 230, Brea, CA 92621, ATTN: WARREN WILLIAMS. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 85 feet on the south side of Rio Grande Drive, approximately 1200 feet southwest of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. To re-establish a 7-lot (plus one open space .lot) RS-HS-22,O0O(SC) Zone single-family residential subdivision. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and altho~~.gh the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Dennis Farnsworth, John D. Rose and Associates, 770 S. Brea, S~iite 230, Brea, California, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner I,a Claire stated this looks like a good project and is in accordance with what has been approved in the pas`. 4/27/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_,PLANNING COMMISSION `APRIL 27, 1987 ___ 87-354 Commissioner Herbst asked how much of the road is more than 128 grade. Mr. Farnsworth stated they have not had any real design studies done as yet, but will adhere to the engineering requirements. Commissioner La Claire stated she has walked that property several tines and it does not look line much of it would be more than 128. Mr. Farnsworth stated the road itself will be fairly flat. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to re--establish a 7-lot (plus one open space lot) RS-HS-22,000(5C) gone single-family residential subdivision on an icreg~i.larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.47 acres, having a frontage of approximately 85 feet on the south side of Rio Grande Drive, with a maximum depth of approximately 1200 feet southwest of the centerline of Fairmont 0oulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon fending that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner 1,a Claire offered a motion, seconded by commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby Eind that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve re-established Tentative Map of Tract No. 11780 (READY.) for a "1-lot (plus one open space lot), RS-yS-22-000(SC) single-family residential subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. ~Phat all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 3. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department. 4. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. In addition, a hydrology study shall be performed by the developer and approved by the City Engineer to determine the appropriate facilities to be constructed by the developer. This may include installation of an RCP (Reinforced Concrete Pipe) to ccmvey water passing through the tract, as well as on site water, to an existing storm drain at the northwest corner of subject tract. 4/27/87 87-355 MINU'PES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMI5SION, APR.IL_27, 1987 6. That prior. to final tract map ap~coval, appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. 7. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize tt~e possibility of anv silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 8. That prior to siynature approval of tt~e water system improvement plans by the Water Engineering Manager, the appropriate Eees due for primary, secondary and fire protection shall be paid to the Water Utility nivision by the Developer in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 9. That temporary sr,reet name signs shall be installed E~rioc to any occupancy if permanent street name signs have not been installed. 10. That prior to final tract map approval, the owner of subject property shall pay the appropriate drainage assessment fees to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Engineer. 11. That all requirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Eire Administrative Order No. 76-01, shall be met. Such requirements include, but are not limir.ed to: chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and under floor openings, Class C or better roofing material and one hour fire resistive constructio~i of horizontal surfaces if located within 200 feet of adjacent brushland. 12. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Eire Department. 13. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded with a l.ow fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of separation betweNn flammable vegetation and any structure. 14. That prior to issuance of a bui]ding permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be Naid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. 15. That an}• specimen tree removal shall be subject to the tree preservation regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the 'SC' Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. 16. That no public or private street grades shall exceed lOB except by prior approval of the Chief. of the Fire Department and the Engineering Division. 17. That the private street shall comply with *_hP City of Pnaheim standard for private lane in the Peralta Hills and M~:nler Drive area and shall be L•ully paved prior to sale of any lots in the tract. 4/27/87 .. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'P'f PLANNING COMMISSIONS APRIL 27, 1987 87-357 27. That gates shawl not be installed across any driveway or private street in a mann,:r which may adversely affect vehicular traftiic ir- the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 402 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 28. That prior to issuance of building permit, a special assessment fee in the amount of ~65?..00 per acre, for upgrading the Former Walnut Canyon Water System, shall be paid to the Water Engineering Division, by the Developer. 29. That all lockable vehicular access gates shall be equipped with a "knox box" device to the satisfactior- of the Chief of Police and the City Fire Marshall. 30. That, as specified in Anaheim MuniciF~al Code Section No. 18.84.041.012, no roof-mounted equipment, whatsoever, shall be permitted. 31. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditionG, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizin© recor~9ation thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by thr~ City Attorney's Office and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall tt-en be filed and recorded in the of.Eice of the Orange County Recorder. 32. That prior to final tract map approval, condition Nos. 3, 5, 6, 10, 16, 20, 21, 23 and 31, above-mentioned, snail be complied with. 33. That priOC to final map approval, the ,~~equirements set forth in Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14. 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, abovementioned, sh~.ll be set forth on the face of the final map in a form satisfactory to t_ae City Engineer. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the Planning Commission's action within ten (10) days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION_ (Pi<EV. APPRV.) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2025 (R6nDV.) -- PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ALLAN LOBEL-CANER INVESTMENTS, 220 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: JEFFREY FRIEDEN-SUNWEST MOTORS, 619 N. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped l,arcel of land ccnsisting of approximately 0.6 acre located at the southwest corner of Wilhelmina Street and Anaheim Boulevard, 619-G31 North Anaheim 5oulevard (Sunwest Motors). Request to delete and modify certain conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC86-264 pertaining to an approved automobile sales agency. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 4/27/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PhANNING COMMISSION, APRJ.L 27, 1987 _____ 87-356 18. That a modified cul-de-sac shall be provided at the terminus of Canyon Woods toad prior to the sale of any lot in the tract. 19. That the S.A.V.i. irrigation channel shall be f.illcd with earth to the satisfaction of the City of !~naheim Parks and Recreation department and the City Engineer, by the developer far: the entire Frontage of subject tract prior to l•he sale of any lot in the tract. 20. That security in the form of a bond, %ertificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and Eorm satistarL•ory to the City of Anaheim, ~ha.ll be posted with the City prior tc approval of the final tract map to guar. anr.ee satisfactory completion ,~f Condition Nos. 1, 17, 18 and 19. 21. That all turning radii on the proposed private street sha].1 be subject to approval c~E the Fire Department prior to the final tract map. 22. That trr<=h storage areas shall be constructed in accordance with City speciFi-:ations at the entrance to subject tract at a location approved by the Trati~ic Engineer and the Streets Maintenance and Sanitation Dep~ ~ n++~Tt~. . 23. Ttr< ~:.'-+-~ •?rades at the entrance of subject property shall be subject tc ~.. 1ew arn~ approval by the City Traffic Engineer prior to approval, of r~••- _ ,?~. ~ -act map. 24. ~~-.r •~?~~ City's equestrian trail easement shall be free and clear of any ,_:•,~~,ra~. or other encroachments. The developer shall provide for clear •~~~ ~~~~-~ to the trail easement off of Rio Grande Drive, to the ., _~~action of the City Parks Division, prior to the construction of the •:•~sat-e street to the subdivision. 25. ~''tw~itc ~r_he following features shall be incorporated into the ulti~aate c~*s_g.n of the subdivision and incorporated into the required CC&Rs: a:l Instead of grading large pads for each house, each unit shall be multi-level using planking and stem walls to the extent possible. ~1 Ra aer than mass grading 2:1 slopes, retaining walls shall be i•~talled intermixed with slope landscaping. (c) Design control for the project through the use of CC&Rs s'r:all be implemented. (d) The existing ravine shall remain as presently contoured. 26. That prior to issuance of each building permit, the appropriate major thoroughfare and bridge fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as specified in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the Foothill./Eastern Transportation Corridor, as approved by City Council Resolution No. 85R-423. 4/27/87 87-358 MINU'T'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION-, APRIL 27 1987 Allan Lobel, 98 Baycrest Court, Newport Beach, owner, stated they have a conditional use permit to operate a car dealership on this property and originally applied to have auto repair work on tt~e site which was denied. !ie referred to a letter dated April 27th acknowledging the different conditions which have been fulfilled and the ones which they agree to comply with= and He that the request is to delete t:heRe conditions as specified in the letter. refer~rmitowithoutian expiration datedbecausemitsmakestgetl•ing leasesifromathe use p tenants difficult. Phyllis Boydston, owner of property at 7Q3 N. Anat,eim Boulevard, which is directly north of subject property, stated she was here before when they had all the problems, but they Have cleaned up the problems. She stated the area is being redeveloped because of the street widening and that the peghPestated are operating this business now are helping to maintain the area. theysh~vwould notalikeatodsee thisydenieddandetheapr pertyrwouldkbecome balems and vacant lot and the business is an asset at this time. THE PUBLIC FIEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Lobel responded to Commissioner Messe that they currently have a one-year lease and they would like to have more freedom to negotiate l.ongec leases. Commissioner La Claire stated there have been problems ~ouldacontinueotookeep before, but they have cleaned it up and she hoped they it clean, but she would hesitate to give a conditional use permit without a time limit and suggested a time limit of 3 to 5 years. Mr. 1.obe1 statears 5-year time limit would satisfy him. Commissioner Messe stated it app they have done a good job cleaning up the property. it was noted a Negative Declaration was previously approved in conjunction with this conditional use permit. ACTIOti: Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-97 and moved for its pass~-ge and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby delete and modify certain conditions of ar~proval contained in Planning Commissi~~n Resolution No. PC86-264 pertaining to an automobile sales agency for a pe;:iod of five ye~:~rs and subject to conditions as recommended in the staff re~?ort. On roll gall, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to ttie Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. advised the applicant that while he has a five-year time limit on the conditional use permit, if he wishes to continue the activities and seek extension, he should se~:k that well in advance of the expiration. appeal He an Commissioner La Claire left the meeting and did not return. 4/27/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 27_,__1987 87-359 ITEM NO. 6 F.IR NEGAxIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2906 ~__..+. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MILDRED B. AND T.E. YELLIS, 13680 Cloverdale, Corona, CA 91720. AGENT: W. F. REYNOLDS, 24758 La Grime, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. Prot•~rty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.51 acre located at the southeast. corner of Crescent Avenue and Br.ookhutst Street., 530 North Orookhurst S h eet (Arco Service Station). To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine. Edward H. Stone, al•tucney, 540 Golden Circle, Santa Ana, stated this is a normal application for a conditional use permit and referred to the Code provision to allow this use and stated this would only be a minor. change to the surrounding land uses and there arc no waivers requested and the driveways will be urodified as requested. He stated there are many precedents for granting this type of conditional use. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Mci3urney asked if they would be willing to accept the permit without the right to sell beer and wine. Mr, Stone stated this is a franchise and it will be given t~ an individual and it will be in the typical "Mom and Pop" tradition, and even though the sale of beer and wine is not more than 'l08 of their business, the City of Anaheim requires it be less than 35e, it would make it economically difficult to the franchisee and is necessary for the success of the business. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bcuas and MOTION CARRIED Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine on arectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.51 acre located ak the southeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street and further described as 530 North Brookhurst Street (Arco Service Station); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-98 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2906 on the basis that the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with gasoline sales could create an unsafe driving condition on the City's streets and would be detrimental to the public's peace, health, safety and general welfare. Commissioner Herbst added this location is not very far from Brookhurst Junior High School and he did not think that would be a good site. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 4/27/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION APRIL 27 1987 87-360 AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERFi5T, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Malcolm Slau~jhter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. The following action was taken at the beginning of the meeting. ITEM N0. 7 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2908 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CARL N. AND MARGARET M. KARCHER TRUST, 1200 N. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 9'1805, ATTN: !TUBBY SCHOR. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of la-~d consisting of approximately ? acres located at the northeast corner of Romenya Drive and Harbor Boulevard, 1200 North Harbor Boulevard (Carl's ,1r.). To permit on-sale beer and wine in an exi.~ting restaurant with a drive-through lane. It was noted the petitioner has requested this petition be withdrawn. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Mcgu~ney abstaining) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request to withdraw subject petition. '" N0. ITEM N0. 8 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI. 2909 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: STEWART, GREEN ASSOCIATES, ?.180 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: ELLEN MOON, 2015 E. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 27 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard, 2015 East Lincoln Avenue (Seafood Galley). To permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to :subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Ellen Yoon, applicant, was present to answer any questions. Yung Lee, manager of the restaurant, stated they have daily requests from customers for beer and wine TIIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State Environmental Impact 4/27/87 MINUTES- ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN3 COMMISSIUNy APRIL 27, 1987 87-361 Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-99 and ;noved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2909 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Commih.tee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY. MESSE N0~' ~: NONE ABS::.'T: LA CLAIRE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pre~ented the written right to appeal the Planniny Commission's decision within 2'i days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 9 EIR NEGA`1'IVE DECLARATION, GENERA_~ PLAN AMENDMENT NU. 228, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-32, VARIANCE NO. :1654 AND RE(~UEST FO12 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 9b and 9c PUBLIC HEARING. 0«NERS: WARREN S. LIU, ET AL, 2736-2740 West Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: MAGUY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Blvd., 4680, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately x.62 acres, 2736-2740 West Lincoln Avenue GPA 228 - to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General plan, redesignation from Commercial General to Medium Density residential. CL to RM-1200 or a less intense zone Waivers of (a) permitted encroachment into required yard (deleted), ib) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (c) maximum structural height, (d) maximum site coverage and (e) minimum distance between buildings (deleted), to construct a 111-unit, 3-story affordable apartment complex. There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and alr.hough the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Magdy Hanna, 400 MacArthur Beach, explained they are proposing a 1.11-unit apartment project to replace an existing 26-room motel and recreational vehicle park on this site. He stated the existing zoning is for commercial uses and it would be hard to develop that property for commercial uses because of its limited size. He stated this would be consistent with the land uses in the area and there are apartments in the area. lle stated they will provide parking required and the tandem parking would be assigned to tt•.e individual units, with a pool and recreational area in the center of the project. He stated there is a single-family home on the south side of the property which is about 120 feet from the project and that they have provided one story over subterreanean garages on ttie south. He presented an elevation of the project. 9/27/87 MINUTES, ANAEIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 27, 1987 87-362 Mary Woods, 2726 West Lincoln, stated her property is on tl~e east and she wo~.ald like to have an 8-foot high wall to protect it from the noise and provide protection for the safety of the children. She stated this is a high crime area and there wt11 be more and more people and also, she would like to know if there will be trees on the east side L•o provide privacy. She added she is worried about the parking. Janet Valadez, 2726 W. Lincoln, stated she would really appreciate an 8-foot high wall on the east side and explained there are four houses on that side. Mr. Hanna stated they are proposing a 6-foot high wall on the east side and would be happy to provide an 8-foot high wall. He explained there will be trees and plants and there is a setback of app r.oximately 2U feet from the building to the wall. THE PUBLIC HEARING WA+ Ci.OSED. Chairman McBurney stated hP did receive a post card from Jack Schmidt, 2731 W. Lola, indicating his opposition. Commissioner Messe asked if there will be an on-site manager. Mr. Hanna stated this will be managed by a management company, and there will be an manager and assistant manager. on site. Chairman McBurney stated this is a well done project and the waivers are minimal and the house is about 120 feet away from the second story portion of the project. Debbie Vagts, Leasing Supervisor, stated the petitioner has signed an agreement with the Housing Authority and the Planning Commission has usually requested a 20-year term. She explained the applicant selected 10$ of the units at 508 of the median income, which would be nine units. Mr. Hanna stated he would agree to the 8-foot high wall, but that might require another variance. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated actually, a var.ance would be required, but in some instances, Planning staff has approved an 8-foot high wall, if all the adjacent property owners who will have the wall adjacent to their property, have ag.eed to the height, materials, design and style of the wall and have signed an agreement. Mr. Hanna stated that would be acceptable. Chairman McBurney stated a condition sho~ild ~e added that an 8-foot high wall shall be constructed along the eastern propect}' line acceptable to the developer and adjacent property owners. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARkIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-1200 (Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 3-story, 111-unit affordable apartment complex under authority of State Government Section 65915 with waivers of permitted encroachment into 4/27/87 5 MINU'1!ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMT.SSIUN APRIL 27 1987 87-363 required front yard (deleted), minimum buiding site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, maximum site coverage, and minimum distance between buildings (deleted) on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.62 acres, having a frontage of approximately 190 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 2736-2740 West Lincoln Avenues and dogs hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that i.t has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review pror.ess and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Iierbst offered Resolution No. PC87-100 and moved for its passage and adoar_i.on that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that rht City Council. approve General Plan Amendment No. 228, Exhibit A. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: I,A CLAIRE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-101 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3654 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property etch as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of. privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmenta: Committee recommendations, including a condition that an 8-foot high block wall be constructed on the east property line, acceptable to all neighbors abutting said wall and further that a signed agreement shall be submitted to the planning Department. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERB5T, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner eouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the Anaheim City Council review Reclassification No. 86-87-32 and Variance No. 3654 in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 228. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Herbst asked staff to re-evaluate the zoning along Lincoln which is now commercial to determine whether or not it might be more suitable for residential uses. 4/27/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONS APRIL 27, 1987 87-364 RECESSED: 2;15 p.m., following the hearing on Item No. 1. RECONVENED: 2:25 p.m. IT.h;M N0. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 281, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. 2'23, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-19 AND PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN AND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND REQUF,ST FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF lOc PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DL ENTERPRISES, LTD., 1535 E. Or•zngewood, M219, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: JIM DENNEHY. Property described as approximately 591 acres located 1.1 miles southeast of the Weir Canyon Road and Riverside Freeway intersection and bounded on the north by ttre Wallace Ranch, west by the Anaheim Hills property, and south and east by the Irvine Company property (Oak Hills Ranch). GPA 22:i To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of tiie General Plan with proposals including but not limited to hillside low density residential, hillside low-medium density residential, hillside medium density residential, general commercial and general open space. RECLASSIFICATION: OS(SC) to PC(SC) or a less intense zone to provide for the development of 2,176 residential units (30 acres of commercial use, 166 acres of open space, an 13 acre park site and a lU acre elementary school. Public Facilities Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis Eor the proposed Oak Hills Ranch. Continued Erom the meetings of February 2, March 2, April 13, and April 20, 1987. There was one person indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. J. Ikeda, agent, sL•ated they Sad a brief chance to review the revised conditions as proposed by staff and, in general, they reflect what has been discussed previously. Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, explained staff did revise the conditions to reflect their understanding of Commission's previous discussions and those have been circulated; however, there are the following corrections: Condition Na. 9 is a new condition added by staff and is a standard condition prohibiting r~aoc-mounted equipment. Condition No. 26 should be amended to read: "That prior to approval of the spec `.fir plan, including any tentative tract or parcel map, property owner/developer shall provide the City with proof of an arterial highway right-of-way across Wallace Ranch; thereby, permitting the property owner/developer to extend Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue through the Wallace Ranch by providing access to the Oak Hills Ranch. Condition No. 27 should be amended to read: "That prior to approval of each specific plan including each tentative tract or parcel map, the property 4/27/87 87-365 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI_ ON- APRIL 27 1987 owner/developer shall provide a traffic study to assess the level of service and intersection capacity......" Condition No. 35 should be amended to read: "That all public residenkial streets shall be designed in accordance with City standards and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to each tentative tract or parcel map approval," Condition No. 44 should be amended to read: "That for on-site roadways and traffic signals, bonding shall be Furnished as part of in-tract improvements. Bonding Eor any off-site road extension stall be furnished at the time of the issuance o[ the first building permit to ensure completion of construction prior to occupancy of. the first dwelling unit". Condit ion No. 90 should be amended to read: "That pr for to approval of each final parcel or r.ract map, the property owner/developer shall provide grading, sewer, water, rm drain and s;:reet improvement plans, sub ject for review and approval by the Public Utilities Department. Scheduling and funding for the backbone system electrical utility costs shall be determined to the satisf action of the Electrical Engineering Division." Condition No. 95 should t:e amended to read: "Tina; all electrical facilit ies shall he located within public streets and easements dedicated with the recoc elation of final maps. The conduit system with associated concrete rnanho lee and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or capacitors shall be in metal cabinets above-ground mounted on concrete pads. She further stated anew condition should be added to read: "That prior to approval of the first Specific Plan, including any tentative tract or parcel map nor any portion of the subject property, the property owner/developer shall conduct a feasibiliL•y study for relocating the Four Corners Pipeline to be reviewed and approved by the City of F,naheim. Said study shall be at the expense of the owner/develops[. Further, costs associated with the actual relocation of the pipeline, including any necessary easements and/or permits assoc fated therewith, shall be the responsibility of the owner/developer . She stated staff recommended this condition be added because there is no provision in the conditions for tY~e actual relocation of the pipeline. Mr. Ikeda stated they generally concur with the revised conditions, but would like to discuss a few. He referred to Condition No. 46 and added they understood that they would participate in looking at an overall traffic study and determine which improvements would be beneficial to the Oak Hills Ranch and pay their proportionate share, but this condition specifically indicates the widening of Fairmont Road and it was their understanding that that would be left out . Paul Singer , Traffic Engineer, stated this conditic i also appeared in the High lands project and it refers to the entire area traffic impact problems. Chairman Mc Burney stated the condition does require that they financially participate in the construction and thought that was the same condition. included in the Highlands project and thought it was the same thing they agreed to. 4/27/87 87-36G MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 27 19P7 Malcolm Slaughter stated it is nice to say that the developer wants to only pay their proportionate share of costs and irtpcovements, but that assumes that somebnciy else will be develops:~g it and ir, is his understanding that this study will define the impacts QE this particular development and if those impacts are such that they need mitigation, such as widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road, then that should be included as a condition of approva 1 of. this project. He added, however, if the developer can demonstrate that those improvements will be a benefit to other properties and if. they Eton t the coats, they can seek a reimbu r Bement agreement to be ceimbuositiono to assumeer owners when they develop. He stated the City is not in a p that if this development goes ahead, that any of the other developments would, and if this developer should bear only one third of the costs, he did riot know who would pay the remainder two-thirds, iE the other ranches are not developed simultaneously. Mr . Singer slated the Condit i an is included as well in the H igki.lands project and this study pertains to t h e circulation of tt~e entire Anaheim Hills area and that all the EIR's are b a Bed on the fact that all those roads will eventually be built, but then a has been no Financial plan prepared foe the roads which at the present t i me are deE icient and this condition seeks to satisfy that portion of the EIR mitigation measure. Jim Dennehy stated their traf=fir study showed the primary traffic from Oak Hills Ranch would be going down Weir Canyon Road to the freeway and that is the same for the Highlands and Wallace Ranch; that Santa Ana Canyon Road is widened from Fairmont east to Weir Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road to the easL• has very little imp act from their developments. Commissioner Herbst asked if the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road is from Lakeview east to Weir Canyon Mr. Singer responded that is corcec t. Commissioner Herbst stated h e does not expect one developer to widen that street and then ask for reimbursement. Mr. Singer stated it has to be a cumulative effort on the par': of the three ranch developer.'s and the City. He stated that road has to ~P ....~...~i or no one will be able to move in the area and he did not l,acticularl~r agree that traffic from Oak Hills will use Weir Canyon Road or Santa Ana Ca; yon do~clnps exclusively and the traffic impact in the entire area is very Bev e[e a-:~ to be mitigated. He stated the state will also be participating and added the env ironm~.ntal impact report for this project specifically addresses some of these problems. Comer aioner Herbst, stated people from Riverside County are creating a large problem. He stated it is hard for him to visualize even the three ranch developer having the expense of widening Santa Ana Canyon Road and everyone else should participate. M r, Singer stated he is requesting a financial plan be worked out so that it can be accomplished and he is not saying this developer should widen that road, but is suggesting a plan be prepared jointly between the three ranch developer to determine how the street is going to be built and it does not have to be just for the three ranches and that the City will certainly have to par ticipate. 4/27/87 MINU'fES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 27, 1987 87-36'1 Chairman McBurney stated hr. did not think traffic from these three canches would have any impact at t1~e fir at final parcel or tentative map because these would not be any houses. Commissioner eouas stated tt:e City wants the study t o show what is going to happen when it is built. Chairman McBurney stated tt~e EIR stated the study will be done after the map is recorded to find out what impact the development has had. Mary McCloskey stated part of the problen was that under the cumulative impact analysis of the EIR, in many cases, it assumed same of the areawide improvements were already in and the studies were based on that assumption. Mr. Dennehy stated he did not say the traffic from t his project will be using Weir Canyon exclusively, but from looking at the project location, it is very unlikely that the majority of their traffic would be going past Imperial or to Lakeview and that the improvements for Santa Ana Can yon Road are already from Fairmont to Weir Canyon Road. He stated they do not mind participating, but their impact would be minimal. Chairman McBurney stated it was thought the same thing when the Kaufman & Broad tracts sere built, but it seems everybody is getting off the freeway and using Santa Ana Canyon Roa~9 and that is a concern. He stated he wants to make sure this condition does not put 'he expense on any one developer. Mr. Singes .~ ~ted Identical condition was included on the Highlands project. Frank E .' .~d, Elf~.nd ano Associates, stated he thought the intent of the c~:~nditii,~~ was to get a plan prepared identifying funding sources and it has always been his understanding that the responsibility will be on some proportionate basis. Chaicman McBurney stated he wa s sure that is the intent, but wanted it on the record that some funding mechanism would be undertaken by all the ranch developers to participate in this and it would not be one developer's expense. Mr. Dennehy stated the problem is bigger than the canches and involves the whole Anaheim Hills area and that would include industrial and commercial development also. Chairman McBurney stated it seems this condition will have to remain. Mr. Ikeda stated he would like to see it read rather than "shall include" to be "may include" because they do not know the extent of their impact. Chairman McBurney stated it should remain "shall". Mr. Singer stated he will review this condition with the Highlands, Oak Hills and Wallace Ranch representatives and work out the wording so that it is correct and to determine how the study can be conducted. He stated he is not requesting a capital improvement, but a study to id entify availability of funding to make those improvements. Mr. Ikeda :=:.xt ~d with that clarification, they can accept the condition. 4/27/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 27 1987 87-3G8 Mr. Ikeda referred to Condition No. 47 and asked if it i.mpliea that the attest maintenance facility is to go on the Oak Hills Ranch and stated it was their understanding from previous discussions, it could be located anywhere in the easte:•n portion of the Canyon, easterly of the Elighlande property. Chairman McBurney stated the site Rhould be selecL•ed and is it is not used, other alternatives would be considered and i~ would either be on Oak Hills property or easterly. Ile stated the site will be approved by the Director of Maintenance and it. is probably their intent to have it on the Oak Hills Ranch. Mr. Ikeda stated they will work with the Street Maintenance Department. Mr. Dennehy asked if the Street Maintenance Facility was considered on the golf course property, with Chairman McBurney responding that it was discussed, but it was determined that was not really a good location. Mr. Ikeda stated Cor.9ition No. 51 refers to the Highlands project and they would like that ehangc~d to Oak Hills. Macy McCloskey agreed that would be changed. Mr. Ikeda referred to Condition No. 100 and Stated they still have some problems in that it implies that they would have to maintain and provide liability insurance for those areas in the public riyht-of-way. Commissioner Bouas stated when the trails become County property, they will be maintained by the county and the County will assume liability. Mary McCloskey stated Condition No. 100 refers to the medians and parkways. Chairman McBurney stated that condition refers to liability responsibility and he has a problem with the homeowners being l=able for a public. right-of-way. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, state t`:is condition has been carried out in all tracts in Anaheim Hills area where there are parkways adjacent to slopes that are being maintained by homeowner's associations requiring them to maintain those parkways at the toe and tap of the slopes. Chairman McBurney stated the condition refers to all medians. Jay Titus stated the City does not desire any medians in the streets, except Weir Canyon Road, and the condition is s~ ~ if the developer wants medians, they should maintain them. Mr. Ikeda stated they would accept that condition. Mary McCloskey stated a set of conditions has just be~~ submitted by the Parks Department requesting 11 new conditions which they would like to have included. She stated the developer has also received the memorandum. Mr. Ikeda stated they have a problem with relocation of the Four Corners Pipeline. Commissioner Fry asked why the pipeline can't go through the park, indicating he did not see a problem because it is still open space. Mr. Ikeda skated the Four Corners Pipeline crosses their entire property, s~~ any location has to be done in conjunction with the Four Corners Pipeline sand they would like to work with the Parks Department to find a resolution. ~, .: ,'87 MINU'PES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL__27,_1987 87-369 Jack Kudron, Parks Superintendent, stated the Parks Department is not fully aware of all the encumbrances that come with a pipeline easement such as this, but are very concerned without having specifics about what the pipeline location might do to their ability to design a useful park site and to be able to have a site that keeps the easement Erea of trees, any buildings and also any subterranean structures such as sewer lines, irrigation, mainlines, etr,. He stated the pipeline would be from 5 to 7 feet below surface and could have very drastic effects on their ability to design and maintaln the park site. Commissioner Fry stated they could plant grass over it. Chairman McBurney stated it will be more appropriate in a park than throu~~h a residential subdivision. Mr. Kudron stated he did not think it would be allnwed to go through a residential subdivision. Chairman McBurney stated there is no way L•o put it entirely in a public right-of-way because the lineal Footage would be exorbitant and 1E it can't be in open space or a park site, it would have to be in a residential subdivision. Mr. Kudron stated their position is that they do not Eeel there has been enough exploration of other alternatives and they are very concerned, from a liability standpoint, with a high pressure jet fuel pipeline coming through a public area and about the possibility of some type of break to the pipeline requiring the park to be closed to the public. He stated tie did not think they have enough information to allow the park site to be intruded by the pipeline. He stated they would like to see a feasibility study prepared in terms of alternative sites and be subject to their approval prior to the first tentative tract map and that this has been mentioned to Mr. Dennehy. Chairman McBurney asked if they would be willing to work wikh the Four Corners Pipeline representatives to see if they can't come to an understanding which would allow it to be within the park site. Mr. Kudron stated he is not prepared to say they will allow it in the pack site, but has indicated a willingness to work with the owner/developer and the Four. Corners Pipeline representatives and the Wallace Ranch owner/developer to find a suitable alternative. He stated khe Parks Department's position is that the pipeline relocation is really a City issue and they can see various alternatives impacting different portions of this development and they strongly believe, as was conditioned by the Planning Department, that there be some type of feasibility study on the pipeline prior to any tentative tract map because of the potential impacts on the development. Commissioner Messe sL•ated the condition does not allow any alternatives and states the pipeline must be ou'aide the park boundary. Commissioner Fry stated he would accept Condition 6 if the first sentence is eliminated and Commissioner Messe agreed. Malcolm Slaughter stated there is no information about the terms and conditions of the easement and it is entirely possible that the Four Corners Pipeline Company reserves unto themselves and precludes the transfer of the use of that property for even a park. He stated he assumes the developer thinks they can dedicate it for a public park. 4/27/87 MINU'PES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL_ 27_, 1987 87-370 Mr. Ikeda stated in their discussions with the Four Corners Company, they indicated they want to be able to have access, if something does happen, so they will restrict any building structure or trees which gave roots, but their preference is to have it in a public right-oE-way. He stated a parking lot would be acceptable over the ease,,~nt. Chairman Mc[urney asked if Mr. Kudron would be willing to remove the first sentence of Condition No. 6. Mr. Kudron stated that is the Parks Department's position at this time and that is the position that needs to be taken. He stated they have nok received any information from the developer about the pipeline and really don't know and until they have something more specific, he would not be willing to make that stipulation. He stared he is not r3aying they are not willing to work with other alternatives, but right now their position is that alternatives need to be explored, keeping the pipeline away from the park boundary. Commissioner Messe suggested the condition worded that the feasibility Study must be approved by the Parks Department and if that would be acceptable. Mr. Kudron stated that would be acceptab.e and he is trying to say that they would like to see a strong effort to keep the pipeline out of the park and felt in !keeping the language in the condition, there would be some credible effort to find alternative routes Ear the pipeline. Commissioner Bouas stated if thzy cannot Eind an alternative park site, they might go back to the origint~ park site. Mr. Kudron stated they have worked bard to find a way to accept this park site and the letter represents a great deal of compromise. He stated this is the park site proposed which has had the Four Corners Pipeline i.n all along and they have indicated ~~11 slang they were concerned and would like to have some information about that easement, but as yet, have not seen anything. Commissioner Herbst staked the pipeline goes all through Anaheim Hills and he assumed it goes under the City's rights-of-way and that we have been working around it for years and much of the public's street system is over it. Malcolm Slaughter stated there is a substantial difference between having public streets over the pipeline and having it in a public park which might be occupied for extended periods of time with children having classes, etc. Chairman McBurney asked who would be responsible for the pipeline if there was a problem with it in the public right-of-way. Malcolm Slaughter stated there are al, kinds of considerations regarding liability and iE there was an explosion and it is in a City park, the City will be named in the lawsuit, even th~'~^~ it may not be determined to be the City's liability ultimately. He stated if the Parks Department dug a trench and struck the pipeline and caused it to explode, etc., the City would be held liable. Chairman McBurney suggested the condition be worded that an agreement be worked out between the owner/developer, City of Anaheim and the pipeline company that is acceptable to the Parks Department. 4/27/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 27, 1987 87-371 Commissioner Fry stated it i.s desirable to have the pipeline off the park site, but to have a mandatory condition is not possible because it may not be feasible at this time. He stated he does not want that sentence left in, and if the pipeline has to be out of the park site, then the park site can be reduced. Mr. Ikeda stated they are making a strong effort to reach a resolution on the location of the Four Cocners Pipeline and would be happy to work with the Parks Department and the Four Corners representatives. He stated L•he depth of the pipeline does not have to be restricted to 5 to 7 feet below the surface and it is much deeper in some places. Frank Elf end referred to Condition 24 and asked exactly what it means in terms of the extension of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano. Paul Si~yger stated the intention is that when Oak Hills develops, all construction traffic will enter the project Erom Weir Canyon Road/Serrano rather than Canyon Rim/Anaheim Hills area. Mr. Glfend asked iE the first phase of development requires the extension of Weir Canyon Road to the boundary of Oak Hills Ranch. Paul Singer stated that condition requires tl'~at prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/ developer shall construct an access to the Oak Hills development via the ~4e:i.c Canyon Road/Serrano Avenue connection. Mr. Elf end asked if Weir Canyon Road has to be extended to the boundary. Mr. Singer stated Weir Canyon Road does nom have to be extended an access has to be obtained from the existing Weir Canyon Road to Oak Hills Ranr:h. Mr. Elf end referred to a letter just received from the Parks Department dated April 27th and Item No. 6 says the owner/developer shall work with the pipeline company and Wallace Ranch owner/developer and the City to develop a feasibility study. He stated the Wallace Ranch developer reference should be eliminated because the Four. Corners Pipeline does not exist within any development area of the Wallace Ranch, nor does it go through the park site and they do not intend to relocate it. He explained the pipeline is located along the southern boundary of an open spa~~ or slope area, so there would nut be any need fo• them to be involved. Mr. Kudron suggested the Wallace Ranch be involved because currently the proposed pipeline alignment by Oak Hills Ranch runs along the southern boundary of the Wallace Ranch and it has been their intent to locate the park site required by Wallace adjacent to, and compatible with, the Oak Hills park site and they have not properly studied alternatives for the pipeline location and the Wallace developer needs to be involved. Mr. Elf end stated they can be involved in the study, but they would not be participating and since it is not on their site right now, it seems unlikely that they would want to relocate it onto their site. Amador Gonzalez, 11729 Mitchell, Irvine, representing Woodcrest Development, stated the Four Corners Pipeline is along the southern boundary of the property, but the easement i.s on the Oak HilJ.s property, so the pipeline is not in the easement and encroaches 30 feet onto their property and within 1100 feet or just below Serrano, it goes southerly into the Oak Hills. He stated 4/27/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 27, 1987 _ 87-372 they could go to Four Corners Pipeline Company and say "get it off our property because it is not within tt~e easement", but they have no problem with it staying where it is currently located. Chairman McBurney asked if they would be willing to discuss it with the Oak Hills developer and the Eour Corners Pipeline Company as to where it should be placed. Mr. Gonzalez stared as long as it is not on their property, he would have no problem discussing it with them. Malcolm Slaughter stated the condition is imposing the obligation on Oak Hills to work with the Four Corners Pipeline, Wallace Ranch representatives and the City and if the Wallace Ranch representatives do nit want to discuss it, the 'Oak Hills Representatives can come back and say they don't want to talk about it. He added he did not know why Wallace representatives are opposed to something being proposed on Oak Hills. Mr. Elfend stated the last sentence says the feasibility study must be approved by the City prior to the submittal of the first tentative tract map and since the pipeline is not a constraint on their property, they would not want it to slow down the processing of their project; however, the way it was discussed would be acceptable. Mr. Elfend referred to access of the park site referred to in the letter prepared by the Parks and Recreation Department and stated at the last hearing they received a copy of a site plan provided by the consultant to pak Hills, identifying the location of an acce:~s into the park site. He pcesented a map to the Commission and pointed out it provides only one access to the Oak Hills property and dogs not provide access to the Wallace Ranch property and this obviously was a concern to them since they had anticipated two access points into Area 11 on the Preliminary Land Use Plan. Chairman McBurney stated Wallace Ranch can propose their own access. Mr. Elfend stated two accesses to Area 11 were proposed and two access points were to be provided and included in Condition No. 23. He stated that access shown is not a problem, providing there would be dual access opportunities and they would be allowed to bring a road from that access point up to the Wallace Ranch. He stated subsequently he spoke with Mr. Singer and they did discuss a dual access to be provided to service the Wallace Ranch, the park and Oak Hills and although it is not shown, he wanted to be sure that an access is provided to the Wallace Ranch. Mr. Singer stated he has had a problem getting to talk to these two property owners; that he did meet with Dick Mayer of the Parks Department and Mr. Dennehy, but has not had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Elfend regarding the park site access and he needs to get everyone together to decide how it will be accomplished, but he has no doubt that a mutual access point and mutual configuration satisfactory to everyone can be ohtained from a single point. Mr. Elfend stated that is fine as long as it is understood that there will be mutual access from that point. Mr. Ikeda asked about Condition 24 and asked if they have to bring Weir Canyon Road up to their property line or whether they would bring Weir Canyon Road 4/27/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 27~ 1987 87-373 and porrio~r; thereof to the intersection of Serrano and bring Serrano up to their property line. Mr. Singer stated they have to bring in a connecting road to the Oak Hills Ranch in order to develop it, with preliminary access to be from Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road in the beginning and how it is accomplished and brought to the Oak Nills Ranch doesn't really matter, but it could be a portion of Weir Canyon and then to Serrano or Weir Canyon to Serrano, but it eventually has to go in. He stated it needs to be brought in from SanrA Ana Canyon Road rather than from Canyon Rim Road because of the disturbance of const.~ction traffic on a very long residential street and another. reason is the ne?d for fire service in the area. Mr. Dennehy stated they are clarifying that what they have talked about regarding access from taking Serrano a.il the way to Weir Canyon Road and connecting to where Weir Canyon is now is satisfactory to thEm and they are not discussing Weir Canyon Road frorn the intersection of Serrano. Chairman McBurney clarified it is just access from Santa Ana Canyon Road to Oak Hills Road via a portion of Weir Canyon and on up Serrano. Mr. Ikeda stated they ace willing to work with the Parks Department and the Wallace Ranch representatives to develop access to the park to the mutual satisfaction of everyone. Jeff Race, County Parks and Recreation, stated he appreciates Mr. Dennehy's concern regarding the grading problems having to do with the North Peak and added he does feel it does have the most spectacular views. He stated the County Board of Supervisors has requested the full dedication of Parcel D and the County feels the citizens of Anaheim and all of Orange County would best be served by preserving the North Peak as a viewpoint, but the peak is just one element of the 45-acre dedication; that the headwaters of Weir Canyon do act as a wildlife movement corridor and that is another ma jar factor and the dedication of the wildlife movement corridor in the watershed area would allow that watershed to be maintainer'. and would be a logical extension of the park and residential development. He stated the natural berm at the fenceline they saw this morning really provides a natural dividing line between what should be in the pack and what should be developed. He stated any dedication being considered should definitely include that area and th~~~ watershed and upper portion of Weir Canyon. THE PCBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe referred to the peak the Commission climbed today which he thought was on the Highlands property which was 1200 feet high. He stated he was told that that peak is not within the dedication to the County from the Highlands property. There was dialogue in the audience between Mr. Race and Mr. Elf end identifying the peak being referred to. Mr. Elf end stated there is about 129 acres in Open Space Exchange which was negotiated and agreed to and 99$ of that area would be left in open space and that area would be dedicated to the County, but there was one area which, in order to provide for development, would require some cutting and it would be cut and then cut back providing for no visible development from Weir Canyon Regional Park and the viewshed area. He responded to Commissioner Herbst that it will be cut from the top by maybe 50 4/27/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 27, 1997 87-374 to 75 Eeet. Mr. Elf end stated that is the end of the viewshed aria and the most prominent viewshed for a park, based on their studies, was really more towards the westerly portion of that r.idgeline area than the easterly portion. Mr. Race stated the County realized there be would back cut condition, but the viewshed from the park would not be impacted because everything that would be seen from the park would be a natural condition. Commissioner Bouas stated the Commission is discussing looking Duet the Anaheim and Anaheim Hills area in the other direction from Weir Canyon and that is where the cut would be and there would be no construction in that area. Mr. Elf end stated depending on where you are standing from Canyon Rim and Serrano, the development woul~? not be seen because it would be on the back side of the ridge, away from the Anaheim Eiills Planned Community atea. fie explained the houses will sit dawn underneath the hill and not be visible. Mr. Race stated when the top of the peak is back-cut, it would bring it to a point on the top and there would not be any flat pad area. Chairman McBurney stated that will be contour graded, according to the City's requirements, so there would not be a flal• slope from either side. Mr. Elf end presented an exhibit showing there will be about 70 feet of grading. He stated the cross section indicates the homes would not be visible from the park. Commissioner Herbst stated his only comment would be the changes in the applicant's amended plan regarding the 600+ single-family homes versus 1500 apartments or condominiums and 3500-square toot lots and asked if that would be in the RS-5000 areas with zero lot lines. He asked what is planned i-~ the 1525 homes. Mr. Dennehy stated they do not have specific plans for that area and would have to come back in with Specific Plans. He added Commission will have another opportunity to review the developments. Commissioner Herbst stated once the General Plan Amendment is adopted, people think it is specific. Mr. Dennehy stated they have changed what they are requesting for the first phase and tried to orient it towards single-family units and when they get down to specifics, they would be happy to show the Commission some of the examples they are considering. Commissioner Herbst stated there are some places that should remain estate zoning such as the Hidden Canyo-t Area and estate density is being eliminated and there is room for a certain amount of it. Mr. Dennehy stated they could probably put 50 units in the regional park site area, but had to make adjustments and dedications for the City park and also for the Fish and Game Department. He stated the market for estate development is limiL•ed and they felt the first phase should be oriented towards single-family upgraded to larger lots. He stated the General Plan is flexible. Mary McCloskey stated the Public Facilities Plan has not been amended and if the Commission approves this project today, staff should be directed to amend it to refleck the changes to the conditions of approval. 4/27/67 1987 87-375 MINUTE5- ANAHF,IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 27r - ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner L~awicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that after considerir-g Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 281 foc the proposed Genera]. Plan Amendment and Planned Community Zone for Oak Flills Ranch and reviewing 281, evidence, both written and oral, presented to supplement Draft ETR No. the Planning Commission does hereby find that EIR No. 281 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and City GuidelinesitonbeLbothEunavoidableiandtadversehin£naturenandmnottfullych are considered mitigated to a level of insignificance: o Development will remove significant biological habitat including areas of high, modecate and low sensitivity. o Fire service access must be provided through Weir Canyon Road or Serrano Avenue. In addition, unless the Serrano Avenue is developed linking Temporary Fire Station No. 9 to the border of Oak Hills Ranch prior to the development of Oak Hills Ranch, response time L•or paramedic units to Oak Hills Ranch may be approximately 10 minutes. o Vehicular trips and energy consumption generated by uses on-si.te will produce air pollutant emissions and will be cumulatively significant in combination with other similar developments in the air basin. o Development will alter 88~ of the natural topography and will potentially impact views from off-site including Weir Canyon, open space areas on the Irvine property to the south and in the Highlands property to the w~Qt. o Proposed land uses will consume energy when considered in combination with other developments in the region. ~ proposed land uses in the southwestern portion of the site do not conform to the County of Orange General Plan which calls for dedication of 45+ acres to the County for inclusion in the proposed Weir Canyon. that the benefits of the AND, FURTHER that the Planning Commission finds project have been balanced against the unavoidable environmental impacts and, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15093 of tt~e State CEQA Guidelines, the occurrence of the significant environmental effects identified in EIR No. 281 as set forth above, may be permitted withorit furthec mitigation due to the following overriding considerations: (1) Economic, social and physical considerations make it infeasible to eliminate all of significant environrental. impacts of the project which have been identified in EIR No. 281; (2) Such env icon mental impacts will be reduced by compliance with City codes, policies and procedures, (3) The project will briny substantial benefits to the citizens of Anaheim by providing employment and permitting the development of a variety of high-quality residential densities and unlt types to assist in meeting demands for housing, (4) Mitigation measures have been incorpacated into the project to reduce the majority of environmental impacts to an acceptable level. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify ti;nvironmental Impact Report No. 281 for the Oak Hills Ranch Planned Community Zone and General Plan Amendment and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4/27/67 MINUTEST ANAHF,IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 27 ,_ 1987 87-376 Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-103 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Gity Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 223 - Land Use Element Exhibit A amended. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote: AYES: BOU~~S, FRY, HERBST, I,AWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-104 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant ReclassiEfcation No. 86-87-19 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations as amended by staff and the Planning Commission excluding the First sentence in the recommende~3 Condition No. 6 from the Parks Department because they do not think it is necessary at this time. Commissioner Fry stated also, he would like to add that the 45-acre dedication requested by the County for the regional park be changed to the 15 to 20 acres proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Herbst stated in reviewing the site this morning, it is his opinion that that area is one of the areas that needs to be graded for safety and that peak is unstable and is a sandstone hill and that necessary grading to make it safe would be at the expense of the taxpayers. Commissioner Fry stated access to the park should be reviewed by the Parks Department as discussed. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does instruct staff to amend the Public Facilities Plan to reflect the conditions of approval. Mr. Kudron clarified whether or not there would be any dedication to the County with Chairman McBurney stating the dedication should be as called for on the General Plan. Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend the approval of the Public Facilities Plan, as amended to reflect conditions of approval. Commissioner Fry offered a moti~~;,r seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that City Council review Items lOc and lOd in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment No. 'L 23 and Environmental Impact Report No. 28i. 4/27/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 27 1987 87-377 Chairman Mcf3urney thanked everyone for attending '''R meeting. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City attorney, stated the Commission's decision will automatically be heard by the city Council since it was the Commission's reyuest. Malcolm Slaughter [eminded the Commission that they t:ad discussed ad~uurnin~ this meeting to 9:30 a. m. at the next meeting, in order to discuss transportation system management programs. O'PHER DISCUSSION: Chairman McBurney stated he had reviewed the video of thA City Council's hearing regarding the proposed church on E'airmont F3oulevard and that the information presented way not the same information the Commission toad Been and tie felt the matter should have been referred back to the Planning Commission and that a different decision might have been made. Malcolm Slaughter stated it is true it was essentially a newt .ring and that is because the Code allows the City Council to hear anything that is presented and it does not necessarily mean the evidence teas been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council must consider the evidence presented and that is typical of every zoning application. tte stated the Planning Commission could request that the City Council, fn cases like that, refer the matter back to them Eor review of the new evidence or information. PUBLIC INPUT: There was no one indicating a desire to discuss any other matter with the Commission. ADJOURNED: The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. to May 11, 1987, 9:30 a.m. for a special work session to discuss the transportation system management with the City Traffic Engineer. Respectfully submitted .Q~ E ith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH: lm 0252m 4/27/87