The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1988/12/19 MINUTES R£GiTT.LR ~ETiur_. np THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING O'siMiSSION Date: December 19, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Flaaning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Bouas at 10:00 a.m., December 19, 1988, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, a quorum being present and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:45 a.m RECONVENE: 1:30 p.m CQ#4dISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairwoman: Bouas Commissioners: Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, McBurney, Messe CCMMISSZONERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT:Greg Hastings Carol Flynn Arthur L. Daw Aaren Urman Mary McCloskey Linda Rios Edith Harris Debbie Vaqts 2oainq Division Manager Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Engineer Assistant Traffic Engineer Planning Division Manager Associate Planner Planning Commission Secretary Housing Operations Coordinator AGENDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m., December 16, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin - December 4, 1988 PUBLIC INPUT: Chairwoman Bouas esplaiaed at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. 0129m /jj 12/19/88 s ?~~ 1, _.I ~~~gS p+;gN,~j~rT'ry pLAhdING CON~SFSSI nrrruncv i o t oR8 88-2 ITEM NO 1 CEOA NEGAT3VE DECLARATION• RECLASSIFICATION N0. 88-89-04: VARIANCE NO 3812 AND WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO 543. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Walda Emery and Stephen Emezy, T16 N. East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805; LOCATION: 716 N. East Street Reclassification from RS-7200 to RM-2400. To construct a 5-unit affordable apartment complex with waivers of maximum str~~•tural height and minimum building site area for dwelling unit. Continued from meetings of November 7, 1988, and November 21, 1988. It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance to the meeting of January 16, 1989, in order to submit revised plans. THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING: ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus temporarily out of Chambers) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regular meeting of January 18, 1989, at the request of the petitioner. ITEM NO 2 - CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE NO 3874. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Richard L. Pierce, 14771 Plaza Dr., Suite "G", Tustin, CA 92680; LOCATION: 322 South Bush Street. Request: To waive minimum building site area per dwel,linq unit and maximum site coverage to construct a 2-story, 4-unit "affordable" apartment project. Continued from the meetings of October 24, and November 21, 1988. AND Item No~CEQA NecarivP nay aration and Varian~P No 3875. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Richard Pierce, 14771 Plaza Drive, Suite "G", Tustin, CA 92680; LOCATION: 322 South Bush Street. To waive minimum building site per.• dwelling unit and maximum site coverage construct 2-story, 4-unit, 3 "affordable" apartment project. Continued from the meetings of October 24, and November 21, 1988. Richard Pierce, owner, was present to answer any questions. Bill Phelps, agent, explained the whole project has been redesigned and the area rezoned to allow this type project and Y,c felt they have proposed a good project for the City and that it should be approved. 12/19/88 i Pr: wv MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANI7ING COMMISSION DhCEyIBER 19 1988 88-3 Mary Ariaz, 411 S. Bush, stated she has lived there since 1945 and is opposed to these units because it will be very crowded. She stated in her opinion this neighborhood is "going to the dogs" because there is a lot of traffic, a lot of robberies and these units will bring in more people. She stated the units would not be rented to just one family; and that people who live in apartments move a lot. She stated the neighbors think one or two houses would be nice and it is zoned for two houses and not apartments; that there would be two or three couples living in one unit because they could not afford the rent and in her opinion, allowing all these apar ~nents is where Anaheim has gone wrong; and that the street has too manl• children and the schools will be overcrowded. Ms. Ariaz stated the Commission should consider what has happened to downtown Anaheim and pointed out they do not have a shopping center downtown and there is nothing but apartments with a lot of people and that it isn't good to bring in more people. Cecelia Ariaz, 18452 Sierra Drive, Samona, CA., stated she was raised at 411 South Bush; that she understood affordable Housing is necessary for the neighborhood; however, the proposed density is too high. She explained when she comes to visit„ she has to park on her mother's from. lawn because of the lack of par'icing. She added a 2-bedroom unit, generally will have 2 adults with 2 cars and asked where they are going to park. She emphasized she is in favor of a lower density. She stated the children cannot glay outside anymore because of the traffic and she could not leave her car unlocked. She stated g:.eater density means more crime and more than once they have heard gunshots which really scares her. She stated she would like to move back to this area, but with so many people crowding in, it is not a desirable place to live, an3 the developers who build these units do not live there. Victoria Gonzales, 422 South Vine, Anaheim; stated she thought the Commission had agreed with the neighborhood at the last meeting that two stories would not be allowed. She! asked how long the units would be affordable and wanted to know who pays for the units. Chairwoman Bouas explained the rents have to he less and it is not subsidized rent, and stays affordable for 30 years. Ms. Gonzales asked what would happen if the owner sold the units and Chairwoman Bouas explained a covenant would be recorded and the new owner then would be obligated to collect the lower rent. Ms. Gonzales asked what kind of area the children would have to play in and where they will qo to school. She asked about the traffic and added they already have a lot of traffic on Broadway, East and Santa Ana Streets. She stated she would a+rentually like to sell her property and complained about the graffiti is the alley. She added 'they opposed the apartments next to her mother earlier and they were denied. 12119/88 I t ~. . , M7N[r~ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C0~4(Iccrnu DECEMBER 19 1988 88-4 She stated there are nine properties in that area on each side ~f the street and if they ware developed this same way, that would mean 90 cars on each side, 450 feet from alley to alley. She added this is a narrow street and a lot of children walk to school and they already have a lot of traffic. She stated once one development is allowed, others would have to be allowed. Patricia Meza, 325-1/2 Bush Street, directly across from the site, stated this is the 3rd time they have been here to oppose apartments. She stated she is Vice President of the Lincoln PTA, and she is aware of the problems they now have is the school, including the busing of children. She added there is a need to look ahead and plan for downtown Anaheim. She explained the way prices are escalating, she would not be able to buy a home anywhere else and wants to keep South Bush Street residential. She stated they spoke with Mr. Poole of Code Enforcement, and he indicated it is up to the neighbors to do something about the overcrowding, but they are afraid to turn their neighbors in. She added she would like to see the City o£ Anaheim work with some of the lower income families to help plan and develop their own properties and keep South Bush Street as it is. She stated she understands people need a place to live, but that she would like developers to find other streets which are more feasible for this type development. David Ortiz, 411 South Bush Street, Anaheim, stated he just recently got back to this area and heard about the things happening with the street• and did not have time to adequately prepare. He stated he grew up in the neighborhood and that it is true about the crime rate going up; that he has seen drug raids being made and has heard gun shots, etc. He stated parking is a problem right now and some people are parking on their lawns because there is no other place to park; and that normally a family has at least two cars, and asked where they are going park the extra cars. He stated the children play in the street; and it does get dangerous. He explained the school is overcrowded and it causes a hardship on a child to be traveling from one zone to another just to get an education. He voiced his concerns about where the children are going to play and about what was going to happen to his neighborhood. REBUTTAL• Mr. Phelps explained they did originally ask to construct a 4-unit apartment, one oa each of the lots, but he has redesigned the project so that they now qualify for 3-units under the existing zoning, and is not asking for any rezoning. He added they signed as agreement with Housing Department and have an affordable density bonus letter for the Commission's approval. Mr. Phelps stated the property is zoned for this type development and that in his 24 years of developing, this is the first time he has heard that people do not want any advantage or development in their community and that they are actually giving people a better place to live and more parking than they have is the adjacent neighborhood. 12/19/88 ~'~ MINUTES ANAF~FLIM CITY PI~t.~EIN OMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-5 THE PUBLIC HEARING Y7AS CLOSED. Chairwoman Bouas asked where the children would play? Mr. Phelps stat^d they have more than enough recreation area and they have the same amount of area that all the units have. He explained they did not have a tot yard, or a play yard with swings and slides, but they have plenty of recreation area. Ae added they have exceeded the standards, as far as the City is concerned. Commissioner Carusillo asked if the recreation area is considered the patios and decks? Mr. Phelps responded that it is just recreation or open area and added it would be rather difficult to put a play area for the kids on a 50-foot lot. Chairwoman Bouas responded the neighborhood's concern is that the children are playing in the streets now and that the developer is saying they do have enough area for the children to play on the premises. Mr. Phelps responded they do have as much as any other apartment in that area and as much as any other residence in that area. Chairwoman Bouas asked the opposition if they all have just one house on their lot? The response from the audience was that some apparently have two units. Chairwoman Bouas added naturally there are going to be more children with four units. Debbie Vagts, Housiaq Operations Coordinator, explained this is to be an affordable project and the developers are required to provide one 2-bedroom unit at a rent which is affordable to families at or below 50~ of the median income which translates into a rent of about 5500 a month and every year thereafter, the City determines the rent increase which is closely tied to inflation. She also explaiae3 there is an affordable housing agreement which is executed and recorded against the property, sad that agreement specifically provides that it does transfer when the property sells. Mr. Phelps stated he thought the length of the agreement was ten years. Debbie Vagts responded it is for thirty years; and that the letter of understanding indicated ten years or as stipulated by the Planning Commission or City Council. Commissioner Feldhaus stated it should be noted that the City Council is addressing the issue of thirty years and in all likelihood, he thought they may go for thirty years. He asked regarding Condition No. 5, if the legal owner will be required to record a covenant granting access easement from the property just immediately north for ingress and egress since they are treating the two units together. Mr. Phelps responded the casement has not been accomplished and recorded and that it did not have to be done until prior to obtaining the building permit or within a period of one year. 12/19/88 ~, -- ~ r: ~~; .,: IN[JTES ANAHEIM CITY PLA~'INING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 1 ::ommissioner Feldhnus asked if one property was vacant and Mr. Phelps replied they are both occupied. Commissioner Feldhaus commented that he drove down to the area three times and at 314-B S. Bush there are 4-units over garages and there were cars parked is the alley. He stated he had thought maybe because this property is contiguous to the other two, perhaps this project would fit, however, after driving down the alley, he believed there is too much on those properties now and four units on each one of these properties in his opinion, is too much and he could not justify it. Commissioner Messe stated as much as he understands the emotions of the neighborhood, Bush Street in this area is zoned RM-2400, and the General Plan calls for RM-1200. He explained if the property was rezoned in accordance with the General Plan as it stands right now, they could have a much more dense development. He stated parking is proposed at City Code and it is better than what it is in the area. He added he did not want to be unreasonable toward the developer. Commissioner Feldhaus stated they were only allowed 3 units before and the Commissioners asked him to add an affordable unit at the last Commission meeting. Commissioner Herbst stated originally access was off the alley. He explained the State has mandated, in certain areas, that the applicant can apply for affordable housing and is entitled to a 25i bonus density and this is one way to provide affordable housing. He added he thought this particular project will enhance the area rather than being a detriment because it meets all the code requirements for parking and is far better than most of the area. He stated this meets the criteria this Commission has tried to set down. Commissioner Feldhaus explained to the opposition that they did not want any access off the alley so the developer has revised his plan and eliminated that access; and that he has changed the plans several times and has actually eliminated the request for reclassification to RM-1200 which would allow up to 36 units per acre and this proposal is down to 18 units and he thought this project meets the criteria. Commissioner Messe explained there is an error in the staff report on page 1, paragraph 2, Section A, and it says, 2400 square feet permitted; 1525 square feet proposed, but the project is at 1937 square feet proposed, so the density it is not quite as dense as they thought. Chairwoman Bouas explained she hsd reviewed the landscape plan, and that it is a tremendous improvement over the previous proposal and that this is a nice looking project with the landscaping and it depends on who owns and manages the property as to what happens to that property. Mz. Phelps commented that Mr. Pierce has been in the community for many, many years and has built over 2,000 units in Anaheim and they all have been good units and he sees that they are maintained well. 12!19!88 .....-~.t-.:-.:~,.:_~..!:'1 YSA ::x.CF':~lf:'Y'Ve'C.^ ~°~:~?7~!4!!+'~'P..'Ai. l ~ ~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. DECEMBER 19 1988 88-7 Commissioner Feldhaus pointed out they are putting 9 bedrooms on one lot which equates to 18 adults or 36 people on 2 lots? Commissioner Carusillo asked about the exterior lighting for security. Mr. Phelps responded the security standards call for a particular illumination an the outside and it will be shielded for the protection of the other residences. He emphasized the project will be as secure as they can make it. Commissioner Carusillo asked the number of light standards in the parking area, i.e., and how they are going to be set up. He explained there is a concern in the area about security, and he thought it would behoove the project to have a well-lighted area. Mr. Phelps stated there are 70 lames required and they have reduced the length of the driveway and there will be a light on both buildings; and there are only 2 open parking spaces in each building, with six garages and 4 open spaces for the two buildings. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe, and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposa]. to construct a 2-story, 4-unit "affordable" apartment project with waivers of (a) minimum building site per area dwelling unit and (b) maximum site coverage on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7,750 square feet, having a frontage of approzimately 50 feet on the east side of Bush Street, having a maximum depth of approzimately 155 feet, and being located approximately 275 feet south of the centerline of Broadway and further described as 322 South Bush 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 that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect oa the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-342 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3874 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, t.<.:pography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the 2oninq Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: A7tyS: BOYDSTUN, CAR',iSILLO, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: BOUAS, FELDHAUS ABSENT: NONE 12/19/88 ~, .. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 19, 1988 88-8 ITEM N0. 3. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: VARIANCE N0. 3875. PUBLIC HEARING: OWk7ER: RICHARD L. PIERCE, 14771 Plaza Drive, Suite "G", Tustin, CA 92680; LOCATION: 318 S. Sush Street. Request: Waivers of (a) minimum building site per dwelling unit and (b) maximum site coverage to construct a 2-story, 4-unit "affordable" apartment project. Item Nos. 2 and 3 were discussed concurrently. There was no further discussion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe, and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 2-story, 4-unit "affordable" apartment project with waivers of (a) minimwm building site per dwelling unit and (b) maximum site coverage on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7750 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the east side of Bush Street, having a maximum depth of approzimately 155 feet and being located approximately 225 south of the centerline of Broadway and further described as 318 South Bush 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 nay comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect oa the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-343 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3875 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to thF property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property is 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 Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloxiug vote: AYES: BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: BOUAS, FELDHAUS ABSENT: NONE Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, asked if the Commission wants to direct staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment for the area bounded by Vine Street, the alley south of Broadway, the alley; east of Busks Street and the alley north of Santa Ana Street to redesignate it from Medium-Density to Lox-Medium Density which would bring the potential number of units down from 36 per acre to 18. 12/19/88 ~_ 88-9 j~Ii~$ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI^"' DECEMBER 19 1988 Chairwoman Bouas explained this area is shown on the General Plan as RM-1200 and that developers look at that and think they can have more units. She added the Commission wants the General Plan to be changed to RM-2400 so it will be Low Medium Density. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED, directing staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment for the area bounded by Vine Street, the alley south of Broadway, the alley east of Bush Street and the alley north of Santa Ana Street in order to redesignate the area from Medium-Density to Low-Medium Density. ITEM NO 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 273 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED): RE EST TO AMEND CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS 12700 (REVISION NO 1) 12701 AND 12702 yBLIC HEARINS~: OWNER: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 17991 Mitchell South, Irvine, CA 92714; AGENT: FRANK ELFEND 6 ASSOCIATES, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: Subject property is approximately 816 acres and is bounded oa the north by The East Hills Planned Cortanunity, on the east by Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills, on the west by the existing Anaheim Hills Planned Community, and on the south by the City of Orange and unincorporated land within the County of Orange and is further described as Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12700 (Revision No. 1), 12701, and 12702 within The Highlands At Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) development area. Request: Petitioner requests that the following vesting tentative tract map conditions of approval be amended to provide consistency with a recent December 6, 1988, City Council action per Resolution No. 88R-420 amending the corresponding Specific Plan (SP87-1) conditions of approval. V_PStina Tentati~ Trarr Mar No 12700 (Revision No. 1) - Condition Nos. 4, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 28. Vey*ina Tentative Tract Map No 12701/12702 - Condition Nos. 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, and 26. (2b) Petitioner. further requests that the following vesting centati~~e tract map conditions, which do not correspond to Specific Plan conditions, be amended to allow compliance at a later date. Veering Tent rive Tract Man No 12'00 (Revision No. 1) - Condition Nos. 55 and 59 Sestina Tentative Tract Mar Nos ~2701/1270~ - Condition Nos. 54 and 57 Attachment A provides the existing and proposed wording of subject conditions in addition to noting which conditions correspond to recently approved amendments to Specific Plan conditions. Planning Commission may wish to note that the proposed wording of those vesting tentative tract map conditions which correspond to Specific Plan conditions is consistent with the recent City Council amendments. 12/19/88 § y i f MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 19. 1968 88-10 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. Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 4075 Mac Arthur, Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, representing Presley of Southern California, stated the staff report that has been prepared very proficiently by Linda Rios has been extremely helpful to them in the process. He explained the conditions, or a majority of them, came before the City Council a few weeks ago when they were approved and they have not come back to the Planning Commission for a similar request. He added their comments would be best suranarized on page 2 of the staff report; in that the Planning Commission may further note that the interdepartmental staff and the applicant are in accord with the amendment and all subject conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he was concerned about what is happening on the Highlands project regarding the dirt, dust and wind. He stated he was under the impression that the City was going to do something about this and so far nothing had been d~~ne. He stated he would like to make some recommendations about the grading ordinance. He explained he has brought up the wind problem many times before and it has been ignored, and added that he understood that the wind study was never given to the City. Mr. Elfend responded that he thought he had given a copy to the Commissioners. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Elfend to give a copy to the staff and Mr. Elfend indicated that he would. Mr. Elfend commented to Commissioner Herbst, that when he talked to him last week on the item, that he had forwarded his call to Mr. Steve Riggs of Presley Company, and that he understood from the conversation he had with Mr. Riggs last week that he did speak with Commissioner Herbst and they were taking action. He added if this is not the case, then he would like to know. Commissioner Herbst stated he spoke with Mr. Riggs; and they were there on Wednesday the 7th and the wind was blowing; and the big machines were grading and the dirt and dust could be seen rolling off the area directly toward where he lives. He stated he has pictures of his house and the dirt that was in the kitchen, and other rooms and in the garage. He added his neighbors had the same problem. He stated he spoke with Mr. Riggs on Friday and invited him out to his house on Saturday morning so he could show him the dirt, but he refused and stated he believed him and he would send somebody out to help clean it up. He added a week went by and he called last Friday and said that they were taking it under advisement and that they would send a letter, but so far they have received nothing. He stated he has been getting calls from his neighbors asking what was going to happen. 12/19/88 i ~~ ~..' MIh^t'~'ES ANl~~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECE.~ER 19 ~Q@8 88-11 He asked Frank Elfend if he remembered when he asked him about cutting down the hills, and what was going to happen when the Santa Ana winds started blowing? He added he has been living there for 12 years and in the past they have had dust and leaves, but never dirt. He stated they have an unbelievable amount of dirt inside their homes and can draw pictures oa the inside of their windows. He stated there needs to be more control with regard to the Grading Ordinance so there will be no grading unless the area is hydromulched between the months of October and February. Commissioner Carusillo stated it is up to the Commission to implement the Grading Ordinance. Commissioner Herbst stated he wanted to direct staff of the Engineering Department to look into this; and to have Mr. Elfend submit the wind study to the Commission and to the staff so they can review What the gentleman from Newport was saying with regards to having 5 mph winds because they have 40 or 50 mph winds out there. Mr. Elfend stated for the public record, that he would like to clarify that yes, there ox••e severe winds out there whether or not there is grading. Ae added the study said there was going to be an increase of about 20 or 25~ and that was not considered to be significant. Mr. Elfend stated Commissioner Herbst has raised a reasonable point, and he is surprised that nothing has happened because that was not his understanding, but they can be assured that he will discuss it again. Mr. Elfend stated he understood the problem and suggested the Commission could move on to the item that is before them today which is the amendment to the conditions of approval and then it would be up to the Commission to take any further action on the related matter. Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Elfend if he would get a copy of the study. Mr. Elfend responded that he would retrieve the study and get it to the City staff. Commissioner Carusillo stated he would like a status report oa Deer Canyon. Mr. Elfend responded that they have been •xorkiaq with the Engineering Department relative to the design for storm drain facilities in Deer Canyon, and that there have been a variety of plans prepared. He ezplained they are working with the Engineering Department and Parks Department to come up with a final plan. Commissioner Carusillo asked if the drainage would stay compatible with the natural state or will there be a 4-foot diameter pipe? 12l19I88 1 t i .~~. j~INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN COMM`,~~ ;S:~~`+,,.. '. ~:~lr~.F_%,~.~' 9. I988 88-12 Mr. E1feL:d responded that he is concerned about the potential impact on life and SaEe::y considerations; and as indicated previously, there are a variety of different plans sad he has been working closely with Gary Johnson. He added depending on what the final determination is, there may be limited pipe in certain areas and no pipe in others; however, that is something that will hopefully be resolved in the nett 30 days. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, secouded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has determined that Environmental Impact Report No. 273, previously certified by the City Council on Juae 23, 1987, for the Highlands At Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1), is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the request to amend certain conditions of approval of the previously-approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12700 (Revision No. 1), 12701, and 12702. Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission ha.s determined that Condition Nos. 4, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 2Q, 26, 28, 55, 59 and 82 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 12700 (Revision No. 1) sad Condition Nos. 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 54, 57 and 69 of Vsstiaq Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12701 and 12702 be amended as reflected in Attachment B of the December 19, 1988, Staff Report to the Planning Commission, including the addition of Condition No. 82 for Vesting Tentativo Tract Map No. 12700 (Revision No. 1) sad Condition No. 69 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12701 and 12702, and that said amendments shall not become effective until such time as Ordinance No. 4983 is finalized. Said amended and additional conditions are as follows: Vesting Vesting Tentative Tentative Tract Map Tract Map 12700(Rev.l) 12701/12702 Condition ~ Condition q 4 4 Conditions Prior to the approve] of the first final tract map or parcel map, a study shall be concluded by as independent third party acceptable to the City and the property owner/developer defining the most appropriate financial mechanism(s) (e.g., assessment district(s)) to assure the Project generates revenues (assessment revenues) to meet the assigned costs of City services (operations and maintenance) on a year by year basis. Eiaal decision for establishing such financial mechanism(s) will be that of the City Council. Said financial mechanism shall be formed prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first. Such mechanism(s) shall be formed to generate assessment revenues sufficient to recover any variances between 12/19/88 '~_.' MINUTES ANAHEI~~ CrTY PLANNING COMMISSI01' ^F~FMSER 19 1988 88-13 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 12700(Rev.l) '1.U Vesting Tentative Tract Map 12701/12702 10 revenues to the City generated by project development and assigned City costs to service the project. The City shall have the right to monitor said revenues and costs. Annual assessment revenues shall not ezceed an amount necessary to offset the yearly difference between costs associated with said project and the revenues generated therefrom together with wa Highland's estimated proportionate share of additional off-site revenues generated by the project (e.g. regional shopping center revenues to City): and, when the assessment revenues reach equilibrium with allocated costs and recovery of any prior unfunded costs for two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The costs foz said studies associated with determining and establishing the most appropriate financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the owner/developer by means of reimbursement to the City prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first. (611) ~ Coni+rions That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map the property owner/developer shall provide documentation, is a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition of easements for any public facility (including but not limited to water, electrical, sewers, drainage) that ~xill be necessary to cross the Oak Hills Ranch and Wallace Ranch, and that prior to the recordation of the first final tract or garcel map within Development Areas 1, 2, or 5, the property owner/developer shall provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition of easements for any public facility (including but not limited to water, electrical, sewers, drainage) that will be necessary to cross adjacent properties to the north of The Highlands in order to serve the needs of The Highlands, as required by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager. Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the sole ezpense of the property owner/developer. (630) 12/19/88 q` fr 4 *Please note that the numbers in parenthesis following the conditions refer to the corresponding condition numbers as set forth in Ordinance No. 4983 adopted in connection with the amendment of certain conditions of approval of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1). 11 11 That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall post a bond to secure reimbursement to the City of Anaheim for The Highlands' proportionate share of the cost for providing public facilities and utilities (including a fire station and storm drain facilities) which facilities and utilities are located in the Sauer Ranch but will also serve The Highlands project, which proportionate share of cost will be paid by property owner/developer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or Use for the first unit is The Highland's project. The amount of said proportionate share of costs shall be determined by the adoption by the City Council of the applicable benefit area plans and related reimbursement agreements. Said funds shall be used to reimburse Kaufman and Broad (the developer of the Bauer Ranch) for The Highlands proportionate share of said facilities and utilities. (#31) Vesting Vesting Tentative Tentative Tract Map Tract Map 12700(Rev.l) 12701/12702 Condition # Condition # _ Conditions 13 That prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first, for any final map that incorporates a primate street, a financial mechanism, acceptable to and approved by the City, for maintenance of private streets shall be established at the ezpense of the owner/developer. (#35) 15 That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map for Development Areas 11 and 12, the owner/d~sveloper shall provide the City with evidence of compliance with the Orange County Sanitation District Master Plan and that all requirements of the Orange County Sanitation District, including annexation (if deemed necessary by the Orange County Sanitation District), have been complied with. (#38) 12/19/88 '~ ON DECEMBER ~9 1988 88-15 m'ThJ'~'ES ANAHEIM CITY rr_arrtTING 17 15 GOlY4~(ISSI That, prior to the issuance of the 201st building permit or six months from the approval o: the first final tract or parcel map within The Highlands project, whichever comes first, the owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate 5 acres of parkland at a site location acceptable to the City and its local park site criteria, adjacent to the elementary school site, is the vicinity of Serrano Avenue and Canyon Rim Road. The dedication offer shall also provide that the park site be graded flat (Si slope or less). (#42) 16 That the Four Corners Trail shall be maintained 18 by a special maintenance district or other financial mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City, and established at the ezpense of the owner/developer, prior to the sale of the first residential lot o the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first. Any trail work involving the Four Corners Pipeline easement right-of-way shall be reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map wherein the pipeline is (continued0) Vesting Vesting Tentative Tentative Tract Map Tract Map 12700(Rev.l) 12701/12702 Conditions ond' ion # condition # (cont.) located. Should the work contemplated not be approved by the City, the property owner/developer shall provide a suitable trail alignment alternative, subject to the written approval of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, that will accomplish the trail system as originally intended. (#47) 19 17 That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be designed, financed and installed by the developer in the uncemented portions of the parkways along nay arterial highway. The responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping shall be financed through a special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall be established at the ezpense of the owner/developer prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first. (#50) 22/19/88 ~~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO ^vrrvarv io iogg 88-16 20 18 That prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first, the petitioner shall make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for landscaping and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this property and for the maintenance of Deer Canyon. (N51) Vesting vesting Tentative Tentative Tract Map Tract Map 12700(Rev.l) 12701/12702 Condition ~ Condition ~ 21 19 Conditions That if landscape maintenance is to be financed through a Homeowner's Association, which association has been found to be acceptable to the City of Anaheim, the owner of subject property shall ezecute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to (Y) maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any arterial street parkways adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common areas, and all median islands installed is conjunction with said subdivision except those located within arterial streets; (2) indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless for damages resulting therefrom; and (3) maintain liability insurance for said parkways and median islands naming the City as an additional insured. The form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and shall be recorded prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance cf the first Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first. The developer of each tract or parcel shall improve and maintain the hereinabove described parkways and median islands, including providing the above specified insurance, until such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore as hereinabove provided. The developer shall post a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance of the developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the First Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first. (~52) 12/19/8E ~:' t~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~" "41"41HER 19 1988 88-17 Vesting Vesting Tentative Tentative Tract Map Tract Map 12700(Rev.l) 12701/12702 rr,n,iitioa ~andition 24 22 Conditions - That prior to approval of the fourth final parcel or tract mep, a feasibility study of the developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted to address the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium and environmental concerns within the drainage basin. In addition, the study shall address the maintenance costs associated with the facilities. Said study shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of construction and final design, including erosion control measures in the upper reach of the system, shall be in conformance with the findings of said study. Said study shall be approved by the City Engineer and reviewed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, California Department of Fish and Game and the County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). (k61) 26 24 That prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first, a special maintenance district or other funding mechanism acceptable to and approved by the CiL•y shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer for the maintenance of all open or natural channel storm drain facilities both on- and off-site necessitated by the Highlands development. (M69) Y8 26 That prior to the approval of the fourth final tract or parcel map, the owner/developer of the Highlands shall prepare a comprehensive biological restoration and enhancement plan. As described in EIR No. 273 and shown on Exhibit 29 of the Specific Plan, the plan proposes a program of planting, salvage, drainage enhancement and habitat restoration to achieve stabilization of the Deer Canyon drainage, enhance woodland habitat and compensate for tree losses. This program and related details shall be finalized during the subsequent permit processes with the Department of Fish and Game prior to the approval of the final roadway design plan, and shall also be subject to review by the City Engineer and the County of Orange and review and approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. (@88) 12/19/88 ~, MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY FLANKING COMMISSION. DECEMBER 19. 1988 88-18 vesting vesting Tentative Tentative Tract Map Tract Map 12700(Rev.l) 12701/12702 Condition # Condition # 55 54 Conditions That prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, whichever comes first, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to she developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted to the City, Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 59 57 That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map gaining access from Canyon Rim Road, the owner/developer shall post security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee reconstruction of the median island on Canyon Rim Road to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within The Highlands project. Add as Cond. Add as Cond. Prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the No. 82 2io. 69 final tract or parcel map, the owner/developer shall record against the entire tract or parcel map a covenant, in a form approved by the City Attorney, imposing against each and every lot is the tract or parcel map the obligation to maintain all slopes, open space, private streets, and private utilities and comply with each of the additional obligations contained in each of those certain conditions identified on Exhibit A hereof. The slopes and areas to be maintained under this covenant shall be those determined by the City Engineer as required by the Municipal Code. The obligations of the covenant shall survive unless and until the aforementioned CC6R's are recorded. (#122) :2/19/88 ..,. ~x _~'. ANAHEIM CITY ~hg~rxr, COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1 Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey to direct staff to look into the possibility of amending the Grading Ordinance to reflect the wind and dust damage potential between the months of October and February regarding any massive grading to include hydromulchinq (exclusive of individual lots and small areas). Commissioner Carusillo suggested addiuq something to do with the increased wind velocity, other than just dust in terms of velocity, and added he would like to see the motion broadened to include this. Commissioner Hezbst responded he did not feel they could tie in the wind velocity where damage might be done. Ae added that Presley is already aware of the possibilities if they cut a hill down and blow someone's house away, they may be responsible for changing the shape and topography of the ground and that would be a civil responsibility between Presley and the people in the area. He added when they are working and cause damage due to the dust, that would be another issue. Chairwoman Bouas stated she felt these two motions should not be tied together. Commissioner Herbst stated his motion, which was seconded did not include Commissioner Carusillo's comments to it; and added that Commissioner Carusillo could make another motion if he chose to. Commissioner Feldhaus asked why Commissioner Herbst was isolating this from October to February, and added that is not the only time the Santa Ana winds blow. Commissioner Herbst responded October through February are the primary windy months. Commissioner Carusillo stated his concern is the importance of the increased wind velocity and that the Commission should pay attention to it. Ae stated he did not feel the City has the technical knoxledge or sophistication to understand the wind reports which might be biased in that they there were paid for by a builder. Chairwoman Bouas called for the vote on Commissioner Herbst's motion as originally offered. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, pointed out there is a new City Council Policy that requires City Manager approval before staff accepts a project requiring more than 4 huurs of staff time. Commissioner Carusillo stated is conjunction with that motion, he would like to make a motion to expand the study to include the area of increasing wind velocity and the damage it might cause. Greg Hastings stated that type of information is typically found in the EIR which would accompany any large project out in the Canyon area. Ae added the Commission may wish to direct staff to emphasize that issue in an EIR. 12/19/88 ~ ~~ INUTES ANAHEIM~TY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-2 Commissioner Carusillo stated they are talking about a wind study which no one seems to recall seeing which is buried in the archives and may reappear here for review. Chairwoman Bouas suggested directing staff in the future, when an EIR is required, to emphasize the wind study, and asked for clarification as to what his motion actually is. Commissioner Carusillo stated he did not know how much more specific he could be, however, that he is concerned about when there is major grading involved, like on the 3 ranches, and the ramifications that night be generated by creating additional velocity of the wind. He stated that he would 'like this incorporated into future EIR's for any major developments that require that type of grading. ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission direct staff to emphasize the wind study issue in the future EIR's. ITEM NO 5 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PER;tIT NO. 3101. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Smooke S Son Investment Company, P.0. Box 1311, Los Angeles, CA 90053; AGENT: Orange County Truck and Trailer Sales, Inc., 620 E. Ratella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805; LOCATION: 620 East Katella Avenue. Request: To retain a truck sales and service agency and lot with waivers of (a) required improvement of outdoor storage areas, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum fence height, and (d) required enclosure of outdoor uses. There was no one indicating their presence is opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. John Benson, 644 N. Lemonhill Trail, Orange, stated he would like to continue to run his truck sales and service agency at 620 E. Katella, Anaheim. He indicated they have been at that location since July, 1985, under another Conditional Use Permit. He explained the lease did ezpire, however, it was just rewritten and he is now back again. He added the lease is still on a year to year basis, however, they have a 5-year commitment and it must be renewed every year. He explained in order to comply with everything that was previously required, they have spent over $60,OOO.CO and have continued to improve the premises. He added over 20~ of the lot is asphalt and about 50~ crushed rock. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would like to see some landscaping and greenery in front of this business and aesthetically it would improve the area. He asked Mr. Beason if he would consider putting in some greenery along Ratella. 12/19/88 ~~ .s ES ANAHEIM CITX_P_LANNING COMMISSION. DECEMBER 19. 1988 88-21 Mr. Benson stated he had put some plants in that area and spent about $4,000 and approximately $3,500 worth of those plants left the premises in one way or another. He stated they have replanted the area 4 times. He explained the greenery they do plant does not thrive and the plants die from the heat, even though they have a sprinkler system. He added the area is heavily traveled snd a lot of people walk down to the ball games and to the restaurant on the corner. He stated there are 12 or 14 plants left out of about 60 they originally planted. Commissioner Messe stated the landscaping on the east where the large palm trees are is o.k and no one will walk away with those. Ae pointed out the portion of the landscaping to the west is ground cover. He suggested perhaps they could put some larger trees in there which would give a nicer appearance than what there is now. Commissioner Herbst left the meeting temporarily. Mr. Benson stated he would be happy to attempt this. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the alternative to that would be slatted fencing which is required by code. He added some of the car agencies have aesthetically improved their lots and he would want to see that made a condition of approval of the conditional use permit. A TI N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain a truck sales and service agency and lot with waivers of (a) required improvement of outdoor storage areas, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum fence height, and (d) required enclosure of outdoor uses on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 288 feet on the south side of Ratella Avenue, having a mazimum depth of approximately 363 feet and being located approximately 590 feet west of the centerline of Lewis Street and further described as 620 East Ratella Avenue; 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 oa the environment. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the City of Anaheim does hereby GRANT waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase is 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. Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC 88-344 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3101 for a period of five (5) years, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to additional landscaping on the west side and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations and stipulations. 12/19/88 ;~ ` Jj. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 198E 88-22 Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSZLLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESSED at 3:00 RECONVENED at 3:15 p.m. Commissioner Herbst returned to the meeting. ITEM N0. 6 - CEQ~,NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3102. gjJBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Wendell Brandt and Marcia Brandt, 6140 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92807; AGENT: DON WEBER, 2302 Martin Street, 8460, Irvine, CA 92715; LOCATION: 6140 Santa Ana Canyon Road. Request: To ?ermit a child day care center (Binder Care). There were nine people 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. PRESENTATI N: Don Weber, Regional Construction Manager for Kinder Care, Stated they have reviewed the staff's recommendations regarding the conditional use permit and have no problem with any of the recommendations, with the exception of clarification of ,:ondition No. 22 and possibly changing Conditions 27 and 28. He stated Condition No. 22 states that there will be no rocf-mounted equipment whatsoever permitted and it is referenced back to the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.84.042.012. He stated in reviewing that code, it was written is the area of zoning which addresses basically T.V, antennas, satellite dishes, etc. on the building. He explained his plan has been submitted, and they have given elevations to staff to review and all of the heating and air conditioning equipment is mounted at ground level and screened from view. He added the only items they have on the roof are two exhaust fans, approximately 12 to 14 inches in diameter, which are used to exhaust the bathrooms and the changing tables which are inside the center. He stated those can be painted to match the color of the roof and when completed they closely resemble plumbing stacks and they make hardly any noise, just the sound of a fan turning. He stated he wanted clarification that those would be allowed on the roof. He added Condition No. 27 states several items which must be completed prior to issuance of a building permit, and includes Condition No. 19 which requires that a G-foot high masonry block wall be installed on three of the property lines prior to issuance of the building permit. He indicated they would like 12/19/88 I <_. `,~ 4.. MTNiTfFC ANLAFTM (`TTY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-23 that moved to Condition No. 28 so work could be completed after they have been issued a building permit but prior to occupancy. He stated this is work that would be done during the construction process. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated typically the requirement that the masonry block wall be constructed prior to building permit is to protect the surrounding residents from the construction debris and noise and sometimes the Planning Commission has deferred that to the occupancy level. He stated staff would not have a problem, as long as the noise and dirt are taken care of. Mr. Weber stated the plans are for the walls on two of the sides to be at 5 feet and they are going to add another foot to those walls as required. Mr. Hastings stated no roof-mounted equipment is allowed in the Scenic Corridor, however, a small vent typical of what would be found a single-family residence, would not be a problem and is not really equipment, but is just a vent. Mr. Weber stated the exhaust fans will be mounted on the back side of the roof and they will not be seen fram the Scenic Corridor. Chairmsn Messe asked for clarification. regarding the screened air conditioning equipment. Mr. Weber responded that would be mounted on the ground. QPPOSITION• Owen McGowan, 6155 East Haja, Daaheim, indicated his property is directly south and adjacent to the property ir.; que:ttion. He referred to page 2 of the staff report which says that staff bias reeriewed the proposal and finds no significant environmental impact, and asked when that was done? Greg Hastings indicated the Initial Study required to be submitted by the applicant was submitted to the City on November 15 and from that list, there were a couple of the answers which indicated that there would be some type of environmental impact. He added mitigation measures would take place. :~t Mr. McGowan asked what time of the day the staff was there? Greg Hastings responded the staff takes the information the applicant submits and also information from the Planning files. He further explained the Initial Study is submitted to staff by the applicant and staff then analyzes it and makes the recommendation to the Planning Cammission. He explained it is a list of questions referring to different aspects of the environmental quality. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. McGowan stated he did not understand what a negative declaration is. 12/19/88 Q a d ~: MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-24 Mr. Hastings clarified a negative declaration is a tool that is used inskead of an environmental impact report and the negative declaration states that there is no effect on the environment, other than what mitigation measures can occur. Mr. McGowan stated he did not agree that there was no significant environmental impact. Mr. Hastings stated also the Planning Commission would take into consideration anything which is brought up at the public hearing, along with staff's recommendation. Chairman Messe stated if there are environmental impacts associated with this project, this is the time to bring it up. Mr. McGowan referred to No. 15 on page 3 about the noise impact being negligible. He asked if nay of the Commissioners live adjacent to 138 kids, and added he does not and hopes he never will; and that he moved out to this area 12-1/2 years ago for the rural atmosphere which is declining due to growth. He stated he is not against growth, people oz anyone making a living; however, he thinks 138 children behind him would have a drastic effect on him personally and on his mental health. He added 17d, page 3, states the traffic generated by the proposed use would not impose an undue burden, but with 138 children being dropped off at one car per child, there would be 276 cars going over the driveway each day, either entering or exiting Santa Ana Canyon Road and allowing for the 15 employees, is another 30 trips, so that is almost 600 times that cars are going over a driveway on a road that is extremely crowded now. He stated on a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday evening between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., sometimes it takes 15 minutes to go from Imperial Highway to Quintana which is approximately one mile. He explained thc; traffic is backed up constantly from the people who live in Corona, Riverside and the Inland Empire and that Santa Ana Caayoa Road is an extension of the 91 Freeway. He stated traffic from the Riverside area comes through their tract. He stated the traffic is horrendous and that is his main concern. He added he is against this conditional use permit. Bruce Organ, 6120 San Lorenzo, stated he lives by a cul-de-sac just east of the property in question about 100 feet away. He stated he agrees with everything Mr. McGowan said and that he did not understand how 138 children playing on a playground could have no effect on the residential neighborhood. He explained Santa Ana Canyon Road from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. every weeknight is nothing but a parking lot. He added there are people coming down the bike lane trying to pass everyone going east, and there will be people coming out of this proposed facility turning right and that he could not believe the Planning Commission would consider something like this. He presented a petition with several signatures obtained by his wife of neighbors who are opposed. He explained he is opposed to the number of children out playing because of the noise and also to the access, i.e., and 12/19/88 s' :._ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 SA ?S that the people would be coming is and out at peak hours in the morning. He added if they are going to be open from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., it will contribute to the traffic problem. William R. Ramirez, 6134 East Palo Alto Drive, stated his wife is also here today and he is representing his neighbor who could not attend. He submitted a letter Lo the Commission opposing the action. He stated he moved in the neighborhood in July of 1988; and that the traffic would be absolutely ridiculous and will not only be increased on Santa Ana Canyon Road, but also through the tract, especially on Quintana. He explained the day care parents will seek an escape route off Santa Ana Canyon Road and that he knew the people who have their children in the day care facility are going to be in the same situation he is and it is going to hurt the homeowners. He added the zoning on the property is residential single-family/agricultural and that it is not appropriate for a day care center. Frank Cedar, 130 S. Pueblo Place, Anaheim, stated he agrees with everything that was stated. He questioned the dedication of vehicular access rights on page 4 of the staff report and asked the purpose of the dedication. Mr. Hastings indicated Condition No. 8, page 4, requires dedication to the City of all access rights along San Lorenzo so that they cannot take vehicular access from that street. Mr. Cedar stated Santa Ana Canyon Road is highly impacted today, and asked the Planning Commissioners to make a trip out there on a Thursday night between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to see the situation. He stated noise is something that should be a concern, and he did not like the idea of living down the street from 138 screaming kids. He stated he understood the block wall on the front of the property is going to be dropped from 6 feet to 3 feet, and voiced his concerns over the possibility of the children climbing over khe fence and running into the street. He asked the Commission to decline the request. Judy Sepulveda, 6147 Saja, stated she agreed with what has already been said. She added of this group here today, she is the only existing original homeowner. She stated her house backs up to the house that is right next to the tract they are talking about. She explained when the contractor built the tract, he put a lot of restrictions on the land ~n protect homeowners so that these kinds of things would not happen, however, he bas since moved on. She stated he led them to believe, as homeowners, they would be protected from having anything that would be adverse to their tract or the area and they were not to have anymore access driveways onto Santa Ana Canyon Road. She stated ten years ago somebody else attempted to put a pre-school in this location and at that time, they asked each owner for their opinions and had them fill out a questionnaire; but after that, they heard nothing. She stated the main objection of everyone is safety. 12!19/88 ~a n~ y MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-26 REBUTTAL• Don Weber, applicant, stated the one large concern he had was having 138 children on the playground making a lot of noise at one time; that while the center's license is for 138 children, Binder Care never puts 138 children on the playground at one time; that during the operating hours of the center, they have children who are delivered from a period of 6:00 a.m. in the morning to about 8:30 or 9:00 a.m. in the morning and picked up till 6:00 p. m. in the evening; that the total number of the children in the center will vary from day to day; that of that 138 maximum capacity, the center will be licensed for 8 infants which will never go outside; and they will license for approximately 16-20 toddlers who very seldom get outside, and those are the children up to 2 years old. He stated normally they stagger the playground times so that the children are out on the playground is groups of 20-25; that anytime they are out on the playground, they are supervised by the workers at the center; therefore, there are never 138 children on the playground at one time. He stated Kinder Care is being required, per staff's recommendation, to improve Santa Ana Canyon Road for the total length of the frontage which is approximately 220 feet. He stated the Traffic Engineer has recommended a deceleration lane of approximately 300 feet in length for a right hand turn into the center off Santa Ana Canyon Road and they will be adding an additional lane; installing curb, gutters and sidewalks; add~nq two street lights and adding an additional fire hydrant on Santa Ana Canyon, all in conjunction with the widening of Santa Ana Canyon, when the City of Anaheim completes their plans and starts construction. He stated they are paying their fair share of approximately 580,000 for this work. He added the employees coming to the center, come with the children or are dropped off with the children. He added they have employees who have children at the center and they are dropped off by their spouses on their way to work and picked up on their way back, therefore, they do not have the complete impact of 136 children being brought separately, in addition to the 15 employees. He stated he hoped several of the employees would come from the immediate neighborhood and they could possibly commute by bicycle or walking. He added the drop-off timeframes are over a 2-1/2 hour period, so they do not have all the cars there at one time. He stated the 6-foot black wall which is around the center, and was required by staff, is already 6 feet high and the two side walls are 5 feet high. He stated the wall does eaceed the state Department of Social Health Services requirements for the project and that when there is a swimming pool, they are required to have a 6-foot fence and they have addressed that concern. He stated the the RS-A-43,000 zoning does allow for a day care center with a conditional use permit in residential zones. He stated the noise has been addressed via a noise study which was presented to staff. He added they did a noise study at another center in Irvine which has approximately 80 to 90 students currently enrolled for a period of 4 to 5 hours which shows the noise rating and the noises around the property and the 12/19/88 }y ~, R` Y~ MINUTES_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-27 total noise generated exceeded the 60 dba which is acceptable for other public schools and other day care centers by a few points and only at a few times during the day. He stated comparing this with the 65 dba design standards normally required, they meet those standards based on the location of the playground. He explained the CNEL levels (Community Noise Equivalent Level) standard of 65, taken from the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon, would require that the playground be 156 feet from the centerline of that street and it will be 170 feet. He stated they will mitigate the noise levels based on those concerns and inside the building will drop the noise level another 25.7 decimals. He stated regarding curb cuts on Santa Ana Canyon Road, they have agreed to give up access rights to San Lorenzo Court and will be accessing through an egress and ingress easement which was developed in 1966 for both their parcel and the parcel to the right and it will remain as is. He added the curb cut in the center of the street will be closed which should improve the traffic flow in and out of the site, and a person will only be able to make a right turn in and a right turn out and will not be able to cross traffic. He addressed the concern of people pulling off to the side to pick up their children, and explained they will not allow the parents to let their children leave from the car and go into the center; that they are required to park, go into the center, and sign their children in and then sign their children out and put them back into the car and leave the premises; therefore, they would not have any children coming out oa their own and they will be with their parent or guardian. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated a sound study was made for another day care center about 2 or 3 years ago and they had berms and the readings were in excess of 80 to 90 decibels. He stated he has been involved in sound for several years and it appears to him they rtiust have had mufflers on the kids or they were not yelling. He added from the experience of the Planning Commission, the sound readings were very, very low, compared to other studies conducted with similar circumstances. He added he has to travel Santa Ana Canyon Road every day and that he agrees with the people who are opposing this that it would be very hard to ingress and egress the property between 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. most days of the week. He added he realizes the City is going to widen Santa Ana Canyon Road in the future, but that he has a feeling it xould be quite some time. He commented there is a bike lane which he felt the people will probably be using more than they would be using the travel lanes to get to Quintana, turn right, and qo some place else. He added this particular area is residential and that this is a commercial application and that he did not believe it was the right place for this type of use because of the area and the things it is going to hack up to, and added it just does not fit. 12/19/88 ~r .~ ,.J j~NUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-28 Commissioner Feldhaus agreed with Commissioner Herbst, and stated he was more concerned about safety and added the traffic and a 4-foot high chain link fence did not seem to be appropriate and would not keep children from wandering out onto Santa Ana Canyon Road. He stated he has the same comments which have already been made regarding the traffic. He stated noise would be No. 4 on his list of concerns. Mr. Weber stated he could address Commissioner Feldhaus' comments regarding the 4-foot fence; that the perimeter fences above the residential would be 6-foot high block walls and he could change the plans to increase the front fence to six feet. He added they had also considered the fence that would be along the front of the playground area, and rather than being chainlink, it would be the wrought iron variety that would be acceptable to licensing so Lhe children cannot fit through it. He added the fence could be increased to siz feet in height. He added anytime the children are on the playground, they are supervised with attendants from the center. Commissioner Carusillo stated he lives in the area and shares the concerns of the neighborhood regarding the traffic; and that he would not want to live next to a Rinder Care school, even though he realized that it is a good community service and there is a need for it. He added he did not believe this is the location for it and added he is concerned about the beautification and the tranquility of the area. He stated he agreed it is commercial and there is a need, but not in that location. ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a child day care center (Kinder Care) on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.75 acre having a frontage of approximately 220 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approzimately 150 feet and being located approximately 550 feet west of the centerline of Quintana Drive and further described as 6140 Santa Ana Canyon Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consid-red 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 Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC 88-395 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY Conditional Use Permit No. 3102 on the basis that this is not a commercial area, and that there are no 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. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERHST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: FELDHAUS ABSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 12/19/88 s_ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMxSSION, DECEMBER 19. 1988 88-29 ITEM H0. 7 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3103. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: GALEXY, A General Partnership, Bruce L. Borchardt, et al, 4321 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807; AGENT: Benjamin J. Hale 4315 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807; LOCATION: 4317 East La Palma Avenue. Request: To permit a towing and auto repair shop with waivers of (a) improvement of right-of-way and (b) minimum number of required parking spaces. 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. PRESENTATION• Benjamin Hale, 2244 S. Atlanta, Anaheim, stated the issue of the sidewalks should have been brought up when the building was built. He ezplained the total area they occupy is only abort l0i of the building and based on that, he did not feel they should be responsible for putting is sidewalks; and that there are no sidewalks any where close to this site. He stated he had previously applied for a conditional use permit at 4351 East La Palma, but it was denied based on the recommendation of the City Traffic Engineer, due io lack of adequate parking. Ae stated apparently a larger unit would be available with more parking and he thought that would be approved; that he is already operating his business; that he is providing Tube, oil, filter, tune-ups and brake johs which are jobs that can be done while people are at work. He stated all jobs are done by appointment and they pick up and deliver. He stated ho has ao problem with any of the other requirements, ezcept the parking; and ezplained because of the way they operate, the parking will not be a problem. He added he has a letter from the people who were conducting the parking study and they indicated that according to the parking study, it should work just fine. OFPOSITION: Troy DeForrest, representing the Gemini Group and also American Lock and and Supply, stated they own and occupy the building at 4411 East La Palma, as well as the building at 4375 East La Palma. He stated they recently built the building at 4375 East La Palma and they were required to install a sidewalk, as well as additional parking. He stated warehouse space and space on La Palma is very limited and they complied with the City requirements and that from what he understood, the East La Palma area is what the City refers to as the Scenic Corridor and they are trying to enhance the whole area. He stated there is a small fence, about 3 feet high, running along the west side of the 4375 East La Palma property and that has been knocked down several times; and that the greenery and plants 12!19/88 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. DECEMBER 19, 1 along the area have been trampled and right now they cannot plant anything because everything is being trampled. He added people are walking through the parking lot because there is no sidewalk. He stated the other problem they are having is a lack of parking for the building directly west of them and people are parking in their parking lot and it is a big problem and they are blocking the driveway. He added he was sure if another business occupies that space, the parking spaces are going to be used; that their plants are going to be trampled and the block wall will be knocked down again. He stated he has already had it repaired twice. He added the City has to start somewhere to fix up the Scenic Corridor; that they started with their building at 4375 E. La Palma and now they need to qo ahead with the building located at 4315 East La Palma. Harold Borchardt, owner, 10041 Sunrise Laae, Santa Ana, stated they are a family partnership called Galaxy and leased this building to B6B Specialties; and in return, they sublease portions of this building. He stated he is not opposed to Mr. Hale moving up to the front of the building because he gets better frontage and he will get better business. He stated, however, as far as the parking is concerned, his business is in the back right now and it has not caused any problems and that he has worked it out oa as appointment basis and there are no problems. He added he thought there would be less problems if he ~::oved out in front because there will be more parking area. He stated the building is empty and they would like to have a timely answer as to the Planning Commission's decisic+n so they could get it leased. REBUTTAL' Mr. Hale stated Mr. DeForrest has the only sidewalk in the area and he could understand his feelings about having to put it in; however, they would not be a part of the parking problem. He explained they are further down the street and that they basically worked it out with their immediate neighbors. He sK-ated they are not a part of the problem, but rather they are a part of the solution. He stated right now they have an excellent greenbelt with trees, large boulders and automatic sprinklers which is done very nicely and he would hate to see it go when sidewalks are constructed in the immediate area. ~Sr. DeForrest stated the property directly west of him is up for sale also and they are going to want to know if they have to put is a sidewalk as well. Mr. DeForrest responded to Chairwoman Bouas that he put the sidewalks in when the building was built? Mr. Hale stated the building was built in 1977 and everything was done according to Code. He stated they put the greeubelt in and went to a lot of expense, and added if they tear the trees out, it will be a loss. Mr. Hale explained the lease is with 86B Specialties and that they sublease the rest of the building. He explained B6B occupies 20,000 of the 40,000 square-foot building, however, they do have a couple of portions which they are subleasing until they fill it in, in the future. He responded that BLB leased the building for 20 years and they have bean there for 10 years. 12/19/88 '~- ~. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DE~E*iBER 19 1988 88-31 Commissioner Feldhaus commented that he heard parking was not a problem in that area; but that when he went out there on Thursday at 2:00 p.m., on the west side of the wall, there were two tow trucks and 3 cars parked along the wall. Ae added he drove to the back and every stall along the entire back side wall was filled, that he drove around the corner to the east side and up against the building where the stalls were, those spaces were filled. He stated there were two stalls empty in the very front of the building; that in the back, along the walls of the buildings, there were 50-gallon heavy drums of mineral spirits; that there were boat trailers and boats, etc. behind the building. He added it is very difficult for him to believe that there is not a parking problem because every stall except for those 2 in the front were filled. He stated perhaps there is some answer for them all being filled at that time on a Thursday. Commissioner Feldhaus asked Mr. Hale if he anticipates not having outdoor or overnight storage of cars, and if so, where would he put these vehicles? Mr. Hale stated he has a storage lot for the police impound vehicles at 2988 E. Coronado, about 3 miles away. He stated with the new place, he would have the B work stalls inside and if they were doing a brake job and were missing a part, and it does hold over to the next day, it will be inside. He added they could do up to 8 cars right in the stalls. Chairwoman Bouas asked Mr. Hale if he could explain why the cars, boats and 4railers were parked outside? Mr. Hale responded he could only answer for the actual stalls which he is responsible for and that boats and trailers are not his. Commissioner Feldhaus stated those kinds of vehicles impact the area. Chairwoman Bouas asked if most of the vehicles which are parked there belong to BSB? Mr. Hale stated he would think the vehicles parked in the back belonged to B6B; and explained they have the entire back half of the building. He added there is another sublease on the east side and they do machine repair and there is a vacant unit which is 4968 square feet gad there is the smaller unit which he is in right now. Responding to Commissioner Sous::, Mr. Hale explained the pickup and delivery service was started as a means of controlling the overcrowding; and that it has evolved to the point where the business requires it, and by doing it that way and offering the service, they get the cream of the crop, light, easy jobs and that is what they are looking for. Mr. Hale stated there would be up to 4 to 5 employee cars on the premises and they have 8 stalls inside; that the report says 18, but it is 16. He added one of the agreements is that an extra trash container would have to be put in. He stated he felt quite comfortable with the fact that several of the people will be parking in the stalls they have in the front. 12/19/88 ~,-. _~» MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 198$ 88 32 Commissioner Messe stated the Commission has received a letter just now from the traffic consultant saying somehow they found an area for 10 more parking stalls on the west edge of the site. He stated he did not think the initial parking study was adequate and the Traffic Engineer felt the same way, and this indicates that there are 10 more parkiags stalls available and there is no parking map or plan. Raren Urman, Traffic Engineering, stated she had talked with the traffic consultant, Basmaciayan-Darnell, last week about the parking study and informed them th$y would need as entire new study that included the whole site, with all the uses and how many spaces they require in use on a daily basis. She added Traffic Engineering staff wanted more than what they originally submitted. Commissioner Messe stated he did not think the study was adequate and that he would like to see a continuance of this matter until the Planning Commission receives a parking study that is adequate. Commissioner Herbst stated 106 parking spaces are required and only 67 exist, and that is too far from current Code; and the warehouse is requiring 78 stalls and the automotive repair 27, and it is totally inadequate for that particular area. Chairwoman Bouas agreed with Commissioner Messe that they need a new parking study to cover all the businesses, not just that particular one, and this could have an effect on what the property can be leased for. She suggested a one-month continuance. Commissioner Herbst stated they have a warehouse use and that he understood a manufacturing facility is in there, and asked how many employees they have. He asked if there is a difference in the parking requirements for a warehouse and a manufacturing facility? Greg Hastings explained the parking requirements would be the same for a warehouse or a manufacturing facility, which is 2.25 per 1000 square feet. Mr. Borchardt, past President and owner of B6H Specialties, stated when they first built the building, they put in underground storage for the oil and solvents, but are now is the procRSS of putting tanks above the ground because they can no longer have them below ground because of the environmental situation. He added they do not have any boats in the back, and there are a couple of private trailers which can be removed; that there is ample parking; and they have about 30 employees in the manufacturing area that occupies 20,000 square feet in the back, and in the front there is a company owned by his son-ia-law and he has approximately 15 employees. He added when they first built the building, they were required to have 67 parking spaces which they did, and he did not think it is right if they have to change it now. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Borchardt stated he could use the building for anything and if the Commission was satisfied with 67 spaces, they could probably get 10 more. He added that he cannot see holding this up too much longer; and it is costing B6H Specialties monel• by holding it up another month. 12/19/88 .d MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1988 88-33 Commissioner Messe stated he could give them an answer but that it may not be the answer they wanted and Commissioner Feldhaus stated he could not give Mr. Borchardt what he was asking for today. Mr. Borchardt stated he wanted the answer and that he hoged t:he Planning Commission would bear with him; that he was the original builder and has done everything according to Code. Commissioner Herbst stated the requirement for an automotive repair facility is 5.5 stalls per 1000 and when they originally built the building, the requirement was only 2.5. He added if they were building this building today and still had an automotive use, they would have to have 106 spaces. He stated they have added a use that is only allowed by a conditional use permit in the industrial area and there is storage of automobiles with an automotive repair business and it is a heavier use and the Commission would have to deny this use if they wanted to stay with t.'~e 67 stalls. Mr. Borchardt stated his son-in-law has a parking space for most of his cars and just brings in as many as he can work on. Commissioner Messe stated they need a parking study which would really make that clear and Chairwoman Bouas added, the study should include the other businesses on the premises so the Commission would know that there is enough parking. She asked if Mr. Hale wanted an answer today. Mr. Hale stated if he had a parking study done, he would take a chance of losing the lease. Commissioner Herbst stated he would also run the chance that the parking study might say the site is inadequate and the Commission would not be able to approve it. Mr. Hale stated the original parking study was a good parking study, but it did address only the area he is leasing. .He stated it would take 30 days to get a realistic study. Chairwoman Bouas stated the study has to address the whole area because of the number of parking places, and Commissioner Feldhaus emphasized that it needed to be a good viable study. A T N: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the aforementioned matter be con*_inued to the meeting of January 16, 1989, in order for the applicant to submit a new parking study. 12/19/88 l MI2'T*"4S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19. 1988 88-34 IT M NO 8 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT: rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3104. piBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: CRESTMARK REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, Attn: PETER GENOVESE, 23766 Mercury Road, Lake Forest, CA 92650; AGENT: RICHARD WALKER, 1841 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92801; PROPERTY LOCATION: 1841 West Lincoln. Request: To permit a walk-up restaurant with outdoor seating in conjunction with an existing liquor store and deli with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. 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. Dick Walker, Applicant, stated he was applying Eor a conditional use permit to set 3 tables out at lunch time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Dick Walker stated Condition Nos. 2 and 3 were fine; that No. 2 has already been completed; that there is no problem with No. 3; however, he did not agree with Condition No. 1 relating to curbs, gutters or sidewalks. Commissioner Messe explained the condition requires that any that neec' to be repaired should be repaired and it is up to the landlord. Mr. Walker stated he leases 2,000 square feet is a small building and he has no way at all to have the owner of the property repair these things. Commissioner Carusillo stated this has come up before in this same tract and that he sympathized with the tenant who only wants to put out 3 tables. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he believed the requirement was originally on the building itself when the fast-food xas approved for the entire building and it was never complied with, so is being requested oa this request. Commissioner Messe stated this should be a requirement of the owner and not this applicant. Greg Hastings stated Engineering staff is not there to respond, but Planning staff would not have a problem with eliminating that condition. Commissioner Feldhaus asked tho applicant how many stools and tables he was planning to put outside? Mr. Walker responded before Code Enforcement came around, he was putting 3 tables and 10 chairs out. Responding to Commissioner :,eldhaus, Mr. Walker clarified this was a Code Enforcement issue and that he was not aware he needed a conditional use permit. 12/19/88 .... ....... ._.. .... __...,..... w....: ~. '.. MINUTES ?~27AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 29. 1 Commissioner Feldhaus stated Code Enforcement wa3 concerned that patrons would purchase liquor, then qo outside, sit down and drink it. Mr. Walker responded that the ':coholic Beverage Control would be after him for something like that. TI N: Co:'.amissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the City of Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a walk-up restaurant with outdoor seating in conjunction with as existing liquor store and deli with waiver of minimum umber of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.5 acres located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Crescent Way, having apgzoximate frontages of 751 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 544 feet on the west side of Crescent Way and further described as 1841 West Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding thrit it has coa::idered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study an3 any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of code requirement 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 vicinity. Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC 88-346 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby Grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3104 subject to conditions, deleting Condition No. 1 and requiring that sidewalks, curbs and gutters be repaired pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 10.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Recommendations. Commissioner Carusillo asked Engineering staff how the Commission can approach a situation like this is the future, i.e., approach the lega]. owner rather than the tenant. Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer, explained as far as Engineering is concerned, the condition is imposed against the property, and the conditional use permit stays with the property and the Engineering Department is not concerned whether the work is actually performed by the property owner, tenant or subtenant. Responding to Chairwoman Bouas as to whether or not this was a requirement when the building was originally built, Art Daw stated he believed it was required under a previcus CUP, and evidently it has not been complied with. He noted this was a Code Enforcement issue. 12/19/88 t :? MINUTzS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOu Trrrr.~gER 19 1988 88-36 Chairwoman Bouas stated this a fairly new building, and Mr. Hale responded it is less than a year old. Commissioner Messe stated if that condition is included, it would be the property owner's responsibility. ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution Ho. PC 88-746 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3104, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.0'x5, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, with the deletion of Condition No. 1, and further requesting staff to further review it and directing this requirement to be satisfied by the property owner. Commissioner Feldhaus asked what would happen if the property owner refused to comply with the condition. Commissioner Carusillo responded that would be between Code Enforcement and Engineering, and added he did not want to hold this gentleman responsible. Commissioner Feldhaus asked who was actually making the request for the CUP, and Commissioner Herbst responded that Crestmark Real Estate Development was requesting the CUP. Commissioner Carusillo asked for a legal opinion whether or not the Commission could delete Condition No. 1. Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, responded it is certainly in the Commission's discretion to exclude Condition No. 1 if they so desired. Commissioner tdesse stated he would be agreeable to deleting it, as long as the Commission has some assurance that it can be achieved through other methods since this was a condition of a previous CUP. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he had reviexed the file and there was not a condition regarding this unless there was one going back into the 70'x. He stated the requirement is to provide 10-foot radius curb returns on the driveways, but there xas not a condition involving any repair or any other work. Commissioner Souas asked if there are any repairs needed? Mr. Hastings stated there were a couple of places in the pavemea:. which need repair. He explained the entire land is owned by an company in Florida, possi~ly a sv:csidiary of Target. Commissioner Feldhaus asked who would be responsible if they do not comply. Mr. Hastings stated someone was out about a month ago doing some measuring around the parking area for Target; and that they are scheduled to do a lot of repairs on the parking lot. 12/19/88 qY,s F MINUTES-ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-37 Chairwoman Bouas stated that was the parking area not the curbs and gutters and Mr. Hale asked for clarification as to what is wrong with the curbs and gutters. Art Daw stated prior to the Interdepartmental Committee meeting when the conditions are imposed, the properties are subject to inspection by the Field Engineer's Office and the report was that there was :;ome damage to the curbs, gutters and sidewalks and subsequent to that, he imposed the condition for the repair. Cammissioner Feldhaus stated he did .not want to hold Mr. Hale up, but was concerned if the property owner does not comply with the conditions, and added that is a gray area and if it is addressed now and should come up again, it will not be a problem. Commissioner Carusillo stated he has already offered the resolution with the deletion of Condition No. 1. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOLAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABBE,`*T: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO 9 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE N0. 3~.Q2. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: BR Properties Limited Partnership, 450 Newport Center Drive, #304, Newport Beach, CA 92686; LOCATI02i: Property is approximately 3.6 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive. Request: Waivers of (a) minimum structural setback and (b) required site screening to construct a 3-story, 70,000 square-foot, commercial office building. 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. Request: To waive (a) required site screening and (b) minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway and se-vuiC Esspressway to construct a 3-story, 35-foot high, 70,000-square foot commercial office building. Steve Smith, BR Properties, 450 .Newport Center Drive, Irvine, pointed out originally the two major objections to the project were the use of roof-mounted equipment, which they will no longer be using, and the overall building height which was originally 52 feet and has been reduced to 35 feet. 12/19/88 ~_ ~ ? vr~nF.R 19 1988 88-38 E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION R THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe stated the applicant has done what the Commission asked them to do and it looks like a good project. ACTION Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to waive (a) minimum structural setback and (b) required site screening to construct a 3-story, 35-foot high, 70,000-square-foot commercial office building on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.6 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive, having approximate frontages of 855 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 340 feet oa the east side of Riverview 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 Messe offered Resolution No. PC 88-347 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3882 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 2oninq Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 12/19/88 ~T , MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19. 1 ITEM NO 10 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO 88-89-26: VARIANCE NO 3884: OWNERS: Thomas P. Morger and Janice Morger, 2865 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801; AGENT: C.H.M.M. CORPORATION, P.O. Box 987, Atwood, CA 92601. PROPERTY LOCAT.'ION: 2865 West Lincoln Avenue Request: CL to RM-1200. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 3-story, 18-unit apartment complex. There were four (4) 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. Mohammad Smaili, 27391 Via Garcia, Mission Viejo, stated they are proposing an 18-unit apartment building at 2854 West Lincoln Street and they would like a variance on the height with a distance of 150 feet from single-family homes. QpPOSITION• Charles Carey, 2849 West Polk Avenue, stated his property is within about 200 feet of subject property. He presented a petition signed by 40 residents of the immediate area who are opposed to the reclassification and variance. He stated there are several reasons why they are opposed to this: a) that there are already enough apartments in the area; b) the density is too great; c) it is adjacent to the former Teri Circle project; d) the south side of Lincoln is almost solid apartments, approximately 500 to 600 units. He stated there are 65 units approved at Teri Circle which are about to be built and there are approzimately another 100 units about 200 feet west of this development with an additional 500 to 600 units approved, but not yet built between Belaire Avenue and Beach Boulevard. He continued that: e) this area is within a few hundred feet of one of the critical intersections, Beach and Lincoln, which is one of the busiest intersections in Anaheim; f) the driveway of this apartment project will be within a few feet of the driveway of the adjoining project which are both within about 200 feet of Belaire Avenue: g) the traffic on Belaire and through the neighborhood has been heavy; h) that people from the apartments have started parking further and further into their neighborhood and this will be made worse when the Teri Circle project is finished. He stated this area is presently zoned for commercial development and they have no objection to it being developed as zoned, and that commercial properties would have less impact on the quality of life in their neighborhood. He explained there is presently a shopping center immediately to the west of the proposed development and the people whose properties adjoin that shopping center have told them that they have no problem with noise and traffic from the shopping center. He stated another problem connected to the proposed development of this area is water and sewage. He explained when the developer proposed the Teri Circle development, he was not aware that there was no sewer connection from the City 12/19/88 ~'€ INUTES_ANAn "^' PLANNING COt+QdISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-4 of Anaheim into his development and this developer will possibly face the same problem; and it is either on a septic tank or it is connected to the Buena Park sewer system such as their homes are and such as the Teri Circle homes formerly were. He stated he understands that the developer of Teri Circle has still not resolved the question of the sewage connection for the sixty-five apartments next door to the satisfaction to the City of Anaheim. He stated sewage lines may have to be run anywhere from one-half a mile to one mile up Lincoln, necessitating a great deal of tearing up of Lincoln and possibly Dale with the usual hazards to traffic with major excavation. He added if the Commission should decide to approve apartments, he would ask that the Zoning Code be upheld that requires apartments to have a minimum setback from single-family homes. He stated they did not want to have large blocks of apartment buildings directly over their back fences. He stated he understood that the Teri Cie•cle developer was required to put the higher apartment buildings cis the Lincoln side approximately 150 feet away. He added they have the lower buildings on the north side of this development and they would request that the same requirements be imposed on this builder which were imposed on Newport Pacific to have 1-story over subterranean garages on the side adjoining their properties. He stated they did not feel that zoning changes and variances should be done on a case by case basis; and that there is no hardship involved and no one is forcing this developer to acquire property and build on it. He stated the only notice they got of this proposed reclassification and variance was a flimsy postcard which gave him less thaw 7 days notice and txo of the people he has spoken to on his street did not receive a postcard; or perhaps thoy received it, but it got put in with the junk mail. He stated when they were notified of the Teri Circle development, they only got a week's notice, but at least they received a nice long legal-size onvelope with the City of Anaheim seal on it. He stated these notices are only mailed out to residents within 300 feet of the proposed development and he did not believe that was fair. He added he thought developments such as this or some of the bigger ones, affect people who live in a much wider radius than 300 feet; and that maybe a quarter mile or a half mile would be more equitable and a more logical distance and added he believed the notices should be sent registered mail and if that is too much of as expense, the developer should bear the cost since the developer is the one who wants the changes, not them. He stated it is also a hardship on the people to have to attend a meeting at 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon and the meetings should be held in the evenings. He stated it is unfair for the developer to have the first and last word oa the subject and each side should be able to present. their case, rebut and then the other side should be able to rebut. Kathleen Eqbert, 2871 Polk Avenue, stated she lives with both her parents and grandparents. She stated they share about 22 feet of common boundary with 2865 West Lincoln, the property under consideration. She stated the people she has spoken with in her area are angry and 3isgusted with the prevailing direction of these proceedings; and that there is not much respect for the inexcusable lack of foresight and sensitivity demonstrated by the Anaheim Planning Commission and City Council, as evidenced by the Bush Avenue project. 12/19/88 f _,. 88-41 MIh rrgc Ah3L~'IF, ..TTY PLI~h 7I2.G CO*^'I~GION DECEMBER 19 1988 She stated she wanted to discuss three major points: 1) building to code; 2) avoiding overcrowding; and 3) building housing for sale instead of for rent. She stated they object to any construction under any zoning that fails to conform to City Building Codes; that Building Codes are minimum standards, not ideal standards; that Variance No. 3884 requests waiver of minimum structural height requirements and that makes this development unacceptable to them and it should be unacceptable to the Planning Commission. She stated the job of the Planning Commission is to represent the best interest of the citizens of the community. She stated they are opposed to overcrowding apartments; and that the sewers in both Buena Park and Anaheim are full to capacity. She stated she has copies of letters by the City of Buena Park to Newport Pacific Development Company last March which states: "that based upon our investigation, your request for sewer service for the above-captioned project cannot be accommodated at this time." She stated the 8" collector system on IIelaire Street which they propose to connect to, goes into a 10" trunk line on Crescent Avenue and that trunk line is over capacity and could not accommodate any additional load. She submitted the letter to the Planning Commission. She stated the biggest issue, the one that supercedes the points of building codes and overcrowding, is the subject of rental housing versus owner-occupied housing. She added everyone knows about the housing crunch in Orange County, and that by filling Anaheim land with apartments instead of affordable housing which people can buy, Anaheim City decision-makers are helping to create a permanent poverty-stricken underclass. S2-e added apartments are not really affordable and she thought to ease the housing problem, condominiums or townhomes should be built and there should be a moratorium oa apartment buildings entirely. She asked the Planning Commission to do the right thing; 1) approve building only to Code, 2) do not overcrowd and 3) continue the American tradition of homeownership and build housing which geople of her generation can afford and acquire. Dorothy Egbert, 2871 Polk Avenue, stated about one-third of her property line would be adjacent to this development. She stated she has one basic objection -- that the property is just too small and is not shaped properly for apartment construction and the entire area is about 100 feet wide and only 261 feet deep. REBUTTAL• Mohammad Smaili, stated this project is less dense than the Newport Pacific development, and that they could have as many as 21 units but he told the architect that he only wanted 18. He stated he studied the other surrounding projects very carefully and came up with this design. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked why there is not a variance necessary because this is less than 150 feet from single family? 12/19/88 ~. ~ ~ ~T, MIhJTES ANAHEIM CITY FLANKING COMMISE~^v TF~`vunFR ig 1988 -$~-42 Greg Hastings responded this was advertised as a height waiver and that the setback to single-family is addressed in terms of height and nat in terms of setback. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission never sees the final plans when Council overrules some of their decisions. Greg Hastings stated he would be glad to bring those up. He explained that approval was for single-story units placed 23 feet from the north property line; and 2-story units, which ware 1-:story above parking, at 50 feet; and 3-stories which is 2-stories above a garage was at 92 feet. Mr. Smaili responded to Commissioner Messe that the 78 feet for 3-stories was correct? Commissioner Messe stated that is 14 feet shy and that the 2-stories start at 37 feet, and that is not quite in line with the Newport Pacific project. Mr. Smaili stated this was the best design that they could come up with and that Newport Pacific has a wider lot. Responding to Commissioner Houas regarding the underground parking, Mr. Smaili stated the parking is not underground, but at street level. Commissioner Houas asked if the height could be taken down, and Mr. Smaili stated they considered that, but he did not think they needed to go down because they are far enough from the neighbors. Commissioner Herbst stated the Traffic Department has discussed the concerns about parking under the buildings and the need for a security gate; that the areas are secluded and could cause a potential problem. He stated that would also cut down the density because of the number of parking spaces required. He added the security situation needs to be addressed with underground and below-grade parking areas. Karen Urman, Traffic Engineering, stated a lot of project developers will come in after their particular project has been approved and will want to put in a security gate and they do not have the proper turn-around area. She stated the proper design should be put in now so that someday when they want to put the security gate in, they will have the proper design and turn-around area which would cause them to '.;.~a somo of their parking spaces; but they should be able to turn-around on site and not back up and turn-around. Commissioner Hoydstun asked if two-thirds of the parking is tandem parking, and Mr. Smaili stated that it was. Commissioner Messe stated the developer has written a justification for approval of a variance which is unacceptable, and that the justification states they would lose half the units without the variance. He added the property should be developed at least is line with the development that was approved for Teri Circle. He explained they are 13 feet closer with the 2-stories and 14 feet closer with 3-stories. 12/19/88 MINUTEE_AN_AHEIM CITY~_~NNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-4 Responding to Commissioner Feldhard regarding the sewage problem, Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer, explained according to the staff report on page 6, Condition No. 4, they needed approval from the City of Buena Park to ga into their sewage system, however, he did not believe that would be forthcoming. He addled the alternative would be a further eztension of the sewer in Dale Avenur.. He explained the Teri Circle developer had to extend the sewer up the east side of Dale Avenue, approximately 500 feet, to intercept sufficient sewage into the existing line, in order to generate the capacity in the line in Lincoln Avenue. He stated as an alternative to sewering into Buena Park, this development is required to extend that sewer on up to Dale Street and further intercept sowage into that system which would then provide them with that capacity. Mr. Smaili indicated that he understood. Commissioner Carusillo agreed with Commissioner Messe with regard to the setbacks to the north and the overall height and it was suggested that the height of the building be lowered 4 or 5 feet. Mr. Smaili pointed out that they do not have windows oa the north side. Commissioner Carusillo stated the peace, harmony and tranquility of the area is disrupted by looking up at a building and psychologically it destroys the peace and harmony that was once enjoyed. He added the Commission has yielded to some pressures, but they have conkinually narrowed the setback and that he would like to see the north setback larger without diminishing the recreation area and lowering the building. He stated the Commission's dilemma is to recognize the right of the developers along with the neighbors. Mr. Smaili stated that he had ao problem with lowering the building 2 to 4 feet. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would have to go lower than 2 to 4 feet. Commissioner Messe asked the height differeati&1 between this project and Magdy Hanna's Teri Circle project. Commissioner Boydstun stated for the Teri Circle project, it was 54 feet for 2-stories and 92 feet for 3-stories. Commissioner Herbst stated the height appears to be 29.6 feet which is the top of the roof peak, and Comissioaer Messe added that the 2-story is 25 feet high and the 3-story is 33 feet high. Mr. Smaili stated that they could cut it down another foot or so, and %ommissioner Feldhaus stated he had mentioned they would cut it down 4 feet. Mr. Smaili explained anytime they go down 4 feet, they have other costs such as drainage, etc. Commissioner Messe asked if would like to have a continuance in order to reconsider the drawings? He added it appears he did not study the Teri Circke project as he had indicated earlier. 12/19/88 -r ~* yiTP$ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING wrccrnu DECE1dBER 19 1988 _ 88-44 Mr. Smaili explained he is not the architect. Greg Hastings suggested a 4-week continuance due to the anticipated heavy agenda in 2 weeks. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED Commissioner Herbst explained to the opposition that this particular property is zoned for commercial uses and if someone came in and built something commercial, the Commission would never see it. He added a commercial use of this property could be far more detrimental than this project and this use was a lighter use than a commercial use. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus voted no) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of January 16, 1989, in order for the applicant to submit revised plans pertaining to the height of the buildings, density of the project, setback and intrusion onto the neighborhood. ITEM NO 11 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE N0. 3885. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: ROBERSON AND VAZGUEZ, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ATTN: HUGO VASQUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801; LOCATION: 2767 and 2775 W. Ball Road and 910 S. Dale Avenue Request: Waivers of (a) minimum building site area, (b) maximum structural height, (c} maximum site coverage and (d) minimum structural setback to permit the construction of a 4-story (previously 3-story) 106 unit "affordable" apartment complex. Hugo Vazquez, 619 S. Liveoak Drive, Anaheim, stated this project is presently under construction on a 2.4-acre site on the northeast corner of Ball and Dale. He explained during the framing procedures, they came across some difficulties in interpreting the Unified Building Code Standards and the interpretation of Planning and Zoning. He stated they were originally building the project as an all wood construction; that the Planning Commission mentioned they were not really happy with the wood deck-type of construction. He stated this is a project they were really wanting to build and use it as an example of the type of quality that they are capable of doing. He ezplained they asked a contractor in Orange County who specializes in post tension and concrete structures and came out to the site and indicated he could get the plans approved through the City; that they talked to the Building Department and they were more than happy to cooperate with them because they were going to increase the cost of construction. He explained it is a higher cost with a concrete floor than it is with wood; however, they brought the plans back with concrete deck system and they had already gotten a permit. 12/19/88 ~- ~;;: M MUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 --~ He stated he found there was a discrepancy in the interpretation of what is called a floor; that as interpreted by Planning and Zoning, anything inhabitable is called a floor. He recalled that last year the Planning Commission made an interpretation of a basement and even if they go down 3-1/2 or 4 feet or bury it 10 feet down, or 2 stories in the ground, it is still going to be called a story or floor. Mr. Vazquez stated someone in the City Government decided to interpret what a basement is and that Planning and Zoning qualifies it as a floor; and the Uniform Building Standards call it just a basement, so there is a difference in the interpretation. He stated they have not changed the height of the project that was approved, and is requesting approval of this change because they thought the area would be much more functional and would be a better use of the area for the occupant/tenant. APP ITI N: Dr. Robert James Lamb, 2789 West Haven Dr., stated he just learned about this projec~. change on Friday from a neighbor. He stated he is concerned for several reasons; that the report mentions the Zoning Code has to accommodate people wanting to build in such a way that other people will not be deirived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zones. He stated he was rather sympathetic with individuals who were opposed to Item No. 10; they live north of his property about one-half mile and this project is to the south about one-half a mile. He stated behind his back fence is a property owned by a realtor, which is probably equally suitable for development of apartments, and he did not want to see a 3-story or 4-story building approved behind him. He stated from review of the plans for this project, it appears practically every square foot of property is covered; and that they have numerous waivers of the Building Codea and have 106units going in next door to a school. He added he was not certain how the traffic could come and go without endangering the safety of the children and that it is obviously too late to argue that point because the building is there. He stated he looked at the plan and it shows a loft, but it does not say what it is, but the report says it is a bathroom. He stated there is no indication on the plans how to get into those lofts, and asked if there is a stairway or a rope ladder? He stated the second waiver on page 5, Item Ne. 16, pertains to maximum structural hei~~ht, permitted heights of 3 stories; and that Code permits a maximum height of 1 story within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone and 2 stories c:herwise; and these plans propose 4stories. He added it sounds as though the developers have gotten away with a lot of variances in previous meetings and now they want to make this project 4 stories and that will give someone else the right to say they have a right to have a 4-story project. He stated if they have a nice loft with a stairway going into it, they must have planned it before. 12/19/88 t "_;~' MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88 46 Hugo Vazquez stated he was unaware of Dr. Lamb's opposition, and that there were 3 ur 4 public hearings on the project; that originally they had 72 units and then came back in with 106 units. He stated the property owner to the east, the egg ranch, has never voiced any opposition to this project. Mr. Vazquez stated regarding the accessibility to the loft, that they plan to build a staircase from the interior up to the loft area; and that they are just utilizing a basic attic space. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Bouas asked if they have already added plumbing for the bathrooms facilities in the loft? Mr. Vazquez responded there is a 3athroom designed in the loft area; that it is through a dormer and all the '::?rmers face into the courtyard. He stated when they originally presented this to the Planning Department, there was a concern about the dormers; and they removed all the dormers from the exterior of the building. He explained they were told to hold off on the plumbing in the upper level until after the public hearing; however the alumbing was in all the units. He added there was a concern that even if the lofts ware approved, they may not be able to provide a ba°'~ for the loft. Commission Herbst stated he was amazed that t:.:~r would have a plate, approved with an attic, then add plumbing for a bathroom without it being approved. Mr. Vazquez stated they got the building permit ezactly t:ie day before the deadline when the Park and Recreational fees were going ~p about 3 to 5 times what they normally pay. Commissioner Herbst stated that was no excuse for putt;:ng plumbing in an attic. Mr. Vazquez stated when he got. the permit, the loft and bathroom were shown on the plans; however, it was not in the plans reviowed by the Planning Commission and City Co~.:ncil. He ezplained their architect met with the Building Department and they both made the interpretation that as long as the loft did not exceed one-third of the area it looked into, it met Uniform Hui.lding Code Standards. He added this would have never come up if he had not increased the cost from a wood deck to a concrete floor. Chairwoman Bouas noted they are building something which has not been approved. Commissioner tQesse asked if the square footage that had been approved for each apartment has been changed? Mr. Vazquez stated that it has not been changed; and that the Planning Department has a different interpretation of a floor than the Building Department. Commissioner Messe asked if the square footage of the loft was included when the Planning Department did their calculations. 12/19/88 {~' MINUTES ANAHEhi CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88 47 Mr. Hastings indicated the square footage has not increased beyond what the Planning Commission had seen; and that the loft was included is the calculation. Commissioner Messe stated he did not see a staircase or a loft in the plans. Mr. Vazquez explained they were told to taY.e the staircases out of the plans until they got approval of the lofts. Commissioner Herbst stated it bothers him that the Commission saw a set of plans which had adequate circulation in the garage areas and then when they went to the Council, it was eliminated. He stated he thought this design is the worst planning of a garage structure he had ever seen. He stated he has been in the parking business for a long time and they are going to have serious problems because that garage dead ends and they have no turn-around areas. He added unfortunately, it has been approvved by City Council. Mr. Vazquez stated he had met with the Traffic Department at least 4 or 5 times regarding the design and circulation of *.he structure and that the Tra€fic Engineer helped to induce this type of parking plan. Commissioner Herbst responded he spoke with Paul Singer today and he agrees that this is one of the worst plans he has seen; and that he do not understand why Council did not send this back to the Commission for review; that they are adding 53 bedrooms to this project, which means they are adding 53 parking spaces. He stated, in his opinion, they are adding people density and cas density. Mr. Vazquez stated their intent was not to bring down the integrity of the project. He added as the owner of the property and general partner, it is their intention to add value to the type of tenant who inhabits the unit. Commissioner Messe added that by increasing the square footage, they would be able to increase the rent? Mr. Vazquez stated they are offering something other than just the living area and this gives the people some sense of relief. He stated the majority of the projects brought before the Planning Commission which he has seen, are flat roof, 8' high ceilings, minimum square footage of 825 square feats and that the tenant who comes to their project loves the vaulted ceilings; and they are renting air space; and it is like a condominium. Commissioner Messe responded this is a much nicer project, however, it is not the project the Commission approved. Responding to Chairwoman Houas, Mr. Vazquez stated he had nothing to hide, and that they did bring the plans back in to facilitate the dif_°erent structure which is a. concrete structure, and that is when the Planning staff informed them they had a problem. fie stated staff had not approved the lofts, and they did not see them. He added Mr. Faulkner stated he knew .:.n plans had been stamped, but it was not at the public hearing. 12/19/88 ~~' ~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 1988 88-4 Chairrromaa Bouas stated there were no lofts on the plans the Commission saw, and Mr. Vazquez responded they were not on the plans at the public hearing, and were only shown when they sought the buiidinq permit. Commissioner Carusillo stated he certainly has some doubts and did not know how they got 3-stories, 77-units passed and then 9-stories with 7.06 units with four waivers and added he thought it was atrocious. Commissioner Herbst clarified this was an affordable project and that there would be nine affordable units. He asked if half of the units where they are adding the lofts could be affordable? He added in his opinion the way this whole thing was approached is atrocious and that he thought it was planned this way to begin with and it is obvious that there was some hanky-panky going on and that he is not in favor of allowing the project unless they are willing to give something to the needy. Chairwoman Bouas stated she is not in favor of bathrooms in the lofts. Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought this was premeditated and that he would like to send a message to Mr. Vazquez and other developers that he is not in favor of this sort of approach and that he is keen on density and negative on stacked housing and decking. He added he hoped that the Commission would go back to the old standards of above-ground parking and forget the cost of the land. Mr. Vazquez stated he would do whatever is best for the public xhich they are serving and added he is only is business to fulfill a need to provide housing. He stated he is all for what Commissioner Herbst suggested as an alternative. He stated there was no secretly negotiations with anyone and this building is not going to ba built late at night without anyone knowing about it. He stated there is nothing underhanded going oa with anyone; and that it is absurd to think that he would even consider doing such a thing. He stated he would not sneak in overnight to put something else in the project and that he has a stamped set of plans. A TI N: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion seconded by Cos~nnissioner Masse and MOTION CARRIED that the City of Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to consrruct a 4-story (previously 3-story) 106-unit "affordable" apartment complex with waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, maximum site coverage and minimum structural setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.41 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Ball Road and Dale Avenue, having approximate frontages of 250 feet on the north side of Ball Road and 175 feet on the east side of Dale Avenue and further described as 2767 and 2775 W. Ball Road and 910 S. Dale Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Dec]aration 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 d significant effect on the environment. 12/19/88 ~.. ' i _ ANI~AEIh, CITI PLAAdIhG COt•II-~:~~ION DECEMBER 19 1986 88-44 Commissioner Aerbst pointed out this project is under construction and has been approved by the City Council for 106 units. He stated this request is to add the 53 bedrooms being used as lofts and that most of the variances have been approved by the City Council. He added Mr. Vazquez has misrepresented the project and that he thought Mr. Vazquez should pay for this by adding more affordable units but that the units are going to look just like they are now. ANION CONTINUED: Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-348 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY Variance No. 3885 on the basis that the plans were not the same as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and that there are no spacial circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive t_he property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification in the vicinity. The opposition stepped forward again (the individual did not identify himself) and asked for clarification on the plan being originally approved for wooden floors and not concrete floors. He stated concrete is heavier and asked if the bracing was structurally stable and if so, was the bracing planned for concrete floors originally. Mr. Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the original plans that were submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council did not indicate one way or the other. However, the Building Department has looked at the plans and has approved them for structural stability. Or. roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSZLLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: BOYDSTUN, HERBST ABSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 12/19/88 ~-1 MIh'LiTES ANAhEIb, CITY PLA_f.7IhS COb;MISSION DECEMBER 19 19218 88-50 ITEM N0. 1$ rFna xFf;aTiVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) AND TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 1369? (READVERTISED) OWNER: JIM MORTON, 7942 Coho Drive, No. 111, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY LOCATION: 6401 6403 6405 and 6407 Via Arboles REQUEST: To delete condition Nc. 19 of the Planning Commission motion dated August 1, 1988, regarding Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR's) for Tract No. 13692. 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. Jim Morton, 7442 Coho, Huntington Beach, CA., stated he is the developer on the project and that he appreciated the fine job the staff did. He stated he had submitted a plan in the morning to Mr. Hastings showing basicially what has happened up until this time. He stated that it was his understanding that the horse trail and hiking trail could not be completed through the area because of the hill which he is removing. He explained they had moved the pipe line to the property to the north with easements; that as of this morning, the pipeline is now in the ground. He ~.dded the Park and Recreation Department is going to put the trail oa top of the pipeline and come back on their property, Lot No. 9 only, and to continue on down to the Four Corners pipe line. He stated they have approximately 115 square feet of maintenance which the property owner on Lot No. 9 will be happy to take care of. He indicated that would be set up in their selling procedures. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ACTION: Commissioner Soydst~.un offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Masse and MOTION CARRIED than the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to request deletion of Condition No. 19 of the Planning Commission motion dated August 1, 1988, regarding Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR's) for Tract No. 13692 on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.59 acres located at the northeast corner of Via Arboles and Ramsgate Drive, having approximate frontages of 538 feet on the north side of Via Arboles and 153 feet on the east side of Ramsgate Drive, and further described as 6401, 6403,6405 and 6407 Via Arboles; 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 wil: have a significant effect on the environment. A TI N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Masse and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find 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 Tentative Map of Tract ~ 13692 for a 9-lot, condominium subdivision subject to the following condi• zs: 12/19/88 ~.: .3 ~NtiTF.S ANAHEIM ~ ITY PLANNING CO TCl•4V°~'R 19 1988 88-51 (a) Arnend Condition No. 13 to read as follows: 13. "That the legal owner of subject property shall dedicate and improve a riding and hiking L•rail easement as shown on the Riding and Hiking Trail Component of the General Plan and as approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. Furthermore, that the owner of subject property shall ezecute and record a covenant obligating the property owner of Lot No. 9 of Tract No. 13692 to maintain and repair the trail. The form of said covenant shall be approved uy the City Attorney's Office and shall be recorded concurrently with the final. The legal owner/developer of the s~.lbject tract shall improve and maintain the trail as required by the Parks and Recreation Department, until such time as the property owner of Lot No. 9 of Tract No. 13692 becomes legally obligated therefore as hereinabove provided. In addition, a bond shall be posted in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance of the legal owner/developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the required bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office priur to approval of the final tract map." (b) Delete Condition No. 19. (c) Amend Condition No. 20 to read as follows: "That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 4, 5, 13, 14, and 15, above mentioned, shall be complied with". ITEM N0. 13 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) AND VARIANCE N0. 3829 (READVERTISED). pttHLIC HEARING: OWNER: RONALD J. CROWLEY, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, CA 92635. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1500 West Sroadway. Request: To delete a condition of approval pertaining to requirement to record a final tract map prior to issuance of a building permit. There was no one indicating their presence is opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Dr. Ronald J. Crowley, applicant, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullterton, stated they have requested that the condition requiring that the tract map be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit be rescinded or modified to read that they are able to abtain their building permit soon and prior to occupancy. He stated they had submitted the tract map to the County and the City about 3 weeks ago; that they were here about 4 weeks ago, at which time the Planning Department thought these could be processed in approzimately 3 weeks; that the 3 weeks have passed and they do not know when it will be completed. He ezplained it will take them approximately 6 months to build the project and they felt they hid plenty of time to process the tract map; that it has been in the works now fr,.;: :approximately 3 weeks. 12/19/88 i _~ riIht'r'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DFPFMRFR lo. ZoaB 68-52 He stated the concern the staff expressed is that they want to make sure the units will be sold as condominiums and not as apartments. He stated the last item states that the Engineering Division indicates that postponing map recordation lengthens the tracking time and increases the likelihood of drawn out unresolved tract map issues. He stated he did not see any significant lengthening of the process at this time. *****Dr. Crowley responded that he had not submitted a proof of filing to staff, however, he would be happy to show them his receipt. He added the tract map was submitted to the County prior to being submitted to the City; that they prepared it, brought it to the City an3 were told they needed to do a few additional things; and then they took iC back to their Engineer and they just found it very confusing. He stated he brought it back to the City and they said that they were right, and did not have to do anything else, so it was submitted unmodified and the City accepted it. He added they have met all the requirements in order to get approval of the tract map. Commissioner £eldhaus state.: he would also like to see Dr. Crowley get started on this project, and Commissioner Boydstun asked if the occupancy permit would be h~sld up if everything was built to code? Art Daw responded the Chief Building Inspector indicated he could not legally withhold occupancy, as long as the structure has been constructed in accordance with the Building Code requirements. Commissioner McBurney suggested the possibility of a letter or a covenant signed by the owners and the developers of this property guaranteeing that no Certificate of Occupancy for any dwelling or portion thereof would be issued until the tract map is recorded. Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, stated a covenant could certainly be entered into, but as to having the leverage to force the individual to comply, the covenant would have to be enforced. She added if it was not enforced, she did not :;now how it would affect the Chief Building Official and prevent him from issuing a Certificate of Occupancy if it was requested. Chairwoman Bouas stated previously the Commission went along with something like this on condominiums and they became apartments, although it was not with this developer. Commissioner McBurney suggested the Building Department and the City Attorney's Office come up with a document which would guarantee that they could not get a Certificate of Occupancy until they meet all the requirements. Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, stated that woul; hr) a contractural commitment by the developer that he xould not seek ~ l:e-tificate of Occupancy until he complied. Dr. Crowley stated he could not understand why this is different from the other conditions, such as Item No. 21, requiring that prior to the final Building and Zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 must all be complied with. 12!19/88 ~v ` f tiINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. DECEMBER 19. 1988 88-53 Mr. Massoud, 1524 Victoria, Placentia, stated one of the signatures they need for the completion of the building is the City Engineer and offered that they hold the City Engineer's signature until they have a recorded tract map. HA added before he got the signature from the Engineering Department, obviously, the Building Department would not complete the occupancy sheet. He ezplained if they do not have Engineering's signature, they cannot get the occupancy permit; also, if they do not r=cord the tract map, they will not get the condominiums, and they can not build apartments. He ezplained one of the restrictions for apartments is that it be 150 feet from the adjacent single-family property. Commissioner Feldhaus stated with the testimony given today, he would be willing to going along with this request so he can get started oa his project. He added he could not believe that they could be so encumbered by a technicality that they have to wait 6 months to get starter. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated if it is the Commission's intent to approve this change, there are probably other developers who will be asking for the same thing and staff would let them know about the decision Concerning the question about the other conditions, he explained those are the ones which are required prior to final building and zoning inspection, and typically are physically related; for instance, installation of fire spinklers and those cannot be put in prior to getting a building permit and they have to be tied into final inspecticns. Mr. Massoud stated Engineering said the tract map was not acceptable because the private roads xere not shown; and that he came back in 10 days and had the Planning Department review the tract map and the Planning Departti..ont said it was a private road and that it was a clerical error; and that he went back to Engineering and was told it would take a long time. He explained it :-as now been more than 3 weeks and they are back before the Planning Commission again. He added they told the Planning Department and Engineering Chat they would work with them, but they would like to start the building. Commissioner McHurney asked Mr. Massoud if all of his building plans have bees checked and approved? Mr. Massoud answered that he had a minor correction to make and that was submitted to the Planning Depart.~neat about a week or 10 days ago, and that he would probably get that back by Wednesday and then they will get the building permit. He ezplained they did not have a problem with the electrical but needed one signature on the mechanical. Commissioner Messe asked Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer, what the senario would be if the Planning Commission approved this request? Art Daw replied the downside would be to have the development occupied as as apartment house rathor than a condominium. Concerning a covenant, Mr. Daw stated he was sure about the validity of a covenant and thought the City would have to go to court to enforce it. Commissioner Boydstun asked about posting a bond with the covenant and Mr. Massoud stated he has to post a bond for the tract map. 12/19/88 ,~ Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, stated the only way to guarantee that these would be condominium units wou18 be to require that prior to issuance of a building permit, that the map be recorded to show that they can, of course, enter into the covenant and he could post a bond. Art Daw stated posting the bond would not serve much purpose because is order to enforce the bond, the City would probably have to qo into litigation. Commissioner Messe stated he would like to approve this, but given the scenario of what could happen, he was concerned. Commissioner Herbst stated anyone could buy a condo and rent it out as an apartment. A I N: Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRZED that L•he Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC88-217 (dated August 15, 1988), pertaining to recordation of a tract map t,~ permit construction of a 15-unit condominium complex; 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 bs~is of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect oa the environment. Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. PC88-349 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3829 subject to the following conditions: (1) that a covenant is recorded to guarantee that the units would be built as condominiums and not considered an apartment complex, (2) that building permits be issued prior to recordation of the map, provided the Certificate of Occupancy is not issued ~:ntil the tract map is recorded and (3) that the legal owner is the one who accomplishes this, 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 Zoniaq Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Greg Hastings stated for clarification in the future, staff should continue to condition these cases the way this one is conditioned and that the Planning Commission look at each case on a case by case basis. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: CARUSILLO Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Co::anission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 12/19/88 . •I MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. DECEMBER 19. 1988 88-55 ITEM N0. 14 - REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL U$E PERMIT N0. 1888 - REVIEW OF PSOPOSED USE: Request: Eli Rodriquez requests determination that an ezistinq o~fice/warehouse use for a food distribution center/church is in conformance with the business offices approv~•:d under Conditional Use Permit No. 1888. Elizabeth Alamio, representing E. Rodriquez, Founder and President, stated Mr. Rodriquez was unable to be here because of other commitments. She explained she was not able to obtain all of the signatures from the neighbors which the Planning Commission had requested by today. She asked for an extension of time. A I N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 16, 1989, to allow time for the applicant to obtain the requested signatures. Commissioner Feidhaus noted that the address of this location was 2556 Woodland Drive and not 612 North Magnolia. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated for clarification the address in the staff report was for the entire complex. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3043 - REQUEST FQR NUNC PRO TUNC $ESOLUTION. Request: Request for a nunc pro tunc resolution ~o amend legal description contained is Resolution No. PC88-253 granted in connection with CUP 3043. ACTION: Commissioner Messe, offered Resolution No. PC88-350 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a Nunc Pro Tunc Resolution to amend Resolution Na. PC88-253. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 12/19/88 i q.. , t u> MINUTES A~:A~IM CITY PLANNING COMMIcSION DF~EMBER 19 1988 88 C. VARIANCE NO 642 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1385 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION• Request: D. H. Strandberg (represenkiag Chevron U.S.A. Inc., property omen) requests termination of Variance No. 642 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1385. ACTION: Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. PC88-351 and moved foL its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dogs hereby terminate all proceedings is connection xith Variance No. b42 and Conditional Usa Permit No. 1385. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERSST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO X872 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: P.equest: Dr. Ranald R. Crowley requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1372. ACTION: Commissioner Feld'naus offered Resolution No. PC88-352 and moved for its passage aad adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate a,ll proceedings is connection with Conditional Use Permit No. &8?2. On rol_1 call, the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYD5TUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MEs4E NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE E. ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL ~;RVICES AGENCY - REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN - Request: The Orange County General Services Agency requests determination whother their proposal to expand the area they lease in an existing building in Anaheim is in conformance with the General Plan. Property located at 225 E. Bali Road. STION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner M~:Buraey and MOTION CARRIED that the Orange County General Services Agency's proposal to expand the area they lease in an ezistinq building at 125 E. Ball Road in Anaheim is in conformance with the General Plan. 12/19/88 :` ~ -. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY Pl~AZNT ~7a' COMMISSION. DECEMBER 19.~,~1~_ 88-5? F. OR?11GE COUNTY ENVID,i1NMENTAL MAMA!+EMENT AGENCY - REOUESj TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAIq: Request: Ths Orange County Enviruamental Maaage~asnt Agency requests that the City determine if the proposed disposi'i:cn %~f groperty, is in conformance wit.2: the Anaheim General Plan. A TI S: Commissioner Messe off~sred a motion, ser~.o_a~'ie~1 Y~Y Co,~mnissioner M:.Burney and E.SOTi~UN CARRIED that the A.aah~e: m City Planninc Commisa~icn has b+~.'?:'~p determined *_hat th® !'t~ranc~e ~.ouaty Env.ro.me::`al Mar;ug.ement Agency's proposed disposition cif property as in conformance witi: tYti• Anaheim General Plan. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chairmatnan Bouas adjourned the meeting at 6:2G p.m. to Siedaesday, January 4, 1489 at 9:00 a.m. ~ ~ tour multiple-family units. Respectfully ~ubmitte,~, Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim, City Planning Connnissioa 0129m 12/19:88