Loading...
Minutes-PC 1987/06/22*~ REGULAR MEETING UP 'ri{E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING Cc)MMISSIUN MTNUTE5 - June 2l, 198'1 ~- The regular meeting of the Anaheim City E~lanniny Commission was called to order by Chairman McEiurney al lU:UU a.m., .June 2'l, 1987, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. ftECONVENF:D: 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANT SEAT: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: Mc[iurney Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Lawicki, Messe Cornrnissioners: none one Annika Santalahti Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titus Paul Singer Debbie Fank Debbie Vagts Grey Hastings Le~nar.d McGhee Edith Harcis zoning Administrator Deputy City Attorney Office Engineer 'traffic Engineer Assistant Traffic Engineer Leasing Supervisor Senior Planner Associate Planner Planning Commission Secretary AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 4:3U p,m., June 18, .1987, inside the foyer windows and in the display case located in the lobby of the Council Chamber. PRESEN'!'A'rIUN BY WILDAN OF TRAFFIC 5'rUUY: 10:00 a.m. - Minutes of this presentation are following minutes of the regular meeting. MIN-JTES FUR APPE20VAL - Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and ~10'rION CARRIED (one vacant seat and Commissioner Messe abstaining) that the minute: of the meetings of May 11, :rnd '•i:ry ?7,1987, be approved as submitted. PUBLIC INPUT -• Chairman McBUrney explained at the end of the agenda any member of ttie public would be allowed to discuss any matter of interest within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, or any agenda item. ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER_OF CODE REQUIREMENT ANU CUNDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2898 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: IRINEO YUVIENCU AND CELES'rINA YUVIENCG, 1941 E. Center Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: GENE ICASIANO, 3460 'Ailshire Blvd., #1015, Los Angeles, CA 9UUlU, CHRISTIAN R. QUIMPO, "1555 E. Chapman, Suite 712, Fullerton, CA 92631. Property described as ar- irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.63 acre, 1941 East Center Street (Hacienda Christian Rest Home). -436- .~.. ,~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSIONI JUNE 22, 1987 __ - 87-437 To expand a rest home from a maximum capacity of 3'l persons to 46 persons with waivers of permitted location of parking spaces, minimum n~imber of parking spaces and minimum rear yard setback. Continued from the meetinys of March 16, April 13 and May 11, 1987. AC'.CIUN: Commissioner Boua3 offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nerbst and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2898 be withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. ITEM tJO. 'L EIR NEGA`1`IVE DECLARATION WAIVER UE CUDE REQUIREMENT ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMI`P NU. 2899 PUBLIC IiEARTNG. OWNERS: ERNES'P MARRUSO, P.O. Box 9758, Glendale, LA 91206. AGENT: EOODMAKER, INC., 9040 Telstar, E1 Monts, CA 91731, A'r'PN: IRVUN CLEAR. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.66 acre, 2210 South Narbor Boulevard (,Jack-In-Tire-Box). To retain a drive-through restaurant with waiver of -ninimum number of parking spaces. There was one person indicating his presence; however, he stated he was not opposed to subject request and would like to make a co-nment• and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Irvon Clear, agent, explained the request is for a variance for the 18 parking spares on the adjacent property which they are required to have through a reciprocal parking agreement. lie explained they did submit a traffic study which indicated the 18 spaces ace not needed and he thought the City Traffic Engineer agreed with that decision. William Jennings, representing Toys "it" Us, which is located adjacent to the south, stated when this was originally approved in 1980, the eighteen additional parking spaces were required off-site and they did enker into an agreement with the owner of the property for reciprocal parking for those 18 spaces and the Toys "R" Us representatives were never consulted and they did not agree to the use of those 18 spaces. He stated that agreement has resulted in litigation with the settlement just recently reached and both parties agreed to cancel that agreement, providing the Planning Commission relieves them of the obligation to retain those 18 spaces. Mr. Jennings stated he had lunch at the Jack-In-The-Box restaurant today and when he was there, there were 11 cars in the parking lot and the traffic study indicated the number provided is sufficient and apparently, the Traffic Engineer agrees, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Ery stated tre thought this is a logical request and he would have no problem with approval. 6/22/87 ,i,, MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANN,INC; COMMISSION, JUNE 121, 1987 - _ dl-438 Chairman Mck3urney stated he though l• approval could be precedent setting, but could go along with approval becaune of the way' the restaurant is situated ir, the shopping center with c,ther spaces available, but he did not want to see other East- food restaurants requesting varianr_es this day. I.eo Monson, attorney for Fooclmakers, stated if the City denies this request, Foodmaker may be regr.rired to appeal that decision to ttie City Council and in the event the City Counc:i.l denies the request, then 'toys "R" lis would have an opportunity to initiate a law-suit. fie stated if ttre City's requirement was ultimately upheld as being legal, theta would bE~ no change. He explained the lease extends L•o the yearlUUS with options for renewal. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIE:U (one vacant seat) Chat the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain a drive--ttrrougl~ restaurant. with waiver of m~nimurn number of parking spz,ces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appruximately U.66 acre, having a frontage of approximately lUU feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, appruximately 165 feet south of the centerline of Wilken Way and further described gas 2210 :;ouch Harbor Boulevard (Jack-In-The-Box); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Dec.larat.ion together with any comments received during the public review process ant.', further finding on the 5asis of the :Initial Study and any comments received `;.hat there i$ no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. haul Singer asked that a time limit be imposed on the approval of this permit in order to determine whether or not there is a pa.~kinq problem. Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Cor~nm.issioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIEll (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City '.-'fanning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the b:.sis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestio!~ in the immediate vicinity nor adversely ai'fect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Fry .,rf.ered Resolution No. PC87-124 and moved for its passage and adoption that the F.naheirn City Planning Camm?.ssion does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2899 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Codes 1g.U3.U30.U3U through 18.U3.U30.U35 and subject tc Interdepartmental Committee recommendations for a period of five yeas to terminate on June 22, 1992. On roll call, r_he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, IIERBST, LAWICK'1, MC GURNEY, t~tESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE VACANT: UNE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planninn Commission',s decision within 22 days to the City Council. 6/22/87 vr~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, JUNK; 22, 1987 87-439 ITEM NU. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN ANC CUNDITIUNAt~ USE PEItMI'P NU. 2910 1'UfiLIC HEARING. OWNER:i: ASMAIL~ RAS'PE GARI, E'P AL, 1108 N. Acacia Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as a rectan~]ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately U. 21. acre., 1108 North Acacia Street. To permit a child day-care tacilit:y Eor a maximum of 'l4 children. 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. Asmai.l Baste Gari, owner, stated a representative from thc~ State Licensing Agency reviewed her. facility and gave her permission for 37 students with some changes on the location of tt+e fence, etc. and they ciid talk to the City 't'raffic Engineer an+•1 designt~d a half-circle driveway and the plans were submitted to the Planning Ur~partment. '1'HE PUBLIC HBAK-[:"~ WAu CI,USED. Commissioner .t. Engineer, st;- : removed and ~ ~_ this particu,. _, widened and _ explained ~+r red about the circular driveway. Paul Singer, 'T'raffic ~_ z~ircular :riveway is spawn on the plans with the fence •s approved, he would recormnend there be a restriction to n_:,~_n that circular driveway and that when Acacia is +;.:sr driveway deleted, the use be tenni.nated. He r~•o plans at this time Eor the widening of Acacia. Greg Has: ~- -•~c~nded to Commissioner Messe that the packing requirements for this- ~• = ~=•~ a ae 1 space per employee plus an on-site drop-off and pick-ut-, <~.r-••:_ :' the children. Commissioner Messe stated there is a resident-.:- .-~ ir. the rear of this property and asked the total parking requiremR.~_ :~;nce this is really a mixed use. Mr. Hastings responded assuming •_..,c,-~-rare four employees and with the residential structure in the rear,G-1 'ti .~~:,a,:es would be required for that use for a total of 7 spaces requir«'d o,~->ite. He stated when this request originally came in, staff was not aware ~~;: one residential unit in the rear which is being used far living purp~~ses aa~~. ghat the calculations were made strictly on the day-carp center. Ms. Gerri s~::.,~ed t' -'y have a 2-car garage which is vacant during the day and there ;s r-c one ':ving .in the rear residential unit. She explained they will not be liv_ny in the front structure. Commissioner hlesse stated the resident in the rear unit was a co-owner of the property and spoke at the previous gearing regarding this matter. Ms. G%ri stated her nephew is living in that unit and the co-owner gave permission for her to use the unit. Fesponding to Commissioner Bouas, Ms. Gari stated there are three units on the property and the day-care facility will be in the front unit and explained rigi~t now she is living in the front unit, but will be moving. Commissioner Bouas asked if the State Licensing Agency representative had taken those residential units into consideration in their calculations. Ms. Gari responded they did review the playground area and the rooms in the Front residence and recommended that the playground area be relocated and the fence relocated, so there will be more space for the children to play. She stated 6/22/87 ,.a ;~ ,~. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'PY_PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 2'l,_lyd7 87-44U her brother in-law lives in the guest house and her nephew lives in the rear unit and the day-care facility reviewed was the trout structure only and further, she will not be living on the property at al.l. Commissioner HerbsC stated he thought 24 students would compound the problems in that area. tte added this is a very narrow lot, 25U-feet deep and going from 11 to 24 students is just too much ani added he could consider an increase to 18 students. tVe stated the circular dri~reway is an i-nprovernent, but dropping off that many more children in the area could be a problem. Commissioner hry stated the site is probably acceptable Ear the number of students, liut because of the traffic situation existing on Acacia, the parents driving into this driveway would be very dariyerous and dourling the number of students would not be acceptable. Comrnissianer Herbst asked why tha applicant wants to double L•he capacity. Ms. Gari stated she has adequate teachers anct space for that number of students and the State gave her permission for 3U. She explained she has from infant to 6 years of age anti sire would be taking only 4 infants reyuir.ing one teacher and that three teachers are required for the older students. Ms. Gari explained the State Licensing Agency gave her a written letter to allow 30 children if the Fences ara r:rlocated and if the planning Commission gives their approval. Commissioner Herbst ascertaineu that the State Licensing Agency representative was informed about ttre proposed circular driveway and the removal. of the playground area. Commissioner Lawicki determined that the rear unit was not included in the calculations by the State Licensing Agency. Commissioner Pry stated that does not resolve his concern with ttie traffic with vehicles turning into and out of the site. tie stated he has no problem with the facility itself or with ttre State requirements and those seem to be adequate. Ms. Gari stated this site is next to the Thomas Edison School and ttrat is why there is a lot of demand for the facility and most of the students would be fcom the parents of the children at the Edison School, so the traffic would already be in the area. Paul Singer responded to Commissioner Messe that there is parking allowed along Acacia. Commissioner Messe stated it seems that street is very heavily parked and agreed there would be danger wikh vehicles coming in and out of this site and asked if the curb could be painted. Mr. Singer stated it probably could be done, but the school would have to be contacted, etc. ACTIOtd: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a child day-cace facility for a maximum of 24 students on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately U.'l4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 55 feet on the east side of Acacia Street, approximately 670 fee t• soutYr of the centerline of Romneya Drive and further d~ascribed as 1108 North Acacia Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any %omments received during the public review process and further i°inding on the basis of the ?:~itial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 6/22/87 .r 8'1-441 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Jl1NE 22 1987 Commissioner Fry stated he would offer a motion for denial on the basis of the increased automobile tripe would have a detrimental eff~act on that area and could be very dangerous and wanted to be sure it is understood he is not opposed to the use or the facility. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-125 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny C~~nditional Use Pecmit No. 2910 on the basis that the increased traffic on an already busy street, would be a '~urden on the streets and highways design and approved to carcy traffic in the area, and will be dangerous and detrimental to the peace, health, safety and yaneral welfare of t:he citizens of the City of Anaheim. Un roll call, the foregoing revolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, Hk:RBST, LAWICK'I, MC BURNEY NOES: MESSE ABSENT: NONE VACANT: ONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy city Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission',s decision within 22 day: to the City Council. ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (NREV. APPROVED) AND CONn*~t'IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 277U (READVER'PISED) ~- PUBLIC HEARING. OWNE1'tS: BAY CORPORA'PE CENTER ASSOCIATES, L`TU., 196UU Fairchild Avenue, $20U, Irvine, CA 92715, A'1'TN: BURREL D. MAGNUSSON. AGENTS: FARANO & KIEVIET, lUU S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 34U, Anaheim, CA 92'105, ATTN: THOMAS G. KIEVIET. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.9 acres, 'lUBU South Anaheim Boulevard (National University-Anaheim Learning Center). Request for modification of Condition Nos. 1 and 9 (pertaining to sidewalk installation) and deletion of Condition No. 8 (pertaining to payment of interim development fee for the Anaheim Stadium Area) of Resolutio~i No. PC86-66 to retain a private university. 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. Tom Kieviet, Farano & Kieviet, attorneys, lUU S. Anaheim Boulevard, representing Bay Development Company, developers of the two office building projects on the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Ocangewood, stated they are requesting that Conditional Use Per~~it No. 2771 which permits approximately a 10,2%'l square foot portion of the project to be used by National University, an educational institution, ~~e modified to eliminate the condition which imposes the interim development fee. He stated also in connection with the sidewalk installation thaL• there was a waiver previously issued by the City Engineer which hay since been rescinded and they would request *_hat that waiver be reinstated. He stated there is a question whether 6/ 22187 ,:. 87-442 MINU'PES ANAHEIM CITY. PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE l2 .__1987 __ this request should tie presented to the Commission since City policy dictates that the decl.sion be made try thA City Engineer, subject to the City Council's review. t!e stated they would request that this condition requiring the interim development fee be eliminated on the grounds that ttre fee ordinance tie stated they r.eceiv:d does not apply ar provides an ^xemption Eor this use. a letter from the City Code Enforcement Office regarding these conditions stating they have to be Fulfilled ar~d that the sidewalk waiver had been in place since 1983, but was rescinded. tle stated they gave proven compliance with all the other conditions mentioned by the Code Enforcement letter, except those twc, matters and tt-ey are of tt-e opinion that there are adequate grounds to modify these conditions to continue the waiver of the sidewalk and to remove the obligation to pay the fee. tie presented aerial photographs showing tt-~~ area surrounding subje~,L• property and pointed out the two buildings in a commercial complex. tie stated they feel this aerial photograph shows why the interim development fee should not be imposed and stated the building furtherest south on the site is ttie one that contains this use and the only sidewalks that currently exist in that area are along Orangewood Avenue. He pointed out the whole area which is primarily limited industrial uses does not have sidewalks. tie also presented a Elow-chart showing what led up to this situation and also, presented a typed listing of events. Ttre flow-chart indicated Gen e; al Plan Amendment No. 165 was adopted l.n 1981 to designate the area for comm~~rcia~ office uses; Reclassification No. 84-1i5-6 was approved in 19135 changing the zoning from limited, industrial to CO and shortly thereafter, the City Engineer granted the side~•~alk waiver for that area, except along Orangewood; then in 1984 building permits were issued for this office building and a Final building inspection occurred in February 1985, then in January 1986 the interim development fee ordinance was adopted. He stated a conditional use permit was issued 2 months after the ordinance was adopted in March 1986 and approximately one ~~par later, in March 1987, thF~y received the Code Enforcement Office letter indicating there was a violation. He stated following that letter, the City Engineer rescinded the sidewalk waiver. He staled they feel the key dates are when the building permits were issued in 1984 and then the Interim Fee Ordinance wa. adopted in 1986 and they feel the placement of the building on the property prior to adoption of the fee ordinance, provides an exemption. Mr. Kieviet stated they feel the Interim Development Fee should not be required because the use of the property by National University is similar or a less intensive use than would generally be permitted in the CO zone; that there is a specific exemption in the Interim Development Fee ordinance which is 17.03.u70 (b) which provides that the fee is not to apply to the conversion of the bi.tilding or structure to a similar or less intensive land use; that National University is a business college that operates after normal business working hours and it has been highly compatible and beneficial in other neighborhoods anc: communities wtrere it has been located in the last 15 years and its hours of operation compl:~-ent those of the other regular businesses in the area uy providing better utilization of the infrastructure; that classes start at 5:30 p.m., four days per week and approximately 10 people use the that facilities Burin, the day; however, the primary use is after 5:30 p.rn.; classes are conducted on a Monday/Wednesday schedule and Tuesday/Thursday schedule and currently there are about 245 students who attend the school, 6/22/87 ~. MINUTES ANAHEIM CI'C'{ PLANNJ.NG COMMISSION JUNK 22 1)87 87-4' half of them attending the Monday/Wednesday session and half: attending the 'Cuesday/Thursday session and this after-hours use does not join with other uses in the area to burden tl~e puplic infrastruc~L•ure. He stated the tcaf.Eic report by Weston Pringle and Associates was conducted and presented ~o khe City staff and a trip generation study was conducted which concluded the traffic generated by the National University was minimal to normal outing the p.m. peak, but less intense during the morning and early afternoon. He slated the traffic report supports their position that the use of the property by National University is similar or less intensive than permitted office uses and the property has been designated for CU uses since .1981 and it has been zoned for CU uses since 1983 and that leads them to the conclusion t.l~at the City was always oi' the understanding that the property was going to be u:~ed for commercial uses, long before the fee was impose,i. He stated when the ~ondit.tonal use permit was approved in 1986, the resoluL-ior- made findings that the traffic generated by the proposed use, is granted, would not impose an undue burden on the streets and trighways design and improved to carry the traffic irr L•tre area; and that t•I~e proposed use would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and growth and development of the area which indicates :hat the City has admitted that the use of the property by National University would not create an irnpa<:t that wvu.ld warrant payment of the Interim Development Pte. t{e stated also that ti~at fee was not a recommendation of the staff and was not discussed during the Planning Comrr.ssion meeting when the resolution was approved. t,e stated they have reviewed the minutes of the meeting of March 1'l, 19d6, before t:he Planning Commission and found that staff did not recommend the fee anti it was not discussed at that meeting and the only conditions added dealt with a covenant not to start classes until afL-ec 6:UU p.m. upon the traffic: ceachin7 a certain level at Orangewood and State College. He stated the la•~k of. a recommendation or discussion of that fee at ttre Planning Commission meeting leads them to believe that it should not have been placed in the resolution to begin with. Concerning the sidewalk waiver, he explained the reason he is requesting that waiver be reinstated is that sidewalks are nut required in that area at this time and the waiver was granted in 1983 and rescinded only after the letter of violation was issried and they felt there is rio support to warrant the sidewalks being imposed at this time; and that the traffic consultant in his inspection found very little foot traffic in the area, }le stated the use of the property i~ Eor students at night who arrive in cats and leave in cars and that justifies their rec.{uest that the sidewalk waiver be reinstated. Malcolm Slaughter asked if National University occupies the entire site bounded by Stanford, Santa Cruz, Anaheim Boulevard and Orangewood. Mr. Kieviet stated several tenants occupy those two buildinq° and the National Uni':~ersity occupies approximately lU,000 square feet and they are occupying a portion of the building only. Mr. Slaughter asked if that portion of the building now bei~lg occupied by National University was occupied previously and Mr. Kieviet stated he believed National University was L•he first occupant of that building. THE PUt3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 6/22/67 MI_NUTES • ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE ?.?,_. 1987 87-444 Chairman McBurney asked if the applicant had read the conditions of approval under the original approval and noted Condition No. 8 required the fee and was imposed on the use i'or the unive~sity. Mr. Kieviet stated they realized that condition existed and that they originally requested to modify the condition of the sidewalk and wanted to bond for it at the present time anc! then install it in October .1987, but tt-ey are modifying that request since they have had the traffic study done and 1t shows the university use is less intense and indicates tt-e sidewalks are not warranted at this time. He stated he was not•sure it that decision can be made by the Planning Commission. Paul Singer stated that entire area is undergoing a substantial intensification and extensive transportation system management techniques will have to be enacted throughout the entire area in order to be able to move people around and in order to do that, maximum sidewalk availability hay to be maximized and at the very least encourage people to use public transportation. tie stated without sidewalks, pedestrian circulation in that area takes place .in the travel lanf, and all new buildings in that area are required to install. full sidewalks and this particular permit occurred before there was any knowledge of such an intensification of that area and the City Engineer's policy has changed and now sidewalks are required in all developments. tor. Singer stated he wants the Planning Commission to understand that although peak hour imparts of this particular use are equal or somewhat .less than an office operation, the total number of trips will, in fact, be greater and that it is intended in the future to spread out peak hours and the arrival at 5:3U p.m. of the st~-dents in this area directly coincides with the anticipated expansion of peak hour uses. tie stated there are going to be some problems in this area, especially witt- transportation, and that will be reflective directly onto the possibility of how much expansion can take place. He stated right now there are two very large proposals for development which are going to b~ coming before the Planning Commission in the very near future and sidewalks are necessary in order ~o provide the infrastructure that will be necESSary in that area. Commissioner Herbst stated Condition No. 9 says that prior to commencement of activity authorized by this permit, the condition shall be met and he thought the applicant saw that requirement and has been illegally operating. Mr. Kieviet stated at that time they were led 1:o believe that the Interim llevelopment Fee referred to in the violation letter would not be applicable and the condition mentions any applicable fees to be imposed. tie stated they thought the fees were not applicable since the use was not as intense. Malcolm Slaughter stated concerning Condition No. 9, if it was the Commission's intention only to require the payment of the Interim Fee if that payment was required by Section 17.30 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; therefore, if the project was entitled to an exemption under that section of the Code, they would not be required to pay the fee as a condition of this permit. He stated clarification is needed regarding Commission s interpretation. He added if Commission deletes this condition, the owner may still have the obligation to pay the fee if they do not warrant an exemption 6/22/87 ~ ~: ~' MINUTES, ANAHEIM C_I'1'Y PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22 1987 87-445 under the Code and that the action of the Planning Commission may or. may not determine ultimately if a Eee is going to be paid because if they are ~xernpt under that section of the Code and it is Commission's intent that this condition requires a payment anyway, then leaving th:.• condition in would not require a payment of the Eee, t:~ut if it is deleted, it does not mean they would necessarily not leave to pay the fee. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought it was the Commission's intent when this was originally approved, that if they were exempt, they would not have to pay the fee. Malcolm Slaugtrtec stated that would be staff's interpretation also and in that case, he did not see any reason to da anything regarding that condition because if they are exempt, they will not have to pay it anyway. He stated ultimately, there wiLi be a leyai decision arrived at between staff and the legal department. Commissioner Herbst recommended leaving the condition in because that was Commission's intent at t'ne time. Mr. Kieviet stated it was never discussed or recommended at the time the agreement was originally signed. Ne stated they would rather have it deleted than left in. Commissioner ['ry stated Ise is not in favor of deleting the condition; however, of the owner can establish the fact ttrey are exempt, there is no problem and +f the use is exempted, the fee will not be required. Commissioner Herbst stated the sidewalk condition is required on att developments if the City Engineer establishes a need for the sidewalk, and the Planning Commission does not have the power to remove that condition. Commissioner Erg suggested modifying that condition since Ise did not think sidewalks ace needed at the present time. Chairman McBurney stated the applicant really wanted to bond for the sidewalks until October 1y87. Paul Singer stated there is nothing wrong with bonding for the sidewalks until Octo'oer 1987; however, tre is afraid that once a condition is removed, there is no p,~actical way to get the sidewalks. Chairran McBUrney stated the City Engineer rescinded the waiver. Paul Singer stated that was because of the intense use. Commissioner Herbst stated the sidewalk waivers are granted temporarily and the City Engineer grants them for a certain period of time, but if he feels they are necessary, he can rescind that waiver. Mx. Titus stated that waiver was granted in 1983 and in April of this year it was rescinded because it was the City Engineer's determination that that area is changing and that there is a need for sidewalks now. He stated they would go along with tare bond and installation of the sidewalks in October. Commissioner Bouas stated this school does not require the sidewalks since there is no pedestrian traffic to the school and there is no bus service to tht~t area. t~lr. Titus stated the sidewalk waiver was not granted for a particular use such as the university and was not rescinded for a particular use, but was rescinded because the area is changing. Commissioner Bouas stated the other uses in the center probably would have more of a need for sidewalks and thought maybe there is some room for flexibility. Mr. Titus stated the original request was to post a bond now and 6/22/87 4 ... MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 2_'l,__1987 57-446 install sidewalks in October. Commissloner N`ry stated he thouyht asking far sidewalks pit this time would be ridiculous and they are requesting that. the time element be cernoved from the conditions. Mr. Kieviet stated they are merely asking that the waiver be reinstated and they realized the installation of sidewalks was imposed on the original permit; however, they feel that it is not requlced at this time. Commissioner Bouas stated if the sidewalks are not required now, the City loses their handle Eor getting them. Commissioner F'ry stated the next time a variance i.s requested, sidewalks could be required. Commissioner Herbst stated to leave the condition in as originally written would be more acceptable and the applicant could work with the City Engineer regarding that waiver. Commissioner Fry stated tie thought it would be ridiculous to require the sidewalks to be installed at this time, but requested if the City Engineer accept a bond and then require the sidewalk installation in perhaps one year or whenever it would be acceptable. Malcolm Slaughter stated the policy charges the City Engineer with the responsibility for yrant.ing the waivers, rescinding them if he feels that is appropriate. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-126 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dues hereby modify Condition No. 1 pertaining to r,he sidewalk installation in Resolution No. PC86-66 allowing that the installation of the sidewalks be waived at the present time, with the tune for installation to be approved by the City Engineer, and that no modification or deletion be made in Condition No. 8 pertaining to the interim development fee. Malcolm Slaughter stated the conditions as worded will be acceptable since they include the clause "acceptable to the City Enyineer". Commissioner Herbst stated he would want to be sure that the bonding for the sidewalks is included in the condition. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by khP following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERB5T, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE VACANT: ONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-34 PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND A. MASCIEL AND CONNIE MASCIEL, P.O. Box 4241, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: GARY MASCIEL, 420 S. Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA y211U2. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.15 acre, 1222 West Pearl Street. RM--2400 to the RM-1200 to construct a 4-unit apartment complex. 6/22/87 •~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSI_UN, JUNE: 22 1'387 87-947 There was rro one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report waa not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Gary Masciel, agent, 4U2 S. Eu~.lid, stated this request is for reclassification of property at 12l West Pearl Street to permit a 4-unit He stated apartment complex. He pointed out the amenities of the project. the request for RM-12UU was made after he reviewed the General Plan and Eound it shows Medium Density residential land uses f.or that area and that presently RM-12UU is permitted on Pearl Street, west of West Street to Carlton and the east side of Wi'^hire to 1231 West Pearl. Ne stated directly behind the property, on G..amond Street the property is zoned RM-12UU and that property has a 2-story dwelling which iR directly behind this property. Dennis Carter, 12"l4 W. Pearl, presented a petition signed by neighbors in opposition and also presented photographs showing the existing homes in the area. He also presented writ' copies of his comments for the record. He stated West Pearl is basically quiet residential street comprised primarily of single-family dwellings with a few duplexes, all single-story, as shown in the photographs. He pointed out the photographs were taken Thursday afternoon when the street is swept which is the only time the street is not fully parked with cars. Anna Hazel Warner, 1'lul Pearl, corner of Canton and Pear]., pointed out her home on the photographs and stated the applicant failed to mention that the one house which has two stories is at the end of Pearl Street and is a condominium project with open areas and a swimming pool, Jacuzzi and laundry facilities, etc. and that every person in the project owns his property; and that the property mentioned which is directly behind subjnnrareapwhichohas Diamond Street is adjacent to an alley and has a large op_ been landscaped. She stated they have a large complex at the end of Pearl Street which is a four-plex and it has at least 24 feet between the units and is landscaped and kept up very well. She stated this project comes within 5 feet of their homes and she did not think this is the proper place for this type of project. Amil Avalos, 1228 Pearl, stated a lot of these people have lived in their homes for a long time and do not understand wt~y the developers are constantly trying to jeopardize their homes which they have worked hard to have and pointed out the traffic is already bad and there is overflow of parking from the existing units and they have difficulty parking their. cars and fslt adding more units would create more proble-ns. Mr. Masciel stated he will be dedicating and widening the alley to 2U feet as well as an additional 8 feet turning radius. He stated the four-plex project mentioned with wider setbacks hetwaen buildings does have common driveways which allows more space between buildings. He stated the Wilshire complex with th~ee stories of subterranean parking with similar sized units and they were originally constructed as apartments and later converted to condominiums and some ar.e presently being rented. He stated with a 15-foot wide front setback and the 18-feet toward the building structure, there will be a 33 foot buffer toward the street as well as landscaping with plenty of plants and trees. He stated he recognizes this is a well kept area and they want to continue that same theme. 6/22/87 ,~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22 lyd7 b%-44d THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fry stat.ad there are signatures on the petition presented of poop?e from all over Anaheim, which do not have a bearing on this project, but in listening to the neighbors speak, he agrees this is a "unique island" in Anaheim and on both sides the zoning is RM-24UU and he fel t this is .,ot~the place for two-story units at this time. He skated the plans are beautiful, but he rernembera this area very well and does nut want to start breaking down the area. Commissioner t{erbst stated he would call this ",spot zoning" in the middle of the block and the area would have to have a Genecal Plan Amendment so the views of the people could be considered. tle added approval of this project would certainly set a precedent and that if the people in the area want to see something like this, he would want to see more land assembly in order to construct something more suitable Eor the whole area, rather than putting uf? smaller units. Commissioner Herbst stated he definitely is not in favor of RM-12UU Zoning at this time. Commissioners Messe and Bouas agreed. Commissioner Messe stated this neighborhood seems to be L•aking care of itself very nicely and he did not think "spot" zoning in the middle of the block should be allowed. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RM-24UU (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to RM-12UU (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone to construct a 4-unit apartment complex on a rectang ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately U.15 acre, having a fronroximatel 2HU approximately 58 feet on the south side oL• Pearl Street, app Y feet west of the centerline of Carlton Avenue and further described as 1222 West Pearl Street; 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 th a t there is n~ substantial evidence that the project will have a significant :ffcet on the env i ronrnent . Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PCd7-127 and moved for its passage ,end adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 86-87-34 on the basis it would be s pot zoning, with RM-2400 Zoning on bc`.h sides. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by th a following vote: AYES: BUUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE VACANT: ONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the w ritten right to appeal the Planning Commission',s decision within 22 days to th e City Council. 6/22/87 ~• .~. r, 87-449 INUTES._ ANAHM:IM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, JUNE 22 1987 RECESSED: 2:55 p.m. rtECUNVENN:D: 3:1U p.m. ITEM N0. 6 EIR NEGA'PIVE DECLARATION, KECLA55IFICATIUN N0. 86-87-35 ANU VARIANCE NO. 3666 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WILLIAM V. ALMANU ANU SNIRI.F.Y Ai,MANI), 3335 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 928 U1. Property describedoximately U.71 acres, rectangula ely-shaped parcel of land consisting of app 3335 West Lincoln Avenue. RS-A-43, 000 to RM-3, UUU. Waivers of (a) maximum site coverages minimum re creational-leisure area to (b) minimum structural setback and (c) construct a 7-unit condominium complex. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and altho u gh the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. William A lmand, owner, :stated he would like to demolish his single-family home and build 7 condominium units, one for his dauyhter and her family and one for him and his wife and sell tt~e other five. THF. PUBL7 C NEARING WAS CLUSEU. Chairman Mcpurney stated ti.~s '' ike a beautiful project and allows a lot of onnt~ sp~)ce• Commie^ioner t,~:~. j~~Nd recreational areas would be less than r..q~ i~;^d and asks if Mr. A~.i~~~ - ld meet that Code. .d r. p,],:-:-id states his mother-in law lives neat door and they share ownership of tine ~,~obilehome pack which is 2'1 years old and that probably since she is getting older will include that property as Phase 2 of this project. He stated they hive a swimming pool and recreational room at the mobilehome park which can be used by the occupants of this condominium project. Chairman McBurney asked if a covenant could be recorded to share the swimming pool an d recreational area. rant°n9 thisgwaivertrequiringnthelorecreational included as a condition for g facilit i es to be made available and a covenant recorded against the adjoining property in favor of this projecL• and stated his only concern would be how long the covenant would be effective. Commissioner Herbst stated there is a possibility that the other property would b e sold in its entirety. Mr. Slaughter rro ertydinhfavoreofotheant would b e an obligation on the mobilehome park p p condominium project even if it is sold. Mr. Almand stated he understands and asked if the blacktopped areas could be counted alicant islsacrificingetheea. Commiss ioner Ery stated in this instance, the app recrea t Tonal-leisure area for larger units and wondered if the leisure areas aLe cr i tical and added he thought there are a lot of people wh~~ would be more than w i sling to have a larger unit rather than the recreations -leisure area. Commiss ioner Herbst stated he was concerned about the childre:i who would be in 6/22/87 e~ s~. MINU'PES,`ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 22, 1987 _ 87-45U the project since the units would be sold individually. He stated ttie swimming pool at the mobilehome park would Have to be mandatory and guaranteed with a covenant. tie stated the larger units are nicer but the project exceeds code requirement regarding lot coverage. Commissioner Mesne stated if the property owner agrees to the covenant, ire thought the units certainly would be more saleable with that convenant in place. Mac Slaughter stated he would recommend that the condition require the applicant, prior to the commencement of activity, to present to the City Attorneys oftice for re«~ordation of a proposed covf~nant against the mobilehome park property permitting the recreational facilities to be used by the occupants of this condominiwn project and the covenant would be in favor of this property ~.nd would run with the property and be binding on any future owners. He stated ir. should b~ an unsubordinated interest or covenant in that adjoining property as well. Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commis;..loner Messe. MO'T'ION CARRIED (one varant seat) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property Erom the RS-A-43,000 (Residential-Agricultural) zone to the ttM-3000 (Residential, Multiple Family)7,one and to construct a "I-unit condominium complex with waivers of maximum site coverage, minimum structural setback and minimum recreation-leisure area on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.71 acre having a fcontaye of approximately lUU Eeet on the north side of. Lincoln Avenue, approximately 1235 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street, and further described as 3335 W. Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative pec.laration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together w.'~. :,ny comments received during the public review process and further finding o,. 'n«~ basic of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is r-u substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the envirenrnent. Co-nm.issioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC 67-128 and moved Eor its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 86-t37-35, subject to Inter.dapartrnent~l Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution war. ~,,d by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE VACANT: ONE Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-129 and moved for its passage and adoption that. the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3666 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such 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 6/22/87 ,~ ~~1. MINUTES ANAttEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22 198'1 87-451 vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including an additional condition requiring that an urisubordlnated covenant be recorded against the adjacent property to the west developed as a mobilehome park, in favor of subject property, guaranteeing faint use of the swimming pool and recreational facilities. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by t•he following vote: AXES: BOUAS, PRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NON F: VACANT: ONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NU. 7 EIR NEGATT.VE DECLARATION VARIANCE NU. 3665 ANll SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL N0. 87-03 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FRANK E. DOTSON AND JACQUELINE UO`I'SON, 317. San Cella, La Jolla, CA 92071, owners, and JOHN WORll AND CAROL WORD, 2715 N. Ross Street, Santa Ana, CA 92706, agent. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres located approximately 840 feet south of tt~e intersection of Peralta Hills Drive and Cerro Vista Way, and further described as 563 Peralta Hills Drive. To construct a two-story, 34-foot high, single family residence on RS-HS-43,000 zoned property with a waiver of maximum structural height. Petitioner requests approval for the removal of one specimen California Pepper Tree. There were six persons 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. Carol and John Word, 2715 N. Ross, Santa Ana, CA 92706, explained this request is for a height variance and the removal of one specimen tree. Ms. word explained in order to build the French-Brittany style home they have planned authentic to the character of the architecture style and to take advantage of the views, it it would require the waiver of height. She stated they have lowered the height frum 38 to 34 feet in order to come closer to Code. She presented reference material for the Commission to review and stated there is a row of 60 to 70-foot high eucalyptus trees on the Past which are on the rim of the ravine which is part of this property and the trees would already hinder a view in that direction by any surrounding properties, however the view in question is to the west, and due to the existing developments, they need to maximize the height. She stated surrounding properties on the east, north and west are currently developed and the property to the south is high enough to have many options as to where to place additional homes should they wish to subdivide6/22/87 1'M' •~r . , .r MINU`S'ES, ANAHEIM CI'S'Y PLANNTNC; CUMMISSIUN JUNE 22 1587 tj7-452 future. She stat-eci the staff report indicates the floor plan showed a 405.05 elevation in the foyer which should have been erased from the plans because that pertained to a different property. She stated there ar.e no floor plans for this slte established because they have not done a grading plan, but it could come in under the proposed 34 foot var.iancr• requested. Mrs. Word stated they gave a list of approved height variances in the same vicinity and on page 2 of the staff report, Variance No. 358'l is listed at 3l.5 feet and that should be changed to 35.5 feet, indicating that she had checked that with the Planning Department; and also Variance No. 3322 for property located at 7'13 S. Peralta Hills Drive was granted for a 37-Eoat height variance. ttoland Krueger, 56.1 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, stated his property adjoins subject property un the south. tie stated property owners and residents in this area reviewed this request and the guideJ.ines nor variance;, and do object to the request Ear. a variance, but that they do not oppose the removal of the tree. He stated several neighbors were not able to attend this meeting but did sign a petition and presented r.hm petition and stated everyone on the pri.wate drive signed the petition in opposition, except far one which they could not contact. tie stated he leas owned tiffs property Ear 3U years anti lived there Eor 27 years and has seen the area go from orange groves to a higtrly developed area. He stated he thougtrt the restrictions pertainir-g to ttnight are very critical and t;har_ most owners have been able to achieve adequate amenities within the Code. He said this is a very prestigious area with very nice homes and he was sure thin would be a nice Name, but that the neighbors do have a problem with the variance. He stated the applicant haw .indicated that the request is to allow t.hern to maximize the advantagF~s of the view and that the views have been stressed r.hroughout their proposal, and they feel they should not be denied rights to the views which other property owners have. He referred to the Findings required for approval of a variance and pointed out they pertain to the size, shape and topography of. the property, and that there ace no hardships on this site of that nature to warrant the approval of a variance. He presented photographs showing the views from the ground level of the valley below, a view six feet from the ground showing the panoramic view, a picture of the pepper tree to be removed and stated the tall eucalyptus trees are shown. He showed a photograph of his property which is to the south of subject property and stated that if this 1•rome exceeds height restrictions by almost.- 40 percent, it wou.l~i severely :impact the view from the lower lot of leis property. He stated they do have their property subdivided in the County r cords. He asked what he shoulc do when he gets ready to develop his property and whether he could request a variance to 45 feet. He saiu he did not think that that is what should he clone in this area. He stated the height variance does give a major view enhancement in the second story and that is •dhere the bedrooms a.e located and people do not spend a lot of time in their bedrooms; and that there is a good view from the ground floor and he did not think they need the added height in order to get the view they need because the 'views are much better than the views many people have now. 6/22/87 w MINUTES ANAHfaIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22 1947 d7-4'i3 He stated 5 other properties where shown in the staff c~port.• which have had variances granted for height and pointed out the list includes 4 properties which are not even in Peralta Hills. He stated one property shown on Peralta Hills prive indicates a variance for 37 feet and iL• is actually a singlE-story home and does not exceed the height lirnit. tte stated compared to the other properties in the area, they could make reasonable use of the land without variances and still obtain goad views; :.rat there is adequate level building site on this property, however, i£ the variance is granted, the increased height will have an adverse affect on the neighbors and would reduce their privacy. He stated this will cause a loss of value with this property because of the obstruction of Che view. He Stated obviously this is an economic problem and a circumstanre of the property is required by the Code in order to grant a variance and there are a lot of different types of lots in Peralta gills, and for any individual to say his lot is being discriminated against because he bought it without the full view should no L• be used as a reason for. granting a variance. He stated in Pera]ta Hills the value of property increases with the type of view and they would request that this variance be denied because there is no hardship on the property itself. Frank Liggett, 571 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, CA 92dU7, stated his property is four lots below the proposed structure and that he is not opposed to the removal of the tree. tie pointed out this area .is a greenbelt and the eucalyptus trees help make the area what it is, and also the view is -nucti He staL-ed better from this property than from sorrQ of the other properties. his elevation is about lU0 feet below strb~ect property and unless he keeps the trees he will have an unobstructed view of ttre proposed house. lie stated the lot across the street has recently been vacated and that there is a prospect of someone wanting to buy L-hat and asi< for the same thing if this variance is granted which would set a precede;~t. He said they would request ttre waiver not be granted. Frank Dotson, stated he has owned the property in question since 1959 and "_hat Mr. Krueger would riot need a 45-foot high douse in order to get the views because the topography goes up and also the plans of the proposed structure leaves plenty of room for Mr. Krueger to locate a house on hie adjoining parcel without any obstruction of view. He stated when Mr. Krueger purchased his property, it was not part o~ the City of Anaheim and the height limitations were adopted in 1977 acrd that he was living in Texas at that time and was not notified of this Code restriction and only recently found out about it. He stated his property rights were taken away merely by putting an advertisement in the newspaper, but apparently it is all legal. He stated, due to the recent Supreme Court actions, he hoped the City would be more careful about notifying property owners of these hearings. He stated Mr. Krueger owrrs five acres and will have the same problem when he sells his five lots. tie stated not being agile to maximize the view does seriously lo~.rer the value of the property. Carol Word, agent, explained a list of variances was taken from the Planning Department files and that there were other variances granted in the Scenic Corridor. She stated if the house on Peralta Hills Drive was not 37 feet high she was not aware of that because that was what the variance was granted for on that particular property. She stated the house, as it is shown on their site plan, they do not feel will obstruct the view for any house the next door 6/22/d7 ~~• MINUTEST ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE: 22 1967 67-454 neighbors should decide to build. She said they do not intend to remove the eucalyptus trees and her point was that a 34-foot high house would not obstruct the view going in the other direction because the trees would be behind it. Mr. Word stated if the variance is granted, Mr. Kcueger's property does go up rapidly and he would not have to go lU feet higher to have the same view. tie said they were scheduled to build in Peralta Hills seven years ago and were planning to use these same plans and receive permits and have gone to a lot of expense. He stated Ite does not understand why those permits were granted, and now a variance is required. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg Hastin~as stated he thought the ordinance of height limits was adopted in 19'11. Commissioner Lawicki asked if the overall height is 34 feet. Commissioner Bouas stated after grading plans are done there is a possibility it wo~ild be lower. She stated everyone has different tastes in styles of houses and that this is a different style and she thought the variance should tie granted. Commissioner Nerbst stated this Commission has granted csuite a few variances in that area, as long as they do not block anyone's view on the adjoining lots. He stated this is a large structure and tte~thouyht with the way it is situated on the property, it would not have an effect on the adjacent properties. Malcolm Slaughter stated it appears that the Scenic Corridor was initially adopted in 1971; and that Section of the Code pertaining to this request has been amended twice, in 19'77 and 1979. ACTION: Commissioner Ery offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the .~naheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a two-story, 34-foot high single-family residential structure with a waiver of maximum structural height on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres and being located approximately 140 feet south of the intersection of Peralta Hills Drive and Cerro Vista Way, and further described as 563 Peralta Hills Drive; 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 Pry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the reasonable and practical development of the property on which the tree is located requires the removal of the tree and that any specimen trees removed shall be replaced with a replanting on the same parcel of an equal number of trees from the specified list in the S,:anic Corridor Overlay Zone. 6/22/87 $' ,.. 87-455 MINU`PES ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2'l 198'1 Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-13U and moved for i~anpaVarianced adoption that the Anaheim ~itv Planning Commission does hereby g No. 3665 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings andcthat not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity= strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of pcivilegec~ enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Com-nittee recommendations. On roll call, the Eorego:ng resolution as passed by the followirg vote: AYES: BOUAS, ERY, HERBST, LAWICKI, P1C GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE VACANT: UNE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented ttie written right to appeal the Planning Commission',s decision within 22 days r.o the City Council. ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE UECLARA'PION AND VARIANCE N0. 3667 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: THOMAS L. TUCKER AND CARULYN S. 'PUCKER, 538U E. Hunter Avenue, Anaheim, CA y28U7. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately U.72 acre, 5380 East Hunter Avenue (Mission Sheet Metal). Waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and required enclosure of outdoor uses to permit ar. outdoor storage area. 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. Thomas Tucker, 5380 E. Hunter, stated he is requesting a variance to use 8 parking spaces for outdoor storage of sheet metal products. He stated they have been doing this in the past not knowing that it was against the Code. He explained they have been in business since 1968 and in Anaheim since 1983. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSER. Responding to Chairman Mceurney, Mr. Tucker explained he does not have any packing available on any other property, except on the street, but does have a loading dock where he can park several vehicles. tle stated they had a traffic study performed which indicated in the worst case, they need 20 spaces. Commissioner Messe stated he noted five trucks parked in the loading dock area on Saturday and asked how many vehicles they use in their operation. He pointed out he also saw several inoperable vehicles which had not been moved for quite some time. Mr. Tucker responded there will usually be 6 to 8 vehicles on the premises, and they have 5 stakebed trucks, two 3/4-ton trucks, three 1-ton trucks, etc. He stated all the vehicles are licensed. 6/22/87 sr• MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNEll 1987 87-456 Cornrnisaioner Fry Fcated the report indicated there are 19 employees in the production strop and 6 in the office, fora total of 25 and there are only 23 parking spaces proposed. Mr. Tucker stated some employees ride to work together and some ride motorcycles. t{e responded to Commissioner Fry that they have very few sales people or customers coming into the facility. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the traffic report indicated that there could be a parking deficiency because it shows 2U+~ of the employees carpool oc use mass transit which is highly unlikely for an area such as this. tie stated employees riding motorcycles would not make any r;ifEerence in the calculat•.ions unless the conditional use permit is granted with a restriction that that certain number of employees would always work there or would always ride motorcycles which is not probable; and also there are no spaces available for visitors and they are about seven spaces short. Mr. Tinker stated they pack the trucks which need repairs in the loading dock area. Mr. Singer responded those loading dock spaces would not meet the minimum requirements for a parking space and would not he c~rinted. He statF:.d the way the parking study reads, he cannot support tti waiver. Responding to Commissioner Fry, Mrs. Carolyn 't'ucker, owner, stated they own the building and this is a construction business and they are very busy right now. Slie explained some of the material is stored inside because it is difficult to bring inside with the people working there. Paul Singer stated his concern is strictly from a traffic point of view, and not economics. Mr. Tucker stated they moved to this larger facility in 1y83 and they hope they will stay busy, but if this variance is not approved, they will have to sell the property. Commissioner Messe asked if a parking arrangement could be reached with a neighbor. Mr. Tucker responded he was not sure but that there is parking available on the street in front of the facility, and that his employees do park on the street. Commissioner Herbst suggested granting the request for a two-year period. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an outdoor storage area with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and required enclosure of outdoor uses on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately U.72 acre having a frontage of approximately 167 feet on the south side of Hunter Avenue approximately 219 feet west of the centerline of 9rasher Street and further described as 5380 East Hunter Avenue (Mission Sheet Metal); 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 Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-131 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant 6/22,/87 .~. w, ~~ .. MINU'PES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 22, 1987 87-457 Variance No. 3667, for a period of two (2) years, granting waiver. (b) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such 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 i.n the identical zone and classification in the vicinity, and granting waiver (a) or. the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic: congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the burden is on the applicant faced with a tune limit to apply for the extension before the expiration date, unless the Commission wants to place the burden on staff. Mr. 'Pucker stated he would not wait and normally takes care of things before they are due. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, E'RY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NON F. ABSENT: NONE VACANT: ONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ANll CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2917 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JUANITA REQUASTki, ET AL, 111 Illinois Avenue, Anaheim, CA y1.8U5. AGENT: HUGO A VAZQUEZ, 2'l40 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Pro;~erty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting a>: approximately 0.24 acre, 128 West Broadway. To permit a 20-unit motel with waivers of minimum front setback and permitted encroachment into required yard. There was one interested person indicating her presence at tt~e public hearing and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, applicant, presented renderings showing the proposed 20-unit luxury motel to be located at i28 West Broadway. He stated this motel is designed to fit the character of the neighborhood and is in keeping with the style and design of the Baptist church immediately to the west and will, hopefully, set r_he trend for the future downtown Anaheim and fill a future need for guest accommodations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 6/22/87 .z. " '~ ar MINUTES ANAHEIM (:I T'1 FLANNING COMMISSION JUNE: 2'l 1987 87-458 Chairman Mc Burney asked if Mr. Vazquez thought a motel would be .~ viable project in downtown Anaheim. Mr. Vazquez stated he thought it would and this will be the first one. Responding to Conunissionec l3ouas, Mc. Vazquez stated kitchens were proposed in 258 of the units but thaL• he is aware of the propoacd ordinance relating the number of parking spaces to the number of units with kitchens, so the kitchens were removed. He stated there will be wet bars, VCR',s and color televisions in the units. Commissioner Bouas asked if these will be apartments if the motel doesn',t work out. Mr. Vazquez responded even if the project doesn',t.• work as a motel, they will riot become apartments. tie stated all hotel chains are going to the"suite", concept with two roams. Responding to Commissioner Herbst-sM~'feetq(an overhang)pandrthateitsiso~ tt•ie second-story capola which protrude minor request. Commissioner Eierbst asked about landscaping along Broadway. Mr. Vazquez stated that is all sidewalk and that there is no oL•her landscaping in the downtown area. tie stated he would like to put in landscaping, and pointed out the new First Interstate Bank building does not have landscaping. Commissioner Fry stated he was in favor of the project. Hazel Warner, 1202 Pearl Street, Anaheim, stated she is a member of the adjacent church and asked if the project is two or three stories. She asked how the project will fit in with the church, and the distance between the two buildings. She stated she was concerned about the height and explained she had not seen the plans previously. Commissioner Fry stated the architecture is similar to the church a,~d responded to Mrs. Warner that there is adequate parking. Ms. Warner stated she would not object to the project, but wanted to by sure the Planniny Commission keeps an eye on it. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MO'PION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 20-unit motel with waivers of minimum front setback and permitted encroachment into required yard on a rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately U.24 acre, having a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the south side of Hroadway, approximately 165 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street, and further described as 1l8 West iroadway; 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 a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City ~:.~nning Commission does hereby grant waivers of code requirement on the :~~~::;.is that there are special 6/22/87 ~' "IINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE_~2. 1987 87-459 circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other ids ~'.ically zoned property in the same vicinityr and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges a oyed by other properties in the identical, zone and classificat•.ion in the vicinity. Commissioner Fry oEfeced Resolution No. PC8%-137, and moved for the passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi:~sian does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2917 pursuant r_o Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, and subject to Interdepartmental Commit-:ee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follc,wing vote: AYES: BOIIAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWTCKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE VACANT : ONE Malcolm Sla~ighter, Deputy City Attorney, presented tt~e written right L~ appeal the Plannlr~g Commission',s decision within 22 days to the City Council. I'PEM N0. lU EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2918 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FRANK J. S'1'UECKLE AND HELEN JOEPHINE STUECKLE, 160 Cerro Vista Way, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: DENNIS HARDIN, HARDIN OLUSMOBILE, 1300 S. Anaheim 3oulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property is approximately ''.84 acre located at the southwest corner of Water Street and Anaheim Boulevard, 601 South Anaheim Boulevard. To permit boat sales and an automotive body :shop. ACTION: Commissioner Bo~:as offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (one seat vacant) that petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2918 be withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. I'1'EM N0. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARAT[ON (b`REV.TOUSLY APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2160 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN EXTENSION OF 1'I ME. OWNERS: MR. AND MRS. RALPH ALEXANDER, 1904 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: HANAN STANLEY-SUt7WES'P METALS, 1874 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1. U1 acres, 1874 S. Anaheim Boulevard (Sunwest Metals). Reguest for a ~-year extension of time to retain a recycling center in the ML Zone. Hanan Stanley, Sunwest Metals, explained he had just received the staff report ar,d referred to Paragraph No. 6 regarding the parking cunfiguration and stated he did have the parking area repaved and the parking lot restripad and thought he had complied with all the requirements. 6/22/87 ~- 'a,, MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI_ PY PLANNINU COMMISSION, JUNE 22 ,_ 1Jti7 87-46U Paul Singer, Traffic FJnglneer, stated he did review this today and the area is paved and the parking spaces are marked but there are vehicles pArked in the public: right of way, and the sidewalk area has Keen paved anci that five parking spaces wore empty. He stated ho thought there is adequate parking and that the applicant has complied with the requirements. M r. Stanley stated Item No. 8 ceyu.ires the vwner to make a cash payment to the City of Anaheim for Lire cost uE the removal of existing street improvements along Anaheim Boulevard and stated he Ild not want to make these improvements and then have to tsar it all up when he has to put sidewalks in. He stated he spoke to Jay 'Titus, Office Engineer, on April 2l and asked iE that c o nntruction could be postponed and was told on April 27th that the sidewalk requirement had been waived and he was surprised to see this in the staff report. .1a y 'Titus stated he recalled that discussion and that it was whether or not sidewalks would be required at this time, and that this property does have a sidewalk waiver and they agreed that sidewalks were not needed at this tirn~. However, this condition addresses a payment to ttre City for the future relocation of the curb, gur,ter and pavement and the future installation of s i dewalks, any' that cash pay-nent is required and has not teen made. M r. Stanley stated on March 3U none of that was discussed and he was required t o pave the parkiny lot and that has been done. He added he contracted to have the property painted and is tryiny to make this place look good and that h e plans to be there for awhile. t1e stated this use will be a tremendous service to the community. Chairman McBurney stated tre understands ttre waiver of the sidewalk r eyuiret~~ent, but that he did not think the Commission could have eliminated the street improvement requirement. Commissioner Fry stated Ise did not think the Commission could waive that requirement and it that has to be satisfied through the City Engineer. Jay T itus stated it was discussed on March 3Uth and it was a condition in the staff report at that time. M ~. Stanley stated he has no recollection of that discussion. M r. Stanley stated he did not understand Item No. y requiring the owner of the p roperty to execute and record a covenant agreeing not to contest the formation of any provisions of Development Agreement No. 83-U1 between the C ity and Anaheim Stadium Associates, which could include subject property. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained this is for a covenant agreeing not t o oppose the formation of tt~e Assessment District for the Stadium area, if one is created, ,and tha*_ covenant needs to be recorded against the property. He stated when this first came in it covenant was not required, but since it i s up for a time extension, staff is requesting that it be added. He r esponded to Ms. Alexander that there is no money involved at this time. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated if a District is formed, the owners would have the opportunity to question any aspect of the District, and this condition is just for the formation of the District. 6/22/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNLNG CUMMISSIUN, JUNE 22.87 87-461_ Commissioner Bouas stated this will not cost the owners any money at this time, but could coat in the future if the ~,roporty ie ever redeveloped. Mr. Alexander, owner, stated regarding Condition No. 8, that he deeded frontage property to the City and it doesn'.t belong to him and now the City is requesting that the improvements be made on City property. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated technically a City right of way is an easement across the property granting the public the right to traverse the property and the burden of the improvements is on ~•he property owner and the City does regularly require ttre property owner to put in the improvements such as curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Commissioner Bouas stated the property that is dedicated is to be used for the widening of the street and asked ~rhen the street would be widened. Jay Titus responded no date is set for the widening and that he does not have the cost estimate, but that it is available in the Engineering Department. He explained the cash payment goes into a special fund that can only be used for street widening, but that it can be used anywhere in the city. Jay Titus explained when the city does not have a scheduled date Eor the widening, the improvements cannot be bonded for. Malcolm Slaughter stated the street will be widened in ttre Future because it is called for the General Plan. Paul Singer stated a ballpark figure for a dat~ would be no later than the year 2UU5. Mr. Titus stated this property has a narrow frontage and if the improvements were required at this time, the street would be jutting out. in that location an that could be hazardous. He stated this condition provides a different a1L.:rnative For meeting the obligation for street improvements. Ms. Alexander asked iE that requirement can be postponed for another three years. Chairman McBurney stated that requirement has been postponed now several times and it is time to require it. AC'1'IUN: Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87- 133 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a three-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2160, subject to the conditions of approval as originally imposed, to expire on June 22, 1990, to retain a recycling center in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE VACANT: ON F. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, gresented the written right to appeal the Planning Commissions decision within 22 days to the City Council. 6/22/87 +~ ~~~ JUNE 22 1987 87-462 MI'~.ITES- ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM MIS SIUN. ITEM N0. 12 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3555 - Request from A. RECLASSIFICATION 85-86-3U ANU V ARIANCE N0. _ CPI-Development for retroactive extensions of time in order to comply with conditions of approval, property located at 729, 731 and 733 Knott Street. AC'pION; Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Com~~issioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a .l-year extension of time (retroactive to April 28, 1987) forile28aslyg8cation No. 85-86-30 and Variance No. 355, to expire on Ap B. PROPOSED STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR APAR'CMEN'P PROPOSALS -Request £rom Mayor Ben Bay to add a standard condition to all apartment proposals considered at public hearing s limiting occupancy of each apartment. Commissioner r'ry stated he felt this will be an ordinance that cannot be enforced and will place a burden on staff, but could give them a handle where they find a situation of overcrowding. Commissioner Bouas stated she felt if this condition is g oing to be imposed on apartments, it should also be imposed on motels. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated in the event there is a violation, the building permits could be reviewed and explained the City Council has requested an ordinance that would apply to a 11 apartment projects. PUBLIC INTEREST: None OTHER DISCUSSION: Chairman Mceurney stated the Oranye County Section of the American Planning Association awarded a Distinguished Leadership award to Commissioner Lewis Herbst for his 22 years as a Planning Commissioner and congratulated him. He also pointed out that this awa.:d has been submitted at the state level for consideration. Commissioner Bouas congratulated Mr. Herbst and stated it was also pointed out that he had attended over 550 Planning Commission meetings during his 22 years and that that is a lot of time to devote to the City. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Resp ctfully subm~i led, ,,/ /'t ,, ~~~~~ ~~G~ E ith 1.. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~0262m 6/22/87 .:: 1 .,.,_ . ,,,. - w PLANN ZN~+ COMMISSION MEETING ON' JUNE 22, 1987 Prelimin ar.y elan Review and/or Field Trip Inspection 10;00 A.M. Session INFORMATION ITEM ONLY / NO ACTION Presentation by Wilda n As;;ociates Ed Cline, Manager of wildan's 'T'raffic & 'Pransportation Engineering Division, presented a brief summary of a traffic study they had done in the Northeast Industciu? Area approximately 10 months ago (October. 1986). '1'he study deals with the amount of tr aEfic there is today and the amount of traffic that is anticipated to be the re with the build~ut of the industrial area as it is presently zoned, and some mitigation measures to try and ease the trafFic load identified today and anticipated for the future. He referred to displays on the board of the Wort beast industrial area and various traffic zones. tle said when they do an analy sis of this nature, they identi.Ey all of the land that is either vacant, subject to development, or land that is underdeveloped and subject to some intensification. tle said they then generate trafFic from those zones and dist r ibute them on a system. The other is a conglomeration of traffic conditions t h at are Here today and anticipated to be here with the buildout of• the area as it is presently zoned, and what the traffic conditions would be with some r elati.vely minor changes such as striping. rechannelization, or signal modifications; in other words, things that can be practically done with the existing rights-of-way as mitigation measures. There were other loc ations where they could not identiTheaebareaslwould improvements, and th ose would need additional study. probably need major Work such as widening, additional lanes, double left turns and signal. changes. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, indicated that an EIR is currently being prepaced to assess the impact of designating a number of intersections as critical intersectio ns on the General Plan. At each designated critical intersection, proper ty owners will be required to dedicated up to an additional twelve (12) feet of right-of-way with the submittal of any new building permit. Tt':e six (6) intersections identified to be designated critical intersections include Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue, Imperial Highway and Orangetinorpe Avenue, Lakeview Avenue and La Palma Avenue, Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue, Kraemer Boulevard and Orangethorpe Avenue and He indicated that there were some Kraemer Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. serious traffic pronlems in the northeast industrial area and that the designation of the critical intersections was an attempt to bring a certain amount of. relief t o existing and future conditions. He noted that even more would need to be d one. _' v.: TNFORMATTON ITEM UNLY/NO ACTION presentation by Wildan Associates Page two Joel Fick, Planning Director, tcld the Commission that one of the main reasons for presenting the findings of the traffic study was to make the Commission aware of the traffic issues in the northeast industrial area; especially as they relate to existing conditions under existing land uses, and future conditions at buildout of. the General Plan. He said there were a number of pending alternativandp~~a~srhisoinformationnwasetadhelpsguide the Commission in industrial area, their future considerations. Respectfully submitted, Pamela H. Starnes, ro tempore Planning Commission Secretary p 2498p INFORMATION ITEM ONLY/NO ACTION Presentation by Wildan Associates Page two Joel Fick, Planning Director, told the Commission that one of the main reasons for presenting the findings of the traffic study was to make the Commission aware of the traffic issues in the northeast industrial area; especially as they relate to existing conditions under existing land uses, and future conditions at buildout of the General Plan. He said there were a number of pending alternative proposals of more intensive land uses in the northeast industrial area, and that this information was to help guide the Commission in their future considerations. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ ~ -~ Pamela H. Starnes, Planning Commission Secretary pro tempore 2496p