Loading...
Minutes-PC 1998/04/13SUMMARY ACTION AGEN®A CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COM ISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998 10:30 A.M. WORKSHOP ON THE NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (NCCP/HCP) FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL AND COASTAL SUBREGION ° STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY BRISTOL -CHAIRMAN PRO-TEMPORE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES, PERAZA ABSENT: BOSTWICK ONE VACANT SEAT - - STAFF PRESENT: Malcom Slaughter Cheryl Flores Linda Johnson Don Yourstane Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Gary Wilder Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Danielle Masciel Simonne Fannin Deputy City Attorney Senior Planner Senior Planner Sr. Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Fire Marshal Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary Word Processing Operator Senior Office Specialist 04-13-98 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 2 TO AMEND THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. City of Anaheim {Planning Department Staff), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805, requests Planning Commission to initiate Specific Plan Adjustment No. 2 to amend The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 Zoning and Development Standards. The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan area is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) between Ball Road and Katella Avenue (with approximately 24.7 acres located south of Katetla Avenue) and east of Walnut Street. ACTION: Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate Specific Plan Adjustment No. 2 to amend The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 Zoning and Development Standards. Initiated adjustment to Specific Plan No. 92-1 Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, Planning Department; Stated this is a request for Planning Commission to initiate a Specific Plan Adjustment for the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan which would affect the District A and CR Overlay properties and would bring consistency between the Disneyland Resort Specific Ptan and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Adjustments will be brought to the next Planning Commission meeting as well as adjustment to the Anaheim Resort Specific document. _. 04-13-98 Page 2 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3391 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Frank Nobles, 1180 South Belhaven Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3391 (to expand a board and care facility from six to ten residents with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces). Property is located at 1180 South Belhaven Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-47 No discussion. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.399 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Brookhurst Shopping Center, Attn: Arnold D. Feverstein, General Partner, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 399 (to establish a Mexican restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption). Property is located at 905 South Brookhurst Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98.48 No discussion. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1041 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Brookhurst Shopping Center, Attn: Arnold D. Feverstein, General Partner, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1041 (to establish awalk-up restaurant). Property is located at 2293 West Ball Road. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-49 No discussion. 04-13-98 Page 3 E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1220 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Brookhurst Shopping Center, Attn: Arnold D. Feverstetn, General Partner, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1220 (to permit sales and of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption in a cocktail lounge). Property is located at 2221 West Ball Road. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-50 No discussion. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 982 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Brookhurst Shopping Center, Attn: Arnold D. Feverstein, General Partner, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92604, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 982 (to permit sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption in conjunction within an existing restaurant). Property is located at 2219 and 2221 West Ball Road. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-51 No discussion. 04-13-98 Page 4 G. REVIEW AND INITIATION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION Commission's POLICY FOR SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES. City of Anaheim recommendation to (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA be submitted to City 92805, requests Commission review and consideration of a Council at a future draft policy, prior to its finalization and initiation as a date Commission policy pertaining to self-storage facilities. Commissioner Henninger: Indicated policy listed in paragraph 3 was discussed last time and thought they could amend it slightly by being more definitive about the uses having both development standards and architecture that is appropriate to their surroundings. They used to be thought of as temporary uses but most are permanent uses and need to fit in with their direct neighborhood. He suggested adding language that made that it plain. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested inserting a clause stressing that we will not be giving variances on landscaping or setbacks. Commissioner Henninger: Agreed and advised adding it to paragraph 3 and that it would be an appropriate policy. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: Asked if Commission wanted to add anything about cargo containers under this policy? Commissioner Henninger: Said this comes with meeting their surroundings.. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate and recommend adoption to the City Council of the following policy for self-storage facilities: Self-storage facilities shall continue to be permitted in the CL (Commercial, Limited), ML (Limited Industrial) and MH (Heavy Industrial) Zones subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The unique and opportune design features of self-storage facilities are most appropriate for irregularly-shaped properties which may further be constrained by accessibility or visibility and which may not be suitable for conventional types of development. These types of properties are found in both commercial and industrial zones and, provided the architecture of the facility is enhanced, appropriate and compatible with its surrounding land uses, and the facility in compliance with all landscaping and setback requirements set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code, self- storage facilities should be conditionally permitted in either zone. 04-13-98 Page 5 G. REVIEW AND INITIATION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION Commission's POLICY FOR SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES. City of Anaheim recommendation to (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA be submitted to City 92805, requests Commission review and consideration of a Council at a future draft policy, prior to its finalization and initiation as a date Commission policy pertaining to self-storage facilities. SR1015CF.DOC Commissioner Henninger: Indicated policy listed in paragraph 3 was discussed last time and thought they could amend it slightly by being more definitive about the uses having both development standards and architecture that is appropriate to their surroundings. They used to be thought of as temporary uses but most are permanent uses and need to fit in with their direct neighborhood. He suggested adding language that made that it plain. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested inserting a clause stressing that we will not be giving variances on landscaping or setbacks. Commissioner Henninger: Agreed and advised adding it to paragraph 3 and that it would be an appropriate policy. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: Asked if Commission wanted to add anything about cargo containers under this policy? Commissioner Henninger: Said this comes with meeting their surroundings ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a moticn, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate and recommend adoption to the City Council of the following policy for self-storage facilities: Self-storage facilities shall continue to be permitted in the CL (Commercial, Limited), ML (Limited Industrial) and MH (Heavy Industrial) Zones subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The unique and opportune design features of self-storage facilities are most appropriate for irregularly-shaped properties which may further be constrained by accessibility or visibility and which may not be suitable for conventional types of development. These types of properties are found in both commercial and industrial zones and, provided the architecture of the facility is enhanced, appropriate and compatible with its surrounding land uses, and the facility in compliance with all landscaping and setback requirements set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code; self- storage facilities should be conditionally permitted in either zone. 04-13-98 Page 5 H. a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -SECTION 15307 b. CENTRAL AND COASTAL SUBREGION NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLANIHABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (NCCPIHCP)IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT: Request by the County of Orange for the City of Anaheim to enter into the Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement. The NCCP/HCP Project area encompasses approximately 208,000 acres within the central portion of the County of Orange, including the eastern portion of the City of Anaheim's Hill and Canyon area (approximately 9,400 acres). ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby, find that the action is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15307 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that it approve the City of Anaheim's participation in the Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Program (NCCP/HCP) and authorize the Mayor to enter into the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement on behalf of the City based upon the benefits to the City set forth in Item No. 1-H, paragraph (12) of the Staff .Report to the Planning Commission dated April 13, 1998. Concurred w/staff Recommended approval of agreement to the City Council Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, Planning Department: This item is a request for the Ciry of Anaheim to participate in the Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan, a comprehensive multi-species habitat preservation and restoration program which encompasses 208,000 acres within the central portion of the County of Orange, including 9,400 acres within the City of Anaheim's eastern hill and canyon area. Staff gave Planning Commission a presentation on the program at the morning's workshop and presentation is further described in a staff report provided to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by motion, recommend to the City Council that it approves Anaheim's participation in the NCCP/HCP based upon the benefits to the City outlined in paragraph 12 of the staff report. Staff as well as Tim Neely from the County of Orange is available if there are any questions. Commissioner Peraza: Asked how the Fire Department felt about this. Gary Wilder, Fire Marshall, Anaheim Fire Department: Stated they have been working with the Orange County Fire Authority on an operational plan for this project. It looks like it is going to work out fine for the fire protection in the canyon area. 04-13-98 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 352 Recommended approval of GPA 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-09 352, Exhibit A to,City Council 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Granted, unconditionally 2e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4000 Approved, in part 2f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15610 (REVISION NO. 21 Granted, in part 2g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF Approved 2a. 2c..2d 2e and 2f Approved 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, (c) minimum structural setback abutting one-family residential developments, and (d) minimum private street standards. Tentative Tract Map No. 15610 (Revision No. 2): To establish a 68- lot, (including 6 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, March 16, and March 30, 1998. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-52 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-53 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-54 SR6557DS 04-13-98 Page 7 ,.,,;FOLLOWING IS%\'SUMMQRY,;.l1F=THE PLANNING CbMMISSION %XCTION ,., .,, ,' "`- Applicant's Statement Kerry Choppin, The Olson Company, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 200, Seal Beach, CA 90740: Stated they asked for a continuance two weeks ago to redesign the site in order to put sidewalk on one side of the roadway in the development and have been able to accomplish that and believes that the staff is in concurrence with this in their staff report. He thanked Mr. Henninger for the suggestion to include the sidewalk. According to the staff report it was approved and we now meet the ordinance. Public Testimony: Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA: Stated she is with the WAND group and wondered what the Olson Company has taken out to put in the sidewalks. She understands that they are taking out property from the backyards. Does that then give them enough recreation space? She has not had a chance to look over the report. Also, there was a comment made in the paper last time that this project is typical of what is in this particular area. There are 10 homes to an acre, 9.6 and the property next door Lynnhaven has the same concentration and there is one down the street. Actually properties in this area are not that concentrated. There have been quite a few built on the west side of Brcokhurst along Orange Avenue which are less concentrated. They have a concern with the concentration of homes in this area. They feel that there are too many and a few should be taken out. She is not sure what the applicant has removed in order to put the sidewalks in. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Division: Stated they are still having three homes with the 18 feet in front of the garages and the minimum dimensions they have is 20 feet by 20 feet. He want to bring this to the Commission's attention that they did not take care of all the problems. There are still three homes that have less than 20 feet in front. They recommend that Commission require the applicant to take a look at it or make some changes to the plans. Kerry Choppin: Stated to that last comment, that was discussed two weeks ago and they did make the comment that it was a very tight site. They were down to only three out of the 60 that were at 18 feet, and had roll-up garages for those particular units. The other item brought up by Esther Wallace wondering what did they removed in order to put the sidewalk in. As suggested by Commissioner Henninger, they had setback along the south property line more than had been required. They were at 30 feet so they have taken 8 feet out. They have worked with staff on the open space and rear yard that was required by the City and believe that they still comply with that. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked about the roll-up doors on the three units, are they not putting roll-up doors on all of your garages? Kerry Choppin: There are roll-ups on all of them. Commissioner Henninger: Stated they have been a long way on this project, had a lot of waivers to begin with and those have been reduced down and probably works now. Discussion during the action: Commissioner Henninger: Recommended adding a condition to Conditional Use Permit No. 4000 that all the garages will have roll-up doors. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Commented to Mrs. Wallace and the concerned residents. There is a lot of thought about their concerns and a lot of discussions with this applicant and others. The applicant could have built more in the density. We were very cautious in trying to make sure that the neighborhood was not given more properties as they have been unduly given in the past. 04-13-98 Page 8 OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns ACTION:: APPROVED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 352, EXHIBIT A, TO THE CITY COUNCIL. General Plan Amendment Resolution Vote: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) GRANTED RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-09, UNCONDITIONALLY. Reclassification Resolution Vote: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) APPROVED, IN PART, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AS FOLLOWS: Approved Waivers (a), (c) and (d) and denied Waiver (b) on the basis that it was deleted following public notification. Vote: 4-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no, Commissioner Bostwick absent, and one vacant seat) GRANTED, IN PART, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.4000 WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDED CONDITION: That all garages shall have roll-up doors. Condition No. 7 was modified by staff to read as follows: That clothes washer and dryer hookups shall be incorporated into the garage or living area for each dwelling unit and shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Vote: 4-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no, Commissioner Bostwick absent, and one vacant seat) APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15610 (Revision No. 2) to establish a 68-lot, (including 8 lettered lots and 60 residential lots) subdivision for a detached RM-3000 condominium development. Requested Council review of Reclassification No. 97-98-09, Conditional Use Permit No. 4000 and Tentative Tract Map No. 15610 in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 352. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated this item will be set for a public hearing before the City. Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (1:45-1:50) 04-13-98 Page 9 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 615 (READVERTISED) 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 fire sales and service facility. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 8, 1997, and January 5, March 2, and March 30, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-55 Concurred w/staff Amended conditions of approval -for 1 yr. (To expire 4-13-99) (The applicant was not present.) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Code Enforcement Division: Stated the applicant has come a long way in coming into compliance and the conditions as modified would be acceptable to Code Enforcement. OPPOSITION: None ACTION:- Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 21, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and ts, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Amended Resolution No. 1307, Series 1964-65 adopted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 615 to retain an existing fire sales and service facility with the following conditions of approval: 10. That there shall be no outdoor work or outdoor storage or display (including hubcaps mounted to the building exterior) on the property, however, tires may be stored between the two buildings provided that the area is fenced and painted to match the existing buildings. No storage shall be permitted above the fence line. 11. That the asphalt parking area shall be maintained in good condition at all times. 04-13-98 Page 10 12. That the 15-foot landscape setback area along Fahrion Place shall be maintained and refurbished as needed, and further that minimum 1-gallon size vines shall be planted on maximum 3-foot centers adjacent to the fence to screen said fence from the view of Fahrion Place. 13. That a minimum of three (3) minimum 15-gallon size broad headed rees and minimum 1-gallon size vines on maximum 3-foot centers shall be planted, irrigated and maintained in the on-site landscape planter adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. Said trees shall be in addition to, or in place of the small trees currently planted on the property. 14. That the chain link fence adjacent to the residentially zoned property to the southwest shall not exceed 6 feet in height. 15. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 16. That no materials shall be stored or kept on the roof of the existing buildings. 17. That the property owner shall pay the cost of Code Enforcement inspections once each month for the first six (6) months, if needed, from the date of this resolution, and as often as necessary thereafter until the subject property is brought into compliance, or as deemed necessary by the City's Code Enforcement Division to gain and/or maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations.. 18. That subject use permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of this resolution, on April 13, 1999. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (1:50-1:52) 04-13-98 Page 11 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continu 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-10 5-11-98 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-A-43,000 (Residential/ Agricultural) and the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone, Continued from the Commission meetings of January 5, January 21, March 16 and March 30, 1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. e • s e • e Applicant's Statement: John Dallah, 17380 Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886: Stated this was continued from the last meeting to show how he would be able to develop the property. He made the following comments regarding the staff report: • Page 1 - He would like to attach the area map on that one when Planning Commission is making their decision. • Page 2, Item No. 7 -Requested to combine parcels I and 2 as a single lot. • Page 3, Item No. 17 - He requested this item be deleted. It's a study that was cited and still ongoing, it has not been completed. The City Council has not voted on it as yet. • Page 4, Item No. 18 -Parcel 1 and parcel 2 will be combined as a single lot. • Page 4, Item No. 20a (Recommendation) -They have provided additional amendments to the Planning Commission to approve this. • • Item 20b -2 - He has already commented that this study is still ongoing and should not be used in this instance. • Item 20b-3, the size and shape would allow the parcel to be developed and they are requesting about 1 or 2 waivers in order to complete the building. 0 • Going back on item 20b -5, the parcel will not be landlocked because the 2 parcels will be combined. • Condition Nos. - 1, 5 and 9 - be deleted due to the reasons they have given above. Especially Condition No. 5, they do not have enough land to dedicate to the City because they need to meet the 04-13-98 Page 12 development requirements and also the code setbacks and requirements. The City has no funds or plans within the next five years to widen Lincoln Avenue.. So at this time the dedication is appropriate. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: You are indicating that you want to combine the entire strip of the easement? Mr. Dallah: Yes. Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: It separated before, but now does the applicant wants it all one strip plus the one home? Mr. Dallah: Yes, as one single lot. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if two lots have been combined? Mr. Dallah: Lots 1429 and 1433 are going to be combined. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if he is going to split the strip? Mr. Dallah: Responded he was not going to stripe that as of this time. He is requesting 190 feet to allow for the parking up to the commercial zoning area. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how many lots does that take him back? Mr. Dallah: Responded it will take him back one lot up to the boundary of the commercial zoning on the west side. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if he going to split the back part into a separate lot? Mr. Datlah: Responded no, it is going to be one lot. He is moving just in case of code violation to have the 190 zone commercial so he can have parking. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Asked if he is still leaving the other 400 feet which would still have the landlock situation? Mr. Dallah: Responded it's going to be one parcel, it's not landlocked as it is now. Commissioner Boydstun: It is doubled zoned. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: He has two different zones, he is saying two different zones. Mr. Dallah: Asked if it would it be better to split it towards the alley? Commissioner Boydstun: They can not have one lot with two different zones? How do they designate which part is which? Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney: The legal description in the ordinance of resolution would precisely describes what the outlines are for the zones that's being applied to whatever portion it is that is being referenced. It certainly is not common, he has not seen it used much around here, but he did not know of anything that prohibits it. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Staffs comment on page 5 that creating a landlock parcel or split zone parcel is not appropriate to achieve full and adequate development of this area to the 400 feet. According to staff there is no interest by the adjacent property owner to buy this land.. It does not seem to be the right place for his use. 04-13-98 .Page 13 Mr. Dallah: Eventually if he is able to buy more of the adjacent properties in the back, to have them all as one parcel, then down the road if he is able to acquire more property on the single family resident he can split the lot. In this case it will not be landlocked because there will be two parcels as one lot. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if he meant that he hopes that the neighbors on Birch and Cedar will buy that from him to expand their backyard? Mr. Dallah: Yes, down the road he will try to sell it to them. The properties on that side is up for sale. He might try to buy it in order to subdivide the property and divide between the commercial and the residential. Commissioner Boydstun: He is not willing to do the dedication for the street widening? Mr. Dallah: What really happened with the dedication on Lincoln is that they do not have enough setbacks, utilities, overhead lights on south and north of the street so it puts him in a bind. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Melanie Adams how wide is that street? Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Responded she did not have the current width would have to look that up. They would not object to deleting the condition of approval concerning dedication given the fact that he is not proposing any new construction at this time. However any new construction would need to meet setback requirements from the ultimate right-of-way, which is 60 feet from the center line. Commissioner Boydstun: Explained to Mr. Dallah that 60 feet from the center line is the ultimate setback, to be able to pull bpth building permits he would have to do that. Mr. Dallah: Alright but as long as he won't dedicate, that is fine. Commissioner Boydstun: When he builds then he would have to dedicate it to get the building permits. He does not have to do it now until he is ready to develop it. Mr. Dallah: Asked whether the City has a 10-year planning on the widening of the street? Is that alright not to dedicate at this time? Commissioner Boydstun: At this time yes, but when he goes to pull his building permits then he will have to dedicate it to get his building permits. Mr. Dallah: Asked if it will requires some code waivers and setback waivers, can he come back at that time to have the waivers. Commissioner Boydstun: He could request it but she did not think Commission will grant those waivers Melanie Adams: Explained the setback waiver will have to come back before Commission to make a decision if he submits a waiver application. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney: Keep in mind that whether the dedication is actually given to the City or not, the City hasn't accepted it. The setback requirements are measured from the ultimate right-of- way line. Theoretically, if the applicant came in for a permit he would have to setback and measure from the 60 feet even if the dedication had not yet been made. So there are two separate and distinct considerations. Mr. Datlah: He would agree to a setback of 20 feet without a dedication, that would give him use of the property for something. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated the setback is 60 feet from the center line not from the property line 04-13-98 Page 14 Mr. Dallah: That would be fine as long as the property is not dedicated, so he can still use the property for something. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thought Mr. Dallah wanted to use the front of the property for parking, but if he changes the zoning, according to staff, code requires that all parking shall be provided to the rear of the residential structure, such as structures used for commercial purposes. That eliminates more of his parking in the front. That appears it would be a variance. Mr. Dallah: About 50% of the side would be used for parking and the front would be about 50% because that's one of the only waivers or requirements he is requesting to be able to develop this property. He is trying to request as few setbacks and waivers as possible. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Staff recommended Commission deny the Negative Declaration and asked Cheryl Flores to elaborate on that. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: Code would require that the parking for any use on this property be accessed from the rear and with that in .mind, any access to this property would have a direct impact on the residential neighborhood to the north and south of the alley and it is a big concern of staff. Commissioner Henninger: With regard to the reclassification, the General Plan calls for commercial professional or low density residential use on this property. Cheryl Flores: The request that is before Commission is not consistent with the General Plan. The CL (Commercial Limited) zoning allows for intensified commercial use as opposed to office buildings that would be seen in the CO Zone. Commissioner Henninger: Do you think that the size and shape of the property is such that it really doesn't allow adequately for a commercial site. There certainly was a discussion on that just now regarding the setbacks.. Cheryl Flores: That is correct. It would take at least one and possibly two or more waivers in order to develop this property at all. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Melanie Adams if the entrance to the cemetery was closed, could that be a driveway for access to his parking? Melanie Adams: Responded no, that would not be used as a driveway. There is a conflict with a pedestrian access to the school. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: He met with the applicant and explainedlo him that there are too many driveways in the front. The request is for only one driveway to meet the standard design. The way Mr. Dallah showed the circulation, it is not going to work and Alfred gave some suggestions but never heard from Mr. Dallah nor has he seen any revised plans. Therefore at this time they are still requesting that if Commission approves this project, to allow the applicant only one driveway. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if it would be more workable if he closed the driveway that was there and used the driveway from the street since the extra property is down that end to get to his parking? Alfred Yalda: Responded the applicant has shown so many driveways on his plan and he has not submitted any plans showing exactly which one Mr. Datlah is going to close. Therefore, they have no idea what he is planning to do. Commissioner Boydstun: Does this item need to be continued so the applicant can work this out with staff? Alfred Yalda: Responded yes. 04-13-98 Page 15 Mr. Dallah: Asked if this is being continued to show the driveway entrance? Commissioner Boydstun: She was not sure that Mr. Dallah completely understood the dedications. She thought Mr. Dallah should measure from the center line and see exactly how that is going to be affected, then speak with Mr. Yalda about having only one driveway. Depending on how his building sits which one would give him the best access to the parking? Mr. Dallah: There are two things to do, the dedication and the entrance? Commissioner Boydstun: He also needs to indicate where the dedication will be so he can figure out what he is going to build there. They do not want the traffic from the back alley because it affects all the residences. Mr. Dallah: That is why he is trying to use as much as he can in front instead of using the back alley. Commissioner Henninger: The use is not consistent with the General Plan. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: We had this same conversation last time when Mr. Dallah was proposing the restaurant. This is different than the restaurant. When Mr. Dallah was going to return with that information. Commissioner Henninger: Why doesn't Commission follow through with the staff recommendation then? Commissioner Boydstun: She did not think Mr. Dallah understood exactly what everything entails, it is perhaps true that this may not be a possibility. Should Commission continue or deny it and let the applicant return with new plans working with staff so that it fits? Commissioner Henninger; He would prefer the second option. [Commissioner Boydstun: Conversation inaudible.] Commissioner Henninger: Is the CL in the shopping center next door general plan for commercial? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: The chart on page 1 shows that west is for commercial., professional and medium density residential. She was not certain, that was built for offices, they have been there for some time. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: If they were to reclassify this to commercial, could this not be a zero lot line? In other words, that westerly wall could be next to that existing property. Cheryl Flores: That is correct. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: As discussed previously, get an idea of what the applicant wants, give the applicant a break to prevent a Iandlock area on that northerly section. Isn't that what they were talking about? And they still don't have that. Commissioner Henninger: That problem has to be worked out, some ultimate use for that. Mr. Dallah: What he has been trying to do is come up with something that is less dense and a lot of requirements so I felt that the Laundromat is the one that is much easier and less requirements for code waivers and things. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: The staff reports indicates that he is going to have a lot of traffic, cars and/or foot traffic which is using the alley and potentially conflicts with the neighbors to the north. That is what the staff report is referring to. 04-13-98 Page 16 Mr. Dallah: He wants to work on three things. One is the dedication, also the entrance to the property. He is trying to do one or the other. If he comes from the front he has the entrance in the front to avoid the residential at the back. He will work to see what is the best way to have that and also to look at what would be the best use to meet all the requirements that Commission is requesting. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Asked if Mr. Dallah has approached any of the neighbors on Cedar or Birch to see if they want to acquire that property? Mr. Dallah: He spoke with some of them about it. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Stated that is one of the concerns. Mr. Dallah: He will take a look at it again and probably continue it until next meeting. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: What about a four week continuance, because it may take the applicant more that two weeks to get any issues resolved? Mr. Dallah: He agreed. Alfred Yalda: He met with Mr. Dallah three weeks ago however since that time the plans have not been revised. Perhaps they should make sure Mr. Dallah submits revised plans so their office can review them. Commissioner Henninger: They will continue in this item for four weeks to May 11, 1998. In two weeks the applicant needs to submit revised plans. If revised plans are not submitted then Mr. Dallah can be fairly confident that Commission will probably not approve his proposal. If the applicant is not willing to do that then Commission might as well act on this item today. Mr. Dallah: He asked that Commission allow him try one more time and see what he can do. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with staff and try to resolve the issues related to driveway entrances and dedication and for submittal of revised plans. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 28 minutes (1:52-2:20) 04-13-98 Page 17 5b. OWNER: Sav-on Realty, Inc., P.O. Box 27447, Salt Lake Ciry, 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. Continued from the Commission meeting of March 30, 1998. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 4-27-98 SR1035J OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 04-13-98 Page 18 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEI 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3662 (READVERTISED) 6c. REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT OWNER: JGD Company, Inc., P.O. Box 18021, Anaheim, CA 92817-8021 INITIATED BY: City-initiated (Planning Commission), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 6270 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is 1.19 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. (a) City-initiated (Planning Commission) request to review apreviously- approved private educational facility (pre-school to 3rd grade) and a church with waivers of (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum setback of institutional uses ad}'acent to a residential zone and (c) minimum structural setback abutting a Scenic Expressway to consider modification to the overall entitlement including the 3-story design of the building. (b) Property owner requests review and approval of the location of playground equipment for apreviously-approved educational facility (this portion of the request was continued from the March 30 Commission meeting to allow portion (a) of this request to be advertised). Continued from the Commission meeting of March 16, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98.56 Approved Modified Approved playground plan submitted as revised at the .meeting The following is a detailed summary of Item No. 6 -Conditional Use Permit No. 3662. Please note: Towards the end of this item (see page 43 and 44) there were difficulties with the recording equipment which resulted in a portion of this item being inaudible. For documentation of repair see page 46a, 46b, 46c, 46d and 46d. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol : 6270 East Santa Ana Canyon, I know the applicant is here. Now before we start Mr. Browne, Can I have a show of hands of everyone who wants to speak on this item. I'm going to ask that you bring up new items and avoid redundancy, because we have heard it all a couple of times .and I telling you up front so if you speak for 10 minutes or more I may ask or wave at you. Please bring up new items. Thank you. 04-13-98 Page 19 Doug Browne: Doug Browne, 151 South Quintana. Scott Warren is going to speak on my behalf today Scott Warren, attorney for Mr. Browne, 4 Venture, Suite 325, Irvine, CA: Good afternoon Commissioners, Scott Warren the attorney for Mr. Browne (4 Venture Suite 325, Irvine). I was asked to present something that has not been presented before which I think you will appreciate. The case law on this matter is extremely clear on reviewing and modifying the CUP when the recipient has a vested interest and clearly in this case Mr. Browne and the other two owners, the owner of the church and owner of the school have a vested interest. In fact they have buildings ready to be moved into, so that is all based on the CUP approval as you all know. They hadn't poured any cement or done anything prior to approval of the City Council. The City Council was aware of that and it is listed in their minutes. Any modifications at that point can only be done by the City when the conduct of the business creates a nuisance, or there is a compelling public necessity. Nuisance by its very definition has to already have happened. It can't be a prospect of nuisance, so any of the complaints or ideas that there will be noise from children, which has already been addressed in the negative environmental impact report, are really mute at this point because there has been no nuisance, the school hasn't been open and no children have made any noise. The second thing is a public necessity, it's not a public interest, it's a compelling public necessity that the City could use to set aside a CUP. In the case where there is a vested interest, it has to be so strong of a compelling interest, and it has to be weighed against the interference with the property rights of the business owner so as not to be unduly oppressive, because if it is, it constitutes a taking, an eminent domain basically. It gives rise to damages for the same thing. So in light of all that, I guess the question that I want to pose to the Commission, is what issues are we specifically addressing today? Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: I think we addressing whether or not the playground equipment is in conformance. Scott Warren: If that is the issue and that's the only issue that we are addressing, it's already been taken care of and I would like to like to let Dr. Jayaratna's attorney, Mr. Bidner, address that. Commissioner Henninger: We are also addressed whether the original approval was obtained by fraud. That's one of the things you didn't bring up. All of the staff reports say this is a two story building. Scott Warren: I will address that then, this is a two story building, all three of them are two story buildings. They all three have attics, and I think that's clearly indicated by staff in their staff report and recommendations. I think the only thing the staff did indicate is that they would like to see a limitation placed on the access to the third story. I think those are both issues for the church and the school. I believe they are willing to go along with staff recommendations as long as they can use the third story attic for storage and not just mechanical equipment. I will let them address that. As far as the office building, the third building, that building is not subject to the CUP, it was by right, built as an office building. The CUP only went to the usage of the school and church because those are specific types of uses that need to apply for a CUP no matter what. The office building is really not a subject here. It's built pursuant to code, .all signage is per code, all lights are per code, and the building itself is per code. It is not even a CUP issue and I think that's important to note because it's a matter of are you .addressing, the neighbors are classifying the third floor on the school and the church only, on the school only, the church only. I think that's a matter that I need clarification on from the Commission. My understanding is that the neighbors have no objection to the church whatsoever. I could be wrong and if I am I apologize. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: You'll probably hear that sir. Scott Warren: I heard it, again let me address the issues that were in the staff report. Under recommendations and I don't know how they came up with these numberings but that's OK. No. g I think we are talking about the overall entitlement and that would be that third story issue or attic issue but it doesn't relate to the structure. The structures are all built pursuant to code. The variances on the property and the conditional use permit have nothing to do with the actual structure of the building. It's 04-13-98 Page 20 only the usage of the building, the structures are all within the 35 foot limitations and they are pursuant to code. Staff agrees with that. Secondly on no. 11 which is actually where... The playground equipment has been taken care of, so for no. 10 that has been moved back, the two story piece of playground equipment that was objectionable has been moved 70 feet from the he fence and lowered. So the only issues are the ones on no. 11' and then to 17. No. 11, page 7 of the staff report says that within 30 days of the date of resolution that the property owner shall submit terminating the conditional use permit for the trailers. Mr. Browne has no objection to that whatsoever and is willing to do that, doesn't need 30 days, will do it right away. No. 18 says that the signage on the property shall be limited to one monument type sign as permitted in code. I object to this, that a comprehensive sign program shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for the review and approval for any future signs. My objection to that is any signs that go up on any property within the City of Anaheim or any other city that are within code should not have special legislature just for one piece of property. If the signs go up and they are not within code, then by atl means apply for a separate permit for that, but if they are within code, then they are within code and it's a matter of right that he is allowed to have those signs. I don't think that it is right that a special piece of legislature get put in for one property. The next three issues 19, 20 and 21; I don't want to address because I want to let Mr. Bidner address that for Dr. Jayaratna because I don't feel that they are Mr. Browne's issues at this point. Those are basically the usage of the school playground. No. 22, this again is an issue for the church and the school and I would object to any covenant of this sort for the office building because that is a matter of right, if this is limited to the school and the church, then that's something for their attorneys to discuss. As far as the office building, the third structure, that is a matter of right and I would object to this type of covenant. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Does Mr. Browne own that third building? Warren Scott: At this point he does, but he intends to sell it. The last one, this weekend, Mr. Browne was out there all weekend, moving the trees from 36" to 28" and the only problem that he has with it is that he scoured the county and bought every 8' Italian Cypress that he could. Some of the trees that he was able to get to finish the 200' along the fence bringing them 6" closer are between 6 1/2 and 7'. That the only issue. He bought every tree that he could find that was 8 feet and planted them and some of the trees that are being delivered this afternoon, where they couldn't get 8 footers, so they are 6 1/2 to 7. That's all the issues as far as staff recommendations and if you have any other questions I'll be glad to address them. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: 23 is done sir? Scott Warren: 23 is substantially complied with, if you want to really be a stickler at 8 feet, then it's not quite done, but yes there are trees at 28" across. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney: Could you give us an approximate number of trees of what percentage don't meet the 8 foot minimum. Doug Browne: I'm going to guess that 20 of more than 150 trees might not be the full 8 feet.. Some on the contrary are 9 1/2 feet. Scott Warren: So on average they are 8 feet, and they'll grow. Scott Warren: I just want to bring up one point that I found amusing when I went and walked the property. Basically, this property looks like the Anaheim Village Center, but one of the interesting issues is that there is public walkway that goes on the other side. These buildings are between a public walkway and the neighbors backyards. Standing on that public walkway, you can see directly in their backyards. So what these buildings have effectively done is screen these people's backyards from the public walking down the walkway. Mr. Browne would request that the certificate of occupancy not be delayed any longer, the 04-13-g8 Page 21 businesses are lasing money every day, they are ready for the children to start school. The church is ready to start having services and we'd Tike to get this moving along. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you. Sir, do you want the doctor to speak now, is he here regarding these three issues? Scott Warren: His attorney is here. Scott Warren: Would you like to hear from him or some of the neighbors? Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Right now it's proponents Scott Warren: Okay, well there are neighbor proponents too. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Okay. Howard Bidner (did not spell his name) an attorney, 5120 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA. I have been retained to represent Dr. Jayaratna and his wife, Ghenta, in connection with the school property that is the subject of this hearing. I would like to address/divide my talk this afternoon into three separate categories. First, talk about some of the practicalities of the situation, secondly talk briefly about some of the legalities of the situation and thirdly I would like to address the specific recommendations of the staff and staff report for this afternoon's hearing. Dr. Jayaratna, by training, is a psychiatrist used to helping people cope with difficult situations. His wife, Chenta, they have been married 17 years, since 1991 has owned and operated a Montessori school in Chino having about 100 students. So they know how to do this. They had an open house at the Anaheim Facility a number of weeks ago, that, with minimal advertising drew some 50 families. I mention that because I think it is important to recognize here that while the neighbors who will undoubtedly speak have interests, what we are really dealing with here is a public interest and a public benefit as well. And that is the Montessori school that we are talking about provides meets a significant need of other families in this area for the care and the education of their young children. In the final practicality I want to mention in this part of my short talk is that my clients have every desire and intention to be good neighbors. That's part of the Montessori philosophy and they would like to operate this school as best they can meeting the needs of the children who they are obligated to deal with and help in an educational and developmental sense and also to balance all of the needs of all of their neighbors. Moving real quickly to legalities. I think it is significant to note that my clients purchased the property from Mr. Browne at a time when the conditional use permit was in place. They were not the applicants, they were not the developers of this conditional use permit. The bought the property relying upon this Council's permit that they could operate a school there on the conditions of that specific permit. And when they proceeded to have the building built, Mr. Browne, as built to suit contractor, they made sure that all permits from the City were in fact obtained. There is absolutely no issue that the school building a's it sits today, including the playground, complies with all of those permits. The combination of the conditional use permit and the fact that building permits have been issued and that the building complies with the Code, gives my clients what we lawyers and the courts call "vested rights" and that those might not be taken away since some grave public necessity and some limited circumstances, which Mr. Browne's attorney has already touched on. To show that in fact my clients want to be good neighbors and the placement of the large playground equipment located close to the fence of the neighbors property was raised, my client moved it. They spent about $15,000.00 on that equipment, but rather than make an issue out of it, they think it's more important to get the school opened for mutual benefit and to get the disputes settled. There is no legal basis whatsoever, at this point to further delay the occupancy permit ---(inaudible portion on tape). Any of the issues that have been raised are, quite frankly, issues that are again what maybe what lawyers would call "what ifs". What if the kids are too noisy. What if there is too much traffic too early in the morning. We admit that those are the sorts of issues that can and should be dealt with if, in fact, they arise after the school is opened rather than to try to legislate too much. 04-13-9B Page 22 At this point, what I would like to do is move on to the staff report and go through specifically the number of conditions - inaudible portion on tape]. Item no. 11 on the staff recommendations beginning at the bottom of page 7. The first of those recommendations, item 17 is an issue for Mr. Browne and is not our issue and he has addressed it. The second issue, moving on to page 8, item no. 18, is the issue of the sign. The sign is up, it's been approved; there's a building permit for it; my client has voluntarily agreed to put a timer on it so that the lighting will turn off at about eight o'clock in the evening, and I would submit that the issue of the signage for this property is not a conditional use permit issue. If there is an issue with the sign, if it's too bright, if its too garish, if its too whatever, that is not the sort of thing that you can legislate specifically in a conditional use permit. I would submit that the appropriate way to handle it would be, if in fact there are problems -that the neighbors, the City and my clients, as the owners, that the way they are supposed to deal with it, which is to talk about it and try to achieve appropriate resolution. My client's are entitled to reasonable signage on the building. I think that parents coming to drop off their kids, to pick up their kids, that third parties that occasionally get that phone call that all of us get saying 'my kid's stuck at school, I can't come pick him up, can you pick him up'. It sure helps having a sign on the building so that you can identify. My client's building is way in the back, it's the third building off the boulevard and quite frankly, it's difficult to find absent the sign. I think the issue of a sign, plain and simple ought to be dealt with before - Cnaudible portion on tape]--in rules of the City and not as a -some sort of a definitive condition of a conditional use permit. The next staff recommendation, item no. 19, is a recommendation that the hours of the operation of the school itself be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. My clients have no problem with that at all. There may be the off time that there is an open house in the evening or what have you, but in terms of hours of operation that is perfectly acceptable to my clients. Item no. 20 of the staff recommendations is that the number of students and children not exceed 100. That again is acceptable to my clients who have no problem with that. Item no. 21 -playground hours. Actually item 21 has two components and I would like to address them separately. Playground hours -the staff has recommended that they be limited from 9 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon. I think, number 1, that that is the sort of issue that again ought to be dealt with in the future. If it turns out that there are too many kids on the playground too early in the morning such as they might wake up the neighbors or disturb the neighborhood, then that's something that ought to be dealt with at that time if it happens. The reality is that 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. is awfully restrictive; that there will be a few children undoubtedly dropped off earlier in the morning and as to those children I would hate to be the one who tells them they have to sit in their seats for three hours and can't go outside to stretch and exercise and I would personally hate to be their teacher after they have been sitting there without exercise, even the ability to out on the playground and walk around and get some fresh air.orstretch themselves and what have you for a three hour period. I think what the staff has recommended is with good intentions, but I think the practicalities of it simply do not work. Same thing for the evening hours. You have a scenario where some of the kids may want to be out in the playground before their parents come pick them up. If that in fact happens, again lets evaluate it if its a problem down the road. None of us can sit here today and say that that's a problem down the road, but we can certainly envision a circumstance where some of the children might want to go out or need to go out and blow off a tittle steam and run around a little bit, use the playground equipment and what have you. The second issue that is in no. 21 is a purported restriction or proposed restriction that there be no more than 25 children on the playground at any one time. The difficulties with that are similar difficulties to the hours, and that is it is easy to imagine a circumstance when you might have 26 children, or 30 children legitimately on the playground not causing anybody any problem, any neighbor or anybody else. Well, in most circumstances it will be a class at a time undoubtedly that uses the playground. That, I think again, would be unreasonable and unfair to restrict it to say that absolutely, positively you can never have more than 25 students and children on the playground at any given time. And the other problem with that sort of a restriction, particularly given at least the current atmosphere between the school and the neighbors, ironically, before the school is even open, is I would hate to be in a situation where the neighbors were out 04-13-98 Page 23 there counting children and taking pictures and showing, that'oh, we've got 26' and therefore you are in violation and we're going to start all sorts of non-compliance, revocation and what have you type proceedings. I don't think that's an appropriate sort of a restriction in a conditional use permit. We're sympathetic to the issue. If its a nuisance issue, if its a noise issue., if too many kids are causing too much disruption, then lets deaf with the consequences and the disruption; lets not deal with the magical arbitrary line drawing of 25 students. The next issue in the staff report is no. 22 dealing with the issue of access to the attic area where the mechanical equipment is. My client has no intention of using that for anything other than mechanical equipment. I understand that the church, which is the second of the three buildings, will be requesting the opportunity to use that same area in their building for storage and my client's position on no. 22 is basically we would simply like to have the benefit of whatever rights the church has. If they're allowed to store materials and what have you up on the attic because it is protected and covered, then we would like that opportunity. If they're not, then we'll live with whatever rights they have. Malcom Slaughter: Excuse me, sir. Is it my understanding that assuming you get the same rights that the church gets, your client would be willing to record a covenant at least restricting his leasehold interest on that regard? Howard Bidner: Good question because I was just getting to that. Again the issue of how do you deal with that restriction, if that's what the restriction is. it seems to me that that's not the sort of restriction - or that is the sort of restriction that belongs in a conditional use permit. it deals with the use of the property. it doesn't seem to me that that should be the sort of covenant that somehow gets recorded in the rules. If its a restriction on use of the property, use of that part of the property, then it seems to me it belongs in the conditional use permit. At this point, if it were take that or don't take that, to be candid, sir, I don't know exactly what my client's position would be. We would prefer not to record a covenant, prefer to have that as a condition in the conditional use permit because it deals with the use of the property. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Simply put, I think that the school is a great use in that neighborhood. We can all argue about whether we would like the architecture to be different. We can all argue whether its better to look at the buildings that are currently built there, the three of them as opposed to look at the back of the shopping center which was there before. They are the same height. I think that the important thing from my client's standpoint is that they bought the property with the conditional use permit in place. They have paid to have the building built per the approved plans of this City. While we can talk about some restrictions and changes to the conditional use permit that I've indicated we're willing to do, that at this point in time, plain and simple, there is no legal basis to further delay of the issuance of the occupancy permit. If there are issues down the road. between the neighbors based on noise, nuisance, what have you, there are established procedures to deal with it. Be glad to answer any questions at this point. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you. Is there another attorney that wishes to speak taus on behalf of the church? Michael Griffith, 8101 Kaiser Blvd., Anaheim, CA: My name is Michael Griffith, 8101 Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim Hills. I am not an attorney though. I am a member of the Canyon Church. I am also a member of the building committee that - I am one of three that are overseeing the construction of our project. We've been involved in this project for about three years with Doug Browne. It was about 1996 that we obtained all the approvals that we needed -our building plans, construction plans and our CUP. Upon that issuance of the CUP we put up our hard earned donated money of $200,000.00 and purchased the land to construct this building upon all approvals being given. At that time also we entered into a contract with Doug Browne to construct our church building in compliance with our plans and so forth. We thought our only problem was trying to get our building built in a timely manner. It was about two weeks ago when we firsk found out of the concerns of the neighborhood that there was such a problem to the structure of our church. With these concerns I went to their neighborhood the next day and took a look at it from their viewpoint, from their street and so forth, and I understand their concerns of the way that they are describing our building. There is so much anger 04-13-98 Page 24 in this neighborhood which really concerns us because us being a church and a community church., we have several members here today that are with us that are in support of our church building. If I can get our church members to stand up in recognition of the numbers that we have as part of the community. (Approximately 25 people stood ~p.J This is going to be our new home to worship in. For about seven years we have been meeting in school auditoriums, hotel lobby areas; we've even had home studies and meet in houses. We're in desperate need of a church building. We've been looking for several years and even though Doug Browne's been painted as a terrible thing by the neighbors and so forth, we're grateful to Mr. Browne that he's the only one that's been able to provide us with a church building. We simply could not afford other structures and land in the area for the cost purposes. Through the construction of Mr. Browne we should have been in our building last year, and with the delays and so forth we have taken out a construction loan in addition to spending close to $475,000.00 of our own money, all the money that we virtually had, to build this project. We've borrowed an additional $200,000.00 last year that we've been paying out to build this building. We're under financial hardships basically because of the rent that we're paying on places where we're meeting currently and our office complex where church office and our curriculum center where we do a lot of our preparation for Bible studies. We just received our notice to terminate our lease on the 15th of next month. We need to move into our building as quickly as possible. We're several months overdue and this delay is causing undue hardships on us. We in goad faith put up this money, borrowed the money in building this structure. I understand the concerns of the neighborhood. I am concerned with their issues .and so forth, and I didn't even know any of them. We didn't know any of them until they were brought to light a couple of weeks ago when we heard them for the first time. I am concerned with the descriptions of our building, the gentlemen's referring to it as a monster, I mean, all different eyesore definitions and adjectives used for our building. To us it's a blessing. It's an answer to prayer; it's beautiful in our sight because this is our new future home. We're a community home and we want to be part of the neighborhood. We hope that when we do go to the neighbors and we ask them to start attending our church that their anger isn't tainting towards us now because of who built the building. We did not know of this concern. But once again, everything that we did was in good faith and incompliance with our CUR The one concern that Mr. Browne's attorney brought up was - I took pictures today and one of the gentlemen commented that viewing from the upper part of the structures is just detrimental to his neighborhood; that his children can be viewed playing in the streets and on their sidewalks and so forth. They've always had this problem. I've brought pictures here to show you that the dirt level next to the commercial center which is easily accessible because I was there today taking pictures, that 24 hours a day anybody off the street could have been viewing their neighborhood. So all this anger and hostility I really don't think that's one of the main problems. They've always had to be concerned with people along that bank. I took those pictures that you can see straight down into their driveways and in front of their houses to show that they've always been open for viewing from the surrounding neighborhoods. The pictures of the houses above the hills from them look directly into the back yards of a couple of those neighbors that are concerned with people viewing their property from these buildings. So that is a concern and we need to be concerned for our children and we totally support the concern, but in reality I know they got a laugh earlier, but our building does buffer that zone behind the commercial building where people could sit in those trees or whatever and watch that neighborhood. I would much rather have a church and a school than people from the pizza place -excuse me, I don't mean to mention any of the businesses - from any of the businesses viewing their houses. So we'd ask the Commission not to place restrictions upon us. Not to -we're opposed to the item that requests that we sign a condition that will restrict our use of the building. We bought the building in good faith. We put the money down in good faith. We've built the building in good faith. We apologize to the neighborhood that they are so upset and this does greatly concern us and we hope that this doesn't affect us being good neighbors and so forth because we're sure going to try to be good neighbors. So we do ask, please, no restrictions other than what was issued in the original CUP for us. Thank you. 04-13-98 Page 25 Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on behalf -Yes, Ma'am. Martha Woncard did not give spelling]: My name is Martha Woncard, I live at 177 North Paseo Rio Blanco. I was just listening to the gentleman, and I can't remember his name, the one who was just talking. He was talking about how the church improves the area basically is how I took it. i have lived in the area for fifteen years. I've lived in Anaheim Hills for fifteen years and I walk daily , Santa Ana Canyon Road.. Day and night. Anywhere from 5 a.m. or at 6 in the afternoon. All the years that I have been walking through that area I have come across many homeless people that used to hang out in that lot. I don't know how long these people have lived there but that used to be an eyesore. That used to be an empty lot with an abandoned house and people used to live on that, or hang out behind the shopping center. I have ran into those people many times when I was walking in that area. I would rather see a church and a school and school children and church members. I would rather run into those kinds of people than the kind of people I would run into before. I think the buildings look nice. don't know anything about the laws or anything like that, but I think the buildings look much better than what used to be there. I don't know how long they've lived there but to me it's better than what used to be there. For my own safety, and I think for their safety, I would rather have a church and a school there. I've walked in the tracts also and from some of these tracts I can see the building but I could also see the back of the shopping center and I would rather look at those buildings than the back of the shopping center. You don't just buy a piece of property and assume that there's nothing to be built behind you if there's an empty lot. You have to think that there's something going to come in there. So they should have looked into this before they bought their houses. Chairman .Pro-Tempore Bristol: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on behalf of the project? Camille Peterson Stege: Good afternoon. My name is Camille Peterson Stege and my address is 2620 Associated Road, Fullerton. I am a Montessori professional, I am a Montessori credentialed teacher. I was contracted by Dr. Jayaratna to serve as head teacher at the school and I'm not sure if the general public, the Commission, the neighbors here are familiar with Montessori philosophy. But one thing that do want to point out is that Maria Montessori, she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize based on her philosophical and pedagogical approach with children. And this is what we want to implement. This is what I believe in; this is how I want to serve children; this is how I want to serve the community; and this is how I want to serve the world. Dr. Montessori believed in the cosmic education, in harmony and we serve children and nurture children in a way than they find that they are a part of the universe; they are a part of the world. And theyatso come to realize that they are also neighbors. We're not a philosophy where we go gang busters and let kids run around wild. That's not what it's about. It's a cosmic education of peace and she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It seems to me that if this is the philosophy that we want to institute here, that it would definitely be an asset for the children, for the parents, for myself as a teacher and for the whole community and the world. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am. Susan Siegmann: My name is Susan Siegmann and I represent the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Hills Business Coalition. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Ma'am, are you going to read the letter that we received today? She responded yes. Bristol continued -are you going to read it into the minutes, ma'am? Okay -that's why I didn't say something earlier. So go ahead. Public Testimony (in opposition) 04-13-98 Page 26 Susan Siegmann: Read the following letter into the record: "Members of the Planning Commission: We strongly oppose the modification of the overall entitlement of CUP 3662. We also oppose approval of the CEQA Negative Declaration. On March 7, 1994 we expressed concern over the roof mounted equipment whose screening was allowed by a flat rather than by a sloping roof. We noted at that time the problem of the height differential between nearby residences and the fact that noise studies submissions were based on unlike conditions. Since that time modifications were acquired which made the impact of the originally marginal project even worse. The overall entitlement of CUP 3662 should be denied. At no time during any hearings or staff review was a three story building disclosed. At no time was a change in use to allow a three story disclosed. It appears that the intent of the request for additional building was to enable future use of the area which was represented originally as screened roof mounted equipment. This intent was not disclosed. Whether or not the additional height was within Code, it allowed use of the additional square footage not entitled originally. That is, it changed the use and could not be in conformance with the original conditional use granted. To allow a three story building design gives approval to three story use, both of which have major environmental impacts to the surrounding community and to nearby residences. These include aesthetic impacts which are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Canyon Area General Plan. The project causes glare and noise and privacy impacts to neighboring properties. Entitling the existing third story causes unknown traffic impacts. The CEQA findings should be denied. In conclusion, an overall entitlement to allow the three story design of the building is inconsistent with the Canyon Area General Plan and causes major impacts to the community and nearby properties. The project as built is not in conformance with the current CUP. Rather than entertaining the idea of modifying the entitlement the Commission must demand modification of the building:' Susan Siegmann: I would just like to say something in my own behalf. I've been a member of the Coalition for many years and one of our main functions has become mediating between concerned .residents and developers to come up with viable projects that both can support and I feel that the developer has to be held accountable to do as he says he is going to do or this whole process of working together and cooperating together is going to be broken down. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thanks, Mrs. Siegmann. Mrs. Siegmann got ahead of me there. Is there anybody else that wants to speak in favor of this? Okay, then we'll go with those who oppose. Jeff Farano: Good afternoon Chairman Bristol and fellow members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jeff Farano. My business address is 2300 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 235, Anaheim, California. I have been retained by the neighbors of this project to speak on their behalf today. You've heard from many of them already but I will ask them to stand here today for you to know who is here. (Approximately 35 people stood up.] Chairman_Pro-Tempore Bristol: You mean Jeff, you're going to be the only one speaking on behalf of all these folks? Jeff Farano: The neighbors who have already spoken will not speak again. There are a few other people here today that are different that weren't here before that have something new and different to say. I understand your requirement for new and different, so I've tried to help coordinate this thing to get this thing through as best possible. First of all, I want to say that I've met with the neighbors on Saturday. I met at one of the neighbors two houses down from the block wall. There was - a lot of these people that are here were there on Saturday and I got a good idea of what they're all about and what their concerns are. I would have to say, and I think you probably already know this, but their concerns -they have nothing against a church. They don't know this church, they don't know the people in this church, they don't know the people representing the church, they don't know if they are good, they are bad; whatever, they don't know anything about them and they are not opposing the church themselves and they're not having any accusations against the church themselves. They may be good -very good people and I would imagine they are. As well as the school and the school owner. They don't know the school owner. We've heard a 04-13-98 Page 27 little background of him today. He sounds like a very good person, him and his wife. Have nothing against the school owner, don't know how he operates and that is not a concern of theirs. They know something about Mr. Browne because he's been in the area and I won't say the same about Mr. Browne because he is building the building and they have concerns about Mr. Browne and his building. Their concerns are the building itself. The fence. The height of the building. The noise that the use generates. The tree requirements. The wall height and the sign, and the square footage of the"building. Something that hasn't been discussed here before. We've heard some discussion from the attorneys from the property owner and the businesses, the people that bought the building. As far as what is legally required to overturn what has been defined as a vested right here today, and as Mr. Henninger brought out, I think one of the key elements here is fraud as well as substantial compliance. Did they build what they said they were supposed to build. It was kind of a surprise to me, and I've represented many developers for a long time for the City, and was a surprise to me when I heard about this project and I went over to visit to them and I saw the building that I saw. I know there are no other three story buildings in that area and it's been a very big concern of the City as to the appearances, the size of the buildings, etc., as to what is going to be built in the Canyon Scenic Corridor Area. I was kind of surprised -how does a three story building get built in this area when I do not see any other three story buildings in this area and no others have been approved. So I basically came down to, as we already know, residential properties are limited to 25 feet and commercial are limited to 35 feet, unless you are within so many feet of a residential neighborhood., and then it's one half of the distance from the residential property, but still no greater than 35 feet. This is where a little story kind of starts as to what do we have here? What has been the whole process and concept? When this project first came up a little while ago, it was at 32 feet is my understanding and that was the first set of plans that came through. And there was concerns raised by roof equipment, roof itself, what is it going to look like, etc. He came back, and that was March of 1994, and he came back in August of 1994, and once he heard - he found out the opposition existed -the building came back as 35 feet, 70 feet from the property line, 35 feet -exactly within the envelope that he is allowed to build, but still calling it a two story building. It is now 35 feet. But you look at the drawings - I had concerns -what was approved. Welf, you look at the drawings and it appears that what is built there now is what appears in the drawings substantially from what I can tell. But still at 35 feet. And the question then comes -then why is there a third floor? And we have been told time and time again, that it is only a two story building, it's only a two story building and the square footage is based on a two story building.. So what is a two story building? We're told here by the property owner's representative, his attorney, that staff agrees that this is a two story building. Nobody said, what is a two story and is in fact a two story building? What are the legal definitions of it. So I looked into that and it's interesting. When the Planning Commission approved this project and the plans that came in, the building plans, the structural plans and the calculations and designs for the building permit came in - I had an engineer a person who used to work for the Planning Department, or Building Department. He used to be the head of the Building Department, Mr. Dan Van Dorpe, and most of you know him. I had him go look at the drawings of today, this afternoon, so we don't have a written report on that, and it was interesting what we found. When the plans were first introduced for a permit they were for three floors. They had stairs in it, they were finished, the walls were finished, it had plumbing, it had dry wall, it had everything that you need for a third floor. The structural calculations including the foundations, the walls, the floors, everything you need for three floors existed at that time. There was a third floor. There was apparently some concern by the plan checker as to, you know you only got approval for two floors, you can't have three floors. There was some discussion apparently between the planner -and this is what we heard from the planner and Mr. Van Dorpe can verify this and what he saw, is that you can't have three floors because it is not approved for it and so the requirement came along as you can't finish the walls, you can't have finished plumbing, and you can't have a full staircase. There was a full stair case to get up there so there is the first indication that was it his original intention to provide a three story building or a two story building. Well, I don't know too many two story buildings with a full stair case that goes to a fully built out third floor. It would seem to me that he had some intention of somewhere down the road, and I'm not sure for what use, that it was going to be used. But the school building -and there are different structural loads for each type of use and the school building to be used as a school was 04-13-98 Page 28 designed for school building use, it was a special load - 40 pounds per square foot I believe or 50 pounds, whatever. The office building floor was then built at an office building standard, and the church the same thing, all across -designed right at that, not designed as an attic which is only ten pounds per square foot, it was designed for a load. So the plans got resubmitted and there was no staircase. Interesting though, the framing is part of the plans. We haven't see the building,'haven'theen able to see the building but the plans still show It's framed out for a stair even though it's not there, it's framed out for a stair case and the stair case isn't there. So what's going to happen in the future? When the plans came back they still contained the foundation, they still contained the structural calculations, still contained the floor, still contained everything to have three floor capability. Now I understand that some of the Planning Commissioners have gone up in the buildings and in one of the buildings and there was some beams across the top which would not allow you walk completely across the floor without hitting a beam or something.. I haven't been up there, so I wouldn't know, but the school building, as I understand has full head room and you can walk around. I don't know about the church and I haven't heard of anybody yet that's been in the church, the front building anyway, I don't know what it is now. So I don't know what kind of actual head room is there, but there is sufficient enough room in the school building for complete use. We have full windows, we have everything you need but what eventually what's going to happen. I know the Planning Commission and Building Department and everybody has concerns of when you come in and get approval of a project and you have something that's vacant, it's not in existence and we're not going to occupy this and therefore don't include it in the calculations of the area etc. that you say, well, if it's there and can be used sometime in the future with very little modifications then we're going to count it. We're going to include it. This was not included. So we seem to have somewhat of a controversy as to whether this is a third floor or not and I would have to say , if it looks like duck and smells like a duck then it must be a duck. No matter what ypu call it, if you put in covenants and restrictions and everything else that you can think of to say this is not to be a third floor yet the building is built out for everything you possibly need except for the final finishing product, that it should be considered as a third floor. So we still have the height. It fits within the height restriction. How does the building look like that when there are no other buildings that look like that that's in the area? Well they said, looks like the Festival. I would tell you it doesn't look like the Festival because the Festival doesn't have three floors. It's quite a bit different from the Festival and the Festival does not come up right next to residential properties. We also have to wonder - so okay, it's within height restrictions, but we have definite problems with the third floor. So what's the concern about the neighbors and the height at 35 feet? Well this is quite a bit different than being on level grade. As you all have seen, the grade on this property is quite a bit higher than the grade on the residential properties. So what you have is a third floor that's not supposed to exist that is now more -several feet higher than a normal building would be next to it, which almost towers down over these buildings. Aesthetically this is not very pleasing for these people and I know we've wonderedwhy these people are attacking you so much, and you've seen, you've driven down.that street and seen what it looks like. I want to tell you that if the aesthetics, the third floor is much more than a concern of being able to look out those windows and seeing into the backyard or anyone of these. houses. Going along that line, I know Planning Commissioners were up in the school building this weekend and said, well,l can't see this and I can't see that, but were you over in first building by Santa Ana Canyon Road where I think you will find - and I think we have pictures here today of - Basically what I somebody do was go around the neighborhood from each parcel and take pictures of their front yard and back yard. I'll have to say that you have concerns of more than what can you see in the backyard, but what else you can see. I'll have to say this building basically towers into front yards, back yards, garages and everything and they're lined up basically front yard and back yard so you are looking at the building. As far as the back yard is concerned there is -and if you have gone to the windows, second and third floor windows of the front building at Santa Ana Canyon and looked out those windows, balcony, second floor windows and third floor windows, you would have been able to see into at least 6277 Calle Jaime fairly clearly. I think none of you would disagree that from many of those windows that you can't see the whole street. I'll submit these, Cheryl, thank you, to you. 04-13-98 Page 29 What are the concerns, what's the problems of having three floors? Several. One is if you do have, in fact, an active third floor capable of handling a full third floor you have square footage -usable square footage - which you know have to consider calculations of parking. They were already right at parking before. Now you have an active third floor and leaves one of these buildings with, maybe not all of them, so now you're way under parked. That is a concern of that the Planning Commission should have. Secondly, is ADA compliance. I think the Building Department would agree that when you have a third floor that you have to have elevators and handicapped access. Just those two alone basically are a major problem to this project. And then we get to the visibility of it. A 35 foot building -the intention was not to allow three floors to be able to look over the property. Now we've also had a statement that said you don't have much control over a lot of what's been done here. The office building is not on the conditional use permit so you can't say anything about that. What we can from a usable square footage aspect of that it's way over-built now or capable, very easily can be used, so that's an issue, and ADA. You do have a lot of other controls over the church and pre-school as well. Again, nothing against the - we don't think the kids are going to be wild kids jumping over walls, etc., but we do have a lot of issues dealing with them, and that has to do with the noise etc. Now it's interesting -they still say that it's not going to be used as a second floor (he probably meant third floor) yet Friday night, I think it was, while the neighbors were meeting and talking about this, the lights were on in the third floor of the buildings. What was going on up there I am not sure, but the lights were on and there appeared to be people up there. Sunday the neighbors were outside and looked up at the third floor window of the middle building and there was a small person, a child, looking out the third floor window. So there is an obviously capability of people walking around up there and you've all been up there and seen the floor. Now if you need room to service an air conditioning unit, typically what is done in an attic area is the floor is built to an attic specification, but the area where the HVAC unit is built to the standards necessary to support that. Not the entire floor. We've also heard also several statements here today that we're only going to use that for storage and if they want it, we want it, we all want it. We all want to have the ability to somehow occupy it or use it for storage and I have two issues with that. First of aII storage is a part an occupancy of a building. You may not have desks up there or people there, but when you have all your storage and files etc. upstairs in the attic, that opens up the whole usability of the second and first floors which then allows you to put more people in there which kind of throws the whole parking issue off-kilter. Next is the structural design of it. It's not built for storage. There is a whole separate structural design for storage. It's 120 pounds. You can't have storage in a 40 pound or 50 pound rating, so they can't use it for storage and maybe they ought to consider that as when they decide maybe this building is quite what they want it to be, unless they are going up and build up the structural. That's twice the strength in the upper floor. It has to be 120 pounds. Now, once again, we don't have a problem that they want to move in and occupy it, but l think their concern is with Mr. Browne, and not the City and if khey're getting what they designed and what they paid for, they ought to go to him. We have other issues. Privacy and_yiew we have already discussed. Playground, that's the other issue that's come up here. The playground was put there without having any plans. There's been -and when they finally found out there was actually going to be playground equipment, that's when the neighbors raised and they came in for another modification, that's when that issue came up. I think that's what brought this here today. They've submitted acoustical studies and I've heard a question here this morning during the Planning Commission discussion a to what about the dueling acoustical study reports. How do you justify those two differences? I did not hear an answer from staff and I would be curious and I would like to find out if there is an answer for that. I would have to say that it's not going to meet the sound, and that is, that is a Planning issue. We've heard a statement here today that regulating noise on that property is something you do after the property is open and operating. I don't need to go into detail with the Planning Commissioners. They all know that that is a detail, an issue that the Planning Commissioners decide if this use is compatible with the.neighbors, including noise etc., and that's why the noise studies and standards and calculations to decide that maybe it isn't. You don't want to let this person go in and then later decide he can't be there because it's too noisy. You, as Planning Commissioners, are supposed to 04-13-98 Page 30 decide that ahead of time, and that's why supposed to be reliant on some professional advice, including acoustical studies. The acoustical study you received said it's below the 60 decibels required for property next door to a residential. The neighbors submitted an acoustical study that says there are some problems with that, it's actually a little bit less. There are some data they didn't take into consideration, several factors. Their study came from a flat land pre-school in a city area. Well, this is quite a bit different. We're not dealing with just an abstract, we're dealing with actual, physical existence. What is this property going to be like, not what some other property. Here we have a third floor -third story building ricocheting. We have hills behind it which create a canyon effect. We have the elevation; the difference between the playground equipment and where the neighbors are. Just on their grade level versus the neighbor's grade level, we have a two foot difference right there by themselves. In addition we have the door for the pre-school coming out of the second floor and coming down. There is grass and a sidewalk that goes up to that. Obviously the kids are not going to be quiet as they walk down the sidewalk to get to the playground equipment if they are going to play in that area. That all should have been taken into consideration, and it wasn't and that should be looked at. The neighbors have retained the acoustical engineer to produce another report and I'd like to give that to you here today, which indicates based on even at the location at the 80 feet from the property line, that the acoustics, the noise, is going to be higher than required. Again, I have not seen the answer to their statement that the Anaheim Municipal Ordinance says that it is supposed to be 55 decibels from a residential property. The 60 decibels, if I read the Code, is from an adjoining commercial property. This is adjoining residential and as I read the Code the decibel level is supposed to be 55. If staff can have something to tell me that that's wrong, I would like to hear that is and we can tell our engineer what the right one is. As most of you are already aware, I believe, 55 to 60 isn't just 5% on a 1 to 100 scale, it goes up dramatically from 55 to 60. The noise level is substantially higher between those two different levels. i think they put it at 64 is what they actually predict it to be. So what we have is a playground that is going to be substantially noisy. Once again, we are not against kids, noise, playing, etc. But we have standards that have been put in place for a reason. Not to keep schools out of the area, but put in place for a reason, that is site development standards that should be followed when planning these types of things. You have a qualified acoustical report in front of you that says that that it is substantially higher than it should be and until we hear some justification as to why that report is wrong, then I think y you have an obligation to deny the pre-school. That's your obligation. We have an issue on the sign. We have again been told that you don't have a right to say anything about that sign. If this was a permitted use it would probably be correct because all of you know that what's why they conditional use permits. Conditional use permits allow you to control the project and the sign is on the pre-school. It's not on the office, and it's not on the church, but the-sign is on the pre-school. You have the ability and the right to say that sign on the building that it's on is not compatible to the neighborhood. __ _. Now I don't know if any of you were out there this weekend after the property owner put it's piece of metal on the side of that sign, i don't know if it's been painted since then, it looks kind of rinky-dink, but he was going to try to block the sign so it doesn't shine into the neighbors. All of you are familiar with signs and lighted signs; that it's not just the direct light that we are concerned about, we have the glow effect. That sign is right next to the other building. It ricochets and creates a substantial glow that will go down the neighborhood and now you have the neighbors that have a nice red glow. Putting that shield on there does not effect it. I am curious as to why they need that sign there when you can hardly see it from the street. A sign out on the street, a monument sign, will allow people to know that that Montessori school is there. Once they come back down the parking lot all you need is a small sign on the front of the building for them to see that this is where one of the three buildings of where the school is. You do not need that sign there. I do not think no shielding is going to keep the glow ricocheting off of those buildings to glow down that street is going to make any difference. 04-13-98 Page 31 The trees. Another hot item. He was supposed to plant eight foot trees, 28 inches apart and now he has his 28 inches, I was out there when he was replanting them and he has his 28 inches. I don't know if he has his 8 feet. My understanding is that that wall six feet from his side of the property and some of those trees you can barely see peeking over the top of that wall. Some do, some don't. But my understanding, they should have been eight feet from the grade level not from when they are sitting in their pots on top of the ground before they are planted. So once you plant them, and now they're 6 feet. I have questions about the concerns about the trees anyway, but anyway they weren't even to standard then, they weren't planted in the right - in the distance - even thought you don't agree. Some of them say well, maybe it should have been 36 inches -fine; 28 -he still made it on his choice to decide I'm going to put them at 20 36 as opposed to 28. He's doing what he wants to do. As you can tell, when you're on the street of those neighbors those trees are going to have to get awful tall before they provide any protection whatsoever. Yes, they've grown two feet in the last two years and the still don't even come close to blocking a thing. They don't block anything. The only way you're going to make any difference is either you bring down the building's height or you have those trees, as we've done in other projects, how about full grown trees that provide a nice blockage. You know, what we have now is a big wall of green now they're looking at. First you've got an eight foot wall, and then you've got eight foot of green on top of that, I think the aesthetics of that don'tlisn't too good. I think there is possibilities of planting trees on both sides tp provide the shielding that you need. The wall itself is still a concern. It was supposed to be an eight foot eight inch wall and I think he built it eight foot eight inch from the street side and not the parking lot side. It doesn't do much help there. I think that is another concern you need to look at. What is the height of the wall supposed to be. Is it supposed to eight foot eight from his side or eight foot eight from our side. There's a two foot difference of the grade, so it's a substantial difference. We have -we've already heard that a notice question, and I have to say the notice problem that we've had in July of 1994, notice went out; it was incorrect for the playground equipment variance, and then it went out two weeks later to say we forgot something, and I still have not yet to figure out how a whole street gat left off the mailing list. People don't remember receiving it and I don't know what to say about that, but they -you know- to get a notice that an entire street is left off is something that I have concern, and I don't know how that happened. But I think something ought to be looked into about that. Something else about the third floor is the Code does say you have a ten foot setback from landscape adjoining to the residential. It should be ten feet and they got a waiver of seven feet. If you also look at the Code it says that when it is a third floor building it has to be an additional two feet. So therefore, it should have been a twelve foot setback, landscaped setback. So you didn't get the proper notice; it should have been twelve feet and any waivers or variance should have been from that itself. That in itself, you say, okay, that's no big deal. But actually, it is. It affects the whole setup of this project. If it had to be twelve feet I don't think he would have got the parking he needed. You already know that this is a very tight project. I don't think he would have got the parking capability if he had to add another two feet for the landscaped setback. They put those things in there for a reason and that is to create -the-taller the building you have to have more landscape to shield the building etc. and now he's down to seven feet and that's about all he can put in is Cypresses. He can't put in the full trees -maybe, maybe now.. But<I-think there is a notice problem right there that the proper waiver was not noticed and the people didn't get notice of that. Looking at the engineering plans these are the problems we've had that we saw today. It did not appear that the windows met energy standards. There was no certification in the plans that says 'windows' and whether they are energy standards or not. It may be a small thing, but it kind of gets to the whole project itself and what this person is trying to do. I don't think he's very experienced contractor myself. I maybe wrong but there are some things that are happening here that it seems like an owner/builder has some problems that he didn't think would be a problem himself, but in fact, do create problems. These windows don't meet energy standards. There was no calculation for the 13 foot high retaining wall, and in looking at the plans there were submitted we have serious, serious concerns that that retaining wall next to the shopping center does not meet standards; does not meet engineering standards. I think we ought to have those produced because this is a place where kids will be playing. 04-13-98 Page 32 The third floor, as we have already said is framed out for a stairway. It has design standards for class rooms. The office has design standards for office, and there is no calculations and it is not made for floors. Well, quite frankly, there are a lot of issues here that haven't been answered and they need to tie answered. The third floor is something that'I don't think it allows -what are you going to do about it once this thing. First of all I don't think it's a vested right because he did not build what he said he was going to build. He said he was going to build a two floor -two story building; he built a three story building, and all facts indicate very clearly that is what he intended to do. No matter what restriction he puts on it, that is what is there, and therefore, he doesn't have the vested right and you have the ability to modify a CUP to do whatever you want to do. If it means redesigning that building, redesigning the third floor to make it lower the roof line and put a gabled roof which I kind of thought everybody thought would be there as opposed to full windows, and it just needs some blocking for the air conditioning and that's what he ought to do. You just can't simply say oh, he already built it, let's move on, it's no harm, no foul; as Chick Hearns says, It is a harm, it is a foul". There are several other people to speak. I am going to allow them to speak. They are on their own, they are somewhat connected to the neighbors, but they have their own separate concerns about this building and how it affects the whole canyon industrial area. I think we need to have those plans.. The engineering plans are a very serious concern. The engineer we have is highly qualified and he has found, in his opinion, the building itself has structural problems; that they are not up to Code. I don't know why, but he has gone through them today - he doesn't have a copy of them so he had to one at the counter, but I think somebody ought to look into that as well. When you look at the history of this project, it's not unlikely that that might be the case. Also, what I saw Wednesday, or on Saturday, maybe the Planning Commission may have seen as well, there is a foundation, a structural foundation has been built in that parking lot back there by the playground equipment that wasn't there before, and I think that the Commissioners that were out there this weekend would have seen it over on south end there was a foundation about that high (used his hands to indicate how high) of concrete formed in apparently to have something built there and take out fourteen parking spaces. Now, is he moving the playground equipment around again without the permission to do so? Has he removed the parking spaces? I think this thing needs to be looked into because now I don't know what's going to be built there. We haven't seen it, but it's a foundation for something and the question ought to be asked. We asked Mr. Browne on Saturday, where is your building permit for the wall? That used to be a six foot wall that had two feet added on to it. We asked him where his building permit was. All of you know that the structural requirements for an eight foot wall are substantially different than a six foot wall and you simply can't add on to it, and his response to the neighbor was, "oh, I have it someplace, we have a permit to do that'; Well, he doesn't have a zoning permit to do that. We haven't seen a building permit and the Building Department can't find it, and we're told -and it's two years ago and sometimes when your whole situation changes, your filing changes, it does happen. These things kind of get -they are over in some corner some place, you haven't got it done, but the owner should have it, and we haven't seen it yet, and that wall is not set for the foundation. You've seen some of the cracks and stress cracks in wall that he tried to hide by putting some vine covers over there on one wall. We have to look at this wall too. It's a structural safety issue. Where is the building permit and does it have the proper foundation for it? This all goes to the integrity of this project. The holes in the fence -you've seen the holes in the fence that he decided just bore five holes in that fence, no big deal, what's the problem? It looks terrible, for one thing -five holes drilled and not even in a line, and if he plugs he is going to plug them up and then stucco over them? Well, how is he going to leave that, I don't know. But its allowing the drain to run and you've seen the dirt and the sidewalk that runs off that parking lot into the neighbor's street. You know, you don't do things like that. They call them weep holes. First I don't normally see weep holes this big and set up that way. I know what a weep hole is and that is more of a full drain to allow the water to drain off of the parking lot and go into that, and that ought to be taken care of. So that's another structural issue that ought to be looked at on this project. I know I've taken a lot of your time, but these are very serious concerns of these people that have to look at 04-13-98 Page 33 this for the rest of the time that they own their property, the building, but because of its -the great difference it is almost three and a half floors tall, a tall building that you don't see anywhere else in this canyon industrial area and somehow in word descriptions or whatever, somebody didn't calculate what this thing was going to look like and catch the third floor and find out what it is he is actually doing. I don't know how it got through because the Planning Commissioners and the staff have been very, very critical and concerned about how this canyon industrial area and scenic corridor looks and you have been doing a very good job on it, and this one doesn't fit what you want to see and I think you would all have to agree with that. I think you have to do something about it before it gets occupied and then you really can't do anything about it. Thank you. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thanks, Mr. Farano. Okay -the next person who wishes to speak? Bob Fiorentino: My name is Bob Fuerintino, 162 S. Canycn Woods, one of the homes in the Peppertree Subdivision immediately south and a little bit east of the property in question. I am also president of the homeowners association for that development. I had a lot of comments prepared today many of which I believe have been already presented in front of this group and I won't reiterate those. But I would like to point out that a while, three story building in the scenic corridor is totally inconsistent with that has existed in the twenty years that I've lived in the canyon. It doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit and it doesn't belong and it doesn't match anything else that's in our community. With regard to the comments made by one of the attorneys that we have to wait'til the protilem exists before we fix it, I would call your attention that the Hughes Plaza was developed about ten or twelve years ago, and at that time we were told, as home owners of Peppertree, that there would be specimen trees planted along Rio Grande to insulate us visually from having to look at the back of that plaza. Somewhere along the line someone got the idea that a horse trail and the specimen trees would work. The horse trail was put in and now what we have, if you haven't been on Rio Grande recently, is a horse trail to nowhere that connects to nothing, that has never seen a horse and not one specimen tree. Problems do not get fixed after the fact. I would urge you to deal with these problems now. Correct them now so that the neighborhood can retain its integrity and its master plan that was put in place for our protection. Thank you. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you sir Carol Garanson (did not spell her name], 321 Old Bridge Road, Anaheim, CA: I've lived in Anaheim Hills for over twenty-five years now and I've been a real estate agent there and surrounding areas for over twenty-one years. I'm here because even if that building were twelve stories, it personally would not affect me, but I happen to have a genuine care and love for the area where I live. I don't know if any of you happen to reside in the area, but if you did you'd know why all of us here have chosen that place to live. It's got lots of trees, rolling hills and a scenic corridor that it seems we have to fight more and more desperately to protect as each day goes by. All of us are home owners that really depend on you people to police things for us. To look upon people such as Mr. Browne here, who believe in 'it is better to ask forgiveness than permission', and we don't want to reward those people because if you allow that third story to remain it will give grounds for anybody else. I drive by there every day -constantly- @yery time of the day and night. Now the gal that was up here before, I don't know what she saw. I'm by there a lot and I did not see that. It wasn't a vacant lot, it was a nursery before. Also, I have a client whose home I am going to be selling on Calle Jaime and when I went over there to see his house, and I had not been in the back to see the back end view, I could not believe what I was to see. And then when I saw these holes coming out - it looked like drainage holes - I couldn't believe that anybody would have drainage straight onto somebody's residential street. We've also shown that property and the person would not make an offer on it strictly because of that building and the height of that building. And that is the God's honest truth. And they've got an extremely gorgeous home there. So it does affect property values whether you want to admit or not. But my concern is this, we're all here to protect each other. I would hope that if something in Anaheim -some area of Anaheim Hills -these people would be there for the rest of us too. That third story needs to come off. We can't reward people who don't do things right way and who don't follow the rules. There's too much lack of integrity going on in our world today and we need to deal with integrity here and make a decision based on what is right and go see it and make a decision from your hearts and your minds. And these people here have had homes there for a long time. Their families have grown up there. They don't deserve this to happen to them and when you make your decision I really want you to think about everything and what Jeff has said, and it's all true. Please look at the integrity that has cgme forward here. Again, it has nothing to do with the school or the church or whatever. It's just that 04-13-g8 Page 34 he didn't do what he said he was going to do and there is no other option but to say we're going to have you do what was supposed to be done, period. Don't punish these poor people who live around there because somebody has no integrity. That's all I want to say. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thanks Mrs. Garanson. George Johnson, 7341 Stonecreek Lane, Anaheim, CA: I live about a half a mile from the property and I've been a resident of Anaheim for twenty-five years. I live at 7341 Stonecreek Lane. Commissioner Boydstun: Just a minute Mr. Johnson, until we are finished Mr. Johnson: I just got aboard on this little thing because I talked to one of the neighbors and I'm starting to feel like 1've really been deceived. First of all I've:been living here fortwenty-five years and when I saw the nursery go away I was kind of sad because it was part of their life there, going to the nursery and buying plants for our new homes and all that stuff. I was sorry to see it go. But I was hoping that some kind of property would be developed there because it was an eyesore just having an empty lot. Well then, I saw this big sign there saying "Montessori" and I thought, boy, that is a good thing, a school. My Fiancee's daughter went to Montessori, I've heard so much about them. Well, itjust had a sign Montessori. It didn't say church', it didn't say 'offices', itjust said Montessori. So I said good, so I am going to assume that they are going to build a nice school there. I saw the trailer -well, that's a real low level, but I hope they do something better than a trailer and a few little toys they have out there. So then when they started building I said, 'oh, boy, they're really going to put in a nice school there. it started going up and I said, 'boy, that's going to be a big school'. And then after a while I said 'that looks like a castle', and after a while I said 'this looks like Disneyland'. It's just too big for our area. Well, I says, gee I voted for my councilman, the Planning Commission gets elected, so I guess they know what they are doing, so they must have gone through all the planning stuff, right? Well, obviously, somebody cheated. Somebody did something they weren't supposed to do. I'm going to change the subject to the Yorba Linda Plaza, because I think that's the name of it. It's a piece of property that's on Santa Ana Canyon Road between Imperial and Margarita. That was a one story structure. It went through the Planning Commission and it went through the City Council the whole strip mall became two stories. I don't know if you guys remember that or not. Well, when it was first built it had parking for a single story. They put two stories in there which meant they needed twice the parking and they didn't have the twice the parking, so what they do, they condense them down to compact parking spaces. Now if you want to go to the restaurant there, you have to park at the post office sometimes, and they get very upset. There's never any parking at that place, so what you're doing is creating a monster by having three different business in one little area. Number 3, they are talking about putting Italian Cypress in. Well, my fiancee back there had a home with fifteen Italian Cypresses that grew to be thirty feet high and they are the messiest pieces ofjunk you can imagine. She wanted to take them down because they were creating -always had dirt over her patio and always had dirt on her roof from the trees from the Santa Ana winds blowing. It was going to cost her $200.00 a tree or a total of $3,000.00 just tc remove them, and here this man is trying to put them ip just to hide a wall. They're horrible trees. Then the last thing, there's a lady over Mere, her name is Rosa, she has a Real Salsa business there, right there in the Hughes Market. They took the extra money to build a nice little outside patio so that people would not have to eat indoors, they could eat outdoors and enjoy the sunshine and all that. As you go around to that side of the building they used to have nice little patio where you could look out a view. Now there is a fifteen foot or twenty foot wall, I don't know what it is, that just totally destroyed the ambiance of that little patio that she had. And that's all I have to say. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: By a show of hands, how many folks still want to speak? Wait a minute, sir. Okay -just one more -two more -okay. Rosa Garcia, restaurant owner, 6300 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA: Hi, I'm the one with the restaurant, and I'm not going to repeat what I said last week, you already know what I said last time. I just want to add that prior to the last meeting I came to request permission for a freestanding sign or some kind od signage because obviously my sign is completely covered, nobody can see me now. Obviously my petition was because obviously Anaheim has a Code that only certain amount of sign have to go in certain areas, and because obviously I have to follow within the City Code, I got stuck. Obviously nobody pay attention to what Mr. Browne was building because obviously this building is like obviously very high 04-13-98 Page 35 and it's covering my view and I am going out of business very soon if you guys don't do something about it. That's all -one of the lawyers mentioned that the Montessori school deserved a sign. I agree with that. And I already had those nice looking signs, but nobody can see my signs. I am not on the back of the building, I am in front of the shopping center, and still nobody can see me now because of 35 or maybe even more building.. That's all I have to add to this. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you, ma'am. Mark Nichols, 6283 Rio Grande, Anaheim, CA: Mark Nichols, I live at 6283 Rio Grande. I am new to this community, I've only been here for a year and a half. When I was looking for a home I looked at probably 135 properties. At the time there was no construction, as I recall beginning, nothing noticeable on the property in question. I asked my Realtor and she said there is going to be a Montessori school there. Well, I don't know much about Montessori schools, but'I envisioned something relatively small and not going to be -going to be inconspicuous and I certainly on what I saw driving up and down the corridor and up through the community, I certainly had the impression that the City looked after these types of constructions and were intent on keeping construction within -you know, consistent throughout the community. So I was in a little bit of shock as I saw this building go up and up and up. Now, I live above the property, I'm in another subdivision, but I am up above it and when I look out at my yard I see the top of this, flat top of this building completely inconsistent with anything in the area. It's not nice to look at and I'm sure you feel the same way if you were looking down at something like from your own homes. I think I want to make the point that this my home, this is where I live, this is my castle and we've allowed this thing to be built, or at least to this stage. Driving down the street, down Santa Ana Canyon Road, when 1 see and some comments were made earlier about disparaging viewpoint which some of us have, it is a monstrosity to me in that location. I have nothing negative to say about the structure had it been someplace else, but it does not fit architecturally with the area. I am also concerned .about traffic and noise. Picking up a hundred kids in the afternoon, or in the evening, there is going to be a lot of traffic on that road and there is no place for them to go. They are going to have to go down to Fairmont and try to make a "U-turn", that means they're going to have to get across in a very short period of time to turn around. If they don't do that, they are going to come up Fairmont, come down my street which already has too much traffic and people exceeding the speed limit to the point where there was a neighbor with a petition to have speed bumps put in. So they are going to be making that loop and driving in front of my home and I certainly don't appreciate that. So I just want to add to what's been said so far and certainly a lot of the legal issues - and I just want to appeal to you to use some good sense and straighten this thing out. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you. Are we done now with the - Mr. Farano: I just forgot to give a petition that was signed by 24 people in the neighborhood opposing the project as an eyesore, not compatible to the scenic corridor and a traffic congestion problem. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol Okay - yes, sir. Michael Griffith, Canyon Church: I'd like to just give you these pictures. These are pictures of our attic that was just taken today for your view. We were there Sunday at the church picking out the color of paint we want downstairs. We are ready to occupy in just a few weeks. I'm not a tall man -that attic wall, the ceiling and the fire things were about one hand above my head. Most of these people in here couldn't even walk upstairs. We're not going to occupy that attic space. There's noway that we could occupy it. So for that being an issue, it's not an issue. We're not going to be there. But we do want it for light -you know, for light storage and so forth. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you. I'll tell you what, there's a few of us here that have been sitting for a few minutes and the applicant has a lot of information to compile and come back and rebut what we've just heard. So we're not going to end the public hearing, we're going to continue it in just five minutes. (There was a Fve minute break.] 04-13-98 Page 36 Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: This is an opportunity for the applicant or applicants or whoever wants to speak to come back up. Jeff Farano: You said I could have one minute, probably less. The issue the neighbors want to point out is the concern about the playground equipment is that the playground, if its a zero setback, which it is required to be a fifteen foot setback, if its a zero setback next to that wall, there is a serious noise issue to them, as well as being a little bit higher over by the building, or zero setback where the sandboxarea is, not the equipment itself, but even the sand area where they will play, because that's a variance as well. You have a zero setback ,they are able to play closer than fifteen feet, that's a variance as well, and that's a concern and their sound person tells them that they have a sound issue on that. So it isn'tjust the playground equipment, it's where they are going to play as well. Because of the way this property is set up if they are over by the building, they are higher up and the sound comes over the wall. If they are closer up to the building at zero setback then they are closer there as well. They have concerns about both of those. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Okay -now the applicant. Scott Warren: Before I give a rebuttal I would like to bring up Mr. George Leighton, who is the noise engineer who can discuss the report by the other noise engineer. George Leighton,1307 S. Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA: My name is George Leighton. I am a consultant in noise control. My office address is 1307 S. Euclid Street in Anaheim. I am a certified acoustical consultant, Board certified nationally and certified in the County of Orange. At the last meeting there was a report which apparently was given by the resident, solicited by them, in which they challenged the noise estimates which were made in the original report which was submitted by Mr. Browne. Specifically it was stated that the 54 decibel noise at the residential properties was incorrect and that the actual noise level was 64.6. That's over a 10 decibel noise difference. Subsequent to that meeting I did obtain a copy of this report which was prepared by Richard Colia spelling of name not given] and had an opportunity to review it. My concern was not to discredit Mr. Colia but to determine why there was this difference in our estimates. What I found in looking at his report it was apparent that he had used a six foot sound wall instead of the eight foot eight inch which accounted for about half of the discrepancy between the numbers. Additionally the point on the neighbor's property line that he chose was five feet from the wall, I chose twenty. The reasoning being that people don't have a picnic table right next to a sound wall, that they would have it in a more open area and that's what we chose to be typical of the environment in the recreational area. Additionally apparently in his corrections for distance he chose 3 decibels for doubling of distance which is applicable only in what we call the'near field' of a sound. That would be right next to a machinery enclosure where the whole wall was radiating noise. It's inapplicable in the case where you have a point source of noise at some distance. The more appropriate number would have been 6 decibels, These along accounted for the roughly 11 decibel difference that was given. At no time was the correctness of the calculations in my report challenged and therefore we feel that it stands correct as it was. I might mention there are other factors too that made it difficult to compare what he had done in his report. There was no source data, although he referred to a data base of a number of grade schools. There was no mention or correction made for the fact that those grade schools included up to eighth grade whereas here we are talking about pre-schoolers and children up to third grade. I might mention that as an acoustical consultant who also does expert witness testimony, that when we approach a project like this we cannot take an advocacy position. That is, I cannot advocate for Mr. Browne. His report as it stands would be the same whoever the funded the report, whether it be the applicant, the opponents, or the City itself. The numbers speak for themselves. I have not had an opportunity to see what is apparently a second report by Mr. Colia, and until I do and have an opportunity to analyze it I cannot tell you, I don't even know what the numbers are, or where they came from. But the original report as submitted with the original application is correct as it stands except that the most recent modification to the playground opened up a second playground area which was at the rear of the playground area which should reduce noise levels by an additional 3 decibels at the adjacent properties in accordance with our original calculations to 51 decibels. So its still lower. Any questions? Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you. 04-13-98 Page 37 Mr. Leighton: Incidentally , I would just like to say that I had tried repeatedly to contact Mr. Colia because I would never challenge his numbers without discussing them with him and giving him an opportunity for his input. I was unable to reach him for about the week that I had tried and so I don't have his input. Scott Warren: Scott Warren for the applicant. I just looked at Mr. Colia's report briefly and Mr. Leighton is looking at it, but it looks like his revised report actually has the decibel levels based on the same numbers that he used before, lower than what he estimated originally, so that is just for what its worth. I know you said you want to take a break because I had a lot of things, a lot of issues to address and because I don't have that many issues to address. There was a lot of things and a lot of very real concerns brought up by the neighbors including parking and drainage, square footage, wall height, the building itself -but these are aII issues that have already been addressed numerous times. There is no third story. There is a second story with an attic. My house is a two story house and I have an attic, and if somebody told me I had a three story house I'd be shocked. It's a two story house with an attic. This is a two story building with an attic. The .Planning Commission has already reviewed the reports from staff on two occasions. The first occasion being, I believe, in June of 1997 at which time the Planning Commission recommended that the project be approved with the CUP the way it was. On July of 1997 it went to the City Council for their approval and Councilmember McCracken and the Mayor both said "Mr. Browne has substantial conformity" and from that he was ready to pour cement, He did that right after that and built this building exactly the way it was planned, exactly the way it was presented to the Planning Commission, to the staff; staff has been out there since opening it up. Staffs newest report of last week or actually just yesterday, I believe, or just Saturday, says -addressed every issue that was raised by the neighbors today. Everyone of them is addressed. It is a two story building, it is within Code. The parking is okay. The noise levels are okay. There is a negative environmental impact report that they see no difference in. There is the sign -the sign is permitted by Code. There is one issue that they said there was mission file roofing was supposed to be there; it's there now, it wasn't there the day that the person came out. Basically every single issue that's been raised today has already been raised and reviewed numerous times. This is just being delayed and delayed - I can understand the neighbor's frustration if they don't like the building, but that doesn't change things. It was submitted a specific way, it was built in exact accordance with those plans; those plans were approved by the staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council and over two million dollars has been spent building this building and people are waiting to go to school, waiting to go to church, and they are waiting to use this building, and we would really request that the Planning Commission make the correct decision today and let them go forward so that we don't have to keep going through this and they can start moving forward for a change instead of keeping reverting back. Remember, in just two weeks ago, three weeks ago now, this was just about where a piece of playground equipmentwas going to go. The buildings were built already. The buildings were built exactly~the way they said they were going to be built. The reason that these people are so upset about this third story and the reason that this third story exists, which isn't a third story, but I am using their terms, the reason it was built was :because the City of Anaheim did not want mechanical equipment on the roof because its noisy and an eyesore. So it was put under so that its not an eyesore and so that its quieter. What it boils down to is no matter what they did with this building, these people weren't going to be happy because they have a personal - I mean, you heard this today and I know you heard this the last hearing -they have a personal vendetta against Mr. Browne, Its time to split -make that stop and let this building go forward. Thank you. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you very much. Anybody want to speak again? Mr. Leighton: Yes sir, I do. I believe that Mr, Browne has given you copies of the memo which I wrote to him which was my initial analysis of the Colia report with explanations of why he had a much higher estimated number than I. I am looking at this latest report and it contains the same errors or erroneous assumptions which I pointed out in that prior memo. He's still apparently going with a six foot wall instead of an eight foot ,and there is no data here, no source data that allows us to make a proper evaluation of 04-13-98 Page 38 his calculations. He does not have those calculations in here. Any questions? So we still stand by the correctness of this. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Thank you. Is there anybody on the applicant's side that wants to speak? Okay. I am going to close the public hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger: As I understand the testimony at the beginning the staff recommendation, the added paragraph 17 was acceptable to the applicant. This condition regarding the signage was not. Condition Nos. 19 and 20 were, 21 was not. I didn't like the idea of 22 and they believe they have complied with 23. I think that's the summary of it. I guess -one of the things that we should say about buildings in the -what's allowed in the zone of this project sits in - is that they are allowed to have a certain height, and this thing is somewhat very close to that height. I know there is a lot of bad feelings about the height of the building, but it - I think that height is okay. I mean in terms of Code. When we had the public hearings on the building we did have a lot of people in the audience and some people, direct property owners were here and they talked about the project and they supported it. I know some spoke against it, but some spoke for it too, and it wasn't a lot of people in either case. So I think that pretty much brings us down to just sort of tuning what we have, rather than, you know, I hope no one really seriously thinks someone's going to tear this building down cause that's not going to happen. I'm sorry, it's just not going to happen from where we are. I think the covenant about the use of the third story is certainly justified. I know that in many jurisdictions the zoning, whatever your zoning entitlement. might be, you're asked to covenant, record a document that says what your entitlement is so it gives fair notice to future owners of the property. I think Mr. Farano made a good point when he talked about the square footage, all the parking and the layout of the building is based on the number of square feet that was presented and what was presented in terms of usable space was the two stories and the third story was presented as an attic. So I think -and not just for the church and the school, but also for the office building in the front, because the office building in the front is part of the overall entitlement. It was shown on the plans and its floor area was included in all of the parking requirements. So I think weare well within our rights to ask the property owners here to covenant that way. Just in passing I'd like to ask a question of staff -we've heard a lot about delay here today and at least of the last hearing my thought was that we were not delaying this project in any way, that there were a number of things the applicant had to do to complete his building permit sign-off, get his occupancy permit, and those hadn't been done. We were not on that critical path. Was that true then and is it still true now? I think Melanie, this is a question for you. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Putlic Works Department: Concerning the grading I have been correctedby the City Attorney that temporary occupancy would not be delayed based on conformance with the overall grading. They could, indeed, obtain a temporary occupancy permit before the final_grading certification was completed. Commissioner Henninger: Is that the only thing we're waiting on? Cheryl Flores, Senior. Planner: It's my understanding that there are other things that need to be completed. I can get somebody down Building probably to tell us what is missing if we can - Commissioner Henninger: I don't need to know what's missing, its just the concept. I was trying to understand if we were creating a delay or if there were other things, and my sense, at least at the last hearing, was that we were not creating a delay. Cheryl Flores, Sr. Planner: That is my understanding as well. That there are a few other minor issues to be resolved prior. 04-13-98 Page 39 Commissioner Henninger: Well., you know, the applicant's attorney got up and made it sound like we were horribly delaying them and I didn't think we were. With regard to the signage, you know, the applicant has recorded some deed restrictions already that address the signage and they say that the entire complex shall be managed and maintained as one integral parcel for the purpose of parking, vehicular circulation, signage, land use and architectural control. I think that clearly goes to this issue of the signage. It doesn't seem to me that the way the signage is started out that we're right now operating as a single unit, an integral parcel. It seems to me with regard to the signing, it's out there now. It was a single owner of one of the single parcels went out there and did signage without any thought of how it was going to integrate with an overall sign program. So I think we are certainly within our rights to ask for an overall sign program, particularly since they've agreed to do that with their recorded documents. Those are my thoughts. If we had had this testimony when the thing was originally permitted we would have had a different outcome, but we didn't. Cheryl Flores: Senior. Planner: Mr. Chairman, it's also important to point out that Condition Nos. 19, 20 and 21 were in the original resolution that was approved and they were not included in the second resolution, but they should have been. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: I was going to ask you that, Cheryl. I am going to make a comment for the record. I mentioned this morning. I was at this site on Saturday and I walked everything and I climbed the ladder on the school and I climbed the ladder on the church and I got tired. I looked out and visually from the third story with Mr. Browne, I went to the second story. I looked at all you houses out there that think it impacted. I can understand. I don't know how many hours of testimony we've heard about this subject and everybody on both side, you've got a lot of sincerity and a lot of things to be concerned about one way or another, and we understand that. The - I'm hearing a lot from the church and the school that you want to be reasonable and work with the folks and these recommendations made by the staff are probably the least that can be accepted on this site because they've been discussed and actually were in the conditional use permit four years ago that the applicant was agreeing to. Now we have to put them back in. I think that there could be more done. I think we discussed that this morning. Commissioner Boydstun, do you want to talk this about this as far as the elevation, because it is kind of a large building. It looks like a large building to the neighbors, and maybe there is something architecturally that could be done to lessen that a little bit. That's it for right now. Anybody else? Commissioner Boydstun: What we talked about this morning, we wondered if it would help as far as the neighbors were concerned, would be if --Cheryl, what is the name of the building that did the trim, that made it look smaller? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Chevy's Restaurant at the Festival. Commissioner Boydstun: I went blank on it, I'm sorry. That possibly some design or -color not design, but color on some of the standouts on the building might make it look not quite so mammoth and as far as all on one side, if that would have a better eye appeal to it. That this might be something that could be done very easily. I'd like to ask Doug what he thinks about that. I mean, we'd like the neighbors to be happy and we'd like to get your building occupied. Doug Browne, 151 S. Quintana, Anaheim, CA: Doug Browne, 151 South Quintana. Commissioner Boydstun continued: I wondered if you might Zook at that and see what you think about that some trim could be done that would... Commissioner Henninger interjected: We're talking about painting some of those building features that look like columns and stuff to sort of break up the elevation. [Commissioners Boydstun and Henninger both spoke at the same time difficult to hear Commissioner Boydstun.] Doug Browne: Are you going to come forward with a specific recommendation or ask me to use my own intuition? 04-13-98 Page 40 Commissioner Henninger: No, we'd ask you to bring back a plan for the painting of the elevations that we could approve. [Doug Browne and Commissioner Boydstun both speaking at the same time.] Doug Browne: I don't have a problem offering to do that. The - my concern is that I'm still without occupancy for my client who is ready to move forward. Commissioner Boydstun: I wouldn't think that this would hold up a temporary occupancy if you're grading and the things that have to be done are done. Doug Browne: With that stipulation I would happy to bring that back. Do you have another question for me? Commissioner Boydstun: I think that's it. Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney: Mr. Chairman, if I might, while Mr. Browne is still here. Sir, could you tell us do you still own all three parcels or where is the ownership aspects of the parcels at this instant? Doug Browne: I do not - I own the front parcel. Mac Slaughter: And the other two parcels, when were they conveyed, approximately? Doug Browne: March and June of 1997, respectively. Mac Slaughter: Thank you. Commissioner Henninger: Would the other owners., do you think they would agree with a painting :plan? Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Mr. Browne, why don't you come back up here forjust a minute and maybe speak for some folks here because we're going to be asking a lot questions -instead of going back and forth. Go ahead. Doug Browne: Did you ask me a question? Chairman Bristol: No, Commissioner Henninger did. Commissioner Henninger: Well, I just wondered if you thought the other two owners would be agreeable to a... Doug Browne: This is a minor modification and I'm certain that that's agreeable. Commissioner Boydstun: The church said that they would be. Commissioner Henninger: Yes, I saw that church and... Doug Browne: Are you -there is one thing that you must recognize and that is that the final finish on the buildings actually hasn't been applied. That's the thing you do the day before people move in. The buildings are 'fog' coated with a cementicious material which causes them to have an even texture and is what stucco people use to make it look perfect, what you can't do with a trowel finish. After that's done then the painting would be applied to those pilasters or pop-outs or whatever details are there. It's already been contemplated, frankly, so originally it was in the considerations, since it is now, then its not much of a concession. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Would you have any problem with towering the address numbers of the front of the building? 04-13-98 Page 41 Doug Browne: If the Fire Department doesn't. The most disconcerting thing when you show up to put out a fire, I imagine, is not being able to find out which building is on fire. So with the -there are certain regulations on the front buildings, you have minimum 15 inch high address letters which show and identify that all three of those properties are there. As well as when you have a destination commercial to go to, if you're looking for the address, then you want to be able to find it readily. I imagine they could tie relocated, that's not very difficult to do. The address right now is about ten or eleven feet above grade, to my recollection. Commissioner Henninger: Well, I think those would show on a comprehensive sign plan, that would be part of what we would see and, of course, the Fire Department will drive where they are located. So I guess that's really their most important use if there happens to be an emergency make sure we can get the emergency personnel there reliably. With regard to this I'm -you know the noise analysis that was submitted by Mr. Farano -staff, have you had a chance to take a look at this noise analysis that was submitted by Mr. Farano. I think in the last paragraph they refer to this 55 dBA; and then it says in parentheses after it, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., which would be, of course, during the day time. I think that those are reversed. I think the 55 dBA is the night time limit. And I think there's a separate higher limit during the day time. But I am asking you what the actual limits are. Mac Slaughter: We're waiting for a copy of the ordinance to be delivered as we speak. I will be able to clarify that soon. Commissioner Henninger: Okay, we'll wait for that to come Mac Slaughter: I might add that from the documentation I've seen this property is subject to the standard noise limits that apply to all properties, there is no special limitations --- [Commissioner Henninger spoke at the same time and covered Mac Slaughter's comments.] Commissioner Henninger: I understand that. Commissioner Henninger: So let's see, with regard to the proposed condition 18 if we were to strike the first sentence out of there and just say "That a comprehensive sign program will be submitted for our review and approval", then we can, you know, approve it or not when it comes through. But I think the current sign -it's my sense that the current sign on the Montessori school needs to come off. I mean, I should tell you that up front. That's how I think I would vote when the day came when we voted on this. Doug Browne: That sign was contracted for by the owner and... Commissioner Henninger: Well, that wasn't a question that was just a comment because I don't really think it conforms with your recorded covenants. It doesn't look like :part of a comprehensive sign program to me - integrated sign program. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Even if it did adhere to the intent of the law regarding 10% of the wall, what people see of this wall it kind of sees about 40% of the wall. (At this point the voices on the tape suddenly went faster.) Commissioner Henninger: Are we waiting for the noise ordinance? Mac Slaughter: Yes, I'm looking at Section 6.70.010 and basically it says that "No person shall, within the City, create any sound, radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property line in excess of sixty decibels (Re 0.0002 Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level meter. Readings shall be taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer's instructions, using the slowest meter response". So basically it is 60 dBA's and then there are some exemptions for [inaudible] sounds and [inaudible] emergency and so on. 04-13-98 Page 42 (1'he tape suddenly stops. Tape counter no. 112]. From this oint forward this item was com fled from staff notes. Jeff Farano: We were given a noise ordinance standard that limits the reading on a sound level. meter to 45 decibels from 10 p.m. to 7a:m. Commissioner Henninger: Is this out of the General Plan? Mac Slaughter: The Code constitutes the standard at sixty decibels. Jeff Farano: Wanted to clarify that they are not going to be occupying the top floor of the buildings. Commissioner Boydstun: I did not ask him to do architectural design, I asked him to paint the buildings. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: He visited the property on Saturday. He went up to the attic. He is 6'4" tall and was able to walk in the school's attic, but not the church's. They took a look at the windows. He asked the property owners if they had any problems to make the windows opaque. He stated the church said yes, they would make the windows opaque. Mac Slaughter: The questions should be answered by the owners on the microphone for the record. Michael Griffith: We do not have a problem shielding the windows. We will also stipulate that there shall be no occupancy on the third floor (the attic space), but we would like to use if for storage. Thank you. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering: Storage should not be allowed on the third floor. Howard Betna, Attorney representing Dr. Jayaratna: His client had no opposition of making the windows opaque. He asked for the possibility of limiting the number of children playing at the playground area at any one time to a single class instead of twenty five children as proposed on Condition No. 21. Commissioner Henninger: It sounds to him like they want to have those children play outside before they start school. Dr. Jayaratna, owner of the Montessori School: We will do our best to comply with your recommendations. Would like for Commission to be reasonable, because it will not be easy to keep the children inside all the time. The children might want to come out and stretch their legs. He asks that Commission have reasonable judgment here. Commissioner Henninger asked if there is adequate room in the play area. Dr. Jayaratna: There is next to..... Bart Allen, 6278 East Catle Jaime, Anaheim, CA: He looks at this building every morning. Before you (Commission) make a decision, please take me in consideration. I live at the house with zero clearance. just wanted to state that for the record. Doug Browne: Placed an exhibit on the wall. With a red pen he drew a line indicating where a proposed gate could separate a west playground area and an east playground area. He stated they could keep the gate closed in the mornings and that they would keep the children on the east play ground area approximately seventy feet away from the residences until normal school hours. During the Action: Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. 04-13-98 Page 43 Commissioner Henninger skipped to Item 6c. The revised plans show that there is no longer any playground equipment west of the fence and there is none planned for the future. We have revised plans that show a west and east play area. Jeff Farano: On south end of the parking lot there is something that looks like a foundation for a building measuring approximately twenty by twenty and six inches high. He would like clarification on what they are doing there. Doug Browne: That is just a wall capping. Commissioner Henninger stated we have revised plans that show a front grass area and there is a fence that has been added creating a west and an east play area. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The east playground has the play equipment. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a resolution approving the modifications to Conditional Use Permit No. 3662 with the following changes to conditions: • 17 - as listed in the staff report. • 18 -striking out the first sentence and leaving in the second sentence. Stated this condition shalt be complied within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of the resolution. o Added Condition Nos. 19 and 20, as listed in the staff report. • Amended Condition No. 21 to say: • That the playground hours for the west playground area shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and that there shall be no more than one class at a time. That the playground hours for the east playground area shall be limited to those of the school. • Added Condition Nos. 22 and 23, as listed in the staff report. • Added the following conditions: • That within a period of forty five days from the date of this resolution., the applicant shall submit a plan showing the opaquing of all the windows on the third story of all three buildings to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. • That within a period of forty five days from the date of this resolution, the three property owners shall submit a plan showing the proposed painting for the buildings to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. • That all of the stgnage on the property including the numbers shall come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. Commissioner Henninger: I would like to see the wall sign come down. Just leave it as that and they will handle it when it comes back to them for review. Mac Slaughter: Are you going to limit the number of children playing outside in the playground area? Commissioner Henninger answered no. They have limited to having one class outside at any one time. Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Resolution passed with five yes votes. 04-13-98 Page 44 IN FAVOR: Approximately twenty five (25) people indicated their presence in favor of the church. 2 people spoke in favor of the project. OPPOSITION: Approximately thirty five (35) people indicated their presence in opposition o subject request. 8 people spoke in opposition. Correspondence was received in opposition. A petition with approximately twenty four (24) signatures in opposition was submitted. ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Amended Resolution No. PC94-103 by adding the following conditions of approval: 17. That within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3701 (permitting a child day care facility in two temporary trailers with waiver of minimum structural setback from a Scenic Expressway) to the Zoning Division. 18. That within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of this resolution, a comprehensive sign program including address numbers shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a 'Reports and Recommendations' agenda item; and that the existing Montessori school sign shall not be illuminated during this forty five (45) day period. 19. That the school operating hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 6 a:m. to 6:30 p.m. 20. That the maximum enrollment pf children, infants through 3rd grade, shall not exceed one hundred (100) students. 21. (a) That the playground hours for the west playground area shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and _ _. (b) That the playground hours for the east playground area shall be the same as the school hours; and (c) That the use of the west playground area shall be limited to not more than one (1) class at a time. 22. That within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of this public hearing (April 13, 1998), the property owner shall submit an unsubordinated covenant to the Zoning Division, for review and approval by the City Attorney, restricting the use of the attic area to mechanical equipment associated with the underlying building(s) only; and further stipulating that access to this attic area shall be provided by ladder only and that stairway access to this area shall not be permitted nor constructed at any time in the future. 23. That minimum eight (8) foot high Italian Cypress trees shall be planted on maximum twenty eight (28) inch centers adjacent to the entire west property Line. The setback of these trees from Santa Ana Canyon Road shall be 04-13-98 Page 45 determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, based upon line- of-sight considerations. 24. That within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of this resolution, the applicant shall submit a plan specifying the method of opaquing or covering all the windows in the attics of all three buildings to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a'Reports and Recommendations' item. 25. That within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of this resolution, the property owner shall submit a plan specifying the color scheme for a painted finish for the three buildings to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a 'Reports and Recommendations' item. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereby approve the location of the playground equipment as shown on a map submitted and revised at the Planning Commission meeting April 13, 1998. Said revised map shows a gate to separate a west playground area and an east playground area. The east playground area has the playground equipment set back eighty (80) feet from the west property line. The west playground area is to have no playground equipment. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 hours and 47 minutes (2:20-5:07) 04-13-98 Page 46 CITY OF ANAHEIM DEPARTMENT OF MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM Date: April 15, 1998 From: Larry Swiatkowski /Electrical Supervisor To: Planning Department Subject: City Hall East Council Chamber Tape Recording Equipment On April 14, I was asked to investigate a problem that had occurred with the No. 4 Tape Deck in the Council Chambers during the Planning Commission Meeting on April 13, 1998. Listening to the tape, it appears that the tape drive was slowing down and eventually stopped.. This is a belt driven tape deck and was due to be serviced and overhauled. Although I could not duplicate the problem, I can see no explanation for this problem other than equipment failure. The unit was removed from service and sent to a repair station for servicing with repair instructions pertaining to the specific problem. Page 46a CITY OF ANAHEIfl~ DEPARTAIIEMT OF MAIfiITEPIANCE MEflAORANDUM Date: April 15, 1998 From: Larry Swiatkowski /Electrical Supervisor To: Planning Department Subject: City Hall East Council Chamber Tape Recording Equipment On April 14, I was asked to investigate a problem that had occurred with the No. 4 Tape Deck in the Council Chambers during the Planning Commission Meeting on April 13, 1998. Listening to the tape, it appears that the tape drive was slowing down and eventually stopped. This is a belt driven tape deck and was due to be serviced and overhauled. Although I could not duplicate the problem, I can see no explanation for this problem other than equipment failure. The unit was removed from service and sent to a repair station for servicing with repair instructions pertaining to the specific problem. Page 466 M' '~, o ~ 097450 1 r CULURVISIUN SeRVICE COMPANY 1735 5. CLAUDINA HAY ANAHEIM CA 9Z9C5 L PHONE NUMBER: 71~-635-5395 PURCHASE ORDER CITY OF ANAFiEIwA 200 S. Anaheim Blvd, 6th Floor Purchasing Anaheim, CA 92805 714-765-5110 FAX 714-765-5288 PURCHASE PAGE NUH9F.R O1 ORDER NO. pC XMW-0005445 THE ABOVE NUMBER MUST BE SHOWN ON INVOICE. DOCUMENTS AND SHIPPING TICKETS. NO GOODS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY A PACKING SIfP SHOWING PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER. SHIP TO: FACILITY MALNTENANCE 955 5. MELR05E' MAIL STOP X19 -1 ANAHEIMa CA 97.965 DELIVER TO: (CITY USE ONLY) FACILITY MAINTENANCE. 955 S. MELRUSt MAIL 5TUP tf19 J ANAHEIM CA 923C5 ACCOUNTNUMBERRTG_L~~aoAGKOWSK~ ~~~~ 0197 CONFIRMING TO: ~ TERMS: F.O.B. ~ B{D NO.~ n DELIVER BY CAP,OLE ' 04/21/99 NET-30 OESTINATIUN 04 ~9 99i ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COMMODITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE:; NO. CODE # .. -: ~:. i01 1.OC _A ©0395 ~~FR_ RF.PALR R EC ORp~~- ~'`~~ 160.000 160.1 . , T Gr~ ~ ~ OTAL PRIC IId SL~ E~=4~$Q-.M~,TE ANO f~ TAX ,~ ,ice„ -x hh,~~~~ eAg SALES T A'~pn~.' ~ r a„ ,yc~•,r ~~,+,\ t } i' s{ .ta ~ i 1 ~~ -"' y~ 9 I 1 ,~ ~ ...,,~ _ yf a ~ 1 ~~ ~,. v .,: { V , ~ ~ . jyn~ Y ~• as f ~ ,(` , t~t' , ~'Wj~ d~L',~~ ~~~r~ ... y ti ~i~ m.~ t _ T .-~ ~ :kti~ ~ d ~~ 1 a i ~ .i ,) ;3.~ :;r f z _~. y [~ Qopd pOo --*e ITEM OTY BAL OTV reo P/S OR B/L NO. NO. RECEIVED UNIT DUE REJ. STATUS OR DISPOSITION BY ORIGINATOR Page 46c r CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA PURCHASING CENTER DATE 4-14-98 DEPARTMENT Maintenance DNISION Facili ACCOUNT NO: 675-417-8252-7555 DATE REQUIRED 4-28-98 IF DATE REQUIRED IS CRITICAL, STATE WHY Council Chamber Sound S stem DELNER TO ADDRESS 955 S. Melrose Ave. Anaheim Ca. 92805 ATTENTION La Swiatkowski SELECTED SUPPLIER Colorvision Service Co. PHONE NO. 835-5385 ADDRESS Cm zIP 1735 S. Claudina Wa Anaheim CA 92805 PURCHASE ORDER NO XMW-0005445 CONFIRMING TO DATE Carole 4-21-98 TERMS Net-30 F.O.B. Destination ITEM NO. ONTY UNR DESCRIPTION PRICE UNIT TOTAL PRICE 1 1 EA Re air And Service One AKAI Ta a Recorder $ 159.52. EA $ 159.52 Model No. GCX-750D Serial No. 30821-03030 Note: Ta e s eed slows down intermittent . Re air indicatin li hts as needed. Sub-Total $ 159.52 7.75% Tax Shi in 8 Handlin N.T.E. Total $ 159..52 REQUESTED BY La Swiatkowski EXT 6197 W.O. NO. 93669 Page 46d C®L®RVISI®@~ SERVICE CO. ~ ~ S 1735 S. Claudina Way ~ ANAHEIM,..CA 92805 Ph: (714) 635-5385 ~J y t,, / Sta:D Rrc;. Ne' Fax: (714) 635-3114 IJ' I U' /~ m Yv, ~Uj~~ p SERVICE p WTLL CALL WARRANTY ATEP E OqT ^ INSTALL ^ DE IVER ^.pgRTS ^ LABOR Si- TI Vj V.._.1 l I~.w. ~.J~~ L L _... ~ E ' T `~ ~ ~ f ( ~'c~1z.. ._:;., J ..~ ~ ly)~' . .. .. , ... M DE 1~ ~~~~ ' ~`~ r/ l L - ` „-- LIT PNON6- "" ~~ ~~ ~ ti - ~~S (~ NATURE OF ., J ' FERIA qU 9~h - '« ~~~5~ ~-C~3a3( / ~ 9ERVICE REOVE9T }~/ ~ ~ J I ~~~{J~ )}T I /Z1e\h BY CU9TOMEP '~ ~ Jll/v\J X r E DEPpSITEO PROPERTY 19 ^ 19 NOT ^ N9URED OR PROTECTED TO THE / 11......_.. t V RECOMMENDATION U~F'~I { ~„i,~~ rT; Pn~~ ;cl j ~.~OI~\ ~(~-[ AMOVNi OFT E ACTUAL CA9H VALUE AGAINST ~ L9M91pNE0 BY THEFT. FIRE. OR , . Y 9UAN. PART fdU BER ' ~ PART SCRIPTION ~ PRICE' OU ,_, ' CLEANER, W I ANTS B MISCELLANEPUS __.._._.____._._ ...__t__-,._.___..__..... ,.__._,___ __.__._ _l. -__.._._ __ __ _ - '_,... %. 1.. .._ _ ___ _. /~... {sl .. _.__ -l.. 1 . v _ _ _~ __ _. __.__ __.__ TFLHN/GL SERVICE PERFORMED elA30VE' H T IFOTNER THAN ABOVE~pNEAODgES3 /I I . 9ERVICE PERFORMED: ~ l.. 'b ._l -- ..._ -----------'-----------j-' - - r - . . - -- _._ _. _ .. _.. -- -- ~-~ -'_''~..._.__ - r I -- ----- ----- ~ ~ _ __ _- _ ~-y- - ._ . _ .. _~9 - / --- -... - - S E I T CU OME~= REVI9ED~ ~~SOATE CAL~~ '/ WHOM APPgO VE09Y ~ ~~~~ r "^r v-mnr.,,.,,~q ,.,•nrrr. Jal cuslomvr n+RUea r•~~y.~,l-...,., ,,,...^~. r•«r~.m.n em•nn.,•u~•n I VOICE RITTEN e...n .~..e ~-- - _ ~. n. m.n ) ESTIMATED CHARGES INCLUDE ADKNO DO I HAVE REA AND SERVICE CALL, SHOP LABOR REMOVAL, RE- INSTALLATION AND PARTS. IF Ui'ON CLOSER SHOP OFOV ROTE p 9 GRIPED NEO PMENTZ FORE PU OSE9 ANA VSIS ADDITIONAL PAIRS ARE NEEDED, VOU WIL BE CONTACTED OR AUTHORIZATION TO COV ADDITIONAL R TA o. ALSO u ER NO WHEN AUTHORI2Ep REPAIRS Ac O ITH NE~MATERIAIS ARE COMPLETED, AN E%PRE59 REPAR N'3 LIEN IS HEREBY AGKNOWLEDGED ON GES. RECEN OB ECH. 91 R HIGH VOLTAGE PEApINO ( ABOVE 1- MafD SECURE THE AMOUNT OF REPAIR THERETO. CCOO D' L E MILRQVAVE LEAKAGE REP Rl 91p9N1T S SAT CT OMPIEiEOd O[q~yA\R IS RET O UPR ~ I 1 d _ l Ile / 1. ~ .LET / `' ~ SEESTl~TEMENTONfI RSE~IUE T V -5 pUARANTEE' WI en PIMeb b puoenlN ell mebrNb 141b ebre /~eq ~ ~ vmwe pmerwne.P.unb aalmnr.r.macn.,p.e anti l~J{I,/~_nPl<[/ QL(/ nOUHS6 J Page 46e 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4013 Granted 7d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 98-123 Approved , OWNER: KIIFKLA, Ranch Realty, LLC, Attn: Ms. Wanda Chihak, 3697 Mt. Diablo Blvd., #100., Lafayette, CA 94549 AGENT: The Clifford Companies, c/o Martin Potts & Associates, Attn: Michael Balsamo, 567 San Nicholas Drive, #208, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 8181-8201 East Kaiser Boulevard.. Property is 6.2 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. Conditional Use Permit No: 4013 - to construct a 99,454 square foot (total) planned commercial office/light manufacturing complex within 7 buildings up to 38 feet in height with waivers of (a) required lot frontage, (b) minimum parking lot landscaping, and (c) minimum structural setback adjacent to interior boundary lines. Tentative Parcel Map No. 98-123 - to establish a 10-lot (including 3 lettered lots) subdivision for the development of a 7-unit office/light manufacturing complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-57 Applicant's Statement: Mike Batsamo, 567 San Nicholas Drive, #208, Newport Beach, CA 92660: Stated they worked with staff in looking for an RV type project. He understood and agreed with all the conditions in the staff report as recommended by staff and indicated the architect for the project was also present to answer any questions. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated a letter pertaining to this request was submitted by Pat(1ck Pepper, Board of Directors for the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Cpalition. She read the letter which stated as follows: "Dear Members of the Planning Commission: The staff report indicated that the roof-mounted equipment was not included in the current request. Ptease be certain another 3-story building is not enroute. Screening should be part of the plans and elevations reviewed, rather than applied for separately. We are always concerned when height and setback waivers are requested, but have not reviewed the plans and cannot comment specifically on the waivers. Thank you:' Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Asked Mr. Balsamo if he understood what Ms. Flores just stated? There was a letter submitted this afternoon regarding the last agenda item as well as this item. Commissioner Henninger: Thought perhaps they should ask that question now that it has been brought up. In the Canyon we do not allow roof mounted equipment. Asked where their air conditioning is going to go in these buildings? Michael Balsamo: Responded he has been working with the staff on that and at this point they do not have the exact AC unit locations on the buildings. The buildings are going to be predominantly office. Up to 80°/a office. They are going to comply with the condition and return with a plan with site line analysis 04-13-98 Page 47 and also showing potential roof mounted equipment locations, address screenings and those types of issues that comply with Code. Commissioner Henninger: He thought it would be very easy to take that architectural feature that he has over the entry of the buildings and build a penthouse, extend that back and build a penthouse and put the roof mounted air conditioning unit in the penthouse. He stressed this was only a suggestion. Commissioner Boydstun: Another suggestion would be that he might incorporate in the front some of those buildings a place where a wall mounted one could go. That would probably give him some customers and that is what they are trying to get people to do so that they will not have this problem. Mr. Balsamo: Asked if it is the cellular phone antenna that she is referring to? Commissioner Henninger: Stated Commission is basically asking them to do all wall mount. Only allow pole mounted antennas in very limited circumstances. So they might have some surfaces there that might be planned ahead to provide a penthouse place where that cellular phone equipment can go in. Commission is not requiring him to do that. They are suggesting it as a business opportunity. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Stated this morning he had a concern about the roll up doors on the elevations he had. A suggestion was made that perhaps a condition could be added that they be painted the same color as his walls. Is there any problem with that? Mr. Balsamo: Responded no. In fact that is our plan. That's acceptable. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion approving CEQA Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended adding a condition that the roll up door be painted to match the color of the adjacent building wall, related to Conditional Use Permit No. 4013. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Recommend a couple of changes on the conditions. On page 8, Condition No. 12 -that the wall signage will be oriented inward only towards the interior streets to match what they have in paragraph 11. On page 10 of the staff report under the conditions of approval for the tentative parcel map -Condition No. 8 should be moved to the conditional use permit conditions shown on pages 7, 8 and 9. Lastly on page 10 -Condition No. 6 should be included in the timing under Condition No. 9 of the same page, page 10. OPPOSITION: None/1 letter was received with concerns. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4013 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition No. 12 to read as follows: 12. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner and, further, that any wall signage shall face the interior of the complex. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item, Added the following conditions: That the water backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Utility Division in either underground vaults 04-13-98 Page 48 or behind the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys, That the roll-up doors shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent building wall. Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 98-123 with the following changes to conditions: Deleted Condition No. 8. Modified Condition No. 9 to read as follows: 9. That prior to final parcel map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following condition: That the proposed industrial uses shall be limited to the light manufacturing., processing, assembling, packaging, servicing or fabrication following listed uses as described in Section 18.41.050.135 in the Anaheim Municipal Code and that an unsubordinated covenant, reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office so-limiting said uses, shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder, a copy of which shall be submitted to the Zoning Division: 1. Laboratories, experimental or research 2. Laboratories, physical or chemical testing 3. Pharmaceuticals or cosmetics 4. Publishing books, periodical newspapers 5. Scientific equipment assembly 6. Communication equipment, components or supplies 7. Drafting instruments or goods 8. Electrical or electronic equipment, components or products 9. Research, development and testing laboratories and facilities 10. Scientific, optical, medical, dental or photographic equipment, components and products 11. Sound equipment, components or supplies 12. And similar uses as expressly approved by the City. 13. Any use permitted under Zoning Code Section 18.41:020 "Permitted Primary Uses and structures," and subject to all conditions of said Section. Each individual use shall require the written approval of the Zoning Division prior to occupancy which approval shall only be given when it is demonstratedthat such use is either an expressly permitted use in such zone or meets the criteria of Section 18.41.050.135 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcel Map portion of this request and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the matter. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (5:08-5:14) 04-13-98 Page 49 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3617 (READVERTISED) Amended conditions of approval OWNER: R.S. Hoyt, Jr., Raymond Runo and George Manavian, trustees of the Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc., Profit (Deleted time Sharing Trust, 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, limitation condition) Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: California Auto Refrigeration Distributors, Attn: Nancy Krancz, 1141 North Kraemer Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1141 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property is 0.88 acre located on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard, 530 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street. To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain the sales, installation and servicing of automotive air conditioning, cruise control and power window/door lock systems. This permit was originally approved on April 5, 1993. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-58 SR6556DS~DOC Applicant's Statement: Nancy Kranz, 1141 N. Kraemer Blvd. Anaheim, CA: Stated they are asking to extend their conditional use permit to the year 2013. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Asked if she had read the staff report and are in agreement with it? Nancy Kranz: She did but did not understand an item that suggested that they want to propose a deleting Condition No. 1 of the resolution. Commissioner Henninger: Explained Condition No. 1 is the condition with a time limitation on it. It is being deleted. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved request. Amended Resolution No. PC93-43 by deleting Condition No. 1 in it's entirety based on the finding that the conditions under which Conditional Use Permit No. 3617 was originally approved still exist. Furthermore, the conditional use permit is being exercised substantially in conformance with the conditions of approval and in a manner not detrimental to the particular area, surrounding land uses nor to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. 04-13-98 Page 50 VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (5:15-5:16) 04-13-98 Page 51 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLAFZA l1VN r~NNwvGu 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4017 Granted, in part OWNER: Lincoln Plaza Development Company, P.O. Box 1839, Orinda, CA 94563-6839 AGENT: Sherwood G. Oklejas, 215 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 101 South Euclid Street. Property is 0.51 acre located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street. To permit a 22,300 square foot expansion of an existing automobile sales lot display area with waiver of minimum landscaped setback and minimum number of street trees. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-59 • o ® • • • Cheryl Flores: Stated staff received a letter regarding this item from the owner of Anaheim Chevrolet. It states, "Please make a decision on my proposal Item No. 9 and request that you not continue it. I have been here since 1:30 p.m. and I must leave the meeting as it is very apparent that this Item No. 6 will go on for quite awhile:' Signed by Woody Oklejas. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, in part, as follows: denied the portion of the waiver pertaining to the required ten foot landscaped setback, and approved the portion of the waiver pertaining to the location of the trees. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4017 with the conditions as sated in the staff report. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (5:17-5:18) 04-13-98 Page 52 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4012 ~ 4-27-98 OWNER: John E. Biard and Carol D. Biard, trustees of The Biard Family Trust, 18021 Weston Place, Tustin, CA 92780 AGENT: John E. Biard, 18021 Weston Place, Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1423 North State Colleae Boulevard. Property is 0.61 acre located on the west side of State College Boulevard, 350 feet south of the centerline of Via Burton Street. To permit and retain a retail carpet store in the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. '. ,;: ~ ~. ~,~..FOL'LOWING 19 A SUMMARY OF THE:PLANNINGACQMMISSION ACTiION: ~; -:~,,; (Applicant was not present.) OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for Code Enforcement to conduct an inspection of the property. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (5:19-5:20) 04-13-98 Page 53 11 b. 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 Company. Property is 0.22 acre, located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 505 feet east of the centerline of Vilfa 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 for an existing retail restaurant supply store. This permit was originally approved on April 4, 1996. Continued from the Commission meetings of February 18, March 16, and March 30, 1998. 5-11-98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7098KB.DOC „~ ~,.; -;~ FOLLOWING IS A;SUMMARY,;OF-THE, PiLANNING~COMMISSION~ACTION: ;,.~- Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Is the applicant.here? (Applicant is not present at the beginning of this item.] Public Testimony: Sharon Becker, 1129 W. Center Street, Anaheim, CA: She was here 2 years ago opposing the conditional use permit that was granted to Ace Fixtures. She is again bringing her concerns to the Commission for many of the same concerns. She works a swing shift which means she sleeps days and is very concerned about the decibel level because her fence is about 3 feet from her bedroom window. She can hear fork lifts and pallets being broken apart all day. She disagreed with item 16(e) of the staff report that stated that her my peace, health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood was to be taken into consideration. She has been sleep deprived for more than 2 years because the applicant has had the outdoor storage before he had been actually granted the conditional use permit. She still has traffic concerns and the parking all over the neighborhood which she submitted photos that show the violations above the fence line. In her back yard everything is stacked above the fence line (which is about 6 feet) which has gone on for over 2 years and nothing has been corrected. He has things up against my garage stacked 10 feet high. Some of his merchandise is up against her back fence pushing the fence over. She is always picking up trash including banding, packaging,.labels, nuts and bolts (she brought some with her to the meeting) that ends up in her yard. She would like to see an 8 foot block wall fence go up there. Hopefully a block wall would cut down the sound level so she could try to get some sleep. It is nice for his business has grown and expanded to that point but the applicant has outgrown this location. She was not certain the plans with the freeway cutting through and taking a lot of Lincoln Ave. The end of the street has already been closed off so there is no access out from Center Street. They are having to cut through Walnut. There is a real hazardous crossing trying to pull out from Center, West and Lincoln. She 04-13-98 Page 54 has a major vermin and roach problem due to all the cardboard and storage. There are big semis coming down the street. The applicant loads and unloads on the street. She would like to see some kind of sound walls put down the side of the property. Asked if the applicant is allowed to have barbed wire on top of his fence? Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: Stated there is no City Ordinance relating to barbed wire fencing other than it would be possibly a person lawsuit if some should happen to get hurt on it. Sharon Becker: Stated she was worried about the liability because it is right along her driveway. They were present on March 30th but this item was continued until today. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: For the record, a letter in support of this proposal was received today from the Mr. Schwartze from the PRS Group. There was also a letter received from Leona Mossey at 110 S. Walnut and Suzan and Jerome, Director of Pastoral Care Ministries which were in opposition. Jim Atry, 1122 West Center Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is directly behind Ace Fixtures. He agreed with Ms. Becker. Two years ago the applicant was issued a conditional use permit. He gave testimony on March 30th and voiced his concerns. He submitted photographs to Commission today. There continues to be a problem with parking -loading and unloading, waste in the yard, merchandise stacked above the fence line. On April 8, 1998, Code Enforcement went out to the property and found he was in violations of items 2, 3 or 4. His major concern is the parking -there is no more parking left. The applicant is blocking the sidewalk, blocking the street, three and four wide. He suggested possibly converting the street from parallel parking to diagnostic parking (at 45 degree angles). They have a very dangerous intersection where Lincoln meets West. A couple of years ago Center Street was going to be blocked off so no one could get in there. A barrier was put up and then a couple of months later it was taken down.. The applicant has outgrown too big for the property.. Applicant's Statement: Phillip Schwartze representing Ace Fixtures: Stated they were before Commission approximately a year ago to gain approval for an extension of the conditional use permit for a portion of the outdoor storage facility. At that time conditions of approval were placed on them that required monthly inspections from Code Enforcement and that they strictly adhere to our conditions. There is a memo in the staff report that .states Code Enforcement has been out there on a random basis for the last year making sure that portion was not in violation. Most recently Code Enforcement was out there and found there were several concerns above the fence and some other items. Mr. Berger's property has shrunk during that period. The front portion is being taken by right-of-way from Caltrans. So he has had to condense his property. During the last year when construction has been going on the 5 fwy., they have not been able to use any of the parking out front of the facility because it has been blocked off. He drove by there about 12 minutes ago and the front area is coned off. He took photos over the weekend and forwarded those along with the letter. Ace Fixtures has been there for a number of years, long before the neighbors that are there now. He is appropriately zoned and has had that outdoor use dating back to the 1950's. It is also well known that Mr. Berger and his immediate neighbor do not get along. There is a personality conflict going on there. He admitted that Mr. Berger is not an easy personality to deal with. He grew up in Europe, was able to escape from the holocaust and came here, starting the business. He has made it prosper over the years. He believes he has done his best at making sure that he was as good a neighbor as could be considering the circumstances. The use completely surrounds Ms. Becker's home. It is only a few feet off of three sides of her use. it has been that way, she knew that when she bought the house. It has been that way for approximately 40 years. At some point in time Mr. Berger will probably relocate that use due to the result of the right-of-way and other concerns. Obviously Mr. Berger is in a smaller space than he needs to be but they do not know quite yet what that space is going to be. One of the conditions of approval was that they put landscaping on Center Street. The landscaping has been installed and it is prospering and growing. The landscaping in front which now belongs to Caltrans and unfortunately they can not do too much about it until they know where their property line is going to be. 04-13-98 Page 55 They would like to have their use continued and that a point in time in the future when Caltrans makes a decision where the right-pf-way is, they will come back and reinstall the landscaping along the front and have it grow and prosper as the back on Center Street. Independent of what Code Enforcement is doing, he has been randomly visiting the site. He understands the parking problems along Lincoln because of the construction but he has not had a problem parking there and not experienced the difficulties that the neighbors have experienced. Sharon Becker, 1129 West Center Street, Anaheim (Walnut Street dead ends to her house)Anaheim, CA: Stated she is surrounded by Ace Fixture. When she moved in over 19 years ago there was a house that Ace Fixture purchased and a house behind her that was once attached to her home. Her home was built in 1919 so it has been a lot longer than Ace Fixture has been. She did not agree with Mr. Schwartze because he probably parks in front of her house when he comes to visit. It was suppose to be an employee parking lot on the west property (at 1203). The applicant has 17 employees so everyone is parking everywhere on our streets and it does continue to be a problem. If he went and made random inspections he should have come to my backyard and he could see all the stuff that is stacked up high above the fence line and that is the way it always is. She understood Mr. Berger is loosing property to Caltrans but he also has another property in Anaheim that he shuttle things over to on Anaheim Boulevard. As a neighborhood our concerns is that he has grown too big for this site. She has to be careful backing out of my driveway because forklifts are going back and forth. It is a problem that keeps growing over the years and we definitely like to see, if the applicant is granted this conditional use permit, that it stay at a 2-years basis. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: She thought she recalled when Commission heard this several years ago that the applicant was going to provide employee parking and asked where that employee parking? Phillip Schwartze: Responded there is employee parking at three different locations. When they are able to they parking on Lincoln, it is public parking. There is not enough parking on-site and never has been from the time the property was developed. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated the applicant was going to install some parking spaces on-site. Phillip Schwartze: The applicant has parking on-site. He has a fleet of trucks that haul stuff. They are pickup trucks with hydraulic lifts on them. When Mc Schwartze drove by them there it looked to him like he could see the tops of three of them parked in there. Also Mr. Berger owns the property which would be to the east, where the liquor store is and there is parking along there. So they are trying to use Lincoln, the portion where the liquor store is and along Center Street. Are there cars for 17 employees on-site? Absolutely not. Commissioner Boydstun: There is loading and unloading in the street. Phillip Schwartze: Responded yes, from time to time when those big trucks show up there is not enough room on the property even with the building gone to move a semi on the property. Commissioner Boydstun: They are double parked. She was there the other day and commented by the time the employees park their cars, a big truck and have something unloading you can not get through there. Phillip Schwartze: There are certainly times because of the nature of his site, zoning and use itself - if a huge truck shows up they can not get it on-site so they have to unload from there and take it in. Mr. Berger has four access bays in the back to off load. Commissioner Boydstun: Mr. Berger needs to move his employees some place so that truck is against the curb. 04-13-98 Page 56 Commissioner Henninger: He was interested in his letter where Mr. Schwartze statements that Ace Fixtures is continuing to comply with conditions of approval. Condition of Approval No. 11 that refers to this loading and unloading issue. He was either going to unload and load on-site, which Mr. Berger is clearly not doing, or he was going to come to the City and ask the Traffic Manager for a curb site loading area Apparently he has not done neither one. Phillip Schwartze: Responded no, he has not. Part of the reason is Mr. Berger does not know'if he is going to be able to access off of Lincoln once the new right-of-way is taken. He can do it now and get parking on the site and red/yellow curb it. Commissioner Henninger: This refers to Center Street. Basically when he pulls those trucks in and it seems from the testimony that the reason he has not asked for this is because it would further aggravate his employee parking. Phillip Schwartze: He do not know if it would aggravate his employee parking. Remember they :have access that normally they have been able to take off Lincoln that they have not used. If the new.right-of- way allows access off Lincoln that would be the perfect solution, have the truck come on-site and then be able to exit back through. That would be perfect for them. They do not know if they are going to be able to do that now. The preliminary discussions that have been held with Caltrans, appears they would be able to continue that access they have. That would solve a variety of problems. Commissioner Boydstun: Where do they have access off Lincoln? Phillip Schwartze: Currently there is an access off Lincoln. It is fenced across but the curb cut can be seen and other things that are the access off Lincoln. Commissioner Boydstun: She owned property on that street for years and never once saw anything come off of Lincoln. Phillip Schwartze: No. It has been fenced off but Mr. Berger has the access rights. Commissioner Boydstun: But Mr. Berger never did it when he could. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: We discussed this didn't we? Phillip Schwartze: No. Commissioner Peraza: That is a major street. They are not going to let a semi park there and drive in. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: Commented that he visited the site today, about 10:15 a.m. Is it the intent of the applicant to leave his property soon because there is no question Mr, Berger has outgrown it? Phillip Schwartze: I think he has felt that he has outgrown it for some time. Where he is able to relocate and how he is able to do that, we do not know yet. Mr. Berger and his son have been having discussions with Caltrans. One of the things he looked at was a full take which was not acceptable to Caltrans. I do not know how much longer he is going to be there. He is in his 70's. How much he is going to keep the business, I can not answer that. Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: He is not suppose to load or unload on the street, but apparently he is doing that which is illegal, so if Commission takes and makes the property legal then how is he going to operate? Phillip Schwartze: He would have to come to the City and get approval for a loading zone along that line or essentially you put him out of business. His job is selling merchandise and it is because of the scale and size of the merchandise - I do not know how you move them other than pull a truck up and forklift them off. 04-13-98 Page 57 Commissioner Boydstun: If Mr. Berger had moved his employees out of there and done that this would not have been an issue now. Commissioner Boydstun: The loading zone is needed against the curb and stay out of the middle of the street. Phillip Schwartze: He suggested to Mr. Berger that he wait until Caltrans was done with whatever they were doing. Remember when Mr. Berger was in last year they did not know what Caltrans was doing. They were not sure how much as going to be taken. Commissioner Boydstun: Does he own that building? Phillip Schwartze: Yes he does. Commissioner Boydstun: Does Mr. Berger own the building to the east [the Liquor stare]? Phillip Schwartze: Yes he does. He owns both those buildings. Commissioner Boydstun: Did the sign company and other businesses move out? Phillip Schwartze: He did not know. Commissioner Boydstun: There was a big room in the back. Why is Mr. Berger not using that for storage? Phillip Schwartze: He did not know if Mr. Berger owns that. Someone in the audience [unidentified] stated he does not own that building. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: In the past they discussed the liquor store regarding parking and marking. Phillip Schwartze: They have parking there. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: According to the testimony it is not enough. Phillip Schwartze: He has never had a problem parking out there . He parks on Lincoln. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: He could not park there today at 10:15 a.m. If he had tried he could not have parked anywhere on that street. Phillip Schwartze: He did not know if some of those are Caltrans works. _. Commissioner Boydstun: Not the ones on Center Street. Phillip Schwartze: They have been there and seen Caltrans people walk to there. Commissioner Henninger: Generally a business is asked to load on-site and asked that they park their employees on-site. Was there some way to determine how to park and load this site other than how it is currently being done? Phillip Schwartze: Once they know what Caltrans will take, they will then know what parking will be allow on the front of Lincoln. Remember some of the uses between the property and the freeway are going to disappear. One of the things that did occur that caused them some difficulty is that they put a fire hydrant, a bright yellow one, (that can be seen in one of his photographs] right in front of the front door of Ace Fixtures which precludes that area also from parking. They have not changed the parking on the liquor store. There is always parking there and they will be happy to do whatever somebody thinks is a solution to parking the curb along Center. 04-13-98 Page 58 Commissioner Henninger: The problem is that they went through this when Commission previously reviewed the CUP and all these conditions were agreed upon but nothing happened. They agreed to do the loading and unloading on-site or to go to the City and get a curb site load. Neither of those have happened. Phillip Schwartze: Stated they have not done that and it was upon his advise to Mr. Berger that they not do that until Caltrans determines how much they are taking. They have been waiting for Caltrans to figure out what they are doing. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: What about a parking study? Come back and report to use how they are going to handle the parking. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Mr. Schwartz if he had seen the photos that Code Enforcement submitted? Phillip Schwartze: Responded no. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested he look at the photos. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Division: Caltrans plans have already been finalized and approved because they are working atl over the City. It is not difficult to find out exactly about the Caltrans right-of-way, etc. Chairman Pro-Tempore Bristol: If they ask for a continuance in order for the applicant to return and explain exactly where the employees are going to park, where the trucks are going to load and unload legally, can that be done? Alfred Yalda: Generally they do not allow loading and unloading of big trucks on a public street because that would require them to use other equipment to pick up and drop off and it is not very safe. They allow loading and unloading, for example, if they are passenger loading or unloading or if it is a small van that somebody picks something up, that is allowed. But they do not allow loading of a big truck to stop there, it is not legal. Commissioner Henninger: Would they be able to get a driveway cut on Lincoln so they could have a pull through situation there? Alfred Yalda: They certainly could take a look at it. A lot of areas they have are restricted access. If it is not restricted access Traffic Engineering generally allow them to have a driveway. Commissioner Henninger: It seems the reasonable solution to have a pull through situation there so they can pull through and unload the trucks. _ _. Alfred Yalda: There is another possible solution to that and that is they have a process of limiting the parking to two hours on that street as soon as they received a petition, if 75% of the property owners sign a petition, they could go and limit the parking on that street. For example, limiting Center Street to one or two hours -Monday through Friday, if that is the desire of the neighborhood it could also be done. Phillip Schwartze: They were agreeable to that. Commissioner Peraza: Asked if a block wall between the home and the business is possible? Phillip Schwartze: He would prefer Mr. Berger not invest any more money into that facility. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if Code Enforcement has ever completed a noise measurement there? Don Yourstone: No, they have never pertormed any noise readings out there but could certainly do it in the future. 04-13-98 Page 59 Commissioner Henninger: Why not continue this for four weeks to see if the applicant can figure out if he can get that drive through [from Lincoln through to Center] situation resolved and try to get some of the parking worked out. Phillip Schwartze: He would be happy to meet with Alfred Yalda to discuss the curb painting, if they are interesting in doing that at this time. Commissioner Henninger: Perhaps a noise study can be conducted. Don Yourstone: Yes, it can be done before the next meeting. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion to continue this to four weeks, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion was carried. Sharon Becker: Explained she was asking for a block wall not only for the sound but also because everything being stacked by Mr. Berger is very high. ' Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if Code Enforcement could check how high it is by her garage? Don Yourstone: Definitely, they will take meter readings from all directions and will measure the fence and see if it is acceptable for a block wall. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition/correspondence was received in opposition. ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with staff to try to resolve outstanding issues related to parking, driveway entrance and noise. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (5:20-5:55) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:55 P.M. TO MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1998 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Submitted by: Ossie Edmundson, Senior Secretary ~~~ ~>~~ Simonne Fannin, Senior Office Specialist 04-13-98 Page 60