Loading...
Minutes-PC 1998/03/30SUMMARY ACTION AGE A CITY O ANA I PLANNING CO MISSION STING MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1998 11:00 A.M. a SELF STORAGE FACILITIES POLICY (This item was discussed after Item No. 4 on the agenda -see page 8) STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES t;AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. a PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES, PERAZA ONE VACANT SEAT STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Greg .Hastings Cheryl Flores Linda Johnson Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Jack Kudron Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Danielle Masciel Assistant City Attorney Deputy Planning Director Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Code Enforcement Supervisor Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Community Services/Parks Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary Word Processing Operator T,? ,.; \1 ;_ ~1, i ' ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE: Anaheim City School District (Michael Amling, LSA Associates), One Park Plaza, Suite 500, Irvine, CA 92614, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the development and construction of a proposed elementary school site. Property is located at the northeast corner of Loara Street and Westmont Drive (510-540 Narth Loara Street). ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the Anaheim City School District's proposal to acquire, develop and construct a school at the northeast corner of Loara Street and Westmont Drive is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Determined to be in substantial conformance with Anaheim General Plan SR5123KT.DOC No discussion. 03-30-98 Page 2 B. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION IPREV.-APPROVEDI Continued (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3662 -REQUEST FOR to be advertised REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION as a public hearing OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT: Doug Browne, P.O. Box 18021, Anaheim, CA 92817-8021, requests review and approval of the proposed location of playground equipment for a previously-approved private educational facility. Property is located at 6270 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Continued from the Commission meeting of March 16, 1998. SR1044MA.DOC Applicant's Statement: Doug Browne, 151 South Quintanna: Stated since the last meeting the Planning Commission made it evident that they wanted certain matters addressed and he believes each one of those items has been addressed as best as they can. The following were the concerns he addressed: m Playground and contributing factors -Noise, visual intrusion, etc. of the playground have been remedied by removal of the playground equipment which was nearest to the property. ft has been removed and will not be re-installed. (He submitted a photograph earlier today.] Security lighting -That lighting has been removed and replaced with decorative tile. The owner has contracted with the sign company to install a sign which was permitted and installed in accordance with what was allowed by Planning Commission when he made the application. Once the sign was installed it was extremely bright facing Santa Ana Canyon Road and also considerably visible to the delusion of the sign on Calle Jaime. After conferring with Dr. Jayaratna and the sign company, they decided that the best way to mitigate this would be to place a screen or diffuser over the westerly edge of the sign which he placed temporarily and then activated the sign at night in order to see the difference. He stressed that was a temporary device and only to verify that it would in fact function. They placed it against the west side of the letters of the sign only. When the sign was turned on there was still a visible red glow but nothing delusive as it was before. The red glow occurred from the light which was forced onto the northerly building. What they believe now is that if they place that same diffuser on the west and east side of the letters then it will probably virtually eliminate the red glow. The red glow was hardly detectable with his camera. That in combination with limited hours of usage of the sign should address that problem. Planting of landscape along the westerly wall - He did not even recall that he had said untU.he saw it himself the fact that the Cypress trees were 28 inches at center as the specification for the planting of those trees. That was on an early exhibit. That same exhibit is not what is now currently used or the plan that was found in substantial conformance. Once he went to the landscape architect a landscape plan was manufactured and submitted to the City for approval. It was approved on February 20, 1997 and signed by the City. (He mentioned he had the plan with him.] The plan calls for the planting of 82 Italian Cypress along the westerly planter area. Those 82 trees reflected planting all the way to the front property edge. Actually on the original exhibit it showed that it would terminate where it was required by Titie 24 that a sidewalk come off of the front sidewalk to provide access for people coming onto the property. So that was the actual termination. After he worked out the spacing of the trees he recognized that it was considerably greater than what his recollection of the spacing was which was 3 feet. After conferring with Planning staff member he said that his testimony in the meeting said that it was actually going to be 3 feet on center. But once he produced the revised site plan he did not have in his possession the old plans. He fully admits that it says 28 inches on the original plan. But after conferring with the landscape architect he stated that 4 feet seemed a bit wide and that 3 feet on center would be about the minimum planting spacing in order to achieve density of the tree. Italian Cypress trees will probably live if they are planted 12 inches on center but deferred the discussion to the representative of the landscape firm regarding the actual 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 3 implication of the spacing of the trees. The object is to obtain a masking hedge which will eventually provide privacy for the property to the west. Ultimately, they have planted approximately 135 trees along the property edge at 3 feet on center, sometimes less but never more than 3 feet on center. Michael McMillian, Clawson and Clawson, 3063 West Lynnrose, Anaheim, CA: Stated at one time Mr. Browne had stated in a written letter to the City stating that the trees were going to be 28 inches on center. Their office drew the plans to where the plants would be a 4 feet on center. Later they wrote a letter to Doug Browne indicating that 3 feet is probably the minimum that he would want to space the trees because the roots will begin to fight against each other and these are trees that will get to 6 feet wide and have the capability to growing 100 feet tall. Currently the trees are 11 feet which means they are over the fence and they are doing what they are intended to do at three feet on center. The discrepancy is that he wrote a memo at one time or another that said 28 inches versus 36 inches. Doug Browne: Stated if it is the will of the Planning Commission then he will remove those trees and plant them at 28 inches on center. He does not deny that at one time he stated that was where they would be spaced. He is not a landscape architect and so he puts that matter for the professional which was dictated by the City to use a landscape architect on that project, He planted the trees on July 1997 and the trees have already achieve, in some cases, over two feet of vertical growth so he did this in an effort to mitigate as quickly as passible the invasion of the privacy. It is going to be a while before the trees get tall enough to do theirjob. Once they gain height they will also gain width and will achieve what they are designed to do. The City had representatives from the Building Division, Planning and Engineering Department visit the site to determine whether they had conformed to the plans regarding the building height and drainage issues and he thought there was a memorandum generated regarding that matter. Public Testimony: Bart Allen, 6278 East Calle Jaime, Anaheim, CA: Stated he would like to address all of the issues that Doug Browne addressed plus other issues that were addressed in the staff report that he would also like to comment on. He stated he stands with support of his neighbors and asked them to stand up. (there were approximately 25 neighbors present.] He does not necessarily speak for them. Some of their issues he speaks on behalf of them. Primarily he is here to represent his own concerns, issues and how he feels his rights have been violated. In 1992 Doug Browne originally applied for a retail center Conditional Use Permit No. 3527. It was a 2- story 9-unit building. It was approved by the Planning Commission that same year, but was later denied by the City Council on September 22, 1992. It was denied based on it being too large and there were seven variances requested. Presently, he received approval for a building which is bigger and taller, 2,000 square feet larger than the original proposal that was denied. He is concerned with the following issues: • Height of the building. • The Montessori sign stands 32 feet high.. • Lights.. • Parking lamps that stare down into his property. • Two-story windows that stare into his property. • Two-story balcony that stares into his living room. • Opposed to the issue of Italian Cypress trees. From his experience when the Italian Cypress trees grow high and heavy they have a tendency to blow down with growth in moist in small narrow planters. He suggested Ponderosa or Redwoods trees. • Opposed to his privacy invasion. • His property value loss. • Ugly "prison-like" appearance of these buildings. 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 4 From the beginning of researching this project in looking up records, talking to City staff and discovering most of their concerns with Doug Browne he keeps hearing the terms "it is within Code" or "it Is already approved", "there is a variance for that one", and "it is too late, the building has been built". He has also heard from an attorney that if he continues to object to this project that he will be sued. It should be mention that unless the City Attorney of Anaheim gives Dr. Jayaratna what he want then they will be sued also. That letter is on record, in file, at the Planning Department. Mr. Pontius and himself and the City Attorney have all been threatened and legally intimidated. The extorted nature of these threatening legal letters is an analogous warning to everyone today. If this entire project was good for the neighborhood, it's citizens, the area, and the City, these threats would not have been made. Threats are born of fear of not getting what you want, fear that what you want is unreasonable. It is his opinion that Doug Browne and the doctor know that they asked far to much from this City. The clients of Doug Browne's building see into his home. He submitted photographs that show the appearance of the buildings, the sign, playground equipment. From his front doorway you can see the top of playground equipment with a child standing on that. The children will be seen from the waist up. He feels it is too much building in too small of a space. There are too many code granted variances. In the photographs there the minor concessions that Doug Browne offered his neighborhood per Commissioner Henninger's direction two weeks ago when he asked Doug Browne to meet with his neighbors. Mr. Browne spent 3'h hours at his home. They had a friendly conversation. They asked him per the Planning Commission what concession is he giving them? A few things were mentioned. He did mention then that the Italian trees had grown 1'/: foot, two weeks later he understands they have grown anpther 6 inches. He said that would alleviate their site problems. Other options were discussed about planting trees at various locations. A concession he did give them is that he is covering the sign with a sheet of aircraft sheet like metal.. Now the sign is not only going to look ugly at night. Now the t<ebede's that live opposite his property on the north side of Calle Jaime now have the full effect of the glare of the sign. (Referenced one of the photographs.] There was a convalescent project that was proposed on Santa Ana Canyon Road and Mohler a few years ago. That project came in at 25 feet high. The work was never done. The staff insists that the tree-story building is actually atwo-story building plus an attic because there is no stairway going in up into the attic. The original plans did include a stairway up to the 3rd story. Currently, there is a ladder going from the 2nd story to the 3rd story but he is concerned in the future they may add a stairway, He agrees that schools are needed, but it needs wise planning. If this project had been wisely thought out, why wasn't a one story school planned and approved so the doctor, Mr. Browne, the neighborhood and the City could have been happy with the project. The playground could have been designed towards Santa Ana Canyon Road. Traffic would have muffled the decibel playground noise. The building could have been lowered. Everyday he sees the building that was 22 feet proposed to 35 feet in reality, There is a way to make a ruling today that would appeal to both sides. He referenced a letter from Doug Browne to the neighbors detailing his proposal. (His wife, Carol Allen will discuss the letter in more detail] Since that time the proposal has been changed drastically. He and his neighbors object to the building height. He personally thinks the Orange County Jail architecture is more appealing to the eye than this building. Presently in the parking lot lamps are fifteen feet high which is five feet over his wall. Code recommends 12 feet high. He is concerned that these lights, even to Code, may still tilind his view as he is driving into his driveway. He distributed photographs of the drainage problem at the end of his driveway. It has caused his sidewalk to retain a wet spot causing a stain. It is unsafe for bicycling children. When it rains runoff water collects 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 5 at a parking retaining wall and it pours through weep holes onto his property. It washes his planter onto his driveway. He feels that is what drains are for. Drains should keep Doug Browne's water on his side. He presently has a 3-inch drain that might be adequate if the grade of his property was correct, but it is not. His playground is lower than his parking lot. Grading is not consistent with the historical flow of water of that property. It was altered at the time of grading. It has not been corrected. Mr. Allen showed Melanie Adams (Public Works Department) from the staff his pictures of this and she said there is a problem. That small drain in the photograph can not accommodate the runoff of a rain. Two-thirds of his driveway is under water every time it rains with sand and gravel. He suggested removing the east planter, installing a 6 foot line, put larger drains every 10 feet and the problem would be resolved. Doug Browne was granted a variance to move the majority of the 7500 square foot playground next to his home with zero setback. Legal easement is 15 feet. Chairman Bostwick asked Mr. Allen, has the playground equipment next to his house been removed? Bart Allen responded one set has. Now there is one 80 feet away. Ghairman Bostwick: Stated Doug Browne no longer has that variance, there is no equipment there. Bart Alien: Stated he is referring to the playground and not the equipment -the grass and sandbox area. Chairman Bostwick: Stated the original question was the playground equipment and that is what brought this matter to Commission that has been removed. Bart Allen: Responded that is right, but there is still playground next to his wall. There is a sandbox (70 to 100 square feet) that is in cement. It has been put next to his wall and the decibel study according to documentation that this playground was moved then to his wall with no clearance. Chairman Bostwick: Stated this matter came before the Planning Commission and everyone seemed pleased with the plans, process, the whole arrangement, other than the playground equipment. It went to City Council and everyone was happy with the project until the playground equipment returns as a reports and recommendations item to either obtain a variance of removing it, he has now removed, what happened? Chairman Bostwick: Stated at this point they are here to review and approve the location of the playground equipment. The playground equipment is gone. Fred Lowary, 6273 Calle Jaime, Anaheim, CA: Stated the question was asked why they had not been here before and he wanted to address that. It goes to constitutional law, due process, the 14th Amendment, "no person can be deprived of their property or their liberty without due process of law". He learned years ago at Whittier School of Law that due process means notice and an opportunity to be heard. Tht:y never received notices. The last time he received a notice was when Doug Browne told him in 1992 that he is going to see a very low level, two-story building, you will not even know it is there. They have done some research that in 1994 a notice was sent out that included their entire street (Avenida 'Laysanne and Calle Jaime) comprising of 18 or 19 homes. Two weeks later a mailing list went out and since that day they have been selectively deleted from that list. Someone removed the people on their street off the mailing list since 1994. They have evidence of that today. Two weeks ago, he indicated he did not know how they got this height. In those minutes it stated all the neighbors have been notified. But they were not notified and the reason they were not is because they were taken off the list in 1994 and that is how this project grew from two stories (22 feet) to three stories (36 feet). He mentioned at the last meeting that a child of six had mentioned to him that the building looked like it was 3 stories. They were deprived of their notice for the past 3'/: years. They did not receive .notice two weeks ago. Chairman Bostwick: Stated they would not receive notice of a Reports and Recommendation item. Fred Lowary: Responded you mean for the past 3'h years they could be lulled into thinking that it was going to be a 2 story building and no one would think to tell them us it was going to be three stories high? 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 6 Chairman Bostwick: Stated they would have received notice for the original Planning Commission hearing and that would be it. When it went to the City Council they would have not received another notice. It automatically goes to City Council after Planning Commission if they want to hear it, if not it goes with Commission's decision. The notice would have been one time and that would have been the first time it came to the Planning Commission that they would receive a notice. Fred Lowary: Stated it is interesting that Chairman Bostwick would take the position that they could go 3'/: years without notice and he is not troubled the least about that. Chairman Bostwick: Stated he is only explaining to him the process and that he has had due process. Fred Lowary: Stated they have not had due process served for the last 3'h years. Chairman Bostwick: Stated the original notice that went out is one. He would have not received anything else since then. There would be no notices. Fred Lowary: Stated they received notices in July 1994. Two weeks later for the same project a notice was sent out and 18 homes on their street were deleted, except one person on their street did receive notice and that is how they were blinded for the last 3'/~ years. They went in here a year ago on a drainage concern in mass, do they think they would not have done the same thing before ground was broken if they had known Doug Browne was going to build athree-story building. That is why they are so up in arms. He urged Commission to require Doug Browne to take his building down to 2 stories and get this thing approved the right way. Carol Allen, 6278 East Calle Jaime, Anaheim, CA: Stated they appreciated the two week continuance that was given and they asked for that so they could get their own decibel report at their own cost completed regarding the playground equipment/playground. She read an excerpt from Doug Browne's decibel report, it shows 54 dBA next to their wall. That was the report that was granted on August 8, 1994 moving the playground 80 feet away from her home. That report dated June 27, 1994 stated it would only be 54 dBA and it would be below code of 60 dBA, so it was approved and moved it. They paid for the a decibel report out of their own money. Their decibel report which stated, "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Allen, At your request I have prepared a preliminary acoustical analysis of the proposed school noise impact the residents at 6278 Calle Jaime in Anaheim Hills." ... "Based on noise surveys of about 20 different schools in L.A. and Orange County I have acquired data base on different noise level of kids that play in outdoor play areas". Meaning they did not tell them about the jungle gym just the playground. They indicated Doug Browne has a zero setback against their wall. The main point of the report was, "the resulting impact is 64.6 dB. The value of 65.6 dB on your property side from 24 kids playing at the nearest playground area is 10 d6 higher or louder than what was calculated by the noise study"... "A 10 dB increase will sound twice to normal human hearing." Twice is not the same as we know in math, twice as loud. Also they did not know and Mr. Ahmadi gave her a verification that this was true at the desk yesterday. The dBA noise ordinance for City of Anaheim is 55 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. In 19.94 54 dBA, 1998 64.6. - - She recalled at the last meeting that she mentioned about the "no occupancy" could be done until the :playground equipment was removed and they blatantly had an open house. She had asked at the last meeting what happens doesn't he get cited? The response was that Doug Browne had a permit fora banner only. She recalled Commissioner Peraza asking if they were cited. As she walked away they said they would get her an answer to that. She asked again, what happened, does he get fined for having the open house? The City had sent him three subsequent violation notices stating "no occupancy". They never received an answer to that question. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Code Enforcement if there were any complaints filed with Code Enforcement regarding the open house? Carol Allen: Stated many of the neighbors did complain to Code Enforcement. The open house was on a Saturday so they called Code Enforcement and Matt (Letteriello) came out and spoke with the school officials. She was very hopeful when she left the last meeting thinking that staff was going to look into it, as Commission had directed them to do. Staff did not even tell them that they were going to come and inspect her property as part of their inspection. She found out by accident (hearsay from a neighbor). 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 7 The only reason staff knocked on her door to see it from their view was because she put a ladder blocking them in the driveway with a note. Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement Officer: Stated when the special events permit was issued they had found out about it that Monday and on that Monday they revoked the permit but by that time they had already had their open house. Carol Allen: Asked if the permit was for a banner only? Don Yourstone: Responded he believed so. Carol Alien: Stated so the banner was for an open house conducted so what happens to him because he did that? Don Yourstone: Responded nothing at this time. Carol Allen: Stated when someone violates a City Code then nothing happens? Chairman Bostwick: Stated normally they issue a citation if they can see the event or see what is happening at the particular time. They will issue a citation. If the correction is not made and they issue as few citations then obviously they look into taking it court. Ultimately if this happens for a long period of time they can request that the Planning Commission have a rehearing on the CUP. Carol Allen: Stated so it is not a fine or a sanction. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Mrs. Allen about the report George Leighton did regarding the acoustical, there is a map and asked if their house was the one marked "Hyatt". Carol Allen: Responded yes. They moved there less than two years ago (July 9, 1996). So this proposal was all done by the time they moved. in. Carol Allen: Stated staff visited the site and took pictures. They took pictures in Doug Browne's attic and she asked staff if they could take pictures showing the second story balcony windows looking into her house and they said yes, but they were out of film. She offered to purchase more, but staff said no that would appear that they were taking her side. She then told staff she thought Commission asked to see what is going on and she thought she remembered them saying with these three story buildings. She asked that they measure the distance from the playground to her garage, to the baby nursery window but they declined. She then officially requested that staff take papers, return to take distance measures and they declined. She reiterated again and they told her they would check with their supervisor and get back to her, but they never did. When she goes out the door she cannot leave (without being seen). If she wants a breeze she can not open her front door and walk from her family :room to her kitchen because they can see her from the playground. They can see her not only in her entryway but in the cross section where she comes from her bedroom to her kitchen. Staff stood in her entryway but she did not see it noted in the report. It is not just the 3rd story because they said they were going to recommend opaquing the top story windows. Commission had requested that Doug meet with the neighbors. But in the last meeting they indicated that the neighbors "use to be happy" but she could not understand how they could have been happy. Doug did meet with the neighbors, he was nice, they met with him for 3 hours but he offered them nothing of what he stated today. He had them thinking that everything was going to be taken care of. They asked if he could plant some high mature trees at the cul-de-sac wall. Doug's response was that it was impossible, all his utilities are there. She then asked what about his side of the wall? He said it could possibly be done but it would be too expensive for him to do and the City probably would not let him do it, but he would check with the City. She verified with Jack Kudron from the Parks Division and Larry Pasco in the Trees Division (Urban Forestry Operations) on Friday but no phone call was received from Mr. Browne asking about any of this. I even asked Melanie when she came out and she said it might be doable if you get small root ball trees that is would soften the appearance. I don't think it will hide them. He didn'tjust offer to take out the playground equipment. He offered much more than that. They were almost not going to come today because they were happy. He said he was going to take out the playground equipment and make that 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 8 whole pie wedge a dead zone -get rid of it next to their property. He was going to get rid of it next to our property then gate it off, and use it only for half hour lunch eating for the kids. He said he was going to move this dead zone area onto the hard top and ask Commission about a retracting fence to have the kids on there instead. He would ask the City and get back to us on that if he could do the retracting fence and he even said he would restrict their hours of use there. We said why not just go back to when the playground just 80 feet. He said "No, he needed 7500 sq. ft." and this is pivotal to another thing she needed to bring up. He even said he would bring over 24 kids to this new proposed area to see what it sounded like. She did not hear Doug Browne say anything about that today. She heard him say playground equipment is out. He said he would get rid of the playground next to their home, make it a dead zone. He also offered in that dead zone he was going to plant high mature trees in the southwest pie wedge to help block the Allen's view and their of them with the buildings and everybody looking at them, the children. What happened to that? He said he would call them back as he left their home. She said "Do you want our number". He said, " I know where you live, I'll get back to you." But he never did. He did take out the playground equipment leaving a big sandbox, where the kids are going to be yelling, screaming, jumping down, that's a delight. He did take down the security lights around the building. The parking lot lamp posts up the driveway? It looks like a shopping mall. He installed the next address on the second story. Instead of trying to make them happy he keeps putting things up and asked why he has to put an address on the 2nd story? Melanie Adams was in the February 1997 meeting and that was the meeting where he was trying to put the main drain through to their neighborhood. In that meeting he agreed to build a little decorative enclosure to cover up the grid that is going there and asked if he is going to do that? This is why the neighbors used to be happy and she did not know why because he was always done this to them. [She submitted a letter from .Doug Browne]. She found information in CUP 3527 file and then she realized why the neighbors used to be happy. She found a letter from .Doug Browne dated May 22, 1992 to the Calle Jaime residents, [read excerpt from letter] "Dear neighbors, The plans attached represent what we have discussed although I believe I represented the buildings back wall would be either 22 or 24 feet high". It is now showing a maximum of 26. "The City has an ordinance preventing visible roof-mounted equipment, hence the attic must now be built between the.roof and the ceiling lina accordingly, the structure was raised". She asked Mr. Ahmadi, he said a lot of them are put on the ground. The neighbors did not know that, they are not builders or engineers. In this letter Doug Browne is implying he has no choice but to make them high. She noticed on the March 7, 1994 meeting minutes that the proposed school owner at that time said her current school opened at 7:00 a.m. She checked, most Anaheim Montessori schools she called are open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. This one is open from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. In the meeting minutes she (the owner of the school at that time) said that they would modify it to 7:00 a.m. if it became a problem. In that meeting Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Browne what about putting equipment on the ground and eliminating the 8 foot pf building height? Mr. Browne's response was that kids would walk up and drop racks into ground-mounted equipment and that it is not preferable, the site is too small. The meeting was continued after Commissioner Tait asked staff to evaluate the feasibility of putting the roof-mounted equipment on the ground. Unfortunately the staff did not evaluate it. It is not in any other notes on the March 21st, itjust got dropped. The only reference to it that they have is that they changed it. It states, "staffs background indicated petitioner was suppose to investigate the possibility of removing roof- mounted equipment". Commissioner Tait said he would like for staff to investigate feasibility. They know now that this could have been shorter. Commission asked the staff to investigate, staff referred it to Mr. Browne and he redesigned the buildings and made them 3 feet higher because of the architectural design. The design, by the way, is not the boxed appearance anymore. That design is the architectural relief, that is not boxed in appearance any longer. In fact, Mr.'Browne did not even mention it at all, did not respond on the possibility of putting the equipment on the ground as directed to do so and he was not even asked about it, according to the minutes. The only thing he said was that the only 35 feet high areas were where the architectural design was, the building height was still the same and the whole proposal was approved. Another item she found is new. He enlarged the playground last year without Commission's approval. She could not bring in the plans from the Planning Department, they would not let her copy them. Doug Browne enlarged it. She remembered him in her living room saying he needed 7500 square feet and she was.looking back in March 1994 and it showed 4,400. The map sites are dated accordingly, it shows that he was-only approved August 1994 to relocate it. After thorough research, she found no request with the 03-30-96 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 9 assistance of Mr. Ahmadi for enlargement. Last year in June, her husband Bart and Ray were also present, and he was asking about square footage. They were deceived, they did not know, in the meantime with the square footage of the church and the school his parking spaces minimum went down and he was able to grab more square footage. They were approved but not asked for. When her brother comes to see her house he laughs, he lives in Tustin and she used to be the big sister that he looked up to. She knows she has not been notified about a playground enlargement. She asked what is going to happen? They have a new decibel report, two conflicting conclusions. The playground is next to her ".head". Can they lower the enrollment? Can they change the hours? Staggered recesses are going to be all day long. Can they take off the third story? How hard is it? Can they re-review this CUP? Are she allowed to ask for that? Chairman Bostwick: Responded sure she can ask them anything. Carol Allen: Asked is she allowed to ask to re-review the CUP, these buildings and the playground, it that where she does this? Chairman Bostwick: Responded she can ask for anything, it is up to the Commission to ask staff. She can ask them to review this CUP. Carol Allen: Is that what they are asking for? Chairman Bostwick: Responded that is his impression. Carol Allen: Stated she would like to officially request review of the CUP, if that is what she is suppose to do. She does not think her husband did that. Jack Lano, 627 Calle Jaime, Anaheim, CA: Stated when he came to the last meeting he read the staff report that said that all of the neighbors had been informed in writing and he said that was not true. He went down Friday to the Planning Department and he obtained information that really stunned him. [Submitted the information to Commission.]. He referenced Item A of the information and he highlighted the date, July 14, 1994 Declaration of Mailing. The reason he went in the files was because he has been living there since 1985 and he did not receive any notices. It upsets him when he sees a 3 story building when Doug Browne assured him it was going to be a 2 story building, 22, 24, 26 feet not more than that, according to his letter. That is why he came down here and he was one of the people who were originally supporting this project because he thought it was going to be a great project. He was wrong. In turning page of item A, it is a notice signed by an employee of the City, the next page is the content of the cards announcing a meeting of the Planning Commission of July 25, 1994. What they have done, see page 15, dated July 13, 1994 there is a name at the top "Donald McKee". This list has 50 names and addresses on it of people apparently within 300 feet of this project who are being notified of this meeting. He highlighted certain names, one of those names was Fred Lowary. The next pages have more highlighted names. But in looking at item 8, the 3rd page and there you will find there only 32-names. Apparently 18 names were deleted, not by accident, someone deliberately deleted the names of everyone on Calle Jaime and Avenida Lysanne, except for one person that did not get deleted. This requires attention. One of the things he teamed a long time ago. He received his CPA in 1950, and has been a CIA, CFE for a long time. One of the things he teamed early on if people do what you "inspect not what you expect" -this City has a fine group of people working for it but sometimes there are bad apples and there is something going on here that needs Commission's attention.. There is an excellent internal audit staff upstairs, who work for Dave Morgan, and they could have Tom Wood or Joel Fick look into this whole situation and then look around all over because this particular department, the Planning Department has never been audited. The way the City has been running for many years only the people that have to be audited get audited. They audited the Stadium, the Convention Center, the Utilities Department, the Redevelopment Agency, and other departments except this department. The data is right there, the evidence. He had a meeting this morning with Tom Wood and he called in Joel Fick and he called in Greg Hastings and they said they did not know what was going on but they would :look into it. These mailing lists are not created by the City, they are created based on the parcel number which are then researched by title firms, that will tell you who is the most current owner so the notices get to the :person who needs to receive 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 10 them. Unfortunately, if you take the names off which is what happened here with everyone in his neighborhood. He knows that he did not receive anything after July 1994. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if Mr. Lano had received the first notice that his name was on the list. Jack Lano: Responded did not know if he did. He could not recall receiving that. Chairman Bostwick: The list he has and the dates he has circled are July 14, 1994. Jack Lano: Stated his name is on the list but he is not aware that he received any cards. He could not say if he did or not. But he does not think he did because he is the kind of person, .because he has a short memory, that jumps right into something when he receives it. If there was a meeting he would have come to it. He was concerned because he does not think he received notices before that. But it needs looking into it, there is something wrong. Greg Hastings: Stated they did meet with Mr. Lano this morning and he did bring to their attention a discrepancy between two mail lists. The mail list for the July 25th Planning Commission meeting, that did go out to all the properly owners. It was verified, however at the July 25th meeting they discovered there was an additional waiver for a trash enclosure in the front in the front setback which required a re- advertisement for two weeks later. They did find out, the best they can tell, that the entire neighborhood was not notified of the particular waiver. That particular waiver which occurred two weeks later, but any of the neighbors that would have been at the July 25th meeting would have known it was continued for two weeks so that Planning could advertise that particular waiver. That was for the August 8th meeting. Since that time there has been no public hearings for notification. There have been several occasions where Planning Commission has reviewed plans for substantial conformance as well as there were time extension requests that the Planning Commission reviewed which do not require public hearing. Leslie Africano, 6271 East Calle Jaime, Anaheim, CA: Stated she moved into the area approximately 2 years ago. It was a nice quiet street with beautiful homes that were well-maintained then all of a sudden she did not receive a notice of anything. Now she has an ugly building at the end of her street. She works at the Orange County Jail. She agrees with her neighbor, Mr. Allen, it is a nicer looking building than what they have at the end of their street now. Both her and her husband work at night and they sleep during the day and she has a problem with the noise that is going to be created at the end of their street. There are going to be 4 recess periods going on during the day to facilitate 100 students. She has a problem with that, she is trying to sleep. Please look into it, please do something about it. She was not notified of anything otherwise she would have been attended also. Louis Anderson, 125 Avenida Lysanne, Anaheim, CA: Stated he has never been notified. (He submitted photographs.] From his doorstep/porch you can see this building and if it did not have a 3rd story then he would not be able to see it at all. He has been there 2 years next month and he has not received notice for anything. It is an eyesore and if his neighbors property values go down so does his, this concerns him. He thinks Something needs to be done about the 3rd story. - - Maureen Francis, 140 South Pueblo, Anaheim, CA: Stated she lives in a cul-de-sac that does not back up into that building so she did not even plan to be here but she does realize with their property values going down it is going to effect her property values. Because she is a direct neighbor of Doug Browne's they do plan to move, that shows you what type of neighbor he has been.. Since the night she moved into her house she was in tears because she thought she moved behind a kennel. He has 5 dogs illegally which they will probably be going into court about that next year. If these trees are approved then they need to think about the promises Doug Browne has been giving to Commission and to the neighbors. You have to think of the character of the man. She as a direct neighbor living behind him they have had to pay the cost of having his trees trimmed on his property. Now if he will not pay to have 1 pine tree trimmed back off of their property line, what is he going to do with these Cypress trees that are 100 feet tall, 6 feet wide in 10 or 20 years? That is something that needs to be considered in the future unless they want to see the same group of people here year after year fighting with Doug Browne. Dan Hoffman, 6275 Calle Jaime, I am three property lines from .Doug Browne's project, In the beginning I was impressed with Doug Browne and that lasted real short. Originally he proposed a 2-story project and the first.word out of his mouth out was variance. The first letter is a short one on top and I will not read it, but 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 11 that is what I send to you March 21, 1994 because I could not attend that meeting. However, I expressed my concern for this project and the safety of it when the project first originated in 1992 and expressed it also in 1994. I echo the letters referencing atwo-story building, at that time, there was no notice for us to dispute the fact there is now three-stories there. In the 1994 letter I referred to the windows that stare down into our neighborhood. I have two small children a 5 year old and a 9 year old and at that time they were 1 and 5. I have lived in this neighborhood for 10 years. I have come to like all my neighbors. With this project staring down into my neighborhood, I cannot tell and I cannot see who is going to be viewing my children at play in my street. I wonder if somebody is going to be standing or sitting behind either the second floor or the third floor and fantasizing about one of my children fitting into a bucket and then filling it with cement. After a closer look at the building this weekend from the front of the property, and I have a video for you here to view when you will, I thought the property only encroached on the front of my home and that I would still be able to maintain privacy of my home, mind you I am three property lines away from this building and this building even looks into my back yard and I have a pool. My children go in that pool in the summer time daily and I come home and join them, that privacy has been removed. In 1986 I started a business in Fullerton and the City came and asked me to move my business, they said it was not permitted. They did not offer me a check to aid in my moving expenses, they did not offer a tax break or a cup of coffee they said move. I would like to see Council recommend that this building either be destroyed or go down to single story or at the very minimum a 2-story. I guarantee if Mr. Browne wanted something done on this building it would get done. I am prepared with my neighbors to fight as much as there needs to be to get this project stopped, shut down, destroyed or altered in whatever fashion would see fit because this is not benefiting anybody in my .neighborhood or on the next street. Doug Browne is three streets away, I do not want to live next to him and it is not helping his property. Sicker Kebede: I do not have much to say, but basically I just think that what I and my family have to say is also important since besides the Allen's we are the ones that are most effected by this project. I will be honest with you, we had no idea of what was going on for most of the time that this project went on. All my family lives at home, but my parents are in international business, so they are gone most of the time, I was in college most of the time and my sister was going to grad school. We did not touch the mail, if anything was sent we would have not known about it because unless it said Citibank or mortgage we did not care, so we just tossed everything. First we thought there was going to be a church and then we thought there was going to be a business area and up to then everything was fine with us. Our main concern is that ever since this became athree-story building our privacy has been invaded and the value of our neighborhood. This building is three stories high, it is very huge and ugly and that is my personal opinion. The way the whole thing was build, it was build to the inconvenience of our whole neighborhood. The sign is one our major issues. It is red, it is neon and its tacky. It looks like it belongs in Vegas and it is something that we do not want in our neighborhood. It is not somethingthat should be flashing all night long in our neighborhood. We have been there a very long time, we are one of the oldest neighbors, we are going on fifteen years and we do not want to move. We should not have to move. Things can still be done.. My main thing is that you review it, look into it and even if it costs money for the owner things need to be done. That wall is so short. It is to the point that we are uncomfortable to go to our backyard because anybody can crawl over that wall and those little pine trees that they planted are not doing any good. It will take seven years, we are not going to hide out in our house for seven years until it is safe to come out and feel comfortable in our back yard. Something needs to be done now, and personally I would like to see the wall go very high. If you cannot knock the third story down then the wall needs to be just as high. We have put a lot of money and time into that neighborhood. We do not want to see anybody leave, nobody should have to leave. This can still be fixed, it was not done the right way in the first place. If it would have been done the right way, we would have not been here today. Rosa Garcia, 6300 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, I am not an Anaheim bills resident, but I .have a business in Anaheim Hills. In September of 1996 I took over a restaurant. It is beautifully located and I was doing really 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 12 good until this building came up. He (Doug Browne) is my customer, he comes over to have breakfast and on Tuesdays for Taco Tuesday, but that is not going to compensate my thirty percent loss. I already had to lay off one of my main cooks and one of the waitresses because I cannot afford to have them. My workload has doubled because now I have to do dishes, cook and sweep the floor. I now work from 8 am and 9 p:m. Fifty percent of my potential customers drive eastbound on Anaheim Hills and now I am not visible. Before I was visible two hundred feet away. Now all that is seen is this building, by the time they realize there is a restaurant there they are past Fairmont. I was told that this was going to be two stories high. On September 1997 I talked to Mr. Browne and he was bragging about his three story building. I did not think there could be a three story building in this area. That attemoon, I discussed it with my husband and he did not believe me. My husband thought I had overheard. Since October of 1997 I saw them start building and they added bricks and bricks until the building got this high. Since November I have not made any profit, I have been putting money in month after month. I brought these pictures with me. The restaurant has a beautiful patio where my customers enjoy sitting outside to have their lunch or dinner, and now all they see is this wall. That is all they see. Members of City Council I would like to ask you a question, are you allowed to put someone out of business just like that, just over night? I am just a hard working women, my husband works sixteen hours a day and we have three children. Our dream is to put them through college. We already put one through college. if you do not do something now, I will have to go out business, and I am asking you is this fair? Sorry to get emotional, but I have been working in the restaurant business for seven years. I took this location a year and a half ago and I believe I have good service and a good product. What have you done? I will have to go out of business in a couple of months because I do not have any more savings to put in my business. Is this building allowed in that area? Why did you not take into consideration the business behind that building? That is all I have to say. I hope you really give it a thought. Peggy Meadows, 6275 East Rio Grande Drive. I live there with my husband Jack, and we are the original owners and have been there nineteen years. We have been there fora :long time and have been fighting Mr. Browne since 1992. I see him on the street and I want to hit him with my car. That is how I feel about him. If he wants to move, I will help him pack. I think I know a lot of neighbors that would do the same thing. At the meeting we held in 1994, Mr. Browne said there would not be over thirty children in that school. Now they are telling me a hundred. I just found about that last week and this made me furious. Have you guys stopped to think about the cars. They will have a very little area to pull in and tum around. If there are two children per car, that will be fifty cars between 6 and 6:30 every morning. How are they going to get back on Santa Ana Canyon? Santa Ana Canyon is bumper to bumper. They are going to make a right on Fairmont, a right on Real Grande, right down my tract, out on Quintanna and out through Anaheim Hills Road. Give this some thought. I have lived there a long time, and. this is where Jack and I thought we would end up our years there, I never thought I would have to move. What you have done to our quite and peaceful neighborhood is really sad. Thank you, Jack Lano, stated we have no objection to somebody making a living. We have no objection to entrepreneurship. That is what the United States is build on, we don't care. It is when it is abused. Ladies and gentlemen, Doug Browne stood in front of my house and said in front of Mr. Hoffman, who has already spoken to you, "I can build whatever I want on that property, the City is so hungry for tax dollars, they will do anything I want". That is what we were all told before this even started. Now I am hear to show and only speak about the wall, the trees and to remind you that when this was approved in 1994 it was done on the purpose of safety. The wall was to be build to stop people from jumping from that property onto our property. The trees were to be planted at twenty eight inches apart. Ms. Boydstun, you were the one to put that motion before the Council. I heard an expression, if you give somebody an inch they take a mile. What has happened here is that he has taken a mile and will not give back an inch. Thirty six inches is what he wanted to plant and did plant. He was ordered to plant them twenty eight inches apart. The picture you have there in front of you shows what twenty eight inches looks like, that creates the barrier, that creates the safety for us along with the height of the wall. The height of the wall was raised with your permission with the trees to be build the way they were proposed to create a safety barrier. He has gone against what you people asked for. He has gene against Code. He has taken .his mile and given back an inch. If you've looked at the pictures of that wall you can see that that wall has been plastered. The plastering on that wall is wet, it stays wet and if any of you people have ever seen, and I am sure you all have, plaster that stays wet for six 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 13 months to a year becomes slimy and then falls off. Who is going to repair it7 You can already see through the plaster now. I hope you heard that by going to 65 decibels, it doubles the allowable rate. That means that every day the school is open at 65 decibels, we can contact somebody to have it closed down or stopped. There has been a process where he has moved from 4,400 feet to 7,500 square feet, nobody is notified. We would like this to be known, nobody is notified. We have not heard anything. Nobody send us :notices, I have .not got any. Now let me just remind you of something, mistakes have been. made and, incidentally, we all make them, everyone of us make mistakes. One of the mistakes that was made was on the tree planting. When Mr. Ahmadi was told by Mr: Browne that he had a landscape architect that said that should not be planted twenty eight inches that they should be planted thirty six or they would die. That is not what you ordered, that is not what you approved. So Ahmadi said, "O.K. go ahead and put them in at thirty six inches". Were we notified? No. I sent that picture to you to show you what twenty eight inches looks like and how it creates a barrier. Incidentally, I also had Mr. Browne come into my back yard, four years ago, and I showed him what twenty eight inches apart look like. Why is it now that he plants these little twigs that he has said they have grown two feet. Believe me if they have grown to feet it is amazing to me. You have a sound study that says it is in violation of the sound study that he gave to the staff here, there is now notification and you have heard an attorney that lives on the street say that there is something wrong in Denmark something is wrong here, something is wrong because we were not notified correctly and it is time to correct the mistake. Now, correcting the mistake means a third story building is not suppose to be there. A two-story building is. Let me remind you that this is the first building on Santa Ana Canyon Road starting from Nohl Ranch Road and Lincoln and going all the way out to Coal Canyon where there is two-story building with parking next to .residential. It is the only one, and we begged not to have the two story then. You have two properties on the Scenic Corridor, one is the Catholic Church and the other is at Piney where there are single-story buildings that allow parking up against residential. This is the only one, and you folks approved it. I should not say you did, the Commission at that time approved it. The correction, tear down that third floor. Again, safety has not been followed through. I want you to know that the decibel level means that he is not going to be able to do business and we have no objection to the gentlemen. We do not want him not to be able to do business. We are not against that, but the decibel level is going to close him down every day. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED, Dr. Jayaranta, owner of the Montessori School, just wanted to mention a few words. This is a Montessori School, this is not apre-school. Children on the ground are very limited because the Montessori systems focuses on academics. When we decided to purchase this building, we thought we were doing a service to the community in addition to having a business. The closest Montessori school in that area is about fifteen to twenty miles away and they have to go the City of Yorba Linda or Placentia. There is real need for a Montessori School in that area. We came in with the idea of helping the community as well as helping ourselves. It is sad that we have such opposition from the neighbors. If I knew that, I would not gotten into this at all. I had no intention of making enemies. A lot of parents have indicated their interest in our school and they have said it is surprising that people are protesting about this building, actually to the school, not the building. And that they do have the right to have a school among somewhere so that they can bring their children before they go to work and pick them up in the evening in a safe environment. And we are willing to provide that and with that good intention we joined this project. It is unfortunate at this point, you know, we had to come and plead it to you and beg yourjudgment on this in a favorable manner. Thank You, Commissioner Henninger: May I ask you before you sit down, let me ask you one question. Is your school going to occupy this whole site? Dr. Jayaratna: It's only -there are three sections of the building, the Montessori -the whole school is the two stories only. The third one is not. Commissioner Henninger: I understand that. but I mean all three buildings you're going to occupy all three buildings with your school? Dr. Jayaratna: No, only the last section. Commissioner Henninger: And what's going to happen at the other buildings? 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 14 Dr. Jayaratna: The middle section is going to be a church and the other one is an office building, I think. That's all. Commissioner Henninger: Okay, thank you. Dr. Jayaratna: Thank you. Chairman Bostwick: All right, I'll close the public hearing. Let me ask the City Attorney. We're here today for review and approval of the playground equipment. Since it's been removed and staffs recommendation is that we find it in conformance, that would then provide them the ability to commence operation - is that correct? Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney: I am not aware of what else they may or may not need to do in order to get their final occupancy to commence operation. I do know that what is before the Planning Commission today and what is agendized for the Planning Commission action today is the review and approval of the proposed location of playground equipment and not any other matter. If the Planning Commission is interested in further addressing some of the other issues that have been brought up by the neighbors of this facility it has several options. One is that it may agendize consideration of whether or not to bring the original conditional use permit back for consideration and that agendized item would not be noticed. However, if the Commission decided tc set it for hearing that would be noticed and the neighbors and anyone who requested notice would be notified of that. The other alternative is to possibly consider this for evaluation after a certain period of time after the use has been in operation, to actually see what the impact is, and proceed through the Code Enforcement mechanism. If there are violations that are violative of the Anaheim Municipal Code there is nuisance procedures that are available to the City and there would be hearings in connection with those. So if you have specific questions about any of these I will be happy to respond. Commissioner Henninger: You know, I think no one really answered my question specifically when I - a question I put at the last hearing about what had happened between Mr. Browne and the neighbors. But I sort of - it seems to me that the neighborhood feels taken by this building came out because it looks, for all practical purposes, like athree-story'building, and quite frankly I feel taken. To me it looks like athree- story building too and we were just (clapping from the audience). Commissioner Henninger continued - no, please don't clap in the hearing, it goes on in the tape. From the audience: we want it to be heard on tape. Commissioner Henninger continued, but anyway, it just seems to me that there are a lot other side issues. I get the sense that this third story is the main crux of the matter here. And I think I might just set this for the whole CUP for a hearing and see what we can do about taking the third story off this building and putting a real roof on it. That's what I would like to do. I feel taken. _ Commissioner Bristol: We have an .issue today -aline of sight situation with a setback in another project and it has to do with two stories abutting asingle-family residence and I've got to say, this is a three story building. The information given in fact, by the applicant I believe, that doesn't look like an attic at all. And I went back and while we were listening to everybody and kind of reviewed the previous CUP and there was a lot of communication discussion about the elevation integrity of the roof line. It doesn't appear that this is what the original said regarding the roof line for this two story building. So I am in concurrence with it. Chairman Bostwick: All right. Commissioner Henninger: So I guess I'd move we continue this current item until we can have a public .hearing enfolded into a hearing on the overall entitlement. I'd ask staff to re-notice this and make sure the whole neighborhood gets noticed. Make sure we don't have a problem with the mailing list of any sort. Motion was seconded. 03-30-98 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 15 Chairman Bostwick: All right. We have a motion and a second for a continuance and a request fora re- hearing on the conditional use permit. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Thank you very much. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Mr. Chairman, just so it is clear to the applicant our assumption is that you would not want us to go forward with any type of certificate of occupancy on this building until this matter is resolved. Chairman Bostwick: That is correct. Commissioner Henninger: I want to see what we can do about eliminating the third floor and putting a real roof on it before we have any occupancy. Chairman Bostwick: I would make mention to the lady from the Mexican restaurant. I am sorry, but height isn't going to help your problem. We may look at the height but that isn't going to help your problem, so don't inspect miracles from us. Rosa Garcia: If the building is only a two story building my sign will be visible. From the audience: It obliterates the sign to her building. She put up a sign so people could see it. Two stories wouldn't affect it; three stories cuts it off. Chairman Bostwick: Okay Rosa Garcia: Because the way that the ground is leveled, Hughes shopping center is built on higher ground, so a two story building won't affect me. As a matter of fact I will thank you for approving a two story building without affecting my neighbors, because that will help my business. But the third story building is affecting me a great deal. Chairman Bostwick: We'll work on it. Thank you. I understand. Our next item is Item 1 C. Carol Allen: I just wanted to make sure that is a review for the playground next to my bedroom too? Is that what that CUP involves? Chairman Bostwick: Everything. Carol Allen: Thank you very much. Thank you. Man from audience: Thank you for listening. Chairman Bostwick: Our next item. Man from audience: We do want to thank you very, very much again for listening to us so you-can see what has been going on . Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. Chairman Bostwick: Your welcome. 03-30-g8 Revised: 4-27-98 Page 16 C. SCHOOL FACILITY: Anaheim City School District, c/o LSA and Associates, One Park Plaza, Suite 500, Irvine, CA 92614, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General .Plan for a proposed public school facility. Property is located at 1000-1010 South Harbor Boulevard. ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza abstained and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the Anaheim City School District's proposal to develop the 11.68-acre parcel of land located at 1000-1010 South Harbor Boulevard for a public school facility is in conformance with the City of Anaheim General Plan, with the understanding that any use or development of the site shall be subject to the applicable mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085. Further, any use or development of the site, other than a public school facility, would need to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan Commercial Recreation land use designation and comply with the Zoning and Development Standards and Design Guidelines set forth in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 and the applicable mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085. Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: Stated she wanted to read into the record revised wording under "Recommendation", Item No. 9 of the staff report, "That the Planning Commission determine, by motion, that the Anaheim City School District's proposal to develop the 11.68-acre parcel of land located at 1000-1010 South Harbor Boulevard for a public school facility is in conformance with the City of Anaheim General Plan, with the understanding that any use of development of the site shall be subject to the applicable mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085. Further, any use of development of this site other than a public school facility would need to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan Commercial Recreation land use designation and comply with the Zoning and Development Standards and Design Guidelines set forth in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 and the applicable•mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085". - ` Chairman Bostwick: Offered a motion for approval of determination of conformance with the City of Anaheim General Plan, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. (Commissioner Peraza: Abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest.] 03-30-98 Page 17 D. REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 342 TO CONSIDER DELETING CONVENTION WAY FROM THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN: City-initiated, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests initiation of General Plan Amendment No. 342 to consider deleting Convention Way between West Street and Harbor Boulevard from the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan. RESOLUTION NO. PC98-35 Initiated General Plan Amendment (Vote: 6-0, 1 vacant seat) SR7082KD.DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: Stated this will be advertised for public hearing and Commission will hear the General Plan Amendment at a later date. 03-30-98 Page 18 E. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 152 -REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO EXPAND AN EXISTING PARKING AREA: Anacal Engineering Company, Attn: Cal Queyrel, 1900 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92803-3668, request determination of substantial conformance to expand and reconfigure the parking lot area for an existing private organization. Property is located at 1341 West La Palma Avenue (Assistance League of Anaheim). ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that a CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 11 serves as the required environmental documentation for this request. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol .and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed modifications are in substantial conformance with the original approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 152 based on the following: (i) That the residential properties in the area will not be adversely impacted. (ii) That the off-street parking and on-site circulation for the project site will be improved. (III) That approval of the determination of substantial conformance is further based on, and subject to, the approval of, and the recordation of, a Lot Line Adjustment. Concurred w/staff Determined to be in substantial conformance No discussion. 03-30-98 Page 19 PUBLIC HEARIPIG ITEMS: 2b. VARIANCE NO. 4330 2c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-212 OWNER: Gary Calkins and Elaine Calkins, 6263 E. Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 6263 !East Trail Drive. Property is 3.75 acres located on the north side of Trail Drive, 162 feet west of the centerline of Whitestone Drive. To establish a 4-lot single family residential subdivision with waiver of minimum lot frontage abutting a public or private street. Continued from Commission meetings of January 21, and March 2, 1998 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC98-36 Denied Denied ~..~~~ ~ , FOLLO>VING~[S A~SIjN161:4RY bF THE ~PLANISING~C.Oil1MISSION ACTION.,,,, Applicant's Statement: Carl Kreutziger, 680 Londerry Lane, Anaheim, CA: Stated on March 2, 1998 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to hear for the second time additional information requested by the Commission and its staff in regards to Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212. A package was issued to the department on January 21 st which contains schematic grading and retaining wall plans, preliminary soils reports, grading, balance reports, three-dimensional views and cross-sections of the building pad and proposed homes. Retaining wall data and letters from our design team was included. On February 23rd a second submittal was issued which addressed issues which were brought up at the second hearing in regard to line-of-sight, pad elevations, privacy issues, similar retaining wall construction, hillside homes with little or no yards, and the geological properties of the land. On March 2nd the Commission had concluded that there were five issues that still had to be answered. They were: soils and stability of the slope; Fire Department comments for access; utility connections and easements; the Eucalyptus trees along the property line; renderings of the proposed homes and their visual impacts; and the line-of-sight from the adjacent homes. _ _ I am going to address the information that Planning Commission received in the March 23rd submittal. He would also go over the line-of-sight from the different proposed pad elevations as they sit today and show the picture that indicates the seclusion of the home sites and distances away from the adjacent neighbors. 1 will show pictures of proposed screen walls and retaining walls adjacent to the property lines. Also included would be the redesign of the heights of the retaining walls, pad elevations and proposed houses. The renderings of the houses and landscape; the utility connectionsand Fire Department access and commons will also be addressed. Ross Hammond, our soils engineer, will talk about the soils investigation and samples that were taken from each specific building pad. Hal Tolar, our real estate broker will address several comments in regards to the property values and how these homes fit into the neighborhood. Since the last meeting we were able to get a lot more information out to the neighbors by way of an open house that was held on March 21st. There were four or five people who stopped by and reviewed the plans and walked the lower parcels of the plan. We had open dialogue with the Patels and Stewarts, the Homers and the Siegels regarding to the latest design. The majority of the Commission has been out to 03-30-98 Page 20 the site and seen for themselves what our proposal entails and understands the issues ofline-of-sight, :privacy, access and aesthetics. I would like to address the new items in the staff report dated March 30th. Items 1 through 13 have previously been discussed with the exception of item 11 for the lowering of the pad elevations and retaining walls that I will discuss later. Item 14 addresses the package we submitted on March23rd. Tab 1 (of the exhibit) -. We have taken the proposed lots 3 and 4 and issued numbers with pictures standing on the proposed lots. The next photo are pictures 1 and 2 are taken from the pad elevation of lot 3. Looking off to the northwest and the west side. The dense overgrowth of the trees that are on the perimeter and the closest neighbors are the roof tops several hundred feet away of the lower development. Picture no. 3 is similar to no. 1 taken at the end of the pad looking west. Picture no. 4 is standing at the pad elevation of the lot 4, looks towards the Siegel's house at that elevation. Picture no. 5 pulls out to be a panoramic view standing at the pad of lot 3. Again, the dense planting around the perimeter is visible. Picture no. 6 is taken looking down at the lower pad of lot 4 where the proposed road would be. Picture no. 7 is standing at base of the hill on lot 3, looking up adjacent to the Patel's home up towards the pad on lot 3. Picture no. 8 is standing looking down the lot line from pad 4 into 3. Pictures A, B and C really are a future kind of rendering or picture of what we propose to do. Picture A, it is standing at the entrance to these proposed homes looking down the driveway. In this case the box hedges on the left-hand side would serve as the screen wall to the adjacent properties. Pictures B and C, would be standing in the back lot of lot 3 and looking at the retaining walls that they were proposing. Standing in the back of the house, this is the type of yard and setting that would be similar to what they are proposing. We are trying to indicate in this instance for the future development per picture A is that a screen wall be constructed along the parcel. We have given a better idea of what the elevation would be, is strung line and some caution tape along the existing Eucalyptus trees to give a good line of sight on what could be seen from the bottom lots, the existing lots looking up. The line-of-sight goes up to the very top of the existing hill beyond the roof line of the proposed dwelling. Tab No. 2 - We have reworked some of the elevations on that to lower the walls and the pads in the proposed home sites. We took an on percent grade to drain the water, which lowered the walls approximately 3 feet and decreased the amount of retaining wall that would be placed along the Siegels property, We also eliminated the higher walls in the back of the slope in the back of the property and brought them down to an elevation of about 8 feet instead of the 12 feet. We re-did the lot 4 building and got rid of the driveway that we proposed to put on the upper pad, and carried the retaining wall through so that we would enter at the bottom, and created a nice yard, smaller yard in lieu of a driveway. The next page there is an elevation of the lot 3 proposed rendering. They put together an artist rendering to an idea of what type of building they were looking at, how it would fit into the neighborhood and to what the value may be. On the next page is another rendering for the house on lot 4, a smaller cottage style house which steps back into the slope, entering down on the bottom would be the garages. Going up to the higher pad elevation would be the entrance, and then stepping back to another elevation which would be the second floor of this dwelling. - Tab 4 -You can see how they were able to redo the building in a way to make the elevations work. The lower elevation at 366, stepping up to the entry at 374 and then creating a third level that stair steps up to 384. The house has deck and yard space around it. The landscape issues that staff had reported have been addressed. In creating the side yard ypu can see in the lower right hand corner the type of setting you could create with this type of square footage in the yard. Avery private, secluded patio. This would be looking up against the retaining wall standing at the entry. Looking up at the middle picture above that house, looking down from the deck on that. What we have done is to try to create more landscape, more yard per the staffs recommendation. Again, this can be created by tiering up the slope as much yard as any person wanted to take care of. We feel that we have a small, quaint house with a yard as required, and again tiering up the side would create as much yard as you would desire. Under tab of no. 5 the questions raised regarding utility connections. We have addressed the sewer and the connection of the sewer. The proposed lots 3 and 4 with the sewer connecting at the bottom of Trail Drive. The next page indicates the storm drain. 03-30-g8 Page 21 Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney: Stated there is a copy of the booklet that is being referred to up by the item on the bulletin board at the side of the room in case anyone would be interested in following along. There's also an extra copy of it near the podium. Mr. Kreutziger (continued): So the storm drain is located at the base of Trail Drive for that utility. And then the next page is the electrical connections, which are again located at the corner of Hidden Glen and Trail Drive, all of which are easily accessible for the development of these,parcels. Tab 6 -Raises the issue of Fire Department comments that were brought up in the meeting before. Here we have addressed the locations of the units the distances that the Fire Department requires to gain access to these. We did have a meeting with the Fire Department to get their comments on the proposal.. The homes are fully sprinkled, I have identified the target locations of the 300 foot distance that they need to get to with a 20 foot access in order to get to those properties. I also noted the 150 feet backing up range that we had talked about in the previous meeting. So they could come to lot 4 to fight any fires on that or lot 3 and also anything that would be at the existing lots, the Siegels and the Patels in that case. If there is a representative from the Fire Department - I do not know if you have had any input from them but I would like them to take the time right now to address any questions or comments with the proposal. Mr. Kreutziger: On tab 7 - We included letters that had been written to us by the Fire Department for weed abatement. You can see in the pictures that we provided the branches and trash that have accumulated down back there. Also our letters to the neighbors inviting them to attend our open house and the letter that we wrote to the Commissioners in regards to our project trying to get specific for general plan information and how we make this project to the General Plan. Item 14 of the staff report also addresses the soils report which I will have Ross Hammond discuss. Item 15 of the staff report refers to a letter from Richard Riemer, the attorney which the Siegels have hired to assist them with .regards to our project. The letter contains mis-Leading information and sensationalizes issues with words such as massive grading and destruction of the neighborhood, I would hope that this letter has no more weight or bearing to the Commission for the items that are included in its contents, solely because it is from an attorney and not from a concerned neighbor. If the Siegels feel that they need to have an attorney to assess to this process we do not have a problem with that. We have not, nor do we feel we need to, obtain our attorney to outline our rights and privileges that we have in developing this project. We will provide the information requested by the Planning Commission and abide by the standards set forth by the City of Anaheim for our project. Let me address the issues from the lawyer's letter. The first paragraph says that we have not submitted a scale drawing showing the precise locations of the driveway. In this case we have identified the 20 foot easement along the property line dedicated to this driveway. On the grading plan we marked finish elevations. Today we have surveyed the elevations for the new drjveway and are working to reduce the cut and fill quantities, move the setback from the trees and eliminated a major portion of the retaining walls along the Siegels' property. We would usually address this during the engineering and civil phase of the project. The first paragraph also indicates that no soils reports for lots 3 and 4 have been taken, which they have. The second issue deals with the eucalyptus trees, which I will address with the arborist construction impact report. The third paragraph deals with the quality of life concerning view and appearance. He talks about the view of the retaining wall material that will be used for the architectural wafts along the driveway and refers to the project that this material was used for, a flood control channel in Peters Canyon without acknowledging the other pictures of the custom homes and building sites used for its application. I hardly believe that with the size of our walls and the vegetation that will grow along them that this project will be the same as ,quote as standing in a flood control channel looking up. It also states that the retaining walls which would step up the slope would clearly be visible through the Siegels picture window in the family room. We addressed this line of sight several times and provided a string line of the future screen wall. For those of you that were up at the project you saw that the likelihood of even seeing the houses is minimal, let along having the walls, quote, destroy the appearance of our neighborhood. 03-30-98 Page 22 The fourth paragraph deals with the quality of life concerning privacy. The letter said that by having the lower lots developed we are not equitably sharing the loss of privacy with the upper lots, and that the whole project should be built on top of the hill. Here is another example where we have addressed the privacy issue several times and showing you that with the measures that will be taken and distances of the proposed houses that this issue should have little impact. As far as building the entire project on top of the hill, it is determined not feasible with the halve acre zoning requirements and the topography of the hill and the set backs for the houses. The fifth paragraph deals with quality of life concerning noise. The letter says that by adding the driveway along the property line that the noise will be broadcasted throughout the canyon off the retaining walls. Once again, I refer to the use of vegetation of the walls, a row of hedges used as a sound barrier. Please remember that there are driveways in the immediate area that run adjacent to homes all through that area. The sixth paragraph deals with soils stability. It says that no site specific reports have been completed for these lots and drainage and location of the swales are not noted on any plans.. You now have the information on the soils and typically a hydrology study and drainage plan will be submitted with the grading plans. The seventh paragraph deals with the safety concerns of trucks making deliveries and having to stop at the intersection of Hidden Grove. We are aware of one delivery in which a truck full of blocks and sand was unable to make it up the driveway fully loaded, not because of the width of the drive but because of steepness of the drive. We had to unload and forklift the materials at the bottom of the road until the truck until the truck was light enough to get up the driveway. We will make sure that this condition is minimized in the future and we apologize for any inconvenience. The eighth paragraph talks about inconsistencies in the drawings. His example is taken from a 3- dimensional view of the lots 3 and 4, and some cross sections that were originally submitted in the package. His statement was that the 3-dimensional view did not appear to be to scale far the width of the driveway and that the slope behind lot 3 was noted as 2 to 1 on the 3-dimensional drawing and that the cross section showed a slope well in excess of that. If you were to refer to the 3-dimensional drawing under tab 3 of the original submittal, you would notice that there is no scale indicated on the drawings. This drawing was included as a visual aid for those people who could not interpret topo elevations and a plan view.. As far as a cross section to which the attorney referred to as not being to scale, I checked the documents and in fact they are to scale. He obviously did not notice that the horizontal Scala was 20 feet per inch and that the scale of the vertical elevations was 10 feet per inch. The ninth paragraph refers to similar projects approved in the adjacent parcels. He says that the adjacent homes "appear' to have been constructed with the minimal grading unlike the massive grading proposed for our project. This attorney is not familiar with the grading that has taken place in the surrounding developments. If you were to go to tab seven of the first submittal and turn to the second page for Tract 9524, you.would see the property located at 301 Ramsgate Drive -this property borders Trail Drive. The Grading Map GP1503 indicates the fill that was required for the slope starting at the very bottom of the hill. It also shows the terraced drains and retaining walls required for the development of that properly. To give you a comparison, lot 4 would require less than a quarter of that work be pertormed to get it's pad, while lot 3 with its new lower pad elevations may require the same amount as GP1503. I would also like to know what the definition of massive grading is from the attorney as he uses it throughout his letter. Our project proposes a balanced side of dirt so that none is imported nor exported, If you were to Icok in the immediate area at the earthwork quantities required to build other projects, I believe you would find our project would be far less. The letter finishes by stating that subsequent to drafting this letter he was advised that additional information was submitted on soils and redesign. I find it somewhat suspicious that the letter from the attomey and the consulting arborist report both dated March 20th did not get submitted to the City until a week laterjust prior to the staff reviewing the report. It has presented us with little time to address all these issues and meet with the appropriate parties. The second part of item 15 deals with the report prepared the consulting arborist, Greg Applegate. The report is based on a site visitation where as Greg Applegate inspected the Blue Gum trees. He walked along the path adjacent to the property line and assumed that the stakes were the access road, when in 03-30-98 Page 23 fact they were the property line and the road would be off-set five to nine feet beyond that point, He did note indications of minor decay in several of the trees to which the extent or depth was explored. He noted that during the construction of the Siegels lower retaining walls that a large number of roots on his side must have been cut to construct the walls. The cutting of these roots depleted the root space for anchoring and already compromised the root system. When reviewing the retaining wall plans Greg Applegate assumed that we would be cutting a footing across the root system and severing roots all along the side of the trees by doing this, invading the root system for a second time. He also stated in his report that any compaction or fill over the existing roots would suffocate the roots and stress the trees which would then be exposed to the longhorn beetles. His conclusion was that the disruption to the existing root system for a second time, which was weakened previously by the lower retaining walls, would stress the trees and eventually die. He also referred to a Court ruling, Booska vs Patel where neighbors are required to act reasonable when cutting encroaching roots and branches. Well, after reading this report I was concerned that the information that he had was not totally correct. We met with him on the site the next day, Saturday the 27th (March 27, 1998], to go over the report. We showed him the elevation of the road and where the retaining walls were to be located with the keystone retaining walls system the heights of the walls along the Siegels property line, we showed him where the staking was. When we identified the staking of the property and showed him the maximum off-sets of driveway which range from five to nine feet, he better understood the challenges of moving the road away from the trees and the results of higher walls on the slope side. We discussed methods of slowly exposing the root system, trimming the trees, providing nutrients over a two to three year period in order to give the trees a better chance of survival in lieu of coming in all at once and grading a road. We also discussed the use of interlocking pavers on the driveway which would let water seep through the pores and get oxygen to the roots. We questioned him about the hundreds of Eucalyptus trees within Mohler/Peralta Hills and the existing neighborhood that sit right next to the roads and how they have survived over the years. His response was that you may not see an immediate effect from the construction of the roads sometimes it may take 20-30 years to show this. Each tree adapts differently to its surroundings and changes. We assured him that we enjoyed the privacy and look of the trees and we would use his recommendation to minimize the impact which may occur during construction. After meeting with Greg Applegate we realized that there was no feasible compromise to absolutely guarantee the survival of all the trees back there. To do that the road would have to be pushed 20 feet into the slope. We also understood that the heavy migration of roots towards our property, the compromise of the root system and the lack of root space to anchor the trees is a result of the Siegels building pad and the building of the retaining walls. If the driveway could not be constructed in its normal means and methods that we have proposed, because of the nuisance of encroaching roots from the neighbors trees and we were unable to develop those lots, the Calkins would be denied the enjoyment and compensation of the free use of their property. In the case of Steven's vs. Moon found in the California Agricultural Lawbook written by Randall Stahmen, the defendant Moon had a row of Eucalyptus trees on the property line of Mr. Steven's walnut grove. The roots grew fifty feet inside the property line and took the nutrients awayfrom the grove reducing his profits. As a result Mr. Steven's was unable to profit from the free use of his land and filed a lawsuit alleging that the roots of the Eucalyptus trees constituted a nuisance to his land. The Civil Code Section No. 3479 grovides that a nuisance is "anything which is an obstruction to the free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of land and property". The code of the Civil Procedure Section 731 authorizes any person whose enjoyment of property is reduced by a nuisance to file a law suit to make the offending party abolish that nuisance. In this case the Court ruled that the roots constituted a nuisance because they interfered with Steven's ability to use and enjoy his property. Moon was ordered to take measures that were necessary to stop the root growth into the adjacent property by performing root pruning or installing root barriers and pay for the loss of profits he encountered as a result of roots. There were many other cases that we have looked at with regards with encroaching roots and the responsibilities of the homeowners who own those trees. As previously discussed, we still are not convinced that by placing a driveway 8 to 12 feet away from the trees that this will cause them to die. Please refer to the handout that 1 am going to give you in regards to existing eucalyptus trees in the area. As you can see throughout -you've got three exhibits here -and these are roads within the immediate area up Quintana, throughout Mohler and Peralta Hills, where Eucalyptus trees have been growing for years and streets were placed anywhere from our measurements six inches to six feet away from these. You can see along Mohler that, you know in some cases the side of the hills have been cut away on exhibit 2, yet the trees still are there and appear to be healthy. And 03-30-98 Page 24 again, these are only twenty pictures out of 50 orfi0 that we have entered into the exhibit, because they are endless. On exhibit 1 the six pictures on the left hand side is taken up Quintana. In speaking with the neighbors that used to live there some time ago, the trees have faired well for the amount of construction that has been done around there. During the construction the pads directly below lots 3 and 4, the developer excavated an eight foot deep trench, ten feet behind the back side of a row of those eucalyptus trees coming up Quintana to investigate a water table. Any of the roots next to that trench would have been severed and damaged during the operation. The hole was back filled, dirt was imported to fill those lots, and obviously some of those roots of those trees were covered. To date the majority of those still line the streets and new ones have been planted. What we are proposing is to follow the tree preservation regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Code pertaining to Scenic Corridor Overlay. In that we would replace any specimen tree from the parcel with twice the amount which would have to be removed due to weakness caused by excavation, removal that is reasonable and practicable to the development of the property or the topography of the building site renders reasonable removable. Again, there are too many pictures to enter in the exhibits but these are all over the place as you see them. Item 16 of the staff report pertains to a letter from Bill and Carol Homer regarding the feasibility of the building on the lots, which has already been confirmed and addressed by the City's Public Works Department Subdivision Section, and also concerns the stability of the soils which we will address. Under the evaluation section of the staff report, item 22, they address the trees on the property line which I have just discussed. Under item 23, the staff wants to see how adequate parking and circulation will be achieved without blocking access to parcel 3. Right now I am not prepared to show you a rendering of that. 1 am still working on that and that involves moving and shifting some of the garages around and showing some parallel parking in front of the garages. There is also room that would be available towards the front of the development that could be used as parking if necessary. Item 24 of the evaluation, staff still feels that the amount of yard space is not suitable for the parcels. We presented previous photos, existing lots, new information in this package. Some people just do not want huge yards and what we've proposed is something that works. The recommendations of the staff under item 27 says the staff recommends that the matter be continued unless testimony is received during the meeting which addresses the issues of parking, circulation, yard and tree preservation. I hope throughout this we can answer those questions for you.. We have reviewed the conditions of City departments for items 1 through 7 of the variance and 1 through 8 of the tentative parcel and concur with those findings. With that I would like to bring up Hai Tolar, real estate broker, to discuss the property values which people have been talking about and the aesthetics pf the project. Public Testimony: Hal Tolar, at 6089 Montefino Lane, Anaheim, CA: Having had the dubious luxury of serving on this Commission that you are serving on now, for eight years, 1 was reminded when I saw your first item and I heard it for two hours, of the high pay check you receive, and now I know why you get them. You must be up to about $2.00 per hour today. I want to clear one thing up in the very beginning. When I was approached by Mr. and Mrs. Calkins to look at this on a neutral and unbiased basis I want it clarified for the record that I did not receive a commission on the land nor do I .receive one for being here today. I met the Calkins some years ago and through different people in the operation of our office, they have done construction work, roofing and that type of thing, so for the record I am not getting paid to be here today, so I have no ax to grind with anybody here. I was merely asked as a real estate broker who has been in this area for 37 years, and having served on the Commission, my opinion of this project. I was reminded as I looked at this project that it's a lot split that they are asking for a lot split of four houses for a four acre parcel. Having sat on the Commission, and I am sure you have seen it, where 03-30-98 Page 25 builders have come in and asked far much higher densities with truly mass amounts of grading. The state of the art dictates that you could actually flatten that hill out. I went over and looked at it as you did, I am sure, and you could easily ask for eight houses or house per half acre as in Mohler Drive and some of the other areas. I looked at it in relationship to this road what they are requesting. There are many roads, there are certainly no precedents set in the Anaheim Hills area in relationship to private roads going back to not only this particular -these two houses, but very expensive houses that people enjoy up in the canyon. When I looked at the walls I was reminded of what we are faced with today in Anaheim Hills. Some of you might refer it, in fact, you might have been on the Commission at the time it was approved when Presley put in the East Hills project. Peralta East up there, as we know it, where there are million to three million dollar homes, they put up the great wall of Anaheim .Hills, as it was referred to at that time. They did that with a lot of people complaining about the noise, the aesthetics and different things like that. They put in homes that I have been in, many of them, and possibly some of you have. These million to three million dollar homes back up to Nohl Ranch Road. And you say well, what does that parallel to this? Well the way it parallel, is in relationship noise attenuation. If you put two houses and do this grading that they are asking. On a basis, as I remember it, of about six car counts or six trips per day per house, that would be about twelve times a day a car would go up and down a day in contrast to a home being backed up to Nohl Ranch Road, which has thousands of cars a day and a lot more noise. What I am relating to and why I looked at this project in developing it, the people that are located in that area now could be faced with a much larger dilemma if another developer came in and said we want to do something beyond what these people are asking to do. Whether it would be approved or denied is really not the question. Can someone ask? Four acres of land -yes, you can ask ,there is certainly no problem with doing that. think they have minimized and, as I said, there is no precedent set in relationship to a 16 or 20 driveway. One of the things I remember when I was on the Commission and the City of Anaheim tried to widen the roads in Mohler Drive and make it safe for the people that live in the Mohler Drive area, you would have thought we slapped their kids and wanted to start World War III. They would have no part of widening that road or taking those Eucalyptus trees out, so I understand the concerns of the people up in that area. But in either case, my point of relationship to the road is that ypu have about eight other homes backup in Hidden Canyon besides several on Henning Way and so forth. The cars going in front of that probably, if you feel the same six car count or six trips a day will average 70-75 trips a day in front of these homes that come into Trail Drive rather than the six that we've been talking about developing for the last two lots, or the people are talking about developing. I do not see it as an invasion of privacy in relationship to building the wall, the structure and so forth, the way they are talking about doing it, because as I said it could be a lot worse and it's been done many, many times in the Anaheim/Peralta Hills/Mohler Drive area. In relationship to values, which is what I am here to talk about, on home number 1 when I asked the Calkins what they were talking about building back there in relationship to size, they indicated house number 1 was approximately 3500 to 4000 square feet, possibly larger. House number 2 would be about 2200 to 2500. In relationship to pad sizes which came up and I would like to address by saying that if you stood at the corner of the entrance to these people's property and looked up you will see homes that range anywhere from $500,000 to $700,000. Many of them don't have pad size even close to what these pad sizes are going to be. They are built in terms of the topography of the land. They are 3 and 4 tri-level homes and a lot of them don't even have ground enough for you to park one in front of the house, you have to park on the driveway and there's certainly no place for kids to play. Again, I'm merely bringing this up because I could point out any number of areas like that in the City of Anaheim, .particularly the Hills area. The distance to the existing home sites measure 185 feet according to the report they got, the other 115, which far exceeds, well even tract development is what - 15 foot setbacks or something like that - so we're talking about an unusual situation. They are way back in there and can't be seen. I looked at the Commission policy in regards to grading. When I sat on this Commission they were developing Anaheim Hills, we saw literally topography change in the Anaheim Hills area where the state of the art is, as I said earlier, you could take down a hill. Where you could actually flatten all of that land. They have kept grading at a minimum, and one of the policies that grading kept to a minimum and follows contours of the land, which I think basically they have. They have put nothing but a roadway!back there and the pad sizes they are talking about, they are not removing any dirt. I think you need to keep that in mind because I was impressed with that when I see the trucks going in and out. Even a project, less than 03-30-98 Page 26 a mile away at Fairmont, took that whole hill down, and they are going to build quite a number of homes on Fairmont just up from this project that abuts Fairmont. Another policy of the Commission states that clustering and other innovative land use techniques will be encouraged in order to preserve the natural features which preserve overall low densities in the area. think they have answered that for you. Again, I remind the Commission I am not getting paid to say this, this is an observation of having looked at that land for many years. Not just this project, but many of them. The last thing that I would encourage the Commission is to look at and maintain living conditions which preserve the amenities of hillside living and which retain overall low density. I think all of these things have been answered, at least to my satisfaction, that if I were sitting on this Commission today I think I would probably look at it on a.basis of supporting the project. The main reason I would is that I don't think these homes are in anyway going to effect or minimize the values of the homes down below. In fact with the cost of doing this, the cost of putting in the roads and retaining walls, the buffers that they are agreeing to do. And by the way every one of these, we are talking about a lot split, everything you put on them to do to encourage the safety and privacy of the people down below, any developer whether it's the Calkins who develop this property or sell this property off at a later date, those requirements are going to be put on that developer to do exactly that. So I think you have some safe guards that can protect the people down below and enhance the values of the properties. In my estimation the values of the properties won't go down they will probably enhance the values of the properties down below. They certainly would not hurt them in any way. Thank you very much and if you have any questions you can certainly give me a call or if you have any .right now. Chairman Bostwick: We may have some questions later. Carl Kreutziger: The next issue we are going to be addressing is the soils report. They have taken site specific borings, have gone to the next step in soils analysis which could be used for the grading operation and introduced Ross Hammond. Ross :Hammond., 344 N. Lincoln in Orange, Soil Consultant: In accordance with Planning Commission request they engaged in a full-scale study on lots 3 and 4. They did not use a backhoe so as not to destroy the hill, but they cut trenches down the side of the slope in both areas where they were doing some grading. They went down in trenches and took undisturbed samples, made portable auger borings in bottom of trenches. From the top of the cut to the bottom was about 8 to 10 feet shown in excavations 3 and 4. This is a standard geotechnical study, and can be used for the approval of the grading plan and any additional revision and work that might be included. This report is similar to the one in Vista Del Sol where they moved 150,000 tons of earth with cuts up to 17 and 18 feet and fills 20 - 30 feet deep. This hill will have minor cuts, just enough to build two homes, then they will use-soil to build driveway along the bottom. It will be a balanced cut and fill operation. The whole hill is a rounded knoll of sandstone bedrock, massive in formation with minor fractures. It has the best soil in Anaheim Hills. It has no problem with seismic activity and sliding. The driveway will additionally stabilize the area andln no way will it be a detriment. It will also take care of cleaning up the debris that has accumulated over the last 50 to 100 years which is several feet deep. All soils will be removed up to the property line and will enhance the livelihood of the trees and it will remove the lateral pressure that exists there. The small retaining walls and the construction of the driveways will be kept distant from the trees and will be worked out the satisfaction of all parties. Assuming there was adverse bedding they are increasing the stability of the slope by taking a certain amount of mass away from where the buildings are going. The amount of soil .removed will be equal to or greater than the weight of the building replaced there. Loose soil will be taken away from the bottom of the slope and will be compacted there. Loose soil will be removed and a primary bench will be cut and compacted in place and there will be no lack of oxidation to the root system. If there are any roots they will put a small amount of rock around them which will also act as aqua drain if any moisture accumulated there. It has high bearing value because compacted structural fill and undisturbed bedrock sandstone formations. The consolidation curve on page 22 shows a low compression .index. Slope stability analysis page 19 and 20 is 1 1/2 to 1, and they are going to be using 2 to 1. Gravity factors are all the way up to 03-30-98 Page 27 .35G. They have factor of safety with a 15 foot high slope at 1:4 which is .65 of your actual ground acceleration. You get the repeatable ground acceleration by taking ,65 of the earthquake factor. On page 20 they take a slope up to 30 feet in height at 1 1/2 to 1, but are only using 2 to 1 slopes. That has a safety factor of 1.2 at .35G which actually represents a ground acceleration of .50. In summary there will be very little grading, the road will act as a buttress, it will also act as a drainage interceptor terrace. It will totally intercept all the drainage waters coming down the slope and the water will no longer go down the slope onto the adjacent property, it will be taken from the driveway, conducted in a southerly direction out to Trail Drive and taken into the designed drainage systems. He will be supervising all the fills on the slope. He has done many studies for the City and will be out there daily testing work. The remaining .parts of the slope will be left natural and any parts that are trimmed and cleaned of the existing foliage will be planted and landscaped. Since 1954 no tree has ever died from fill that has been put at the edge of a slope. If there are any problems from oxidation, they will handle it, they want to save the trees and now they will be more easily accessible to maintain and trim. He asked if there were any questions that he could answer. Chairman Bostwick: Advised to go on with testimony and would go back with questions. Janet Baylor: Deputy Fire Marshall. Reviewed situation., letter from Calkins agreeing to fire sprinkle the homes and do a few other requirements and they recommend approval of the project. They do not need to condition the project because they are code requirements. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak. Neil Siegel: 6221 Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA. I realized that everyone has visited the site and inspected the area of lots 3 and 4 but is unsure if anyone has driven or walked up to lots 1 and 2. He wanted to enact the walk up Trail Drive from his house. The first thing you see on the right side of the road is a 3 foot high retaining wall which will probably be a planter. The slope behind the wall has been cut into. In the middle of the wall is a grouted masonry structure approximately 51/2 feet tall with electric conduit in it. A little further on the left side is a 5 foot tall masonry structure which will be the key box for entry gates 3 and 4. Further up the road are four 7 foot pilasters, presumably for a future gate and from that point to the top of the hill is 100 yards. On the left side of the road for the full length of the road there are two to five foot high block retaining wall, parallel to the asphalt driveway. Some of the wall is vertically cut into the sandstone. When you get to the entrance of lots 1 and 2 on the top of the hill you see a block wall with what appears to be the 450 contour that Mr. Hammond talks about in his soils report dated 11/18/97. Also seen is a retaining wall on the back edge of the property separating lots 1 and 2 and one 7 foot pilaster near the 450 contour wall. All of the above have been done since July or August of 1997. He understands that not all work has to be done by permit, but after looking at all the so-called .improvements that have been done in the area, not one permit has been pulled on any of this work as of Friday March 27. He quoted "My construction firm has been building custom homes and other projects in Anaheim and Anaheim Hills since 1965 with over 30 years experience in the construction industry, I have constructed a wide range of projects etc. etc." which was from a letter from Gary Calkins to the City of Anaheim Planning Commission, date February 16, 1998. He expressed his dismay that he did not pull one permit on any of these and that the City of Anaheim should not excuse him for any reason for not pulling permits. He feels that it is a blatant disregard for the rules of the City and malignant abuse. Also he wanted to know where Mr. Kreutziger was because he said that they would abide by City rules and regulations. He asked the Commission if they were not concerned that if the variance and tract maps were approved and the development was run by someone who does not play by the rules. How many short cuts will he take or how many codes will he violate when he cuts grades and fill the hillside of parcels 3 and 47 He said he and his fellow homeowners at the bottom of the hill were frightened, He proceeded to parcels 3 and 4 where the petitioner is requesting a variance. He asked why houses were not built on top where access was already present . He said the Calkins responded that they don't want the road or another house on top or the hill is too steep. He feels that the Calkins may have other 03-30-98 .Page 28 answers like they want to build their dream house on top and they would loose their privacy with another house and road on top, or their line or sight and privacy would be impacted by another house and a road. It seems that these are some of the same reasons that families don't want parcels 3 and 4 developed. They at the bottom are already living in their dream house and now it is being destroyed. With regard to the soils reports he can not come close to understanding the terminology so he will leave it to someone else to decipher. He is certain that the houses on top of Anaheim Hills in the land slide area had certified soils reports before building. He is also certain that the houses in Laguna Niguel that have slid down the slopes had certified soils reports before building. A partner of his, whose home at 1413 Cerritos Drive in Laguna Beach, recently slid down the hill, it had a certified soils report before building. The slope by Santiago and Knoll Ranch Road that are being graded for the second and third time also had a certified soils reports. All these tragedies are a few of many that have recently occurred. They too have great fear of what might happen when the slopes are cut, filled and graded. He feels that Mr. Hammond acted as safety/police officer and fire chief with his soils reports. He said Mr. Hammond stated that the Eucalyptus trees needed to be trimmed and pruned along the property line where the road is proposed but he presented a paid :bill to Stemmer Tree Service for $2500 for trimming, pruning and crown reduction dated 10/9/97 for the eucalyptus trees on his property. He also said that Mr. Hammond stated the road would increase safety from vandalism. He said that it didn't deserve a reply but felt Mr. Hammond should ask the people on Trail Drive, Quintana, or Hidden Grove how much vandalism they have had. He said the answer is zero, the same answer as the number of the permits that he has pulled. He feels that if Mr. Hammond wants to be a policeman, he should police Mr. Calkins for the flagrant disregard of the permit laws in and around his area of supervision on parcel 1. He brought up the Eucalyptus Construction Impact Report prepared by Mr. Applegate prepared on March 20, 1998. The report stated in pages 4 and 5 that if the proposed road is allowed the trees will die and or fall on his property.. He asked the Commission to put themselves in his place and how would they feel if they and their family lived in his house knowing the potential disaster that could occur because of the trees or the graded slopes. He said to ask Mr. Lasario at 271 Quintana about the Eucalyptus trees that fell into his yard just feet from his home and the people at 6190 Arboretum about the tree that toppled and crashed into their roof. He asked the Commission to please be more concerned for the safety of his family and all of the families at the bottom of the hill in harms way. He does not want to worry about a tree falling, slope eroding every time they hear a strange noise, every time it rains or when Santa Ana winds occur. He asked them to deny Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212 and Variance No. 4330. He presented a video tape. He said Mr. Calkins told him that he was on septic tank but demolished it. If that is true, he is illegally hooked up to the sewer on top or his waste is going down the hill. He asked to get it checked ASAP before he gets a chance to change it. Gerald Bushore, 381 South Henning Way, Anaheim, CA: He said Neil brought up a good point about the sewer. He is waiting for Melanie's (Melanie Adams] superiors to go to his property to see the debris, sand and dirt that has plugged up the v-ditch which is full of debris from the last two tracks. He wants them to come and see the dirt that is coming down from the Calkins driveway and filling the ditch. Code Enforcement was there last Thursday on one of the two unbuildable lots just to the south for dirt that has been illegally stockpiled in 1992. This dirt is adding weight to his wall and causing it to crack. Code Enforcement said that they have had 60 complaints about it in a couple of months but were not sure that they could do anything about it because all the owner has to do is go in and get another permit. He said the Code Enforcement officer mentioned he was going to write up one of the neighbors garages. Mr. Bushore said that all of the neighbors love the garage, it adds atmosphere and causes no problems. He brought pictures of trees, and some of homes with damage from tree damage. He said that there is slope failure up there because the tree roots have uprooted the slope. It's started to block Henning Way which was their only way out except for the crash gate which he is still trying to get a box on. He discussed the interpretation of the Code changing three times when he build his house and how he had to build his house because of the Code changes. 03-30-98 Page 29 He discussed the experience and background of the Commissioners and how decisions are made based on how a particular person interprets it. He feels that just because some people have licenses they still make mistakes. He discussed that he was amazed that the developer was in business 25 years and did not pull permits. He discussed other developments that were approved in the past and do not function properly. He discussed trees and how he no longer had Eucalyptus trees because tree roots were disturbed due to building. He also discussed road maintenance and how there should be a bond for damage from trucks and equipment they do to roads while working on new projects. He brought photos from an accident he was in when a truck hit him while it was going up that narrow road and discussed details of that. He discussed that no hardship report was supplied. He discussed the man-made blocks for the retaining walls that are not engineered for heights over 5 feet. He discussed 8 acres'behind his property that was cleared for fire clearance. He said that they were cutting it down and throwing it down the canyon. He said he called the Fire Department and City and they said that as long as it is not over 3 feet high it gradually degenerates so they can throw it down there because it is easier than hauling it out. He stated an engineering and soils report is only one man's opinion. He discussed his perk testing when he built his property. He reiterated that he does not have a problem with homes going up there, but feels there is no need to build two more homes up there. He also brought up the westerly slopes which are out of whack from former earth movements from 11 to 13 %. On Tract 11600 two lots were padded differently because they had to put in a deep key on the other side of him. Also sewers had to be redone because earth moved, Doug Browne, 151 South Quintana, Anaheim, CA: Grading Plan Tract No. 9524 was finalized and approved by City engineer on May 25, 1978. February 26,1988 the plan was revised. Contour lines were the same but now the contour lines have disappeared and pushed out to the edge of the property between 1988 and today. He spoke to Gary Calkins when he started working on the property and asked him to go through the proper channels to get a grading permit. Doug checked with the City and has been informed that thus far it has not been issued. Based on his estimation 2 to 4 thousand cubic yards of soil have been moved. He believes that any soils engineering related to that has been supervised and he would :like to know if any soils engineering has been performed regarding parcel 2. Commissioner Henninger: Advised they would get an answer for that question after the publichearing is closed. Ross Hammond: Advised that he is a friend of Gary Calkins and said that everything he has done up there is first rate. He is taking care of drainage prdblems, he has one corner that is retaining some soil and he has cleared his land. He has been up there at least 25 times in the last two or three months. He did original work-up and he has not put any retaining walls up there whatsoever. He did not buy block at Home Depot, it is keystone walls, at minimum height, and if they go beyond that they have a special geofabric with pins in them. He is only landscaping up his driveway and has cleaned up and taken care of weed abatement and grading has been very minimal. He has leveled his land and just made it accessible for his driveway. Any grading that will be done will be done and tested by him and if any fills need to be checked they'll be explored and it will all be done properly. All reports will be submitted on it. Doug Browne: Brought photograph of work done on top. A two to one slope has been created contiguous to his property above an already existing cut slope which is a historical cut slope. He wants to know if the slope has been engineered and if so then he assumes that it would have been done through a permit process. But he does not think a permit was pulled. He is concerned that if a fill slope is built above his property and it is not properly constructed or supervised, then there could be a possibility of liability in the 03-30-98 Page 30 future. His specific concern is that if this parcel map is approved today, that slope exists available for sale and the new owner would have no warranty as to it is integrity. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if anyone else wanted to speak. Susie Seigel, 6221 Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA: Lives at the base of parcel 4. Wants Commission to keep in mind the steepness of the slope in question, the proximity to her home, and the road in question. She spoke to Mrs. Calkins in front of her house the other day and asked her why she could not build three of these houses at the top. Mrs. Catkin's answer to her was "we don't want to". As her husband mentioned, they probably do not want to because they want their privacy, they want their pristine views, want to be king of the hill. Since the Calkins have moved in, they have had mud down the road which the video tape provided today shows during the last rain. They quickly cleaned it up because Mr. Bristol was going out the following day. They have never had a drop of mud until they moved in 8 months ago and she doesn't care what soil's people say. She knows when mud is in her driveway. Their trucks are parked in front of her house, blocked her house, blocked Hidden Grove, they can hardly make the turn around the bend. They want to dump all the problems that they foresee by putting the houses on the top onto the people below and be king of the hill. She feels their renegade behavior, doing work without permits has to be stopped. It should put out warning bells to Commission and it scares her that he (applicant] will be doing the things he is proposing to do that could be such drastic problems for them. A variance is a privilege and she wants to know what price they have to pay to grant him the privilege of something that is not really legal when they are dealing with somebody who doesn't follow rules and regulations himself. She knows that if the Commission allows this to be built, either the road, mud slides, trees falling on her house will put them in danger. She asked that the Commission deny this and have him not be so greedy and have him put two or three houses on the top. Neil Siegel: On page 5 of the November 18, 1997 soils report describes the wall along the 450 contour and how it will be built and what goes into it. If that is not a retaining wall, he does not know what is. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if anyone else would like to speak on this project. Rebuttal: Karl Kreutziger: Regarding the slopes, they have invested the time and dollars that gives a precise soils report and that gives actual factual information. There is no speculation, it is what has been performed. Septic tank, they are on septic tank. Permit issye, he is personally not aware of what has or has not been pulled up there: He knows that retaining walls less than 3 feet are constructed up there which do not require permit. As far as the wall that is at the 450 line, that has not been constructed and taken out of the design of the project and nothing is there at this point. Code Enforcement has been there several times and they have not been written up for any code violation. Clean up of mud is done when it gets down there not because Steve Bristol is coming. As far as blocking the driveway, there have been times when it has been blocked, like they were blocked for 2 days while they were pruning their trees. They have been in front of the Planning Commission three times to present this proposal and have tried to address all issues that staff has raised, have presented evidence of stable and optimum soils conditions, a plan that has been properly engineered by the standards of the Public Works Department. They have looked at redesigning retaining walls to minimize the impact. They have letters from professionals in the field on Civil Engineering, Contracting, Architects, Grading Engineering, Soils Technicians and feel that they have done their due diligence in presenting a feasible project that works within the general plan and 03-30-98 Page 31 the Codes and regulations set forth by the City. They would like approval to move forward and finalize the parcel map. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger: Melanie (Melanie Adams, Public Works Department], what about the improvements that have been made up there at the top of the hill? Is there things that should have been permitted that have been done that have not been permitted? Melanie Adams: Based on the information I have today it does appear as though a grading permit should have been pulled for this property. The Public Works Department has received a complaint about grading on the properly. Within the last week or so our grading field inspector has gone to the property. At the time of his visit, he could tell that grading had been done, but he could not tell the quantity. According to Section 17.06.040.010 anytime that you are using mechanical equipment in the hillside area to do grading you do need to pull a permit. There are several other categories that if you exceed those amounts you do need to have a detailed grading plan and a public hearing held on how to review the plan. It appears as though they may have gone over the yardage that would require a public hearing. Mr. Browne delivered, this morning, a package to the City Engineer detailing some of the items that he did post on the board here for you today, along with pictures. Later this week I will be meeting with my supervisor, who in turn will be meeting with the Ciry Engineer and the Field Engineer to make a final conclusion regarding this information. As far as the work done on the slope, the applicant has stated that they were doing weed abatement, which indeed they were requested to do from the Fire Department. However, it is possible to do that weed abating items without taking out all of the material. You can simply cut down to six inches or so. It appears that all the vegetation has been removed and a bare slope has been left. Regarding the flat area, the applicant did state that they were removing some kind of a structure like a barn that had fallen over and they were removing that, although it does appear that some more grading and leveling has been done. So we will be substantiating the amount of grading activity that has been done on the property. Commissioner Bristol: Cheryl (Cheryl Flores, Planning Department], staff recommends that this project and the negative declaration be denied. Can you elaborate on that? What environmental issues are the most concern here? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: We have concerns with the circulation, the impact of the parking particularly on lot 4 and the fact that the driveway entrance to lot 3 could be blacked a significant amount of the time. We have concerns regarding the trees. The loss of the trees do to the private roadway that would lead to lots 3 and 4 and also to the rural character in the neighborhood. Commissioner Henninger: I wonder, in the past, have we allowed a retaining wall directly on a property line in someone's rear and side yard of existing residences? I know we have a lot of these types of .retaining walls up in the hills, have we put them in the back of existing homes? Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Off hand I can not think of anyone's on the back side, but we do have many that are split level in that the back walls of the second level are retaining walls against the slopes. Commissioner Henninger: I am not talking about a split level house, I am talking about where we have allowed a neighbor to.basically build their lot up in the back of an existing home. And that's what is being proposed here. This driveway would be on the top of a maximum eight foot high retaining wall and the retaining wall is directly on the property line on the side and back yard of these neighbors who object to it. And I wonder if we actually have done that before? Melanie Adams, Public Works staff: I would .have to do some research on that. One does not come immediately to mind. Commissioner Henninger: I am not really comfortable with that. Commissioner Bristol: I would like to ask another question of staff, and I see Jack Kudron back over here. I asked-this question this morning. And this is becoming a real puzzle to me. We have an arborist report 03-30-98 Page 32 that says that if we do anything to a tree within any footage, we've got a problem, the tree will probably die and that's a eucalyptus tree. We have another report that says that the fact that the sediment from the hillside is coming down on top of the roots right now of the eucalyptus wind row, could cause a problem. And when I asked the question of City staff this morning, that in time maybe the trees adapt to the silt - either adapting to it and living, or if they were removed might remove the trees, and then I hear that the retaining wall is on the Seigel's property. Am I correct that there is a retaining walla few feet away? A little wall that might have cut roots from those eucalyptus trees -and then we have all these pictures of eucalyptus trees all over the town, in fact, an item that we may see tonight there is a eucalyptus about the same base that's set back from the curb like about "that" (indicated some sort of distance with his hands). In other words, I doubt that you can get this piece of paper through it. So I am completely confused on the tree issue and I would love to hear staff or someone say, how are we supposed to look at this tree issue? If the applicant is allowed to compact and move dirt is it going to kill these trees or not or what? Jack Kudron, Parks Superintendent, Community Services Department: Our position is that anything that is done to the tree, whether it is root pruning or additional soil or some kind of silt sliding down on the tree is going to change the condition. Whether the tree adapts or not is a judgment call, it is difficult. If things happen slowly over time, generally the tree will adapt. If it is more drastic like root pruning, then you can introduce diseases, instability and eventually maybe hasten the death of the tree. Commissioner Bristol: Jack (Jack Kudronj, the applicant indicated exactly what you have said when I was there this weekend. The arborist said if you are going to do anything, do it slowly. So his suggestion was that this project is not going to happen overnight if the project is approved, and they can prune ail these trees and remove the sediment a little bit at a time and maybe bring the dirt in and put the little wall and the hedge there a little bit at a time, maybe say atwo-three year period. In your opinion, is that enough time to keep these trees from being impacted? Jack Kudron: The more variables you add, you prune, you put in road that puts more compaction on top of the roots., and you change the growing conditions. The more variables you add the more likely you are of having some tree problems. My biggest concern, based on what I understand, would be root pruning and the stability of those large trees. That is my opinion based on winds and based on which side of the trees are pruned. Certainly, if they are on the east side of the tree I would be very concerned based on the kind of wind velocities we get in the canyon. Commissioner Peraza: And what will dirt compaction do to the rootsl Jack Kudron: Weil, the tree roots are going to seek a balance between the nutrients that are in the soil., the water that is there, and the oxygen. And If you add compaction or a lot of soil on top of the existing root structure and its distance from the existing grade, you are going to change that balance and the tree may not have the opportunity to find the right balance before it begins to be weakened. In the case of eucalyptus trees as they weaken you have the problem of the eucalyptus bore that will attack a weakened tree. So you run the risk of adding soil to the root you really are starting to take the oxygen from the root system which eventually will weaken the tree which eventually makes it more susceptible to pests or disease. Commissioner Bristol: Jack (Jack Kudronj- one more question. I am trying to get you to commit here a little bit. You heard the applicant say five to ten feet, is that right? Five to nine feet was interjected from staff. Commissioner Bristol: In percentages, what difference does it make -How far the roots go, do you understand what I am saying? Jack Kudron: Well, the larger the tree the farther out the roots are going to be and your larger roots are going to go the farthest, the roots that provide the most stability are going to go the farthest. So the farther away you get you lessen the.risk, but nobody knows until you actually start doing it how many major roots you are going to cut. If it is a total side cut for anywhere in the first three to four feet from the existing grade you've substantially cut the stabilizing roots, there is no doubt in my mind. If its a fill, then the concern isn't over the root structure so much as it is the oxygen and the nutrients getting to the tree. 03-30-98 Page 33 Chairman Bostwick: They have made a couple of mentions, in the first report dated January of 1998 their retaining walls are like two feet below grade, six feet back and eight feet high. So they would only be going down two feet, some ten feet away from the tree. Commissioner Henninger: But that point is different than the point they showed us today where they show the retaining wall two feet off the property line. Jack Kudron: We have a lot of advice and information here. Chairman Bostwick: I guess my second question was do the pavers on this road provide enough percolation for those roots. Jack Kudron: Pavers would help. Commissioner Boydstun: How deep are Eucalyptus roots? Jack Kudron: The roots that provide stability and provide the feeder roots are within the first three to four feet in that zone from the grade. Commissioner Boydstun: So in putting a foundation, you would be pretty close to those roots. Jack Kudron: Oh, definitely. A two foot foundation -you could cut some significant roots. You would not cut them all at two feet. And I have no way of evaluating the engineering of an eight foot wall and a two foot foundation. It seems a little shallow to me, but I have no way of evaluating that. Particularly if that is going to hold back a lot of soil. Chairman Bostwick: Thank you, Jack. Commissioner Henninger: I move that we disapprove the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Boydstun: I second that. Chairman Bostwick: Okay, we have a motion and second for disapproval of a CEQA Negative Declaration . Commissioner Peraza: Would that be denying it? Chairman Bostwick: Yes, that is denying it. Commissioner Henninger: That is what I want. yes. Chairman Bostwick: Motion to deny a CEQA Negative Declaration. All Commissioners: AYES Commissioner Henninger: I offer a resolution denying Variance No. 4330. Chairman Bostwick: This is a resolution and a button vote.. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Could we have the basis for the denial of the variance? Commissioner Henninger: The basis for the denial is that their Interjection from applicant - If there is additional needed for the exact location of retaining walls in order to save these trees, we would motion for a continuance to give you the full information to make a proper judgment. There seems that you're not -the information that you have is that you do not know if is two feet or one foot, that we need to give you more information based on that. We can do that, but just for your information. 03-30-98 Page 34 Commissioner Henninger: I think the basis that I have for that is that the access way that would be required because there's no lot frontage would require a retaining wall up to eight feet directly adjacent to the side and rear lots of the existing adjacent houses, and I think that that adjacency of an eight foot wall - remember we require - we only allow six foot rear walls. You know - I think the adjacency of that very tall wall. And then there would have to be on top of that some sort of other device to capture, you know, retain the vehicular traffic on top of that retaining wall because there would be a driveway directly. So think that wall plus the driveway directly on top of that and the retaining device, you know, maybe a short wall or something of the sort would all really be a significant be an aesthetic impact on those houses. Selma Mann, Assistant Deputy Attorney: Would that be a privilege that is not enjoyed by other properties in the area? Commissioner Henninger: I think that we have never done that before. I think that we have never allowed a big retaining wall directly in someone's back yard like that, and as I think of this I can .not - I do not think .any of us sitting right here would like the City to allow in our back yards. So I do not think that we have done that before and I do not think it is appropriate here and I think it is a major aesthetic and privacy impact on the existing residents. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney: I believe that it was also pointed out during the hearing that the applicant's own justification foe a variance or code waiver indicates that the property does not differ from other properties in the area and that there is no hardship identified. Commissioner Henninger: Yes, that is right. That was part of the testimony. Commissioner Bristol: Since the applicant has spent an awful lot of time and he thinks you are owed something, I agree too, this is one of those tough issues. I agree too with the aesthetic value and one thing I heard today that I really did not hear in the previous two meetings is the - I was concerned abouk the trees as the toppling. That would concern me if I were living next door. I do not buy the arborist too much with the trees. The fact is that the trees -you're going to impact them no matter what you do - you're going to impact them. Commissioner Peraza: I think you have called far a vote on a resolution. Chairman Bostwick: We have a resolution and a button vote. Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Resolution for denial passed with 6 yes votes. Commissioner Henninger: I offer a motion denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212.. Chairman Bostwick: We have a motion and a second Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Can we have the basis for that as well, The findings-are -the potential findings are found on page 5, item number 26. You may wish to consider items C and D. Melanie Adams, Public Works: Commissioner Henninger, would you consider a redesign that would lower the access way or three parcels -they are asking for four -they have three that pne fronted Commissioner Henninger: As I look at this site I think that probably three parcels would work if they were accessed from the top there. The way the grade is driven and the access way right along these back yards and side yards of the single property is just not appropriate with requiring this big retaining wall, Commissioner Bristol: Does the applicant have to come back for the two above? Lots 1 and 2? Are we denying that as well? Melanie Adams: That's particularly why I was asking the Commissioner Henninger: Do you want me to continue this parcel map and.. 03-30-98 Page 35 Melanie Adams: If the applicant had a desire for fewer parcels this tentative parcel map the number would still be used for the project and it may be beneficial to allow that redesign, but I will leave that up to the applicant. Chairman Bostwick: Why don't you continue that for 6 to 8 weeks. Carl Kreutziger: Yes, we would like -why do not you give us 6 weeks to do a complete study, a redesign of the walls and let us look at the map as a whole. Commissioner Boydstun: I think what we are really saying is Commissioner Henninger: Okay -we'd like you to do them up at the top. Can you do them at the top. Cari Kreutziger : Resppnse was yes. Commissioner Henninger: I mean, we do not want to go through another hearing with the same lot configuration. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Commissioner Henninger, in case that does come back to you since you have already denied the negative declaration, we would have to get another negative declaration for the proposal. Commissioner Henninger: 1 understand that. Okay - well, I will continue the map for six weeks with the notion that it is going be substantially redesigned to eliminate the concerns that we heard today.. Chairman Bostwick: It is a motion to continue to May 11th. Commissioner Peraza: Seconded the motion and motion passed. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney: If you are still wishing to have your action stand on the Negative Declaration and the waiver, just leave it as is. If you wish to consider any of that now would be the time to do it. Commissioner Henninger: I understand. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey: Because as it is right now, this will be set for the City Council for review of denial of the waiver. Commissioner Henninger: would like to change my continuance on the parcel map. I think we ought to send it along ,just this whole package and if they want to refile a new parcel map on a different - completely different design. Let us start with a fresh start. To split these brings up all sorts of issues that are difficult and I do not want to just continue it all six weeks because that sort of gets us into the sense that we are going to live with some sort of something we do not want. So if you will let me, I will withdraw my previous motion. Chairman Bostwick: All right. We have a withdrawal and a second. Selma Mann: You need to vote on the withdrawal. Commissioner Henninger: Okay, and I will change it to a denial on the parcel map and go to C and D and E. Chairman Bostwick: We have a motion and a second to deny the tentative tract map. All those in favor say AYE. Motion passed.. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey: The Planning Gommission's actions on this item with regards to the Variance will be considered final in twenty-two days unless an appeal to the City Council is filed within that time. With regard to the tentative parcel map, the decision will be considered final in ten days unless an appeal to the City Council is filed within that time. The Planning Commission has denied the Negative 03-30-98 Page 36 Declaration for the project. It has denied Variance No. 4330 on the basis stated by the Commission, and it has denied Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212 on the basis of findings numbers C, D and E on Item 26 of page 5. Someone from the audience (did not identify herself]: I just want to thank all of you from the bottom of my heart because you listened and indulged both sides and I am very impressed and very appreciative and I really and truly mean that. OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition ACTION: Denied Negative Declaration Denied Variance No. 4330 on the basis that an 8-foot high retaining wall adjacent to houses would have a major aesthetic and privacy impact on the residents and that it was pointed out at the hearing that the applicant's own justification for variance or code waiver indicated that the property does not differ from other properties in the area and that there are no hardships identified on this property. Denied Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212 on the basis that: The site is not physically suitable for the type of developmenk. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The design of the subdivisipn or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212 and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the project. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 hours and 20 minutes (3:40-6:00) 03-30-98 Page 37 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT'NO. 3680 (READVERTISED) Approved reinstatement for 2 OWNER: The Eli Home, Inc., Attn: Sonja Grewai, 4530 East years Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92869 (To expire 4-2-00) LOCATION: 100 South Canyon Crest Drive -The Eli Home. Property is 0.22 acre located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Canyon Crest Drive. To consider reinstatement of the conditional use permit to retain a group home for abused children and their mothers. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-37 SR7073KD.DOC ' ',,, ,,, ;, FOLLOWING IS A Sl1MMARY,OF T.HE PLANNING'COMMISSION;ACTION. ,,,,,. ,:,; ~-;,~~, ,, The following is a detailed summary of Item No. 3 (Conditional Use Permit No. 3880). Applicant's Statement: Richard McFarland: I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Eli Home Incorporated at 4530 E. Chapman Avenue in Orange. Eli provides a vital service to abused and neglected children and their mothers by offering a safe place to live while refocusing their lives. Eli's mission is to stop the cycle of child abuse and we have managed the home for almost a year in such a way as to generate no more and probably less traffic than a traditional single family home. There was before February 18th some unintended confusion and mis-interpretation of some of the conditions of the original CUP. We think that as a result, virtually all of the complaints were not verified when they were investigated by the City Code Enforcement. The re-worded and clarified conditions approved by the Planning Commission on February 18, 1998, eliminated the confusion and mis-interpretation and difficulties faced and it's our understanding that Code Enforcement has not received any complaints since February 9th. Now we wish to point out that no additional impacts occur because of the revised letter of operation. No more traffic is generated, no more parking is required, no change in the type or use of the home is requested. Because of the refined conditions the City can more adequately enforce this Conditional Use Permit. Now, we understand that the staff recommendation is to approve another one-year CUP forthe purpose of allowing Eli Home more time in which to demonstrate compliance with the CUP as re-worded in February and we're glad to have that favorable recommendation. However, we respectfully request that you consider the following. You'll recall that the February action added no new conditions to the CUP. With respect to every issue of traffic, noise, entry and exit to the home, etc. we've already been in substantial compliance for almost a year since opening the home. The only thing done in February was to remove certain wording from the CUP which .had made portions of the CUP unenforceable. And those issues involved identification of exactly who was driving what vehicles and parking them and exactly who was on the Eli Home's property at any particular time. Still in place are the limitations on the amount of parking on-site, the average number of round trips allowed per day, which has been set at a number almost never even approached by us, and so forth. The new wording in the CUP does not require us to do any more than the original one required, and we've already demonstrated for the past year that we can and will do that. One other factor here is that reasonable operation of the home demands that we maintain our status as a safe shelter for our families. We understand the need to be reviewed periodically, but each unnecessary public hearing keeps the shelter location in the general public eye, and we'd appreciate and we feel that we've earned some time in which to concentrate on providing the help we offer to some very needy people. So we respectfully request you reconsider and delete condition number one of the CUP which limits our CUP to one year. Thank you. Chairman Bostwick: All Right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this issue? 03-30-98 Page 38 IN FAVOR: Richard Chavez: I am President of the Anaheim Fire Fighters Association, 3325 E. Miraloma here in Anaheim. The Fire Fighters have been advocates for children in this city for greater than two decades, We've done a lot of stuff in this community with children. Everything from Little League to Eli Home. I can tell you that being advocates for children that Eli Home certainly fits the goals of our association and that is to enrich the lives of children in our community. When we got involved with the Eli Home two years ago we were warned to stay away from them, that there was a lot of trouble with them. So we carefully reviewed what they do. We met the children, we met the families, we took a look at their books; they were very open with us. Based on what we found we were pleased. Not only were we satisfied but we were impressed with their program, and with that we elected to assist them in building the house. We spent a lot of hours down there, our fire fighters did, in building the home. We were responsible for the infamous fence that you guys had to deal with, and when we get funding to build a better fence, I guarantee our fire fighters will be involved with that also. What they do is wonderful work. Essentially what they do is save lives. I can tell you from a personal experience that I know of that had Eli Home not been around, that there would have probably been either a death or severe harm to more than one family that has ended up in Eli Home. There aren't enough shelters in this county for abused children and their mothers. They run a great program. I've .been a fire fighter for twenty-four years. The last fourteen of those years has been fire fighter and a para-medic. In that period of time I've been in thousands of homes and just here in Anaheim there are other homes that I have been in that deal with abused children -homes for handicapped, for seniors, for mentally disabled, for alcohol abuse, for people with drug abuse. And I can assure you - I was in one yesterday for alcohol abuse . You wouldn't want to go into that house, and it's in a neighborhood not far from children. Eli .Home is a wonderful place. I think some of you may have been there. It's a beautiful environment. It's safe. They don't interfere with the neighbors. We still -the fire fighters are involved in doing some minor repairs there on occasion, When the families move out after the 45 day period we come in and we assist in doing some painting and just some minor repairs to get ready for the new families that are coming in. We are very cognizant of the neighbors, we don't limit the number of people that are going to driving to there. We close the garage door so that we don't interfere or make it seem.like something is going on at that home. Certainly they don't want to interfere with the neighbors. Along with what they do in the home for those particular families and those kids, they're also very involved in the community, They provide gifts for needy families at Christmas time. On a monthly basis they distribute food to needy families. Just recently when the fire fighters were involved with a lady not far from here that has a bacteria where she lost both of her legs, that very night I called Lori Galloway from Eli Home and said these kids need some help. They provided us with clothing and toys that we delivered the very next morning to those children. They care very much about our community. The issue is, I am sure, are they interfering with the.neighborhood,. It's my strong opinion, and I've been there numerous times, like I said I've been in other homes -they're not. Their only desire is to do the best they can for those children and those women and for the community as a whole. I strongly urge you and respectfully urge you tp re-instate their conditional use permit. Perhaps instead of yearly it could be to the point where they don't have to come back as often. They're doing a good job there. Thank you very much. _ - - OPPOSITION: Gene Secrest: Presumably I am the last speaker, my name is Gene Secrest from 121 S. Canyon Crest. There is no doubt that Richard Chavez is an ardent supporter. I'm certain he doesn't speak for ail the people that belong to the Anaheim Fire Department. But regardless, one of the key points he said is that there just aren't enough shelters. It's amazing that if there aren't enough shelters, why isn't there anyone at the Eli Home. I have never seen it at capacity. Richard Chavez and a lot of the other people are like those who visit a restaurant. I'm like the bus boy who works in the restaurant because I'm there on a daily basis. I see what really goes on. Everyone once in a while we find out that the health department comes in a closes a restaurant that we all enjoyed and thought was a great restaurant, because the health department and others know what really goes on. So regardless of what Richard says, Richard has his own reasons for it. What we have here is a conditional use permit that was granted for a year. It was originally applied for in 1993 -.December of 1993, and granted in September of 1994. I think what you'll find is what you've found earlier today in a lot of the other speakers and a lot of the other issues. A continuation of trail of things that, well, just aren't quite done. I know the last time they were here recently, Mr. Henninger pinned them down very specifically "you've got to either pull the permit for the construction 03-30-98 Page 39 of the block wall or apply the encroachment permit in the public right of way". Mid-morning today, the application for the encroachment license was submitted to the City of Anaheim. Once again last possible minute, the eleventh hour situation. I see in the letter that was submitted by the Eli Home, under the authorship of Sonja Grewal, that they have now found contractors to finish the wall that stood there that was granted originally back in 1994. As of this afternoon, the contractors still haven't shown up to finish the wall. In her first statement she says the Eli Home has lived up to and will continue to live up to the spirit and the conditions of the CUP granted in 1994. No they haven't. That's why they've been back here time and time and time again to have this thing changed, modified, substantial conformance with, threatening actions with HUD. They haven't lived up to the spirit of this thing.. The spirit was have a .neighborhood center, have it full of kids, have it full of people and really help people. The neighborhood hasn't kept people out of the Eli Home. The Eli Home has kept them out because it appears that their intent isn't really to help as many as they possibly can help. All they want to dp is provide a nice facade and use it to collect money. The Eli Home, reading from her letter, provides a vital service to abused and neglected children and their mothers. We heard Mr. McFarland say that a few minutes ago. But the Eli Home wanted to change the conditional use permit to make it twenty-two people. They were uncomfortable with the fact that it had to be mothers with children. So now we see flight attendants from United Airlines attending or living there with no children. They come and go. They fly out -cause I've got a couple of friends that fly for United. I see them drop their bags as they come in their uniforms. They're using it as a motel. A bed and breakfast so to speak. They say our allegations were spurious and unfounded when we called Code Enforcement. You told them not to park off site. That weekend they parked off site. Code Enforcement wasn't called, Anaheim PD was called. They came out and said you've got to get a hold of Code Enforcement. You can't call Code Enforcement on a Saturday afternoon. They've got one guy that works out there Saturday mornings. Eventually after five years people start getting upset, tired, apathetic. I had six people here earlier this afternoon. Their lives have to go on. They claim that the conditional use permit was full of mis-interpretation and difficulties that faced Code Enforcement. That was just in trying to enforce their own actions and rules. When you go through, and it's unique that this is the thickest of all the attachments that were presented today, when you go through and look at the rules, look how they've changed, and now they are asking to have an unlimited conditional use permit. Quite frankly it is no longer a conditional use permit. It's merely a license to do whatever they want to do, however they want to do it. But if you go into the findings and you look at your Section 18.03,093 as stated on page 4. in number 12, and I am reading from the staff report, it says that before the Commission grants a re-instatement of the approval by extension., modification, or deletion, the applicant must present evidence to establish the following and that is to be that all conditions and stipulations originally approved have been complied with. How can you re-instate a conditional use permit that doesn't have the original condition seven embodied in it? That's impossible. This isn't the same conditional use permit. How can you say in "c" that this has not been detrimental to the public peace and general welfare. You can't say that, .it's torn the neighborhood apart for over five years.. It continues to. There is a lot of accolades that can beself-purported, but first they have to be true. Please deny their re- instatement of the conditional use permit or bring it before the City Council to have it re-established the way you originally intended it to be almost five years ago. Thank you. Chairman~ostwick: Thank you. [public hearing closed.] Applicant had no rebuttal. Chairman Bostwick: Since we have changed the conditions and we have asked that they pay for Code Enforcement inspections. Chairman Bostwick: Let me offer a motion for a previously CEQA Negative Declaration, Commissioner Boydstun: Second. Chairman Bostwick: All the in favor say AYE. All Commissioners: AYE. Chairman Bostwick: I would like to offered resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3680 but would like to change the time for the subject use permit shall expire April 2, 2000. Since they (Eli Home] are paying for Code Enforcement calls to this location, we need to give them time and I don't appreciate 03-30-98 Page 40 letting them spend their money coming back each year for that purpose. We need see if it works and then go from there, so I'll offer a resolution. Commissioner Peraza: Can you point out those Code Enforcement additions? Chairman Bostwick: It would be two years, it would be to April 4, 2000 and number 8 says, the cost of Code Enforcement inspections resulting from a claim shall be borne by the operator/property owner. Mary McCloskey: That would be April 2, 2000, Condition No. 1. Chairman Bostwick: Correct. Commissioner Peraza: Don't you think that the Code Enforcement officer, because of some of the complaints, should maybe stop by like we do for other agencies or places and inspect? You hear that they are acting as a motel and so forth. Chairman Bostwick: At random. Commissioner Peraza: Yes, at random and not wait for complaints. Commissioner Henninger: Well, you know, I think that that is something we could ask Code Enforcement to do. I don't see that we should charge them for that. Maybe we should ask Code Enforcement to randomly stop by there and if there are violations just handle it under this paragraph if there were a violation. Chairman Bostwick: If they find violations then they can charge them for the inspection. Commissioner Henninger: Yes, that would work under this language that exists. Okay. Chairman Bostwick: This is a resolution and a button vote. Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Resolution passed with 6 yes votes. Selma Mann: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission's action on this item will be considered final on this :item in 22 days unless an appeal to the City Council is filed within that time. The Planning Commission has determined that the previously approved negative declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and it has approved a re-instatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3680 subject to the amended and restated conditions of approval. as stated in the report, and as modified by the Commission, to re-instate the permit until April 2, 2000; and pointing out condition number 8 relating to Code Enforcement inspections. Commissioner Henninger: Selma, if we wanted this to, basically go ahead with the -there aresome on- going hearings that are going to take place on this subject, and if we wanted to make sure that this item went to those hearings, would we act differently than we have? And is that something that we should do? I mean, should we recommend to Council that they hear this with the other hearing? Selma Mann: I think that would be up to Council to decide if it wished to call this up for a hearing and to set it for hearing. Commissioner Henninger: Okay. The Council can do that. Mary McCloskey: Oran appeal could be filed as well and if that is the case then we would work to try to hear them together. Commissioner Henninger: You wouldn't want to for instance, you know, have the other hearing and then have this appealed and then have another hearing right on the heels of it. Mary McCloskey: Actually, I believe its on April 7th. This will go on the consent calendar at the Council and so we should know at that point whether or not they are going to set it for hearing. Obviously, if an 03-30-98 Page 41 appeal is going to be filed that could happen at a later point, but if the Council does set it on that date, then we will be scheduling it concurrently with the other item of the amended conditions. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the .req uired environmental documentation for subject request. Rei nstated Conditional Use Permit No. 3680 for a period of two (2) years and adopted the following conditions of approval: 1. That subject Conditional Use Permit shall expire on April 2, 2000. 2. That the garage shall always remain available for parking purposes, providing a minimum of two (2) enclosed parking spaces. 3. That occupancy of the structure shall be limited to twenty-two (22) persons, including one (1) live-in manager. 4. That any trees planted on-site shall be planted outside the ultimate right-of-way line of Santa Ana Canyon Road, as established by the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan. 5. That there shall be no off-site parking of resident, visitor, staff or volunteer cars permitted on adjacent streets or private properties. 6. That there shall be no identification signs of any type permitted for the residence (other than the street address). 7. That a six (6) foot high wrought iron or other decorative-type fence shall be installed to provide a physical separation between the outdoor recreation/leisure/play area and the on-site parking area. 8. That the cost of any Code Enforcement inspections resulting from a complaint shall be borne by the operator/property owner. Said fee shall only apply in the event that Code violations actually exist. 9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and-which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1, Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3. 10. That security for the facility shall be provided if deemed necessary by the Anaheim Police Department. 11. That there shall be not more than fifteen (15) round trips a day to and from the facility, except as otherwise set forth in the revised Letter of Operation, date- stamped February 11, 1998, as it relates to special events. 12. That all meetings, counseling or education sessions, deliveries, transportation needs of residents and staff, and other site visits shall be scheduled so that at no point in time shall there be more than six (6) vehicles parked at the subject property (two (2) in the garage and four (4) on the concrete driveway). 13. That the facility shall be adequately supervised at all times. 03.30-98 Page 42 14. That the subject facility shall operate in conformance with the provisions of the revised Letter of Operation, date-stamped February 11, 1998, which document is on file in the Planning Department. 15. That prior to the expiration of this Conditional Use Permit (April 2, 1998), the applicant shall either. (a) Obtain a building permit and commence construction of the perimeter block wall along the right-of-way line, and complete the construction of said wall (including the installation of clinging vines, enhanced landscaping and irrigation as shown on a plan previously-approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1996) within ninety (90) days from the issuance of said permit; or (b) Submit an application for an encroachment permit to the Public Works Department for review and approval for that portion of the perimeter wall proposed to be extended into the Santa Ana Canyon Road right-of-way. If the encroachment permit is granted, applicant shall submit a revised site plan illustrating the location of the proposed block wall (including clinging vines, enhanced landscaping and irrigation) to the Planning Department for review and approval, and obtain a building permit and complete the construction of said block wall, landscaping and irrigation within six (6) months from the decision date on the encroachment permit. If the encroachment permit is denied, applicant shall obtain a building permit and complete the construction of said block wall, landscaping and irrigation at the right-of-way line within six (6) months from the decision date of the encroachment permit. Under either alternative, the wall and landscape treatments shall be consistent with the treatments previously approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1996, and shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. 16. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 9 and 15, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 17. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.. VOTE; 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney., presented the 22-day appeal :rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (6:01-6:23) 03-30-98 Page 43 4a. 4b. OWNER: County of Orange, PF&RD, Real Property, Attn: Donna Garza, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702 INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2630-2650 East Katella Avenue (County of Orange Katella Yardl. Property consists of two parcels totaling approximately 16.6 acres located on the south side of Katella Avenue, 340 feet east of the centerline of Douglass Road. Request for reclassification of Portion A, from the County of Orange M1 (FP-2) (Light Manufacturing, Flood Plain Overlay) Zone to the City of Anaheim RS-A-43,000 (Residential Agricultural) Zone; and, Portions A and B, a Resolution of Intent from the County of Orange Mi (FP-2) (Light Manufacturing, Flood Plain Overlay) Zone (Portion A) and City of Anaheim ML (Limited Industrial) Zone (Portion B) to the City of Anaheim PR (Public Recreational) Zone. Continued from the Commission meetings of March 2, and March 16, 1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-38 Granted FOLLOWING IS`A SUMMARY OF.THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: - Staffs Statement: Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, Planning Department: Stated this is a follow-up item to your direction last November (1997) to bring back the reclassification of the subject properly and this basically will start the reclassification process. One error on the staff report on Condition No. 1, instead of Certificate of Competition, it should be "Certificate of Completion". Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion for a CEQA Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. - ` Commissioner Henninger: Offered a resolution approving Reclassification No. 97-98-14 subject to conditions with the amendment of Condition No. 1 as stated by staff. Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Stated the resolution passed with 6 yes votes. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney: The Planning Commission's actions on this item will be considered final in 22 days unless an appeal to the City Council is filed within that time. Planning Commission has determined that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this project and it has approved Reclassification 97-98-14 as stated in the staff report and as corrected far Condition No. 1. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration 03-30-98 Page 44 Granted Reclassification No. 97-98-14, changing condition No. 1 to read as follows: That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning the property to the PR (Public Recreational), a copy of the certificate of completion finalizing the annexation shall be submitted to the Planning Department. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (6:24-6:26) SELF STORAGE FACILITIES POLICY Discussion: Chairman Bostwick: Stated this morning on our agenda was a item about setting a policy far self-storage facilities in the City of Anaheim. And at this time we would like to present that policy. Mr. Henninger, do you want to state the policy? Commissioner Henninger: Stated I think that basically we should have a policy that contemplates self storage in both commercial and industrial areas. I think that we should as guidance say that they are most appropriate on irregular shaped lots and awkward shaped lots that have more access that where some of the unique features of self storage are most suitable in solving design problems. And I think we should also design a policy that looks at architecture that is consistent with the type of zone the self storage is in. So if it is in a commercial zone it should have a commercial look to it. If it is in an industrial zone it might have a more industrial look to it. I think that would be my suggestion for a policy. Chairman Bostwick: Asked is there anyone else that would like to add anything to that? Commissioner Bristol: Stated I would just like to add the comment that is going to get to the Council that what we gathered this morning was they want to keep this pretty much in the ML Zone. I think that we concur that there is a lot areas that it would fit and absorption sooner or later will dictate where these properties will be and to limit it strictly to ML, I think would be a mistake. Do we agree on that? Chairman Bostwick: Stated I think that is pretty much agreed, that there is not enough area where that might fit and that it does provide a good buffer sometimes or a transition or can fit between other uses and be able to utilize, as Bob [Commissioner Henninger] said, odd pieces of property. And I think it is - we need to keep it open and available for that purpose, Do we need a vote on that? - -~ Commissioner Henninger: 1 would say that what I said was a motion. Commissioner Peraza: Seconded the motion. Chairman Bostwick: We have a motion and second. All those in favor say AYE. Motion was carried. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Thank you. We will make sure that City Council gets that information. Commissioner Henninger: And you will let us what they say? Greg Hastings: Yes. Commissioner Henninger: Stated I did not realize that that had been overturned and it would be nice if we would get - I know we used to get a fairly regular report on how Council had treated our decisions and I always found that helpful to sort of make sure 03-30-98 Page 45 Greg Hastings: Are you getting the action agendas for City Council? Commissioner Henninger: Stated it would be nice to get a report when things -when they overturn us so that we understand a little more the detail they are thinking. Greg Hastings: This past Tuesday they did overturn this one on La Palma. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate a policy designed to have self-storage in both commercial and industrial areas, the self-storage areas shall be more appropriate on irregular shaped land and awkward shaped lots that have poor access where some of the unique features ofself-storage areas are most suitable in solving design problems, and the architecture shall be consistent with the type of zone the self-storage is in, so if it is in a commercial zone it should have a commercial look to it and if it is in an industrial zone it should have industrial look to it. 03-30-98 Page 46 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 352 Continued to Sc. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98.09 4-13-98 Sd. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5e. CONDITIONAL USE :PERMIT NO. 4000 5f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15610 5g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 5a, Sc. S.d Se and 5f OWNER: Dow's Acreage, Attn: Linda Kenski, P.O. Box 6295, Garden Grove, CA 92645-0252 AGENT: The Olson Company, Attn: Anna-Lisa Hernandez, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, #400, Seal Beach, CA 90740 LOCATION: 112 - 218 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 6.25 acres located on the east side of Brookhurst Street, 216 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. General Plan Amendment No. 352: To redesignate this property from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 97-98-09: To reclassify this property from the CL (Commercial, .Limited) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple- Family) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4000: To construct a 68-lot (including 8 lettered lots) 60-unit (advertised as 62-unit) detached RM-3000 condominium development with waivers of (a) minimum dimension of parking spaces, (b) minimum recreational-leisure areas and (c) minimum structural setback abutting one-family residential developments. Tentative Tract Map No. 15610: To establish a 68-lot, (including 8 lettered lots and 60 residential lots (advertised as 62-units)) subdivision for a detached RM-3000 condominium development. Continued from the Commission meetings of February 18, March 2, and March 16, 1998. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. I RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ;~-'v~. `~ ~~ , ~,FOLLOWINGIS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION-ACTION. ' , ~~: -` Applicant's Statement: Kerry Choppin, The Olson Company: We met two weeks ago and had this item continued, and I am going to be brief considering the length of the other items that were discussed earlier. We have gone back and I think eliminated probably the most onerous point.regarding this development, and that was the width of 03-30-98 Page 47 the garages at 18 feet. We have expanded those to 20 by 20 feet to conform to the City ordinance. The other two items that I believe that needed to be addressed are the three parking pads that are only 18 feet long versus 20, the width of the driveways. Some are long and narrow similar to what you would see to the south of this development in some of the older homes. We actually feel you can park more cars there and we would like some consideration in waiver of that particular requirement. Because of site constraints, we have also lost our sidewalks and want to give a larger buffer to the south properties, and we would like a consideration on that waiver. We are open to suggestions on other ideas of safety concerns but we feel that we had a number of waivers to start with and we are down to just these few. We would like you to take those waivers into consideration because we feel that the development overall for the community, there are a number of positives to be weighed against those few waivers. Public Testimony: Mike Perez, Anaheim City School District: I think you just got a letter that we just got about ten minutes before the Planning Commission started. It talks about the Redevelopment Agreement which the District has with the City Redevelopment Agency. It talks specifically about us opposing the project, and I use the 'key word' opposing the project. I want to dlarify that. We are not opposed to the project. We are not opposed to the CEQA. We are not opposed to the General Plan Amendments. We are not opposed to any of the changes that are occurring. What we are asking is for addition mitigation which is outside the Redevelopment sphere of influence or direction. Additionally, what is confusing is some of the provisions in that agreement which they did not provide you. It said nothing in this Section 2.8, "Shall preclude the school district, except as provided in safe and health code from exercising its discretion as necessary to inform (he had a strong emphasis on that word) the public orally, in writing as to conditions of over- crowding which exists in the areas within the school district which serves pupils which reside in the adjacent Redevelopment Project Area." I think we did that. We notified you. We told you the problem in the area. We are allowed to do that. In the original memos we sent to the developer and the City, we did ask for some meetings with the developer and the City. Unfortunately, we were the ones always asking. We never received the initiating phone calls. Additionally, there was another provision in here. "Nothing herein shall be construed the school district's right to make applications for and receive further assistance from the agency pursuant to Sections of the health and safety code with respect to any redevelopment plans and amendments:' So we can ask for assistance. We're not precluded from that. It is sad that we have to use certain terminology when it talks about opposition. We want this project. We like it. We like to see development In Anaheim. We like to see the developer fees. We like to see the tax increment which the district is already entitled to by law. We'd like to receive that. We're just asking that aside from that the law allows for districts to ask for further consideration, and that's all we're asking for. We talked about the pass through tax increment. We talked about how we're not objecting to the CEQA. We're asking for consideration for the :physical impacts for school facilities, and that's all. So I think on the February 25th memo we delay approving the proposed project - "approving", we didn't say "opposing" - we said approving. And the March 13th memo which was in the package, I had today said that "prior to Planning Commission taking action to approve the project". So again we're using the word approve. We are not using the word oppose. I think there needs to be some open discussion. I think we need to have Planning sit down with us and the developer did sit down with us. I .appreciate Kerry did take the time to meet with us last Friday and it was interesting. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: I just wanted to point our that I have given Commission copies of the letter that Mr. Perez was just referring to dated March 30th, from Stradling, Yocca Carlson & Rauth, which was .attached to the memorandum that we received from Community Development. Judith Ann Goulette: I am a long time resident of West Anaheim. I am also a member of WAND and also a sponsor of West Gilbert Neighborhood Watch. There are a couple of things about this development, and it's notjust that it's Olson or Lyon or any of the developers coming in, but just like the storage units that we came and spoke on Tuesday night, and I thank you for that. We are setting precedents for lot sizes in West Anaheim which have been 5000 square feet for a minimum single family residence. Now they are calling this a single family resident/multi-family unit. Now are we just not taking the 1970 high density that we put in West Anaheim and label it now multi-family condominium'? Somehow I think that the action our parents took in the 1960s and 1970s with their permits and their variances in giving the waivers and we built all these apartment buildings. We are starting it all over again, just with a different name.. We are starting it all over again by saying this is now asingle-family residence/mufti-family 03-30-98 Page 48 condominium at 3400 square foot. We have a lot of large rectangular or long rectangular shaped lots over to West Anaheim, as most old areas do that moms and dads and grandmas and grandpas house was on. We are seeing developers come just like we saw the developers come for the storage units and they are coming before WAND and the residents over there and saying let's take those single-family homes out because grandma and grandpa are gone now and the heirs want to make a buck, and let's put as many homes as we can on those single lots. They are not paying attention to what we believe is high density over in West Anaheim, that we are already there, that we are already impacted. Our schools, neighborhoods and streets are impacted. What I am asking you guys to do now, when you start looking at storage units, start taking a look at what we are doing to our lots and our developing of the vacant lots that we have there now, or old houses that are going to be torn down. So that's the first thing that I am asking you to look at. They are asking you to put 60 homes in this area of 6 something acres. Now granted, Anaheim Hills had 3.75 and they are only asking for 4 and that was looked at. But we are looking at 60 homes - no sidewalks, 15 maximum on the street parking? And you are looking at homes that the developer is stating that they are selling to the buyer the extended driveway as a sports court. The outside the kitchen area is an extended family living area. But they are indicating that they are a parking space. Two times sixty equals 120. Take three-fourths of them - 75. You are impacting another area. looked at the design tonight and they went with the garages at the 20 by 20 and we thank them for that. We're not opposed to redevelopment, we are not opposed to bringing in new homes because that will only increase the value of our homes. But what we are opposed to is the impacting of this area. Now if you take out perhaps 5 or 6 of the middle structure homes so they would not have 60, they have somewhere between 53 or 57 homes, they will get their sidewalks, larger streets, more greenbelt areas and maybe they would received the profits that they had planned on, but you and I are not getting the almighty buck from our homes anymore. We did not sell in 1989 to 91. We did not make the most out of the value. Whoever owns the land, isn't going to take the top dollar for that land. Maybe they have to take a little bit less. Maybe the developer has to take a little bit less. But let's not impact West Anaheim more and set a precedent of these homes being stacked in and now being called single-family residences when they're not. Another one of the problems that I have with these developers is that at the very beginning they came and said they had a couple of waivers. There was a list of waivers. And now we are down to a couple of them. Well, I am not too sure that we are actually at a couple of them because along the way they said they don't have any more, and then the last time there supposed to be sidewalks on one side. Then there were no sidewalks. So I have a hard time believing everything that is going down. It is like the three-story building in Anaheim Hills being built when it was only supposed to be a two-story. Olson Developers have a bill board on Euclid and Lincoln and talks about their development out there and in small print it says "from the high $100's". But if you're driving down the street, it says "Homes -single-family homes from the one hundred thousands". That is a little shady. Let's be straight forward. We have to live there. They go home to Malibu or Newport Beach or San Diego or wherever they live and that's it. We have to down Brookhurst and try to make that light across from Linbrook Bowling Alley when all these cars are trying to come out and make a U-turn to go south. That's going to impact the traffic there. In the new plan in the package that was handed out, said that with the new design they lessened the density of the homes. It was 60 units before and it's still 60 units, so I don't know how they lessened the density. Also in the package talked about a hardship area. That this is a hardship area so that special conditions need to be taken for this area. This is not a hardship area unless you call all of West Anaheim the slums, and we don't consider it that. This is a prime location and I take offense to someone coming in saying, 'you can't get anything better so we're going to put in this and you're going to have to sit with it'. No, that's not the way it is. Again I am looking at the board here to look at a precedent being set by going down to the 3400 square foot lot, by calling asingle-family residence a condominium or multi-family unit. You know, in real estate it's either one or the other. It's not the same. Looking at the street the traffic congestion and no sidewalks for children to play, the parking that's not there, the sports court versus the parking area, the garages. There's a lot of these questions thatjust aren't there, not ready to be answered -ready to be accepted. Thank you. Applicant's Rebuttal: Kerry Choppin: I will just be brief again. We're providing 254 parking spaces; the Code requires 192. The sports court is designated as a sports court. Not all homeowners will use it for that. Not all 03-30-98 Page 49 homeowners will park in their driveways. All homes are provided with a 2-car garage under the homeowner's association it's requirement to use the garage for parking and it will be enforced through the association. That was it. Commissioner Boydstun: Are there just 7 extra off-street parking places? In looking at it, I saw 3 one place and 4 another. Kerry Choppin: There is also some along the side roads, maybe I can get a count on that. I believe there are is about 15. Commissioner Boydstun: Where are they? I only saw 7 marked on the map. Kerry Choppin: I'll bring up our board. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Kerry Choppin: There's parking here and here, there's also parking along the road here and also on this side (he was indicating these items on the exhibit posted). Commissioner Henninger: There is no street parking in the rest of the complex, right? There are some stall parking spaces and then on each of the east and west streets there is parallel parking, perhaps another 3 each of those street. Commissioner Boydstun: Is that street wider? Commissioner Boydstun: So that's 6, that's 13. Commissioner Henninger: So that's 4 each. He says its 15. .Kerry Choppin: I didn't have my glasses on so I'll put them on and try it again. There is some street parking on the east and west and there are also the other parking stalls. But the driveways can also be utilized for guest parking. Again, the homeowners association requires that the garages are kept clear because of the narrow streets and parking of the owners. Commissioner Boydstun: When I talked to you the other day I may have mis-understood, and I'd like to clarify 18 foot driveways you will put roll-up doors. You have some set 20 foot driveways and those you will also put roll-up doors on? (Mr. Choppin responded 'yes' to both questions.) Imis-understood and thought that you were not putting them on the 20 foot driveways. Kerry Choppin: And when we discussed it the other day I wasn't sure. Commissioner Boydstun: I think in our Code they have to be over 25 or you have to have aroll-up door. Kerry Choppin: So we'll have roll-up doors on all of them. Commissioner Bristol: One of the concerns we had, of course, is that you had no sidewalks, and this morning you gave me a reason that you hadn't given me a reason before. Do you want to explain that? Kerry Choppin Because of the tightness of site, in order to provide a 4 foot sidewalk on one side would pretty much eliminate those 20 foot driveway pads. So that is the reason we can't put them in. Originally, we had sidewalks pn one side at the north and the south but because the setback that the Planning staff thought was appropriate from the existing R-1 to the south, we actually compressed the site to the north and that's when the sidewalks were eliminated. I think, to answer your question again, to put a 4 foot sidewalk on would pretty much -you'd only have a 16 foot driveway and on the ones that are only 18 feet it would bring it down to 14 feet. So there was also a suggestion of possibly putting speed bumps on the roadway to keep people down to a very slow speed so if people were using the roadways for walking from house to house, or guests coming in, we feel that the cars would be going at a very slow speed. 03-30-98 Page 50 Commissioner Boydstun: As we discussed - I like your project. I think it looks nice, but there is no way can support it without sidewalks. You say you're building it for families. As a grandmother of nine very young children I wouldn't want either one of my kids to live in there and I think you'll sell them all as new houses, but what concems me is when they become resales. I think that - I know land costs a lot. Maybe you paid too much for it. If seven of those houses came out you'd have sidewalks and some space. Kerry Choppin: Some condominium developments in this -and we're using a condominium :plan so not to confuse the nomenclature -some condominiums don't have sidewalks, people are able to walk - pedestrians are able to walk throughout the complex, and I know it is a safety issue, so 1'll just leave that point alone. I think in our mind the positive benefits for the community in providing new housing so we're just requesting that waiver again. Commissioner Henninger: I think maybe I mentioned it last time - I have some friends who live in a product very similar to this up in Torrance and they don't have any sidewalks there and it seems to work fine - a lot of kids and I know in my neighborhood (we do have sidewalks) but the kids still play in the street and so its a common place for kids to play, I guess. And it's one of the, in my point of view, Just one of the sort of givens of the residential neighborhood. I see that as a success. If you plan the streets right that people feel comfortable playing in them, I guess. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: The Public Works Department is very concerned about the sidewalk issue in this development. There would be, you know, over 60 families in this neighborhood. These are very small parcels that each one would be developed on. Separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic is very important. If you have nowhere for them to walk they will have to walk in the street. If there were any persons with disabilities, particularly those persons using wheel chairs they would have to use the street. And while we all know that we have been children and, you know, having occasional ball game in the street, that doesn't mean that everybody is constantly walking in the street, etc. So you have 60 families in here all coming and going, hopefully the children will be trying to go over next door to the bowling alley and those kinds of things, but everybody will be forced to walk in the streets. We're just very concerned that if this is approved that all future projects will be developed this way. Really the standards for Anaheim would really decline. Commissioner Bristol: lam tom on this project because I can see all over the county different projects. I've been down to Aliso Viejo and some of the projects down there where they simply have no sidewalks. The people come in and open the garage and drive into the garage and into their condo or townhouse and all there is the common area that they have up front and that's -and there is no other space for it. So, it's a tough debate because I'd like to see the individual single-family product in the city. We don't need anymore apartments on the west side. We need single-family housing and these are obviously stepped - homes that the younger families can start out in and maybe move up to those bigger lots or something as time goes on and they have the wherewithal to buy them. Commissioner Peraza: Yes, it is a tough decision because as I saw the rendering they look great. Single family homes -but sidewalks also concern me and what concems me is if we set a precedent4or this one, then if there is some other lots being developed in Anaheim are they going to want the same thing. So it is a difficult decision. I think they have a good product, there's no question about that. Commissioner Bristol: Well, I look at it that it's gated and closed and I would, if I had - I would definitely have a requirement that all garages be able to be parked in and that they be utilized for parking the cars; that there isn't anything on the street so the kids aren't bouncing in and out between cars. If they're out there playing in the street, they're going to play in the street. And you can see them. Commissioner Boydstun: And 60 families are going to have company. Commissioner Bristol: And they are going to have to park in the designated guest spots and if they start using them up then no street parking. Commissioner Peraza: Even though I am not sure how many families will move in there, who in a new family moving in will want to go to a place where their kids will go half days to school? 03-30-98 Page 51 Commissioner Bristol: Do we have any idea how many projects like this have no sidewalks? .Melanie Adams: No, I can't think of any this size that have no sidewalk. We have some smaller cpndominium units maybe ten units or so, eight units that don't have any sidewalks. In those cases some of them have had a stamped concrete area designated as a walkway with narrower travel lanes. One example of what I believe is a very poor development is on Katella Avenue near Ninth Street where their condominiums are just kind of stacked in there and you've got 25 feet between units. That's orie of the worst that I've ever seen. The people have nowhere to walk. If you go out and take another look at that development I don't think you would ever want to approve something like that again. Commissioner Henninger: But this isn't like that, though. I agree with you, we wouldn't want to do that again. Melanie Adams: But even the other project that the Olson Company did do which is a similar type RM- 3000, they were able to put sidewalk on one side. The project next door, the Lynnhaven -they were able to put sidewalk on one side, providing an opportunity for people to have an area where they are separated from the vehicles. Of course, everybody has a choice of what they are going to do, but given no choice - 60 families are going to be walking in the street. Commissioner Henninger: Is there an opportunity here to do a patterned walkway? Commissioner Peraza: I think that's what we did with those condos on Ball Road - a patterned walkway. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering: When you put the pedestrian with the vehicular traffic even though if you stamp it or paint it, even if the car drives at 2 mph or 10 mph, if the children or somebody gets hit they injure them. We strongly urge that you approve this project with the sidewalk because the sidewalk is a necessity. We're trying to get people going to work coming to the facilities, we cannot widen streets anymore. We're trying to encourage them to use the public sidewalks to walk. In this area particularly, there would be people at 5-6 o'clock coming home and after dinner they want to walk across the black, and there would be no sidewalk. This will put them directly with the incoming traffic. Commissioner Bristol: You're getting the benefit of a straw vote here, Mr. Choppin, I am going to make the same comment. I am torn on this one, but you know the west side has been beat up over the years and if there aren't any precedents with this, I don't think I would be willing to do that either. I know a lot of projects outside the City that do not have walks, but I'm thinking right now that they must have a much wider street width. They do have some speed bumps, I'm sure the wide streets, and it is a good project. Everybody agrees on that and I concur. I think they've got to have a sidewalk here. Commissioner Boydstun: I move for a CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion Seconded by Commissioner Henninger. Chairman~ostwick: We have a motion and second for a CEQA Negative'Dedlaration All those in favor say AYE. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney: May I make a comment prior to your vote on the negative declaration. I did want to make a comment on the California Environmental Quality Act as it related to the school issues. I was interested to hear that their school district is not actually opposing the project but they do have a letter that was discussing mitigation of school impacts. As the letter stated, it's not that there is a lack of sympathy for the overcrowding issues that the schools have, but unlike the sewer situation as it relates to schools we have the School Facilities Act that in many instances is limiting the amount of fees that can be charged to a project. The fact that the Califomia Environmental Quality Act does not, in itself, provide any independent authority to be imposing fees in addition to the Schodl Facilities Act, and the fact that the case law in this situation is very mixed, I discussed briefly the Hart-Murrietta-Mura Trilogy at the last meeting. I did not mention the decision of the Court of Appeal in 1995 in Goleta Union Schodl District vs Regents of the University of California in which the Courts stated that overcrowding of schools .per se is outside the scope of CEQA, except to the extent that such overcrowding requires the construction of new facilities impacting the physical environment. And under the logic of that case if you were looking at the impacts you wouldn't be addressing the overcrowding per se, but you would be addressing the impacts of construction such as requiring additional open space, making sure that what you were addressing were 03-30-9t3 Page 52 the impacts of school construction; not the impacts of the development upon school overcrowding. I just needed to get that on the record. Chairman Bostwick: We have a motion and a second for a CEQA Negative Declaration All those in favor say AYE. Motion carried. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Commissioner Boydstun if she didn't move it? Commissioner Boydstun: Yes, but wanted to get a vote started. Commissioner Henninger: Well -okay -let's hang on, Commissioner Boydstun: I would move to deny General Plan Amendment No. 352. Commissioner Henninger: Hang on -let's talk about this for a second. This is over sidewalks we're doing this? I heard everybody talk and the sidewalks was an issue. Commissioner Boydstun: Inaudible. Commissioner Henninger: Just hang on for asecond - So the other thing we could do is ,this side that we heard and the testimony is that the sidewalks being driven by this 30 foot setback that the staff suggested that they have on the one side of the property, the sidewalks -how wide are they -one side? We've got two streets -that's 8 feet worth of sidewalk. Why don't we make them put in sidewalks and terms of item 3 make that 22 feet instead of 307 I don't see that as being a huge difference in the impact Commissioner Boydstun: We would lose the parking there, right? Commissioner Henninger: No, we wouldn't. Chairman Bostwick: No, they've moved the houses north to get away from this waiver of minimum setback. Commissioner Henninger: Well, they still have a waiver of minimum... Chairman Bostwick: Right -and they're proposing 30 feet, and what we're saying is that if you make it 22 feet that allows you 8 feet to give you 4 foot on each side. Commissioner Henninger: --on the two long streets and you know, probably given that they could probably figure out how to work it in around the other east and west streets. And maybe they end up losing -maybe they can't do it with exactly this number of units. Maybe they lose a unit and Commissioner Boydstun: They are worried as much about losing extra parking as houses- Commissioner Henninger: We're not going to have them lose parking, but they could probably come close to making it and they might have to -there might be a unit or two that came out, but we'd get very close to what everybody wants. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Commissioner Henninger, if the Commission does go in that direction we recommend that revised plans be brought back in before you act. This was a very tight project and it may offset one of the other development standards such as recreational/leisure area, or setbacks that we will need to look at. Commissioner Henninger: Does the applicant want a continuance? Kerry Choppin: Well, it's an interesting proposal. We would like to look at that. How long is the agenda next week? I'm being facetious. We would like to look at that. We hadn't thought about a creative solution like that because we thought that the south side was probably the most sensitive issue and we would consider that because we would like to conform if we can, Obviously it's going to be difficult to do 03-30-98 Page 53 that without sidewalks and so we would like to continue it and revise and bring it back into Planning.. In response as to how long, he said two weeks.. We're very tight in our schedule.. Commissioner Henninger: For two weeks you need to have plans in here by Friday. Kerry Choppin: We can do that. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: That would be April 13th, and that is a shorter agenda. Chairman Bostwick: I will offer a motion for a continuance to April 13th, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. Following the action: Michael Perez, Anaheim City School District: I just want to thank the Planning Commission for the two previous actions at Harbor/Ball and Westmont. Hopefully now we will get two more schools built in Anaheim and about twenty million dollars hopefully. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Mr. Chairman, you're letting the decision with regard to the negative declaration then stand. Commissioner Henninger: No, let's withdraw that and hear it again. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for applicant to submit revised plans. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (6:30-7.:00) Please note: There was a 30-minute dinner break after Item No. 5. 03-30-98 Page 54 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 615 (READVERTISED) 4-13-98 OWNER: Larry Hauperf, 18341 Cerro, Villa Park, CA 92807 INITIATED: City Initiated (Code Enforcement Division), 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 OPERATOR: Francisco Gutierrez, 1266 E. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1266 East Lincoln Avenue -Gutierrez Tires. Property is 0.28 acre located on the south side of .Lincoln Avenue, 810 feet east of the centerline of East Street To retain an existing tire sales and service facility. Continued from the Commission .meetings of December 8, 1997 and January 5, and March 2, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. to SR1032JK.DOC ' ''' ,FOLLOWING,131A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING:COMMISSION~ACTION.' .; There was no discussion. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to continue to work with the Code Enforcement Division staff to bring this property into compliance with Code requirements and conditions of approval. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 .minute (7:42-7:43) 03-30-98 Page 55 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continu 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1594 (READVERTISED) 5-11-98 OWNER: Andrew Y. Lui, 500 North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 500 North Brookhurst - La Estrella Restaurant. Property is 2.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Alameda Avenue and Brookhurst Street. To retain an existing restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 22, 1997 and March 16, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7089TW „',,,;, FOLLOWWG IS°A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. :, OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner so that this matter may be considered after City Council's consideration of the Hearing Officer's recommendation. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-30-98 Page 56 Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 8b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-12 5-11-98 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4001 OWNER: Hunters Pointe Homeowners Association, 14600 Goldenwest Street, 102-A, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: TDI, Inc., Attn: Adan Madrid, 3150 Bristol Street, #250, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 6900 East Canyon Rim Road. Property is 3.05 acres located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, 180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Circle. To reclassify this property from the RS-HS-10,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone to the RS-A-43,000 (SC) (Residential/Agricultural (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone to construct telecommunication antennas on an existing lattice tower (Edison) structure and ground-mounted accessory equipment. Continued from the Commission meeting of February 18, 1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7081TW.DOC FOLLOWING,IS,i4.SUMMARY OF;THE PLANNINGiCOMMIS51ON /aCIION.., OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. - ` 03-30-98 Page 57 9b. OWNER: Chiboeze J. Dallah, Sharon K. Dallah, Ernest R. Peralta, 17380 Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 AGENT: Chiboeze J. Dallah, P.O. Box 773, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 1429. 1433 and 1437 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.77 acre located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue., 160 feet east of the centerline of La Plaza. To reclassify this property from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single- Family) and the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Continued from the Commission meetings of January 5, January 21, and March 16, 1998. 4-13-98 :RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. ~ SR7088TW.DOC ~'; „" FOLLOWING IS A 3UMMARY;OF THE P,LANNING;COMMISSION ACTION.; ',,, -; ' „ , ,~-„ , OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow time for staff to review a revised development proposal which was submitted by the applicant on March 25, 1998. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-30-98 Page 58 10a. CEl'dANEGAlIVE-DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 10b. CONDITION_AL_USE PERMIT NO. 3830 (READVERTISEDI OWNER: Dennis and Edith Berger, 1120 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Phillip Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1130 West Lincoln Avenue and 1203 West Center Street- Ace Fixtures Comoanv. Property is 0.22 acre, located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 505 feet east of the centerline of Villa Place. To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain outdoor storage of materials far an existing retail restaurant supply store. Continued from the Commission meetings of February 18, and March 16, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 4-13-98 ~~ ~ ~FOLCOWING IS A-SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING:COMMISSION ACTION.; ~ ~-, Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Explained the applicant was not able to be present today but .indicated he was in agreement with stafFs report and the conditions of approval. Public Testimony: Jim Atry, 1122 West Center Street, Anaheim, CA: Explained he is directly behind Ace Fixtures and has been there for 20 years. They have been fighting this owner for about 15 years. He referred to the staff report (Item No. 9 under Proposal] that indicated that there has been no complaints in the last two years which is incorrect. He referred to the Findings (Item No. 14(b)). This owner is taking up all the parking which leaves no room for the residents to park. He is offloading trucks-and leaving pallets in the street. The storage area is where he breaks up pallets and is a mess back there. The owner was suppose to earthquake-proof his business and the liquor store but did not do it, He tore down houses and said he was going-to provide parking but he keeps wanting to change it and apply for variances. He slated the neighbors just want a place to park. Commissioner Peraza: Asked who he is complaining to, noting the staff report indicates there were no complaints for the last two years. Mr. Atry responded he hasn't complained because they thought the City was going to take care of the problems and they were assured the last time that the City would get him to comply. Mr. Atry: Noted sometimes he has trucks parked two and three deep and that he has customers coming in and out and there is no parking available because he has outgrown that lot. Commissioner Boydstun: Noted he needs to pick up one of those vacant lots and make it into a parking lot and make his people park there. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if Mr. Atry received a letter regarding this meeting and Mr. Atry responded that he did, but also pointed out the owner keeps requesting a continuance and every time he continues it, the neighbors get disorganized. He added if the Commission will continue this, he will get the whole 03-30-98 Page 59 neighborhood to come to the meeting, and that he will write letters. He has spoken to Roger (Roger Bennion] in Code Enforcement and he did not complain because he thought the City was going to handle it. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if he has 14 employees who come and park there? Mr. Atry: Responded he has counted cars and he would like to hear the owner say how many employees he has, and added he has four trucks which he sometimes parks on the street at night. He explained his complaint is parking and what he has done to Sherry by surrounding her house with a junk yard. It is full of cardboard and that attracts roaches, gets wet and it is 3 to 4 feet above the fence. He stated he can start calling Code Enforcement more frequently to complain. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Alfred Yalda if the original condition of approval has been complied with refer to on Page 4, No. 11, "that all loading or unloading of delivery shall take place on-site unless the applicant obtains approval from the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager for a curb side loading and unloading area directly adjacent to subject property along Center Street, If approved, all such loading and unloading shall take place in said curb side loading area." Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Division: Responded he did not recall him getting permission for that and generally the City does not allow any loading or unloading on public streets. He thought Code Enforcement would enforce no loading or unloading on the public street. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if Code Enforcement knows anything about this problem? Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement Officer: Explained Roger Bennion has been to the site on numerous occasions and Code Enforcement is not aware that he is loading or unloading on the street. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if there is room to pull a truck onto the site and do loading or unloading of whether the site is full of trash, product, pallets, etc. Don Yourstone: Responded he thought the site is pretty full of trash and junk on the property and it would be difficult for anybody to pull any large truck off Center Street onto this property. Commissioner Henninger stated they probably are loading and unloading on the street. Mr. Yourstone: Stated again, during Code Enforcement inspections when they have been there, they have not seen any trucks in the street at all. Mr. Atry: Stated he will provide pictures, adding if he has to fight this, he will just take pictures. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she knows there was a house for sale there on the street. Mr. Atry: Stated he had his house on the market for six months and did not get any offers.. Commissioner Bristol offered the Motion for continuance for two weeks in order for the applicant to be present, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to be present. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) .DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (7:43-7:52) 03-30-98 Page 60 03-30-98 Page 61 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continu 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4-27-98 11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4010 OWNER: Southern California Edison Company, 100 North Long Beach Blvd., #1004, Long Beach, CA 90802 AGENT: CGA Associates, Attn: Gavin Berry, 1525 Monrovia Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 LOCATION: 1505 South State College Boulevard. Property is 10 acres located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and State College Boulevard. To construct a 91,310 square foot self storage facility with waiver of minimum parking lot landscaping. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Applicant's Statement Carl Beckman, Everett Storage (developer): Stated they are proposing aself-storage facility on this property, underneath the Edison right-of-way. They have read the staff report and wanted to comment on Condition No. 1 which is a five-year time limit on the conditional use permit, explaining he was not sure why this condition is being proposed and when he asked why at the IDC meeting, it was indicated generally it was because it was felt this was a temporary use. He noted he did submit a letter outlining some of the reasons why this is not a temporary use. They have signed a lease with Edison for 35 years with one 10-year extension so their plan is to be there for the next 45 years. The initial investment in this site would be about $1-/12 million and when the facility opens in about six months, it will take about two years to fill. Mr. Beckman: Referred to the Condition No. 3 requiring PVC slats in the chainlink fencing and that staff would like vines planted on the chainlink fence and they think slats will encourage tagging and they will be happy to plant the vines. He referred to the northern property line which abuts industrial property and noted there is no ready access from the street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Noted this is a rather deep parcel and asked if they anticipate recreational vehicle storage or boat storage. Mr. Beckman: Responded they are not because Edison does not want that type of use on the property because they want to be able to move any vehicles immediately if there is an emergency. He explained they can work around the storage being proposed and the design is such that they can come in with their boom trucks and work on their lines. The proposed containers can be moved easily out of the way. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked about the trees being planted inside the fence. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded that was overlooked in time to get it into the report, but typically when there is a waiver of minimum parking lot landscaping, we request that the trees that are not being provided in the parking lot area, be provided elsewhere and in this case, staff would request that 03-30-98 Page 62 they be planted on the back side of the block wall facing State College or on the interior side so they could be seen from the street above the fence. Mr. Beckman: Responded he thought that would be fine, but they are constrained the Edison requirement and they have to keep a 100-foot buffer around the towers and that is why the holes are shown to accommodate Edison's access to the towers. The block wall as it exists now encroaches in the 100-foot setback. He stated he would prefer putting it in front of the block wall because of that 100-foot setback requirement. Cheryl Flores: Stated she thought that would be acceptable as long as the trees can be seen from State College Boulevard. Mr. Beckman: Stated they would be happy to work with staff and come up with a landscape plan for the front that meets everyone's approval. Ms. Flores: Stated the waiver would still be required because technically they are required to separate every 10 contiguous parking spaces and we would not have them in that formation, but would still have the number of trees. Chairman Bostwick: Stated he has a real problem with this and does not like the metal storage structures and thought it really looks like a very temporary use. They are indicating they will be there for 35 to 45 years and these metal buildings don't last that long. They are shipping containers and are ugly and there is not much that can be done to beautify them. Mr. Beckman: Stated the containers are steel which are designed to stop rust at a certain level and are designed to function for 20 to 25 years under oceangoing conditions. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he views this as a permanent facility and thought it would be appropriate to eliminate Condition No. 1 but there should be permanent buildings and not just shipping containers. Commissioner Bristol: Stated there has been a lot of improvement on State College and that he has indicated that it is really temporary because it is easy to move, etc. He stated he would not want chainlink fencing because it looks temporary and there should be a block wall. Chairman Bostwick: Stated there is a storage facility just south of there along the railroad tracks and it looks very attractive in a hard-to-fit location similar to this and he could not vote for this with the temporary storage containers. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the improvements up and down State College are more commercial types with a specialty focus on file uses and he did not think this is the right use for this location. Mr, .Beckman: Stated there is an 8-foot high :block wall that will be along the entire frontage of the property and down Cerritos and along the railroad tracks. The block wall extends back about 250 feet to the first containers so those containers are 250 feet back from the frontage and they have provided over 60 feet of landscaping in the front to try and make it attractive. He thought the containers will be well hidden and the chainlink fence will have vines growing on it which will further obscure any view of the containers and the containers are uniformly painted and are only 8'6".high and most storage buildings are 10 feet to 10'6". They will be screened from view from State College and along the railroad tracks to the south of the tracks, are existing industrial buildings which back right up and will block the view. Commissioner Bristol: Asked how far the block wall is located from Cerritos. Mr. Beckman: Responded it is designed to go to the first set of containers. He believed there is an existing catering facility there and they have trucks and the property makes a dog leg and their wall starts right at that dog leg. Commissioner Bristol: Asked about other land uses on Edison rights-of-way, and noted there used to be nurseries, and now there seems to be storage facilities, 03-30-98 Page 63 Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Stated Edison approached the City a couple of years ago indicating they will be more aggressive in trying to get uses which would bring a higher revenue rather than growing strawberries or having a Christmas tree farm. He understood a lot of the leases are coming due on these properties now and Edison is renegotiating so we may end up seeing more of this type of use. Commissioner Henninger: Stated it does not make any sense to him to deny two nice storage facilities and then approve this one. Mr. Beckman: Stated he thought in the previous hearings it was mentioned that this site and this property was the type of property that this type of development is appropriate for. Chairman Bostwick: Stated there would not be any problem if they would build a building, but the problem is with the storage containers being proposed. Mr.:Beckman: Stated the All-Abroad Self-Storage facility mentioned up the road, is an all metal structure and he did not see very much difference. Commissioner Henninger: Felt this would look like an unloading facility for a ship yard. Mr. Beckman: Stated the pictures submitted to staff are of another facility on another site which is also Edison property. It is a long, narrow, small frontage property and on that site they have provided screening and heavy landscaping on the frontage. It improved what existed on that site and it will on this one as well. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if they wanted to take some time and try to come back with some real buildings or would they like the vote today? Mr. Beckman: Stated given those two choices, he would ask for a continuance. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he would want to grant a continuance if this is really want they want to propose and are coming back in two weeks with the same plan. Mr. Beckman: Stated he would like a continuance to at least be stile to evaluate it and if it does not work, they can withdraw the application, and requested a 4-week continuance. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion that subject petition be continued for four weeks, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion was carried. Greg Hastings: Asked that the revised plans be very clear as to which property lines have which fencing materials, as well as the height, and perhaps we could get colors, noting that was an initial concern staff had. He added staff may recommend a condition that the Planning Commission review the colors under Reports and Recommendations. Amore thorough landscape plan would be helpful as well OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised and detailed plans showing the landscape, the color of the buildings, and the size and material of the fences. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (7:53-8:12) 03-30-98 Page 64 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVE', 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3929 (READVERTISED) OWNER: F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc., Attn: Frederick J. Hanshaw, 10921 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92843 LOCATION: 2930 West Lincoln Avenue #1. Cheers Market. Property is 0.89 acre located at the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 200 feet east of the centerline of Laxore Street. To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to required signage and landscaping fora :previously-approved 2,400 square foot convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-39 Approved Approved, in part the amendment to conditions of approval Applicant's Statement: George Casto, 6928 Endacos Way, Cypress, Executive Vice President of F. J. Renshaw Enterprises: Explained in 1963, they developed this property and until about 18 months ago, it has always been a convenience markeUliquor store and then they requested a beer and wine store which was denied because the Commission did not want to approve another liquor store or beer and wine store in Anaheim. They have five centers in Anaheim and not one problem and especially not with this one. The tenant they had for Cheers left and they lost approximately $60,000 in rent and $200,000 in the liquor store which he can't sell now because it is not a liquor store. They have found another tenant who will put in a straight market and keep the same CUP. He is being asked to remove the sign and noted there are businesses on both sides, one is a beer and wine store and the other side is a Spanish nightclub, and he is 60 feet from the sidewalk and he has no signs on the frontage except for one small pole sign which was granted in 1986. When the CUP for Cheers was approved, he did not think there would be a problem with them getting approval for beer and wine because it used to be a liquor store. He referred to the landscaping requested by staff and noted 25 years ago they had a planter in the front and it'kept getting tom down; that he would put the two fifteen gallon trees back on the property, .but they would probably only be there for a month. The problem he has is reducing the size of the sign. It has been there 12 years and is the only sign that shows his center and without it, the center is dead. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the sign is under what the Code allows? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded she was not sure what the size of the sign is today, but it is considerably larger than the permits on file when it was originally permitted. The size of the sign allowed by Code today would be 141 sq. ft. with a maximum height of 25 feet. Mr. Casto: Stated the sign was 25 feet high when it was installed and he did not know how it got to be 26 feet high but he would have no problem having it at 25 feet. Ms. Flores: Thought something submitted showed the sign at 28 feet high. She stated the plans approved for the sign permit show that it is 25 feet high, 8'1"wide, and sign portion is about 9-1/2 feet high. 03-30-98 Page 65 Commissioner Henninger: Asked if a pole sign would be allowed in this area and Ms, Flores stated two posts would be required. Commissioner Boydstun: Thought the sign is about 1/2 the size allowed due to the street frontage. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated when this condition was proposed, we did not have the new sign ordinance and these properties were ali receiving conditions for monuments signs and at this point, staff if more interested in getting the sign to have two posts and to, hopefully, be in a small landscape area, as well Commissioner Bristol: Stated he was at the site and the landscaping to the east and west of this site is really not bad. Mr, Casto: Stated he has no problem landscaping the front of the building again, and pointed out the parking is right next to the sign and the property abuts right to the sidewalk and there is no room and it will reduce the parking area. He explained the whole parking lot will be renovated. Mr. Castro: Stated coming from the east, going west, you don't even see this property because of big pine or palm trees next door. During the voting: Commissioner Henninger: Offered a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3929 as readvertised and accepting staffs recommendations except for Item B regarding the sign, and editing that condition to say that they can keep the current pole sign and its current square footage, and if any expansion is proposed, the entire sign would have to be brought into conformance with the existing Code. Ms. Flores: Clarified that portion of the sign were not permitted originally and asked if those portions are now to be permitted. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he heard that there is an existing sign which is about 28 feet high and is about 76 square feet and the current Code would allow a sign that is 20 feet high with two poles rather than one and about twice the size. Ms. Flores: Stated it appears the size of the sign permitted was about 72 square feet and she thought another sign has been added onto the lower portion. Commissioner Henninger: Added he would allow them to keep a sign that is a maximum 25 feet high, and 76 square feet in size and if they want a bigger sign, it can be updated to current Code requirements. OPPOSITION: None - -~ ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved, in part, the amendment to condition of approval, as follows: Amended Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. 97R-134 to read as follows: That the existing twenty five (25) foot high pole sign (total of seventy six square feet) shall be permitted, if the applicant wishes to expand the square footage of the sign then it shall be brought into compliance with existing Code requirements. Denied the request to amend or delete Condition No. 3 pertaining to a requirement for minimal landscaping of this property which currently has no on-site landscaping. This condition is necessary to enhance the view of this property from Lincoln Avenue, one 03-30-98 Page 66 of the City's major arterial highways, and to bring this property more in conformance with current Code requirements. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (8:13-8:23) 03-30-98 Page 67 13a. 13b. 13c. 13d. 13e. 13f. 13g. 13h. 13f AND 13a OWNER: The Hazel Maag Trust, Attn: Lloyd Copenbarger, 4675 MacArthur Court #700, Newport Beach, CA 92660 John R. Schantz, Melvin R. Schantz, Attn: Robert H. Pernell, etal., 21 Chelsea Pointe, Dana Pointe, CA 92629 AGENT: Keisker and Wiggle Architects, Inc. 15751 Rockfield Boulevard, #210, Irvine, CA 92618 LOCATION: Property is 24.5 acres located at the northeast corner of Via Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Approved Rec. adoption to CC Granted Approved Approved Granted Approved Approved General Plan Amendment No. 353 - to redesignate a portion of the subject property from the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. Reclassification No. 97-98-11 - to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) Zone to the CL(SC) Zone. Revision to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study - Exhibit No. 7 - to revise the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Points Study -Exhibit No. 7 to permit one additional access point on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Conditional Use Permit No. 4005 - to construct a 243,180 square foot commercial center with heights in excess of 35 feet, roof-mounted equipment, a 4,685 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-through lane, a 171,674 square foot self- storage facility and a 28,350 square foot electronics sales store with vehicle retail parts installation facilities with waivers of (a) permitted commercial center identification sign, (b) permitted directional signs, (c) permitted types of signs, (d) permitted wall signs, (e) minimum number of parking spaces, (f).minimum parking lot landscaping and (g) minimum drive-through lane requirements and (h) minimum structural and landscape setbacks. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 98-01 - to approve the removal of 29 specimen trees. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-40 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-41 REVISION TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS POINT STUDY RESOLUTION NO. PC98.42 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-43 024JK.DOC 03-30-98 Page 88 DL'LOWING,IS<A'SUMMARY;OF THE PLANNING'COMMISSION-7ICTIC Applicant's Statement: Gary Wiggle, Keysker and Wiggle Architects, representing GME Development: Explained in December 1996 they had a public meeting at the Hanford Hotel and presented this project to about 75 people and received a lot of public input, have worked diligently since then with residents and the retailers interested in Anaheim Hills and submitted the project in December 1997. Since then they have had two public meetings and a few other meetings with residents in the area. They are disheartened to find out that a letter was sent out last week from a local resident that was alarming and it came actually from a resident of the area but that resident actually represents a competing development companies. He asked if the Commission had seen the letter. They had a meeting after than letter came out and thought they were able to clarify a lot of things for the residents who showed up. He thought the letter was more a business concern than a concern about the project, and they are trying to take the $500,000+ of sales tax revenue that this would generate for the City and keep it on the Yorba Linda side of the freeway. Mr. Wiggle: Stated a couple of things became very apparent at their public meetings; that they reviewed a lot of other site plans that have been done on this property over the years and had noticed that was a lack of concern over the residential subdivision to the east across Solomon. They decided to take about five acres of this property and put in some sort of buffer and give that buffer an enhanced landscaped edge, the whole length of Solomon Drive and try to put in a use that would respect the privacy and quietness of the residential neighborhood. In December 1996 this was just a large green spot on the site plan and from the input they had, they began to pursue a lot of different use options. He stated their priorities for the site were: • No access on Solomon Drive • Something architecturally pleasing • Landscaped buffer and clean edge along the side • That it would be a quiet use. The things they heard back were please don't put in high density, multiple-family units and they did not want retail and as they went through the list of options, mini-storage came up as a viatile use; that it is an odd-shaped parcel and is a simple triangle, the freeway, Solomon, the rear of the proposed shopping center and they have been able to treat three buildings (L, K & J) along Solomon, 50 feet back, and the facades are detailed in the packet and are scaled much to the residences across the street; they have shake type roofs, stucco and wood siding, articulated roof lines, pop-outs, shadow lines, etc. Parcel 1 is the retail center and the proposal is for a retail center that stretches from Santa Ana Canyon Road all the way to the freeway, and they have grouped two parcels, the long narrow parcels along the freeway, one behind the existing houses and the hotel is built on one, and they have joined that together with this parcel to create the large parcel, from the freeway to Santa Ana Canyon Road, and from"Cortez to Solomon Drive. They propose leaving the Eucalyptus tree row along Solomon. They are proposing a right in/right out driveway on Santa Ana Canyon Road at approximately the center of the property, near the little pump station building. The main entrance is on Cortez. They have submitted and staff has approved a fairly comprehensive traffic report and mitigation measures are installation of the signal at Solomon, completely rebuilding the intersection of Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon Road to align opposing left turns which right now are not aligned, widen the ingress and egress lanes and take the dip out, and widening Via Cortez by about 20 feet. He pointed out the proposed buildings, and also noted they are proposing a fast food restaurant at the corner Via Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon. He noted the floor of the fast food restaurant is about six feet lower than the travel lanes of Santa Ana Canyon Road and their site slopes downhill about 20 feet before the freeway and the design of the buildings along Santa Ana Canyon are small, residential in character. The setbacks match the buildings. He stated they have requested a shortened setback along the freeway. They are landscaping the complete Caltrans from the edge of pavement to the property line which averages about 60 feet. In addition, they will landscape across the parking lot and against the buildings and this has a greater setback than the hotel next door. 03-30-98 Page 69 Mr. Wiggle: Referred to the Eucalyptus wind row consisting of about 25 trees (3 of which are already dead) and noted the requirement is a 2:1 replacement of specimen trees which they are exceeding and overall on the site they are providing 252 trees and about 25,000 square feet of landscaping, and there are about 550 trees on the site, including the existing wind row and they are proposing to continue the wind row between Parcels I and 2 and proposing a new wind row along Via Cortez. Mr. Wiggle: Referring to Condition No. 18 of the staff report, "That Solomon Drive shall be widened to city standards and sidewalks installed on the west side of the street," and added they would like that condition removed because they see no reason to widen that street since they are not creating any access on that street. The residents do not see any reason to widen that street by 11 feet and see no requirement for a sidewalk on that side of that street and would .rather see the additional landscaped area proposed. Mr. Wiggle: Referred to an error in Condition No. 24 on the site distance calculations, the last line reads "for the sign or wall/fence location and ten (100 foot radius curb returns for all driveways."; and that line should read: "for the sign or wall/fence location and ten (10) foot radius curb returns far all driveways." He referred to Condition No. 38 discussing 3-foot high bermed landscaped setbacks and the condition says it shall be maintained basically on all four perimeters and there is a requirement in the Code that anywhere they have less than the 20-foot landscaped setback, they will provide a berm. They have that for a portion of Santa Ana Canyon Road on their property. The pump station is on public property and their property line is behind that and they have a 14-foot setback which is the allowed minimum and then they have a berm across the parking spaces. They have 48 feet of landscaping to Building 11, Building 12 has approximately 50 feet to the drive-through driveway and then along Cortez they get down to the minimum area where they are proposing the berming. They are requesting that the condition be modified to be the landscaped setbacks as required in the Code, and they don't know the reason to actually berm for screening. The freeway is above this site for the whole distance and they do not see the need for the berm when they can do more effective landscaping with flat planting. Condition No. 43 discusses a 6-foot high decorative block wall a minimum 20 feet from the east property line adjacent to Solomon Drive and Mr. Wiggle explained in their discussions with the residents and their vision of the whole wall, one of things they did not want to do is just give a wall. They did not want to just give a wall but wanted to give the neighbors a nice lineal landscape with the buildings behind it and they would request that the condition be modified to say "a 6-foot high decorative block wall where there is not building" Their request is that the rear wall of the building which is approximately 10 feet of side wall take the place of the 6-foot block wall wherever they have a building and where there is not a building wall, then they would like the 6-foot wall. Mr. Wiggle: Stated on Condition No. 51 it discusses the landscape setback at the southwest corner of the property and they are proposing a 3-foot high wall from the beginning of the drive-through driveway down to the corner, then diagonally across the corner, and returning the length of the drive-through driveway along Via Cortez. Part of the corner is their center identification sign on the 3-foot high wall. He noted the pad of the fast food restaurant is approximately six feet lower than the street and they have asix-foot high wall which effectively screens the bottom nine feet of the building and the goal of that is to hide all the cars that might be in the drive-through. Condition No. 51 reads that they will berm in front of the wall and their request would be that they don't do that and would rather see nicer landscaping across the front since the 3-foot wall is actually already occurring. He stated they will have approximately 50 feet of landscaping from the edge of the pavement to the wall. Concerning the construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk to City standards along Santa Ana Canyon .Road, he stated they were always under the impression that they were going to have a more natural edge with the road like it is now and do not think that that is an appropriate meeting of their site with the road. They have an ADA requirement for a bus stop on site and would rather handle that with some sort of sidewalk, but would like the Commission to consider another alternative along Santa Ana Canyon Road and he thought some of the residents might also speak to that issue. He stated there was a recommendation regarding the possibility of a continuance to address some of the points and they have worked with staff for four months and they have been a great staff to work with. He 03-30-98 Page 70 added they discussed alternative uses for Parcel No. 2 and they feel with the stringent requirements of no access, etc., this is a very good use for that parcel. In addition. staff asked for reduction in the signage and he thought Condition No. 50 fully covers that and he thought the signage staff is discussing is the building elements down towards the freeway and they are integrating the signage into building. Concerning setbacks adjacent to the freeway, they are similar to other uses along the freeway, if not more, and they are landscaping the Caltrans freeway and that is reflected on the landscape plan submitted. Regarding preservation of the Eucalyptus trees, and removing the 22 living trees on site, they will have 547 trees overall, over 3 times the number required just in the parking lot. He explained they have a walkway system that goes throughout the project and that is shown on the plan and Condition No. 40 requires that they come back with a detailed plan. He stated they are asking for approval of the project based on the 60+ conditions. He referred to the exhibits. Chairman Bostwick suggested the Commission hear public comments since they had reviewed the exhibits. Chris Abbott, 240 N. Solomon, Anaheim, CA: Stated the developer has worked with the neighbors and has done a good job as far as he is concerned. He read and submitted a letter signed by 8 residents on Solomon for Commission's review. Subject letter is available in the Planning Department files. Stephanie Perry, 5945 Avenida Arbol, Anaheim, CA: Stated she has lived in Anaheim Hills for the past 21 years and has major concerns about the way this project is being handled; that she knows it is inevitable that something will be built there but it is important that the community's input be listened to. The developer did hold a meeting with the neighbors and took their questions but he is not saying that the last meeting was held on a church night for many of their neighbors and they could not attend. The only notice given to residents was a flyer passed out by the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition and it was folded and put on mailboxes and with all the rains, it was generally disregarded as "junk mail:' The developer has made no efforts to contact the residents directly, other than the residents on Solomon Drive. Ms. Perry referred to two letters from residents in the area who received no notification. At the meeting on March 25th, the gentleman who spoke mislead them quite a bit. He stated there would be no building sign over 10 feet and according to the staff report, that is contradictory; and that the self-storage would have no underground areas and would not be over 10 feet high, but the staff report contradicts that information. She stated she is requesting a 30 to 45 day continuance so that more the neighbors can be notified and have a chance to give their input. She added she personally, with the help of volunteers, will make it her top;priority to make sure that all residents affected by this development are notified. She stated she is also requesting that the developer hold a weekly meeting in the interim to give more residents a chance to review the plans and voice their opinions and concerns. She stated short of a continuance in this matter, she would request that the Commission deny this motion and leave the land zoned as it is. Roy Brown, 440 Calle Diaz, Anaheim, CA: Stated he wanted to speak specifically to the traffic issues, because there is a traffic report that has been filed and a supplemental report which he does not have a copy of. He stated they are reasonable and know they cannot stop development on this site. He remembered the area from 30 years ago and knows things change, but the question is what is the reasonableness of the proposed use and the degree of that use on that site and what is the reasonable burden to traffic at the adjacent intersections, He stated he did get a chance to review the traffic report and knows Mr. Faust and his Associates have a good reputation, but in any kind of report, there are underlying assumptions that are made in the report upon which the conclusions are based. One of their issues is they are not sure the proper assumptions were made in the traffic report which really reveal the 03-30-98 Page 71 true impact on the adjacent intersections. He stated normally, traffic reports are conducted on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays of the week and that is supposed to give the most average sample, but the Santa Ana Canyon is in a unique location with the 91 freeway passing by it and it is essentially one of the choke points for access to all of Southern California into Orange County, so there are cross country trucks coming into Southern Califomia trying to get into Orange County through that point. In addition, people in the afternoon are trying to return to their homes in Riverside/San Bernardino counties; people trying to get to their homes in Anaheim Hills; and every Friday afternoon, it seems as though everybody who lives in Orange County wants to be on the 91 freeway or some other street paralleling the 91 freeway trying to get out of Orange County. Commissioner Bostwick: Pointed out that three of the Commissioners live there and drive it every day of the week and understand it. Mr. Brown: Stated the traffic counts done in January were done on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and .not on a Friday. There is a tremendous difference in traffic on .Friday in that Canyon and the return traffic on Sunday afternoon. He added apparently after he talked to the representatives of the developer and the architect, another supplemental traffic report appeared, dated March 26th, In the original report, not taken into account was that in the adjacent shopping center (old Albertson's center), the main anchor store has been vacant for some time and at this time LA Fitness which is now located near the intersection of Santiago Canyon and Lincoln, is planning to come to this center. He spoke with them this morning and their plans are for 48,000 square feet to include a full size basketball court and swimming pool. In addition, there was a substantial number of vacancies in that center in January at the time these traffic counts were taken. They know the February 26th traffic report did .not take those things into account. He referred to Table 3-1 in the traffic report, noting it discusses and points to the extensive use and the result, particularly in the PM peak travel hours and it brings it up to a .95, which is a Level E usage of an intersection and the City of Anaheim has adopted a standard of Level D in most cases. He asked what the developer proposes for mitigation to bring this down. The particular intersection he is referring to is Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. They are proposing some mitigation regarding adding an extra northbound lane on Imperial Highway crossing over Santa Ana Canyon Road and an additional westbound right tum lane and the estimated impact is Class D intersection, but the appendix with the raw data presented, it moves it from a .95 to a .90 which is 1/10 of 1%just inside the Class D intersection. He asked what is going to happen when LA Fitness comes in, when the rest of the those vacancies are filled on a Friday afternoon when they get that ultimate gridlock at the intersection of Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon. Mr. Brown: Thought there should be at least a continuance in order that the neighbors will have an opportunity to study the supplemental report which reports to take in the impact of the LA Fitness Center. In addition, he would like to see a discussion on the part of the developer as to how they are going to mitigate the removal of the trees that are going to be in the median strip on the westbound left turn pocket entering VJa Cortez. The 30-year old Eucalyptus are part of what creates the ScenicCorridorin the first place. Mr. Brown: Stated they asked about the intersection of Via Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon Road and whether they would consider improving the southwest and southeast corners where Via Cortez enters Santa Ana Canyon Road with landscaping and some hardscape because they are pretty shabby corners right now and bring up the appearance of that intersection. He stated the homeowners want to convey to the Commission that they feel that the presence of Mcponald's is going to diminish their property values and they realize that is a difficult thing to measure. They think the Commission will agree that there is probably some impact on the value of the homes immediately adjacent to a new fast food restaurant that is going to be open 24 hours a day with drive-through service, whether you can see the cars or not. The developers did not disagree and seemed open to making some kind of an improvement on those two corners that would improve the appearance. He stated they are spending a lot of money on this and he thought it would be reasonable to allow the neighbors some time to enter into discussion between the Planning staff and the developer and their architect, if necessary, on how to improve the appearance of that corner. This project will dramatically 03-30-98 .Page 72 change the aesthetics of that intersection. He added when you have added all the lanes and the signals, there is only one way to mitigate the traffic and that is to cut down on the traffic generators in the center. Mr. Brown: Suggested that something in that center has to be eliminated and that means either units or the fast food facility. They know that is asking a lot of the developer, but they feel the developer is asking a lot of them and they do not think the request is unreasonable. He explained he only found out about this meeting a week ago and it was a little flyer on his mailbox and he thought this project had gone away a year ago. He thought a new traffic report taking into account the correct assumptions, such as a 48,000 sq. ft. LA Fitness with full membership capacity, so we know how many people would be coming and going and thought a new traffic report would be necessary. Mr. Brown; Stated he thought nothing short of a full environmental impact report is necessary when you are looking at essentially doubling the amount of traffic on this intersection which is a significant change. Plus, he would like to see some resolution of the trees on the median strip, and would like to see an open discussion. They have never been contacted in their development south of Santa Ana Canyon Road by anybody. Debra O'Neil, 5949 Avenida Arbol, Anaheim, CA: Stated she has been a resident of Anaheim since 1968, and lived in Anaheim Hills since 1974. She stated her husband has lived in Anaheim Hills since 1954 when the canyon had five houses and Knowlwood was the only building for miles. She knows it is unrealistic to keep the canyon as it was forever, but adding another retail center needs to be considered carefully. The GME Development has not given the residents ample time to weigh the pros and cons of this center and she is requesting that this hearing be continued for 30 days so that all the residents can be made aware of this project. Marilyn Hauk, 6071 Camino Correr, Anaheim, CA: Stated Linda Denmark at 5813 Avenida Portola, was here earlier but had to leave. She had a couple of concerns and one was a community center and that they have wanted that in that area for a long time and she was also concerned about the traffic and also certain questions asked of the developer at their meeting were not fully answered. She did not attend the meeting because she did not think anyone from the City staff would be there. She did get some phone calls and that is why she is here tonight. She added she was sure this project would ultimately end up before the City Council because it does take some changes to the General Plan. A previous Ciry Council zoned that property Residential/Agricultural 43,000 and that did it for a reason, and wanted anyone who wanted to develop that property to take a hard look at this property and realize it is part of the Scenic Corridor. She stated the first part of the Scenic Corridor in the General Plan says, "Scenic areas as visual amenities are important in that they provide welcome relieve from the sometimes monotonous built up urban environment.. Scenic vistas and viewsheds, or the lack thereof, became more evident on our local and regional highways as we pass from one area to another. In order to ensure the continued•existence of these invaluable areas, the State established the California Scenic Highway Program in 1963:' Both the 91 Freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road are part of that from Lincoln to the County line and from the 55 Freeway to the County line. This project is going right in there. On the one end there are the storage units and she thought anyone along Solomon would support that use when approximately 10 years ago there was an impromptu meeting called by the Anaheim Hills Coalition about storage units going in at this very same location and approximately 20 homeowners showed up at the corner of Solomon and Camino Manzano on a Saturday morning about 9 a.m. to let the developer know, "we don't want storage units:' Everybody is not going to want something, but to put a storage facility along that area that is going to be 35 feet high and then also go 10 feet down into the ground is not right. They are 3 story units and this wasn't presented to the homeowners who did attend the meeting. To even consider a fast food drive-through restaurant straight across from a high school is a concern. She stated there is a lot of traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road and there are teenagers constantly crossing the street to the bagel shop, etc. She thought a fast food restaurant would be a danger and when a student is killed there, the blood will be on the Commission and City Council's hands. She stated there are already too many accidents at Solomon and Santa Ana Canyon Road 03-30-98 Page 73 Chairman Bostwick: Noted they are proposing a traffic signal at Solomon. Ms. Houk responded she realizes that and that she remembers 20 years ago there were traffic signals sitting at Solomon and Santa Ana Canyon Road, but they didn't go in. She referred to the Taco Bell at Vons and this request is for minimum parking spaces and they already have parking problems in that shopping center, and allowing minimum parking really creates problems. She asked that the fast food restaurant be allowed on one of the other pads and that it not be allowed 24 hours a day and not to let it be a drive through. She thought there was no need in a shopping center that closes in the evenings to have something open 24 hours. She stated this area is basically.residential/commercial and not industrial/commercial. She stated she has asked the Planning Department on more than one occasion whether anything was going on that site and they had not yet been contacted and when they were contacted, she found out about the project. She has been active in the past where this property is concerned and if there had been meetings going on, she was sure she would have heard about it before Wednesday night. She thought short of denying this project, that it be continued and she would like to see the developer, City staff and residents from the Via Cortez area, as well as the homes not only on Solomon but are part of tract have meetings with the developer. She stated the Anaheim Hills Coalition nor the Citizens Coalition represent the homeowners who live in these two areas and they represent themselves and they have concerns with this project. Ralph Weiss, 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los Angeles, 90067: Attorney representing some of the other concemed residents who reside near this proposed project. He stated he reviewed the staff report and would concur with the other resident's request that the matter be continued to allow the applicant to explore alternative uses. They have a lot of concems about the scope of this project including, but not limited to, the issue of whether or not the City needs another self-storage facility, but going further than that, even if the matter is going to be continued, from a fundamental standpoint, he would urge the Commission to reject proceeding on this by way of a Negative Declaration. This is not a small project and it is a considerable project and it involves both a reclassification and an amendment to the General Plan. It calls for taking an existing orange grove and open space area and building roughly 400,000 square feet of improvements. He added if an EIR is not appropriate for a project like this, then it is difficult to envision when the EIR process would be evoked. He stated with a development of this scope, the traffic is concern and noted there is existing gridlock. In addition, with a development like this there will be extra noise, potential for crime, potential for loitering around the 24-hour fast food operation. On the traffic issue, there have been certain mitigation measures which have been put forth and he would submit at this stage, it is difficult to be able to evaluate without an EIR whether they will address the existing traffic problem on those roads, let alone the traffic problem that will likely be caused by a development of this scope. - -~ He stated the figures cited in the staff report based upon a reclassification of this properly call for 17,000 average daily trips increase per day from this project, but those figures are based upon average daily values and he would submit that this project in terms of what is likely to result don't fit within the average. The staff report also comments on the fact that this developer has gone on record as saying they want signage focused on the freeway because in order to make this project viable, they want to be able to draw in people from the freeway; and in looking at average traffic values, we also look at a project for example that is miles away from the freeway that is going to generate its typical customer traffic base. Looking at traffic, noise and crime that is likely to be generated from any average development of this size and in addition, marking that project to the people who are going to be traversing the freeway, his expectation if an EIR is done, we would find that in fact the figures far exceed what the average would be. He asked if this is not going to be continued for both the community to be able to participate, pointing out there were residents who wanted to participate but had to leave due to the lateness of the hour. Assuming that the developer is not interested in looking at alternative uses, he would ask that the Commission deny the project at this point or at a minimum require that an EIR be conducted so that they have all the facts. He added the residents he represents are not opposed to development and they also 03-30-98 Page 74 recognize that something will ultimately have to be done with this property. They simply favor responsible development and you can't have responsible development without being fully informed and they can't be fully informed without having the benefit of an EIR. Chairman Bristol: Asked which .residents Mr. Weiss represents. Mr. Weiss: Stated he could provide the Commission with their addresses. He added the residents he represents would like to attend if the Commission is interested in continuing this for 30 days. He stated there was an indication that there was a meeting last Wednesday and although there have been some efforts on the part of the developer to work with the residents, there is also a great deal of concern on the residents' behalf, not only from those who are here, but those who are not here and there are a number of questions posed to the developer at that meeting which were not answered. Responding to Commissioner Boydstun, Mr. Weiss stated he represents two households and he knows who they are and will provide addresses and then identified his clients as the Bradford family and a neighbor of the Bradfords. Harold Hembree, Canyon Plaza Shopping Center, the adjoining project, 314 Prospect Street, Newport Beach, CA: Stated he would request a 30-day continuance and referred to a letter from him. They represent a 160,000 square foot shopping center which is already existing directly across Via Cortez from this proposed project. Coupled with project, there would be 400,000 square feet of retail space, all serviced by the existing intersection of Via Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon Road and that would be the only signaled intersection. They would like time to study this. This is a very important issue and if he had not had a call from Sonja Grewal last week on the 25th, he would not be here at his hearing. He thought just out of consideration for that, they deserve some time. Mr. Hembree: Stated last Thursday they did employ a traffic engineer and obviously he has not had time to hardly Icok at this yet and they just got the traffic report on Friday. He did talk to him today and pressed him for some review over the weekend. His preliminary thoughts amazingly were close to those mentioned by Mr. Brown. He would like to bring him in to talk to City staff and added they have worked with staff in the past, but he thought it would be an incredible injustice if they did not have the opportunity to study this plan. Chairman Bostwick asked Mr. Yalda if he had talked to this center about changing the driveway off Via Cortez into their property. Mr. Yalda: Asked if their Traffic Engineer was Paul Singer, and Mr. Hembree responded they have used Paul Singer and they just did a parking study with regard to their application for the LA Fitness Center. Mr. Yalda: Added Mr. Singer knew about this project three or four weeks ago and he was surprised that he had just been told today. Mr. Hembree: Stated according to Mr. Singer, he does not know about this project, and Mr. Singer is not the Traffic Engineer they are working with on this subject, Chairman Bostwick: Stated the Commission had been informed that they had agreed to change the driveway into their property off Via Cortez which would make him believe that they have heard about this project for a long time. Mr. Yalda: Stated they met with his traffic engineer and he knew about this project about three or four weeks ago, and they met with him last week and he continuously had a problem with this project and their entrance and he was surprised that he did not communicate that to them. Mr. Hembree: Stated the traffic engineer was working on the lA Fitness project and he thought Paul Singer would say he did not know about it if he was here. He stated when he heard about it last week, he called Mr. Singer and he met with Joel Faust, but that was about the 25th of the month. He added he did not know about this project until the 25th when he got the phone call from Ms. Grewal. He stated they are happy to participate and thought they could support the project, but just need to understand the traffic. 03-30-98 Page 75 Commissioner Peraza: Asked they developed the plaza and whether they were required to provide an EIR and Mr. Hembree responded that they did develop the site and it was prior to 1980 and he did not recall. He could not imagine developing that center without having an EIR. Mr. Hembree: Stated they do have lA Fitness coming in and that will be on the agenda in the future, and that is 39,800 square feet and that fills the old Albertson's space, and their traffic engineer, as well as Paul Singer, that that actually generates a little less traffic than a typical Albertson's market. Commissioner Peraza: Stated he thought there should be an EIR for that center as well because of the traffic it will be bringing. Mr. Hembree: Stated they have already submitted a traffic study which has already been approved for that project and asked if that is equivalent to an EIR. Chairman Bostwick: Responded it is not. Mr. Hembree: Stated he is not here to complain about the development, and is only asking for some time so that he can look at it. They were not notified of this hearing. He clarified their mail is received in Costa Mesa and that he is the Managing Partner. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Stated there is a memorandum in the packet which indicates staff did check and for some reason, the Tax Assessor's Office still has the name of their old management company listed as owner of the property. Mr. Hembree: Stated they do get mailings from the City which do come to the correct address so he could not explain the problem. Mr. Yalda: Stated Mr. Singer has faxed a copy which he thought one of the partners has seen. Mr. Hembree: Stated he did get that today and they think that is a fine plan and they would support it, but if there is a date there, it is dated today and he got it just before noon. He stated he is not talking about a few minor changes to the intersection, and is talking about, does the left-hand turn pocket on Santa Ana Canyon Road handle this situation, and are there enough movements in and out quickly. Dan Gillam, 6067 Avenida Arbol, Anaheim, CA: Stated just east of this development, stated he is one of the few who has attended both of the meetings called by the Anaheim Hills Coalition (December 1996 and the one last Wednesday). At the meeting in December 1996, the developers presented the plan without Parcel 2 and at the time he was very concerned about what they were going to do with Parcel 2. The developer said that wasn't their property and that it was zoned for residential and indicated they did not have to worry about it. He thought the issue was dead and he had not heard for 14 months and suddenly he got called and they at this point in the development and he believed that the storage facilities are for an industrial site. He understood they have already lost and he did not know how that happened with the other end of their neighborhood with the storage facility, but that doesn't mean they should lose this one. Mr. Gillam: Stated he believes they should have had more detailed notice, other than the little flyers in their mailboxes, but that has been addressed and he would address some other things. He stated he is also going to request that the Commission continue this meeting and let the neighbors contact more neighbors and present this to them so they can understand what is proposed beside them. He stated he agreed there should be some type of development, but opposes certain aspects. He was not sure he liked the drainage and the current state of affairs, but there are a lot of things that need to be looked at; that this development is not in compliance with the General Plan which was established for a reason and to haphazardly waiver that Plan doesn't make a lot of sense; he is concerned that this whole area is overdeveloped as it is and until just a few weeks ago, the shopping center right next door has several empty buildings, the shopping center where Vons is located has several empty buildings, the shopping center across Imperial has several empty buildings; that the Festival Shopping Center which has a massive land area to build these type of shops has a number of empty buildings and to have additional empty buildings built next their house is unconscionable. He thought the Festival site is a more appropriate place for these types of buildings since there are not residents right next door and they have plenty of space and empty buildings. 03-30-98 Page 76 He stated they have mentioned several times that the traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road is deplorable. One of the things they need to concern themselves with is the traffic pattern when LA Fitness comes in. They are there between 6 and 10 a.m. and between 4 and B p.m. right in the major traffic times when they are all going home or going to work or school. That will .have a major impact on traffic at very distinct intervals. He stated Santa Ana Canyon/Santiago Canyon is blocked and any study on the highway with a blocked road, will not give as much traffic as you normally do. The McDonald's and the other stores are going to be bringing in traffic from the freeway and making the situation even worse. The situation was made worse when they extended Imperial across through the hills and now they have another alternate traveling through that same intersection. He stated McDonald's is an attractive nuisance for the children at the high school and in their neighborhoods, and they will have trash blowing all over their neighborhood. He stated the staff report indicates there is a move afoot that requires that all of these storage facilities be located in an industrial area and this is not an industrial area and he seems there is a plan to slip this one through before the Ordinance passes. He stated the perfect thing for Parcel 2 is an open green space and suggested the developers buy it and donate it to the City as a park. Another thing that is alarming to him is its deceptive on the height of the buildings along Solomon; that it has been presented that they have a 10-foot wall across the back and in reading the plans, those are from 20 to 35 feet tall. Block walls attract graffiti and he knows because he cleans graffiti off the neighborhood periodically himself. He thought that would be a major problem. Concerning lighting and noise, he stated there will be some 50-foot signs and it would take a really tall house to be able to look over those and miss them. They will see signs and they will have lights on them which will reflect into their neighborhood. They will hear noise from that area. Another area of concern is a note on staffs plans that any plans for neon building trim shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for Commission review and stated he certainly hoped there are no plans for neon building trim in this location because this is not an appropriate place for that. He stated he would ask about the maintenance of the areas along Solomon and stated currently at the end of Solomon there is a City easement which has had the sprinklers broken for 1-1/2 years and it is never maintained. Now there will be a wide strip of grass and landscaping and he would like to make sure that it gets maintained properly, trimmed, mowed, watered and all the trash picked up and the graffiti removed. He added again he would like to have the opportunity to convey these plans and these messages to his neighbors and get their input to the Commission. Chairman Bostwick: Referred to Page 6 of the staff report, under No. 17, and stated it shows the self- storage buildings as 11-1/2 feet high and asked about the 35-foot height mentioned. Applicant's Rebuttal: Gary Wiggle: Responded that it looked like building E which could potentially be that tall which is in the interior of the project. In looking at the map, it would be the upper left hand building, Chairman Bostwick: Asked if it is in the inside away from Solomon Street. Gary Wiggle: He explained at the meeting that at Solomon Street was a 10 foot vertical wall which is a building wall with residential style sloping roofs. The way Solomon works is that the first block has no houses facing the site, the next block has seven house facing site, middle building along that area has highest sloping roofs because there are two 2-story houses. One of the owners of the houses wanted to make sure that when he looked across the street he could see trees and developers roof. The owner 03-30-98 Page 77 measured his eye level it's 17 feet off of his front yard. The top of roof in the sloping area is 22 feet, the vertical side wall averages 10 feet, Solomon slopes, and the field is below Solomon so they're building back up so that the landscape area falls with Solomon the whole distance. The buildings are stepped with the street. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if there was a basement making it three evels. Gary Wiggle: They are proposing to put underground level in three of the buildings but it is subterranean and doesn't change the height of the building. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if it was a three story structure. Gary Wiggle: Responded by saying no, that from grade the building does not change whether or not they are putting something underneath it. It is a maximum of 2 if you count the one at grade and the full basement. Chairman Bostwick: Stated that subject of trees and divider came up in the morning's meeting. Mr. Jack Kudron from Parks and Recreation explained that they would be required to put four trees to every one that is removed in the median. He asked if he planned to follow that. Gary Wiggle: Responded that was corrected. Their plan to follow the City requirement. Chairman Bostwick: Asked him to explain the traffic mitigation on the signal at Solomon, improvements to the intersection at Via Cortez, the signalization and the coordination. Gary Wiggle: Responded that he could give the aesthetics and mechanics of it and that Joe Faust could give him technical issues. There is currently a signal design on file with City for Solomon. Alfred showed him the plans and they are simply writing a check to pay for the signal there at Solomon. They are widening Via Cortez for it is length of their property by 20 feet into their area. In addition, as the intersection approaches Santa Ana Canyon, it is being turned over to be a perpendicular intersection which takes the center line of South Via Cortez and directly lines it up with the center line of the intersection on their side of Santa Ana Canyon. They are creating a double left turn pocket coming eastbound on Santa Ana Canyon which will be a double left in, and they have three or four in-bound lanes on Cortez, one or two of which is the free left into the neighbors center. In addition, the little pork chop is taken away and it becomes two lanes out with a stop sign allowing free movement into the existing center and left turn pocket, straight ahead lane and right turn pocket for outbound traffic. It becomes a much more typical intersection in terms of alignments and giving opposing left turn movements safe coverage for each other as they are coming out onto Santa Ana Canyon Road. In addition, Staff has asked that they resolve the gray difference between east and west bound lartes and improve and soften it out. Also, there is a 2070 state-of-the-art traffic controller that will be linked to Solomon, Cortez, Imperial Highway and they will redo traffic controls for signals all the way down do make it more flow related. Chairman Bostwick: Asked about street frontage along Santa Ana Canyon road between Solomon and Via Cortez. Gary Wiggle: Responded correct. A comment came out of the IDC meeting asking them for curbed gutters and sidewalk. They were asked at the time to make additions to the site plan, plus residents are also concerned about having an edge along the road, so they are evaluating it as weal as responding to a City condition. He is obligated under Federal Law to require ADA access from the local bus stop to the site. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if there was a pull out for the bus at that point Gary Wiggle: Responded by saying that his understanding was that the bus stop was across the street Chairman Bostwick: Asked about west bound? Gary Wiggle: Responded that they pass the intersection and pull over at the far side of the intersection 03-30-98 Page 78 Chairman Bostwick: Stated it was east of Solomon. Gary Wiggle: Stated that one of their conditions is to put a sidewalk in on the east side to get into the circulation system for the center. Chairman Bostwick: Asked for more comments Gary Wiggle: Had a couple of other comments; o In terms of notification -there have been two very descriptive articles in the Register besides the City notification with parcel number, publication in local papers, and coalition sent out approximately S00 cards. m General Plans are dynamic documents and designed to be changed to evolve. State law gives us the requirements for when review and change are to take place. ® There is no signage proposal on freeway for McDonald's. It simply the building sign that they have in their signage plan. • Maintenance of easement -they assumed that there was an association in that Solomon neighborhood which was maintaining it, when they found out there was none, they said that they would maintain the landscape easement as part of the grounds for that center and the conditions very carefully address the requirements for that easement. • Their Client has also had several meetings with the neighboring center so he knows that they are aware of all issues. Commissioner Henninger: Asked to speak to Traffic Engineer Joe Faust: Traffic Engineer with Austin Faust Associates. Remarked that the reality is that traffic counts show a decrease and improvement in the last five years on Santa Ana Canyon since Fast Track/HOV opening. It's not good on Friday, but it is better. Also, when billion dollar Foothill Eastern Corridor opens in October, we should get significant relief. It should siphon off much of the traffic from the Spectrum going to Riverside. In terms of this project, it is adding a lot of traffic to the area, but it is also adding significant mitigation to balance that. They are adding a lot of capacity to that intersection by widening Via Cortez, smoothing out the bumps, adding dual eastbound left-turn lanes, as well as providing a free left- turn lane once your on Via Cortez to get intp the center. Regarding the comment that they rushed out the supplemental study for when the lA Fitness center comes. They have been working with staff for several months and realize that Santa Ana Canyon and Imperial is a critical intersection and they have been looking at several mitigation measures, some feasible and some not to mitigate that intersection. He indicated that the City's third north bound through lane project on Imperial Highway and the addition of a right turn lane on Santa Canyon at Imperial, is a mitigation that they have built into their traffic study. The sophisticated traffic signal control system that will be implemented at Solomon and replaced controls and the control system at Imperial and Via Cortez will result in improved flow of traffic. Historically, an increase of 5 - 6% improved traffic has been the result of this type of sophisticated system. We will only be able to verify once it is installed and are able to take new traffic counts. In terms of balancing the traffic study, they are putting in the coordination system, the City is putting in some of the lane geometry and configuration at that intersection, so they only took credit for 5% of that. He expects that it will be more than that, recognizing that they would be mitigating their impact along that corridor. In summary, this project is adding traffic to the system, but they are also adding equivalent amount of capacity to the system to take care of that. A supplemental traffic study was done to determine the impact of this project. All in all they expect a probable 3% -4% change because of the balancing capacity of the system. They also looked at how much traffic was coming from the freeway and how much is "new trips". Typically a project like McDonald's or a shopping center like this relies on the existing traffic on the street for a great deal of in and out traffic. Only about a third of the traffic will be off of the freeway. Overall this project is looking at about 25% of the traffic coming from traffic that is already on that street and that is a conservative number. In reality he expects it to be more like 40% of traffic already on the street. 03-30-98 Page 79 Finally, whether this project needs and EIR or not. Essentially the traffic study methodology that they have done was prepared in a form that would be a supplemental to a negative declaration, EIR or whatever. Commissioner Henninger: Asked what the peak day is in this type of commercial development. Mr. Faust: Responded by saying that the peak day in a grocery store based center is usually Saturday afternoon. Commissioner Henninger: Asked what Mr. Faust thought this center's peak day would be? Mr, Faust: He responded that he thinks the peak day for the center will probably be Saturday, but if you talk about the peak condition, it will be existing traffic on the roadway Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, p.m. peak hour. Most traffic generated by the center will be on Saturday afternoon, certainly during Christmas. When you add Saturday traffic to the typical Saturday traffic you don't get quite the peak condition that you get on a Wednesday. On Wednesday, you'll have less than you get on Saturday, but the traffic on the street is higher than it is on a Saturday so you get a peak traffic condition. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that he obviously hasn't been out on that street very much. None of the centers will peak in the early evening from people in the hills because local traffic there is too heavy. Mr. Faust: Stated that the street traffic peaks at 5:3p. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he lives up there and knows when the street peaks. Asked what the existing levels of service there on a Saturday aftemoon. Mr. Faust: Responded that they have not measured the levels of service on Saturday aftemoon. If you compare it to weekday p.m. peak it's typically around 80%. Commissioner Henninger: He verified that they did not look at Saturday and could not answer a question as to what the center would do an a Saturday aftemoon to the existing conditions. Mr. Faust: Responded by saying no. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that he understands typical and he doesn't feel that this particular intersection and street is not a typical intersection/street. It basically a facility that is acting like a freeway, it is flowing people from Orange County to Riverside County. Mr. Faust: Stated that if the freeway is flowing well, people don't use Santa Ana Canyon and that was always the case before the Fast Track went in. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that he doesn't buy the argument of someone saying that he shouldn't let you do what you want to do because the traffic is terrible out there at 5. That's like saying that we shouldn't let anybody do anything, and give up and not have any community for ourselves. He is - interested in what the project does on a Saturday afternoon when everybody is shopping, does it create a big impact or not. It looks like you have not really looked at that. Mr. Faust: It is going to be difficult to do now because the existing levels of service are influenced by the fact that Santa Ana Canyon is closed on the western leg at this point. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that he does not have any sense that was any significant flow on Santa Ana Canyon on a Saturday afternoon. Mr. Faust: Agreed with him. Chairman Bostwick: Stated he looked at the counts in last 1996 - 97 reports and it's approximately 10,000 and from Imperial to Anaheim Hills Road is 32,000. 03-30-98 Page 80 Mr. Faust; Stated if you look over the last 3 - 4 years you'll see a relatively consistent and steady decline in the volume but it's associated with the Fast Track opening. Chairman Bostwick: Stated that for those who live there and have to drive there everyday, .it's not lighter. Mr. Faust: Stated that it might not seem like it but a few cars less in the order of 10% maybe 15 % are running across road tubes, so the counts are less. Chairman Bostwick: He stated that he has to agree that the Transportation corridor will considerably help and asked if there were any other questions from the Commission. Gary Wiggle: In regard to Mr. Brown's question about reduced traffic generators on the site. The inclusion of the mini-storage takes about 20% of the developable area on the site and basically makes it anon-traffic generator. 20% of the land has been taken out of the equation for traffic generation because the amount of trips generated by amini-storage compared to retail are virtually insignificant. Commissioner Henninger: Stated we've heard a lot of questions about traffic and hoped that he would have those answered pretty well this evening and it troubles him that we still don't know what it will do on Saturday aftemoon. He suggested that it be continued for four weeks to have study done. Chairman Bostwick: Stated that he didn't know if that was going to give us any different answer than we have. We know it's going to create more traffic, and can't help but create more traffic. Isn't sure that we can tell that in a study. If we can get coordination between three signals in a short area, it's going to improve the traffic flow. He wishes that he could get this coordination at La Patma and Cinemapolis. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Alfred Yalda what the existing condition is on a Saturday afternoon. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Division: Responded by saying that they don't have any data on it. He's been there on Saturdays and said that traffic flow on Santa Ana Canyon is pretty good but it's heavy on Imperial. He advised that they could get some counts there but thought that they would show levels of service being C or D for Saturday aftemoon. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if he knew the impact of this new development. Alfred Yalda: Responded that he thinks that it will still be C or D and that they could have the level of service determined at Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road then add the trips generated by this center for Saturday and see what impact it's going to have. Mr. Brown: Wanted to respond to Mr. Faust. Chairman Bostwick: Advised that they already had the public hearing and they don't do that unless there is a question. _ _. Mr. Brown: He thought it was a matter of fairness to respond to his statement. Commissioner Henninger: Advised the process works by taking putilic hearing, then allow the applicant to make presentation, make public hearing, then a rebuttal. Public hearing is now closed and that they were discussing this among themselves. Male voice from audience: Asked about the neon lighting. Gary Wiggle: Said that it wasn't proposed but the condition says that if it is proposed it has to come back for review. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Indicated that the neighbors asked about the treatment on Santa Ana Canyon Road Between Via Cortez and Solomon and also inquired about sidewalks on Solomon Drive. The City did a study on Imperial Highway to Weir Canyon, and at that time a soft shoulder bermed area, but that was assuming that it was going to be developed in accordance with the current General Plan which calls for low medium residential and would have no entrances and 03-30-98 Page 81 exists mid-block as proposed in this development. So the proposal in front of them was quite different than what was studied before. It is possible to get some of the soft edge treatment but given that there is a curb return right at Solomon, one mid-block and one at Via Cortez won't have that same look and feel that you would have had with the residential development. Also, original plan did not have a sidewalk on that side and when it was designated as residential the pedestrian path was on the south side of the street for that entire neighborhood so now this changes the whole flavor of Santa Ana Canyon .Road. We could go with some kind of modified pedestrian path on that side but they need another to chance to look at it if they are going to continue it. As far as Solomon Drive, there are two options one it if the applicant is going with today's proposal there is no need for sidewalks, they could advertise a waiver of Code Section 18.04.080.020 or request a sidewalk waiver from the City Engineer at future date. Chairman Bostwick: Responded by saying that if you ask for a sidewalk on that side, then more trees have to come out. Suggested making a condition that there is no sidewalk and obtain a waiver from the Engineering Department. Alfred Yalda: Indicated that on the Santa Ana side it could be landscaped in the front and four feet of sidewalk in the back between Solomon Drive and Via Cortez. Commissioner Henninger: Asked what was ultimately planned sidewalk wise on Santa Ana Canyon? Melanie Adams: Responded that it wouldn't be a sidewalk area the riding and hiking trail would be more substantial so pedestrians and people with disabilities could move along well on that trail. It would be more of a crushed material rather than a traditional sidewalk. Chairman Bostwick: Offered a motion for CEQA Negative Declaration. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Wanted some clarification on the negative declaration. It was her understanding that it was advertised as a Mitigated Negative Declaration, that the notice filed with the County was for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and she requested that it be a Mitigated Negative Declaration because there was a misunderstanding that since the mitigation measures for traffic were placed as conditions of approval of the project that it was not necessary to indicate them on a Mitigation Monitoring Plan. However, those traffic mitigation measures have been prepared into a Mitigation Monitoring Plan and she requested that if he was moving toward approval of the project that it be made subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Chairman Bostwick; Offered a motion for a Mitigated CEQA Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. Chairman Bostwick: Offered a resolution approving and recommending to the City Council General Plan Amendment No. 343. It's a resolution and a button vote. Maggie Soloric, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Resolution passed with 6 yes votes.:. _ _. Chairman Bostwick: Offered a resolution for Reclassification No. 97-98-11. It's a button vote. Maggie Solorio: Resolution passed with 6 yes votes. Chairman Bostwick: Offered a resolution approving the revision to Santa Ana Canyon Road access point study exhibit no. 7. It's a resolution and a button vote. Maggie Solorio .Resolution passed with 6 yes votes. Chairman Bostwick: Offered a motion for a waiver of code requirement, approving waivers A through H, seconded by Commissioner l3oydstun and motion was carried. Chairman Bostwick: Offered a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 4005, changing Condition No. 18 that there will be no sidewalk installed on the west side of Solomon Street and that applicant will request a waiver for sidewalk from the Engineering Department and that there will be a sidewalk. 03-30-98 Page 82 Commissioner Henninger: Commented that they hadn't heard the Engineering Departments comments about widening the street. Does it need to be widened? Melanie Adams: Responded and said no, but wanted to add on a relinquishing vehicular access rights to the City. Commission Henninger: Make a condition relinquishing vehicular access rights, leave the street as it is, no sidewalk and petition the Engineering Department for relief of the sidewalk. Chairman Bostwick: Added that 24 needed to correct typo to a 10 foot radius. Condition 43 that an 8 foot high decorative block wall should be constructed where there is not a building. He wanted 8 foot instead of 6 foot because he feels 6 foot is an attractive nuisance. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that it would be connecting the buildings. Chairman Bostwick: Stated that it will look like part of the wall surface than a block wall. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if item 40, where they are bringing the pedestrian focal points back as a Reports and Recommendation, could be done prior to the issuance of a grading permit? Greg Hastings; Responded that it was timed before issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Henninger: Advised to do it before a grading permit. Also asked about 38, asked if he meant it that way or wanted only in areas where there was diminished landscape that would require a 3 foot berm. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Responded yes, that item 38 should add that it is applicable to landscape areas less than 20 feet wide. Commissioner Henninger: Didn't quite understand the discussion on item 51 and asked about wall with sign. Greg Hastings: Suggested that wording be that landscape setback at the southwest corner of the property should be bermed to reduce the visual height of the proposed 42" high wall for the freestanding sign and screen wall to a maximum of 36". It would be a very small berm. Chairman Bostwick: Stated that Condition No. 15 regarding the sidewalk between Via Cortez and Solomon is appropriate to leave as is. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that self storage is major part of the commitment that was made to the community and feels that a building permit for the self-storage should be issued first so that we don't get in a situatign where the shopping center gets built and there is no self storage, then someone confronts us with an unacceptable alternate plan to the people. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if we could make a condition for it. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested that there be a condition that states that there is no occupancy until the self storage is complete. He also questioned the hours of operation both for businesses and signage. He felt that an all night drive through restaurant is unnecessary and should probably close from midnight until 6. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if they could open until midnight weekdays and 1:00 p.m. on weekends. Commissioner Henninger: Responded that it would be acceptable far 1:00 p.m. on weekends. He also asked about signs being turned off at midnight and asked if there was already a condition for it. Greg Hastings: Advised that there is a standard code requirement that lights should be turned off between midnight to 6:30 a.m, throughout the Canyon. He suggested exempting the McDonald's. 03-30-g8 Page 83 Commissioner Henninger: Said that the McDonald's sign should same hours as their hours of business operation. Cheryl Flores: Asked the Chairman about adding a condition requiring compliance with Mitigation Monitoring Plan 103 which is in draft form and includes Conditions 12, 13, 14 and 16 shown in the staff report. Chairman Bostwick: This is a Resolution and button vote. Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Resolution passed with 6 yes votes. Chairman Bostwick: Offered a motion approving Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 98-01, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. Chairman Bostwick: Lastly, there was a motion to request City Council review on items 13a, 13c, 13d, 13e, 13f, and 13g, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was approved. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: This matter will be set for a hearing before the City Council. Reminded Mr. Chairman that some the items that will be coming back to the Planning Commission will be a Reportsand Recommendation item and there will be no separate notice to residence. She advised residents to make a specific request for that notice to the Planning :Department then they can be notified of the Report and Recommendation item. OPPOSITION: 8 people spoke in opposition/correspondence was received ACTION: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration Recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 353 to Ctry Council Granted Reclassification No. 97-98-11 Approved Revision to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study -Exhibit 7 Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4005 with the following changes to conditions: Deleted Condition Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 25 because they became mitigation measures. Modified Condition Nos. 24, 38, 40, 43 and 51 to read as follows: - -~ 24. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137 pertaining to sight distance visibility for the sign or wall/fence location and ten (10) foot radius curb returns for all driveways. 38. That minimum 3-foot high bermed landscape setbacks shall be provided and maintained along Via Cortez, Santa Ana Canyon Road, Solomon Drive and the Riverside Freeway. This shall be applicable where landscape areas are less than 20 feet wide. 40. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, gathering places and seating areas shall be provided throughout the development to encourage pedestrian activity. Said areas shall be identified on the building plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 03-30-98 Page 84 43. That an 8-foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed adjacent to Solomon Drive, except where building walls will serve as screening of the property from Solomon Drive. Said wall shall maintain an 80-foot setback from the Santa Ana Canyon Road right-of--way and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 51. That the landscaped setback at the southwest corner of the property shall be bermed to reduce the visual height of the proposed 42-inch high wall for the freestanding sign and screen wall to a maximum of 36-inches. Such information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Added the following conditions: That prior to issuance of any building permits for the balance of the property, the self- storage facility building permits shall have been :issued and construction of the self- storage facility commenced. That the fast food restaurant shall be limited to the hours of 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. on weekdays, and 6 a.m. to 1 a.m. on weekends. Said hours shall apply to the lighting of the signage on the fast-food restaurant. That the developer shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigation measures within the assigned time frames and any direct costs associated with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 103 as established by the City of Anaheim and as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation of those identified mitigation measures. ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.84.038.050, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Specimen Tree Removal No. 98-01 to remove 29 (advertised as 50) specimen (Eucalyptus) trees on the basis that a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the trees are located requires removal of the trees whose removal is sought, and that for every specimen tree removed, two specimen trees shall be planted from the specified list in the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone. ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Council review CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration, Reclassification No. 97-98-11, Revision to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study -Exhibit 7, Waiver of Code Requirement, Conditional Use Permit No. 4005, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 91-01. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this matter will be set for public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 hours and 6 minutes (8:24-10:30) 03-30-98 Page 85 14a. CEQA GENERAL RULE-EXEMPTION P 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4011 OWNER: John P. Butler, 19542 Sierra Canon Road, Irvine, CA 92612-3803 AGENT: Bill Reinhardt, 5405 Alton Parkway, #5A, Irvine, CA 92604 LOCATION: 1177 South State College Boulevard. Units A4 and A5. Daddy's Piua. Pasta and Salads. Properly is 0.72 acre located at the southwest corner of Almont Avenue and State College Boulevard. To permit and retain an existing arcade for up to 10 amusement devices. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-44 Concurred Granted FOLLOWING ~I3=A SUMMAR-Y bF THE,P,LANNING;COMMIS§ION ACTION.,: . Applicant was not present] THE PUBLIC fiEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: Nane ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA General Rule-Exemption No. 15061(b)(3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4011 VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (10:31-10:32) 03-30-98 Page 86 15b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 355 Request for Withdrawal (4-27-98 15c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98.15 15d. WAIVER OF CODE.REQUIREMENT 15e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4009 OWNER: Lincoln-Beach Associates, L:P., 14011 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 404, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 AGENT: Jordan-Valli Architects, Attn: Patrick Crowley, 34700 Pacific Coast Highway, #202, Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 LOCATION: 2951-2961 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 3.0 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 300 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. General Plan Amendment No. 355 - To redesignate subject property from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. Reclassification No. 97-97.15 - To reclassify subject property from RM-1200 Zone to the CL Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4009 - To construct a 74,593 square foot self-storage facility with a caretaker's unit and an outdoor recreation vehicle storage lot with waiver of minimum structural setback. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6554DS.DOC FOLLOWING IS"A SUMMARY---OF THE PLANNING:COMMISSION`ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION:- Continued subject request to the April 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the applicant to address staff concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-30-98 Page 87 16a. 16b. OWNER: Sav-on Realty, Inc., P.O. Box 27447, Salt Lake City, Utah 84127 AGENT: The Muller Company, 100 Pacifica, Suite 350, Irvine, CA 92618 LOCATION: 1500 South Anaheim Boulevard and 300 East Cerritos Avenue. Property is 18.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. Waivers of (a) minimum structural and landscape setback, (b) permitted encroachment in setback area, (c) minimum parking lot landscaping and (d) required improvement of right-of-way to construct a 271,775 square foot industrial building in conjunction with the demolition of one existing industrial building and the renovation of one existing industrial building. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 4-13-98 OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-30-98 Page 88 17a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 17b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 356 17c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-18 17d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-171 17e. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 77a. 17c and 17d OWNER: Savi Ranch Associates, A General Partnership, Attn: William Krum, 2485 Natomas Park Drive, #350, Sacramento, CA 95833 AGENT: Michael E. Balsamo, 567 San Nicolas Drive, #208, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 8015-8095 East Crystal Drive. Property is 21.62 acres located on the west side of Pullman Street, 38 feet west of the centerline of Crystal. To redesignate this property from the General Commercial land use designation to the General Industrial land use designation. Reclassification No. 97-98-16 - to reclassify this property from the CL(SC) Zone to the ML(SC) Zone. Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-171 to establish a 13-lot industrial subdivision for the development of a 12- unit industrial complex. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-45 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-46 Approved Rec. adoption to CC Granted Approved Approved Applicant's Statement: Mike Balsamo from Clifford Companies at 567 San Nicholas Drive, Newport Beach, CA: Thanked staff and Kevin Bass. Asking approval of 12 building industrial park away from any residential land uses. Agrees with conditions proposed by staff report except for Condition No. 3-b which prohibits outdoor storage, work and displays. Project is currently speculative, no tenants yet and they do not have a specific outdoor storage proposal at this time but would like to request that outdoor storage not be prohibited completely but subject to future review and approval from the Community Development Department. They understand that it would have to comply with all City codes, be screened and not be visible to anyone. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if anyone wanted to speak on this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cheryl Flores, Senior.Planner: Recommended that Condition No. 3, page 10 of the staff report be revised (see ACTION on page 94 below for modified wording of Condition No. 3]. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested that maybe they should leave this commercial because there was a lot of industrial area in the Canyon. He did not think outdoor storage was appropriate. Chairman Bostwick: Advised that storage needs to be built into the building due to past problems. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion for a CEQA Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion was carried. 03-30-98 Page 89 Commissioner Henninger: Offered a resolution recommending to City Council to approve General Plan Amendment No. 356. Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Resolution was passed with 6 yes votes. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a resolution approving Reclassification No. 97-98-16 and keeping the outdoor storage language the way it was proposed by staff. Maggie Solorio: Resolution passed with 6 yes votes. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-171, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and motion was carried. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion that the City Council :review items 17c and 17d, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration. Recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 356 to the City Council. Granted Reclassification No. 97-98-16. Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-171 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: 3. That prior to final parcel map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & R's), and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and Public Works Department. Said documents, as approved, shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant shall then be submitted to the Zoning Division. In addition, provisions shall be made in the covenant to (a) establish an association to guarantee that the entire complex shall be managed and maintained as one (1) integral parcel for purposes of parking, vehicular circulation, signage, maintenance and landscaping, and land usage and architectural control, (b) prohibit outdoor storage, work and displays, (c) require roof-mounted equipment to be screened from view from the Riverside freeway and Santa Ana River channel and painted to match the roof, (d) require final site plan and landscape plan reviews by the City of Anaheim Planning and Community Development Departments prior to the issuance of building permits, (e) comply with Ordinance No. 5209 and Resolution No. 91 R-89 relating to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) by providing on-site taxi and shuttle bus loading zones, and by joining and financially participating in the Anaheim Canyon Business Center and Clean Fuel Shuttle Program and by installing bicycle racks as required by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, (f) prohibit wall signage to be oriented towards the Riverside (91) freeway and the Santa Ana River channel, and that the covenant shall be referenced in all deeds transferring all or any part of the interest in the property. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Council review CEQA Negative Declaration, Reclassification No. 97-98-16 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-171. 03-30-98 Page 90 VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this matter will be set for public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minuets (10:32-10:40) Adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to Monday, April 13, 1998 at 10:30 a.m. for Preliminary Plan Review and a workshop on the Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) for the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion. Prepared by: Ossie Edmundson, Senior Secretary Simonne Fannin, Senior Office Speci7/a1l/i~s`it Daniell~~~~/ lll~I Word Processing Operator ~~Q~J sv~fu$' Maggie a Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor P,d~ Glady as~~'t 03-30-98 Page 91