Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/04/26~ AC~'ION AGENDA CITY OF ~N~HElM PLANNING CQI~MiSS10(V M~ETING MONDAY, ,~PRIL 26, 199~ 11:00 A.M. ~ STAFF UPDATE TO COMNIISSION OF VAR.IOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSiON) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, ESPING, KOOS, NAP~LES ONE VACANT SEAT STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Cheryl Flores Linda Johnson Kevin Bass Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Edith Harris Margarita Solorio Assistant City Attorney Senior Pianner Senior Pianner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civll Enyineer Planning Commission Support Supenrisor Planning Commission Secretary 04-26-99 Page 1 ITEMS OF 6'l{~1LI~ INTEREST: None ~tEPORTS AND RECOMMEMDATIONS A. CONDlTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4002 - REQUEST TO initiated revocation CONSIDER INITIATION OF REVOCATION OR MODiFICATION or modification pROCEEDINGS: City-initiated (Code Enforcement Divisian}, 200 proceedings South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, (Property Owner: Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, 225 Brae Boulevard, Park Ridge, 97656) request to consider initiation of revocation or modification proceedings for a large equipment storage and rental yard. Property is located at 1801 East Ball Road - Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate revocation or modification proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No. 4002. SR7434VK.DOC Don Yours;~ne: Senior Gode Enforcement Officer. Staff requests initiation of a revocation or modification hearinq for 1801 East Ball Road. This site is used for storage of large construction equipment. Officers have ~een cut there ai 2 or 3 in the morning and found noise and saw them operating against their CUP. Four to five complaints have come in from residents because they have been awa!<ened during early morning hours. Chairman Bristol: Stated iPs a consistent problem. Asked if ~~yone wanted to speak on this item. John Olympia: Tenant at 1900 E. Almont #84. He said police told him that this business had a conditional permit that allowed them to ~vork 7 days a week, 24 hours a day and that they couldn't do am°thing about the noise and that Dennis Tucker, Code Enforcement Officsr, verified that work is being done from 2 o'clock in the morning. Chairman Bristol: Following the vote, ~xpluined ttie vote was to bring this back in a public hearing to either revoke or modify the conditional use permit, and it is the beginning of what Mr. Olympia wants. Commissioner Bostwick: There will be a public hearing, notification will be given to surrounding residents and posted on the street. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Since Mr. Olympia is s tenant in an apartment, he probabiy will not be receiving specific notice but he can get notice if he requests it from the Planning Department. She advised him to go to the counter to request notice. 04-26-99 Page 2 B. CEQA CATEGORICAL EX~MPTION CLASS 11 Concurred w/staff FINAL SITF PLAN N0. 99-02 -_REQUEST FOR REVIEW AMD Aporoved final slte APPROVAL OF A FINAL SITE PLAN: Patsiko Inc. dba Days Inn, plan 1030 Wes4 Bal~ Road, Anaheim, CA 928~D2, reque5ts review and approval of a final site pian to (nstail two (2) wail signs and a freestanding directional s~gn. Property is located at 103U West Ball Road. ACTIO : Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposei pr~ject falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 91, as detined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt ~rom the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planninc~ Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos.1 through 6 on file in the Planning Department) on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Maheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appe2l rights. SR7429KD.DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Pianner, presented the staff report and noted staff has reviewed the plans and the site is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. 04-26-99 Page 3 C. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVE1 Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4095 - REQUEST FOR Approved final plans REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Form Guild Inc., 34102 Violet Lantem, Dana Point, CA 92629, requests review of final landscaping and signage plans, Property is located at 2144 South Haroor Boulevard. CA ,TIUN: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (une vacant seat), that the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documeniation for subject request. Commis~ioner Boyd~tun offered a motion, seconde@ by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final landscaping and signage plans for the previously-approved fast food restaurant with a drive-through lane on the basis that the final pians demonstrate compliance with tha corresp~nding conditions of approval and with the stipulation that landscape plans submitted for building permits shall indicate minimum 1-gallon clinging vines planted at maximum 3 foot centers, or tali shrubbery, adjacent to the walis of the trash enclosure storage areas in accordance with code requirements. SR6939DS.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, stated the finai pians should show clinging vines on the trash enclosure storage areas as indicated in the last paragraph of the staff report. D. CONDITiONAL lJSE PERMIT NO. 4076 - REQUEST FOR A NUNC Approved PRO TUNC RESOLUTION: City of Anaheim, Planning Commission (Vote: 5-0, Secretary, 200 South Anaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92805, requests a Commissioner nunc pro tunc resolution to correct Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. Bostwick declared PC98-198 adopted in connection with the approval of Conditionai Use a conflict of interest Permit No. 4076. Property is located at 200 West Midway Drive - and one vacant Anaheim Resort RV Park. seat) Continued from Commission meeting of April 12,1999. NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION N0. PC99-65 Commissioner Bestwick deciared a Conflict of Interest on the basis that he is the owner of the property. 04-26-99 Page 4 E. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION tNITIATION O€ Initiated GPA 364 GENERAL PLAN AMcNDMENT N0. 364 AND AMENDMENT and Amend. 3 to NO 3 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPEClFIC PLAN N0. 92-2: SP92-2 City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Maheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request init!ation of applications for General Plan (Vote: 6-0, one Amendment No. 364 and Amendment No. 3 to the Anaheim Resort vacant seat) Specific Plan No. 92~•2 to reclass'~fy approxima:ely 0.73 acres (4 parcels) ftom the RM-1200 Zone io the SP92-2 Zone. Property is located at 1175-1193 Casa Grande Avenue. INITIATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99-66 SR7432KD.DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: Staff is requesting Planning Commission to initiate the applications for General Plan Amendment No. 364 and Amendment No. 3 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. These amen~ments would address the land use and zoning designations for 4 parcels on the north side of Casa Grande Avenue which are immediately adjacent to the southern bo~ndaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. These properties are currentiy developed with 34 guost rooms which are part of an existing Best Western Pavilion 100-room motel. General Plan Amendment t1o. 364 is proposed to amend the Land Use Element of the Ciry of Anaheim Generai Plan to redesignate the property from medium density residential land uses to commercial recreation land uses. Amendment No. 3 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. L2-2 is proposed to reciassify the properties from the RM-1200 Zone to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone and amend the text and exhibits and zoning development standards to reflect said reclassification. The property owner has been notified of the request and is supportive of the proposed applications. These applications would make the General Plan and the Spscific Plan boundaries consistent with the current land uses on tha property which are the hotel rooms. 04-26-~9 PeQe ;i CEQA EXEMPTIAN SECTION 152681b1(11 Concurred w/staff REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE Determined to be SYCAMORE CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN (SP88-1) DESIGN in conformance GUIDELINES: Mark Frank, 701 Lakme Avenue, Wilmington, CA with tha Sycamore 90744, requests review and approval of vinyl awnings within the Canyon Specific Sycamore Canyon Plaza. Property is located at 701 South Weir Plan Design Canyon Road (Ellockbuster Video) and further located with the Guidelines Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (SP88-1), Development Area 2 (Commercial). ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15268 (b) (1), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically er.empt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoies and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby dPtermine that the vinyl awnings for the Blockbuster Video are in conformance with the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (SP88-1) Design Guidelines. SR7423KB.DOC Cheryl Flores: This is a ~~equest for substantial conformance with the design guidelines of the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan concerning existing vinyl awninc~s at Sycamore Canyon Shopping Center which have been installed for Blockbuster Video. Plans were submitted in black and white and now that the awnings are installed, staff feels the bright blue color of the awnings is not compatible with the remainder of the center. Mark Frank: San Pedro Sign Company. Advised color dratvings were submitted and the City indicated the copy could not be on the awnings so they made thz correction on the plans and brought them back and the permit was issued. The awning color is compatible with tha blue tile trim on the tower. When the store went through their final inspection, the City said they couldn't have awnings after the permits were issued. It is done in good taste and is the Blockbuster corporate color, and plans were never misrepresented to the City, it was always a color drawing submitted to the City with blue awning. The landlord also approved the awnings. Mark Frank: Responded to Chairman Bristol that they have not had any complaints from tenants in the center. Gary Tate with Blockbuster: Spoke with the manager who said the most often asked question when customers come in at night is why aren't the awnings on. They have been installed but they have not been able to put them on until they can clear the permit. Chairman Bristol: Asked if letters on the awning were denied before the permit process. Mr. Frank said yes and Chairman Bristol verified they fook them off the plans and resubmitted them. Commissioner Espinc~: Stated the awning is a much brighter blue in the pictures than shown on the diagram. Chairman Bristol: Stated it was suggested it might be more acceptabie if it were a little less blue. Mr. Tate: He had previously asked that question and was told yellow, red, brown, or beige would be acceptabls, anything but that blue, but it is Blockbuster's registered aolor and he would not want to do something that vioiates their trademark. 04-26-99 Page 6 Commissioner Esping: Stated that they are not ail that bright blue. Mr. Tate: This same color (s used everywhere except in older stores but they have all been replaced except for one store which was a darker blue. This brighter blue was revised 8 years ago. It is exactiy the same color as the sign face on the tom ticket logo. Cheryl Flores: Refened to the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan Design Guidelines which states exterior finishes should compliment or blend with neighboring residential areas. Architectural screens, fences, accessories, structures should be compatible in material, color and texture to the main buildings. And staff does not feel it is compatible. Mr. F~,~nk: Presented photographs showing what the rest of the centEr looks like. Chairman Bristol: He read the staff report and went to the site and looked at it and it could be construed not to comply with the Specific Plan but he doesn't have a problem with the sign, and felt it is going to fade anyway. Commissioner Boydstun: By the time the summer is over, it will be a shade lighter and Mr. Frank added that it does receive full sun all day long. Chairman Bristol: There are a lot of bright signs in the area and there is a similar sign on State College and La Palma that wraps the building. Commissioner Koos added that it is not in the Scenic Corridor. Cheryl Flores: Reiterated that the plans signed off by staff were in black and white and they would not have signed off the plans if they had realized the intensity of the blue and how incompatible they feel it is with the Center and surrounding neighborhood. There are numerous Blockbusters throughout the cities that do not have the awnings, and they just have the torn ticket logo wall sign. Commissioner Bostwick: We all realize what Blockbuster colors are, and he could not imagine that staff thought they were going to be black awnings even though it was a black and white drawing. Mr. Tate: Even though the drawings were black and white, they stated the color as the blue. Commissioner Koos: Personally feels this center would look better with just the torn ticket logo, but unfortunately the awnings are up and this should have been flayged at the counter. He asked staff if the drawings just said blue and if staff did not understand how blue? They wouldn't be any other color than blue gi~ien that Blockbuster only uses that blue. Cheryl Flores: Advised she would have to check the exact wording on the drawings. Discussion Item; Selectio~ of Planning Commission Representative for the Anaheim Union High Appointed School District Task Fcrce, Commissioner Alden Esping Continued from the Commission meeting of April 12,1999. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Alden Esping as the Commission's Representative for the Anaheim Union High School District Task Force. 04-26-99 Page 7 PUP,~IC HEARING ITEMS: 2b. 2c. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 98-99-10 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2e. CONDITIOiJAL USE PERMIT NO. 4096 2f. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 98•234 2g. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 99-01 2h. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 2a. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f and 2a OWNER: City of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Boulevard,10th floor, Anaheim, CA 92805 County of Orange, Attn.: Real Property Manager, PFRD Real Property, 300 Morth Flower Street, CA 92703 AGENT: Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Attn.: Kevin Canning, 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 LOCATION: 8200 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 1627 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard. General Plan Amendment No. 362 - to amend the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan to redesignate this property from the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential and General Commerciai land use designations to the Commercial Professional land use designation. Reclassification No. 98-99-~i0 - to reclassify this property from the RS- A-43,000{SC) (Residential/Agricuitural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) and the CL(SC) (Commercial, Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zones to the CO(SC) (Commercial, Office and Professional; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Conditionai Use Permit No. 4096 - to permit a planned commercial office/light industrial center, including a semi-enclosed restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, with roaf- mounted equipment and building heights in excess of 35 feet with waivers of (a) minimum parking lot landscaping, (b) permitted type of commercial identification sign, (c) maximum area of commercial identification signs, (d) minimum site area per lot and (e) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone. Tentative Parcel Map No. 98-234 - to permit an 11-lot (including one lot for landscaping) subdivision for the development of a commercial officellight industrial complex. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-01 - to remove specimen Eucalyptus trees from this properiy with repiacement at a ratio of two trees for every one tree removed. Continued from the Commission meetings of March 1 and April 12, 1999. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-67 RECLASSIPICATION RESOLUTIOM N0. PC99•68 CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99•69 Recommended adopt?on of Exhibit A to City Council Granted Approved, in part Granted, in part Approved Approved Approved 04-26-99 Page 8 . • • • • • OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition/correspondence was received in opposition Commissioner Bostwick: Declared a conflict of interest on the basis that he owns property within 1000 feet of subject property. Chairman Bristol: For the record, the Commission received many letters which express many concerns, but not all are necessarily opposed. John Killen from Burnett Polygon Development: In the last eight weeks they met with amiable and professional representatives of neighbors to discuss issues. Their concerns have been addressed item by item and modifications rt~ade where possible. Kevin Canning with Culbertson, Adams and Associates: Staff recommended approval uf the project and they concur with their recommendatiuns with the exception of roof-mounted equipment. Changes made ie the plan are as follows: 1. At the last meeting there was concern about the height of the previous configuration (pointing to the plan closest to him). They were located 40 feet from the property line which was landscaped. Pad elevations have been lowered so they are at or slightly below the adjoining residPntial elevation wtiich is the lowest feasible elevation given engineering practices and economic feasibility. Given an unlimited budget, there would be opportunity to lower pads but it is not necassary and is not feasible. Some implications arising fram that would be retaining wall situations along residential, or pinching property if there is a slope down. He referred to a large retaining wall along Yorba Linda Boulevard, and as the pad gets lower incrementally, the wall gets higher to the point where it can't be at this location, and it needs to creep into the projer,t and starts pinching the building, Ioosing parking and square feotaga. 2. On the exhibit to the left, the three buildings have all been moved back. Originally they were at 40 feet from the property line, and now they are at 75, 93, and 100 feet from the property line. Parking had to be relocated and they are down to a 20-foot buffer which is required by code rather than 40 feet. There is a fully Iandscaped buffer adjoining the resider.tial areas. Areas of landscaping have been put in to mitigate residents' view concerns. 3. Building 1 was a two-story building, and now it is a single-story due to privacy concerns. 4. Adj~astments have been made to on-site circulation. It deals with an interim plan. After they moved those build;ngs, the neighbors thought the through road might be a little noisy so they moved it and pointed out the location on the exhibit. 5. 'rhe tra~ic study has been updated due to concern that it was taken during a nonschool period. It didn't change any of the conclusions or impacts of the report and it has been accepted by Traffic Engineering. 6. The neighbors suggested it be a signalized intersection, because they see a lot of illegal U-turns. They will discuss it in more detail with engineers but it is possible to accommodate that type of rnovement safely. They also studied cueing PM peak stacking up at Weir Canyon/Yorba Linda/La Palma intersection. Based upon required improvements at that intersection, both as part of this project and the City's master plans, the movement will improve and stacking distances should remain adequate. 7. Concern over the industrial R& D and chemical uses. in moving these buildings out, they have become office buildings. He pointed out one which is office and R& D and stated all potential R& D have been moved furtF;~st away on the ~ite from residential. 8. Noise impacts from roof-mounted air-conditioning equipment. They have asked an acoustical firm to do a study. Whether they are roof mounted or ground mounted, there is very little difference given the physical separatio~ of where these units would be and tfie distance to the residences. Noise impacts can be thought of as line of sight. On the roof with a parapet the iine of sight is broken and it is mitigated to a point well below the City standard for noise impacts for these kinds of uses. 9. Regarding specific view concerns with respect to some of the buildings, generally the top of the buildings are below the level of Yorba Linda/Weir Canyon. Section AA, the top portion has gone from a 40-foot distance back from the residential properties to 65-75 feet. It remains a 20-foot building with a 3-1/2 foot parapet. The central cross section has gone from a 40-foot setback to a 90-foot setback from the residential property line and 125 feet from the residential homes. They will be able 04-26-99 Page 9 to see the building, but residents can see over the building into Weir Canyon and the territorial akyi~ns mountain views beyond that. Duilding 14 is no longer a 2-story building and is now a 1-story building and the 2-story buildings are now lined up against the slope. 10. Regarding the density of the project, it is 16 acres and density is consistent with the co~straints of the prbp~rty given the slopes and access. The traffic study lends credence to the fact that the project is not overly dense. 11. The tra~ic report has been updated and there is concern from residents about the right turn out and canflicts with movement coming out of Jenifer. This driveway was aclded at the request of the City Traffic Engineer. The right turns out in the PM peak hour is only 39, and there would be some conflict but the separation of the iwo driveways is to all City angineering standards. Instal~ation of the signal will provide breaks within the traffic that may facilitate the movements out. 12. The uses prcposed are no different than what the City code allows and there are no specific users at this time. Normal City processes wiil provide the safety and noise restrictions on businessas and provide for appropriate neighbors for residential areas. No buildings are being built for group H occupancy which is high risk chemical. 13. There are two aspects to the roof-mounted equipment; visibility and noise impacts. Roof/ground mounted is indis!inguishable in terms of being able to mitigate noise. Noise will be drowned out by noise levels from adjacent streets and freeway. They propose to ground mount air conditioning equipment on several of the buiidings. 14. As far as the view, the buildings are tucked so clnse to the slope that you can't see tha roofs. (Presented and discussed photos showing views of roof and how ground cover will hide equipment. He submiried a list of buildings, closest to residents, that will have ground-mounted equipment.) 15. Residents have asked them to increase landscaping along a buffer and deeding a strip of land to the neighbors but that is not feasible due to economics. John Killen: Discussed architectural design changes made from the original plar. Glass, stone and copper have been added and the buildings have been scaled down to make them more compatible with residential. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: We have received letters frum Jan Cynauman, Sharon Stefan, AI Pappalardo, Mr. & Mrs. Phillip Ebert, Daniel & Marcia Finerty, Christy Thomas, Jody Young and Joanna Roberta Gonzales. Carol Appelt, 8137 East Woodsboro Ave. I'm before you again today to address our traffic concerns that are associated with the proposed development. They include increased traffic and signal coordination, elimination of the second ingress and e~- ess which we feel is very important, traffic safety and construction of the protected U-turn poc.~;~t at the project entrance, which we also feel is very important. My neighbors and I disagree with the new traffic study on Items 46(e) 4 and 5 in the staff report which implies that all traffic issues have been mitigated. Our concerns for traffic safety remain. You must understand th;•~t we are not just concerned with the impact of this particular single project. We all know traffic on La ~alma Avenue is impacted by developments from Corona to RivPrside. Although these conditions are out of the control of the City and the developer, this issue was acknowledged but we don't really feel that it was adequately addressed in the new traffic study. The City currently rates the La Palma Avenue/Yorba Linda BoulPvard intersection at Service Level D; diveried traffic from eastbound 91 freeway onto La Palma only exacerbates the problems at this i~tersection which in turn impacts the one and only entrance to our tract of hornes at Jenifer. (Photograph No.1). Witli regard to the signal coordination, Burnett/Polygon has maintained from the beginning that the project signal and the signal at Yorba Lin~a Boulevard and La Palma Avenue would be coordinated to handle the increase in traffic which is estimated at 3,900 trips per day. We have never seen in writing how they intend to do this. VVe, therefore, support the position of the staff report, Attachment A, Miligation Monitoring Plan Ro. 107, page 4, that the developer be required to implement a scoot system at each intersection to facilitate the signal coordination. Of prime importance to us is the elimination of the second ingress and egress which is 250 feet from the entrance at Jenifer. We believe that the proposed 2nd ingress and egress located between the project signai and Jenifer Drive, as shown in photograph No. 3 on page 2, should be eliminated. Our position on this issue is supported in the developer's new traffic study, page 4, builet item No. 1. 04-26-99 Page 10 We strangly urge the elimination of the proposed right-in/right-out access located between the project signal and Jenifer Drive. In previous conversation with Traffic Engineering staff, the homeowners negotiating committee agreed to a second right-in only, not an egress but an ingress only. After further consideratioi~ and for safety reasons, we now strongiy oppose this entrance. This is because westbound vehicles often travel at speeds of and in excess of 50 miles an hour. The drivers wishing to exit Jenifer Drive, must chsck traffic 500 feet to the east in order to snsure sufficient time to merge with westbound traffic or to cross into eastbound lanes. Also cars intending to go eastbound on La Palma Avenue must watch for traffic approaching around a long curve that is hidden by foliage in the center divider and a low street elevation and that's also shown in the photograph #4. Added traffic from the proposed second ingress/egress point only 250 feet east of Jenifer will severely increase the danger of this situation. Even a right-in only will increase a hazard since it would be di~cult for us to judge whether the cars were actually intending to enter the project driveway or continue westbound on La Palma. Not everyone uses signals, unfortunately. Because of the severity of this situation, if the second ingress/egress is eliminated, then a signal must be installed at Jenifer to allow a safe egress from our neighborhood. Even without the added traffic from the proposed development, we currently experience difficulty when exiting our neighborhood during peak traffic hours. In the next two years we will have at least 15 to 20 teenagers in our smali neighborhood who will be learning to drive. As a parent of two teenage sons, one just nbtained his driver's license and one is ready to get his learner's permit, I am very concerned for their safety and also the safety or all the newiy licensed drivers ar~d the other children who are coming up when they exit our ne(ghborhood at Jenifer. With respect to items No. 38 and 39 on pages 11 and 12 of the staff report, that discusses creation of the left turn lane and signalization at the main project entrance, we strongly urge the inclusion of a U-turn protection lane at this intersection. Our request for the U-turn lane is also supported by the new tra~c study, page 4, bullet item number 2, and would allow westbound tra~c to make a protected U-turn at the project intersection. During the past few weeks the number of vehicles making a U-turn at Jenifer has increased substantially. This is a direct result of the City's posting of "No U-turn" signs at northbound traffic on Yorba Linda Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. Photograph No. 4 clearly shows there is no protection for the vehiclss attempting a U-turn at Jenifer. And earlier when Nir. Canning was talking, he indicated that the cars were making the U-turn at the intersection where the proposed project signal would be. You just can't cross there with a solid divider. They actually come down to Jenifer. We feel iYs a really dangerous situation and iPs just a matter of time before accidents occur. We've all watched and witnessed many near misses and iYs happening very frequently. At the March 1 st Planning Commission meeting, I voiced my neighbors' concern that westbound traffic on La Palma would make a right on Jenifer behind our homes in order to complete a left or U-turn onto La Palma Avenue. Our fears have now become a reality and this is also a result of the posted "No U-iurn" sign at La Palrna Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard.. We ask that you give serious thought and consideration to our traffic concerns which can be addressed directly by your actions. Our safety and the safety of our families is of the utmost importance. Raquel Premo-Quast - 8180 W, Woodsboro Ave. Wanted to address our continued concerns regarding the proximity, density and elevation of the proposed project. I and several of my neighbors will border this development and, therefore, are the most severely impacted by it. Presently, from nearly every window we see the entire canyon with its picturesque beauty of green rolling hills, Santa Ana Canyon, the Santa Ana River and Yorba Regional Park. Our view is truly breathtaking. She continued that Burnett-Polygon has tried to improve the dominance of ihese buildings by re- orientating the buildings that are closest to aur homes. We truly thought this would make a substantial difference, however, after measuring out the proposed setback, these buildings still occlude 90% of the downstairs eastward view we now enjoy, all we will see is an enormous 9,000-sq, ft. building. We have proposed one solution fo the developer :o help mitigate this problem by asking that Burnett-Polygon berm the proposed 20-foot landscape buffer. This would h21p to hide the buildings from our line of sight and allow us to control the view from our downstairs living areas. In our opinion, there is room for more discussion on this issue. 04-26-99 Page 11 The current prop~s~ calls for filling in the ravine and substant~ally raising the original elevation of the site. We nota that the restaurant building #6 at the mein project e~~trance is 7 feet above the existing La Palma Ave. Raising this level directly impacts the overall elevatio~~~ of the entire project, and, therefore, severely impacts our view and c:rmpromises uur privacy. As per t;ie Canyon Area General Plan, we as homeowners have a right to ~~xpect that the development be built at the original and curr~nt grade levei and that grading be kept to a minimum: especially sinr,a ;he developer also seeks a waiver for building heights in excess of 35 feet. Decreasing the elevation of the project by 7 feet to me2t La Palma Avenue grade level at the main project entrance would not only mitigate the obtrusive nature of the two-story building #7 which Burnett-Poiygon admits compromises the privacy of the residences, but also would reduce the dcmina~ce of buildings # 1, 2, 5,15, 16 and 18 which back directly to the homes and lessen the impact of the 43•foot building # 12, on the corner. This lowering of the site would eliminate the need for a berm, solve the issue of d~mi~:ance and even allow us to retain a small portion of the panoramic view tliat we have enjoyed for :ne past 2G years. Although we reaiize that lowering the development would possibly decrease some of the square focta~~e of the project, we feel that this is a very small concession for the developers of such a large scal~ Froject adjacent to a r~sidential neighborhood to make. Nearly every other development in our area has workea with the natural topography of the land. To state only a few, Canyon Honda, Albertsons, Staples, Pet Smart. NfcDonald's, Ralphs, Von's, Foxfire, and many many others were built with the natural topagraphy in mind. If these others were able to do so, why wouldn't a developer of a project that immediately borders a residential neighborhood and so severely impacts it, not be willing to do th ;~~me? While a city representative indicated that the depreciation of home values is not a reason to deny development and that finances do not play a pa~t in the decision making, it is important to remember that the purpose of filling in the ravine is to increase the square footage of the site so more development can take place and consequently more revenue received. We don't agree that the residents of this area should bear the brunt of the financial problems associated with this development. Burnett-Polygon themselves have admitted they do not need to fill the proparty, but point to a lack of revenue as a problem with not doing so. If the residents' financial issues do not matter, should the developer's? We appreciate that the elevation was aiso a concern of the Planning Commissioners when you requested a study be done by Melanie Adams as to whether the project could, in fact, be lowered. We have not yet seen the results of this study but in speaking with Melanie, we understand that staff does find that it is indeed possible to lower the site. As this would mitigat~ many of our concerns, we strongly propose that the Commissioners require the I~wering of this site to the elevation of La Palma Avenue at the project entrance and that this lowering continue throughout the project. Bob Koch, 8124 E. Woodsboro Avenue, stated he would like to summarize some of the concerns the neighbors have and make a few statements about what they have heard today. Kevin Canning has given an excellent ot~erview of the responses of Burnett-Polygon to the interaction that they have had. They had a number of ineetings with them, and they have been very cordial and professional in their interactions and they appreciate that. He apologized to those members of the [iurnelt-Polygon team who have been offended by some of the rhetoric perhaps they have seen in the letters the neighbors have sent. There was no insult intended. What we feel is that we are dealirrg from different perspectives. The perspective that Burnett-Polygon seems to bring to this issue is the perspective of what had been planned for this site in a previous set of interactions or what could have been there had there been homes in that site. Our perspective, however, is the current perspective and that is that lhere is green space and that it is lower than the elevation of our homes. Peaple have lived at this site for 20 years. There is a certain amount of precedence to set by having lived there far 10 years enjoying the open view. So I don't think that we should be looking at this from a standpoint oi what could have been but rather what is present at that site. 04-26-99 Page 12 Now you've just heard from Carol Appelt about our traffic concern. Let me just give you a summary statement. We are interested in seeing that this egress (pointing to an exhibit) is removed for safety reasons. If not, we think that a signal needs to be installed at Jenifer ta al~ow safe egress from their property. We also thi~k we need to have a U-turn to aliow people who have missed the ingress into the K- Mart to make a protected U-turn rather than at Jenifer. We've had a number of accidents that have taken place at this location. One just recently happened a couple of weekends ago. The concern about project density, elevation, the dominance of landscape that Rachel Quast just spoke to is one that has con!inued. It is the only one of the issues that we are going to saeak of today that has been substantially impacted by interactions with the Burnett-Polygon team and Mr. Canning gave you very good summary of what conclusions they reached. One thing that you should recognize is that the final outcome was nevPr the proposal from Burnett- Polygon on the first interaction. We had several (3 to 4) interactions that it took to evolve this scheme and so it ~vas a give and take process and we were involved in that and they did respond to the neighbors' requests and they are very grateful for those responses. However, we do think there are some additional issues that we need to dea! with. Concerning the air-conditioning equipment mounting, they agree that their particular concern is first the noise, and secondarily the sight. They have not seen the report that was referred to. The issue of whether noise is, in fact, a line-of-sight issue is questionable. I'm not a sourd engineer but I have studied physics and I know that wave motion involves not straight line movement but expansion over a barrier so that the sound does not simpl~ get trapped by a single vertical barrier. There is also that aossibility because of the placement of these buildings and there are areas between these buildings where they could actually have amplification ~f noise, depending on where the air conditioning units are placed. So in order for us to draw a proper conclusion and to express our particular opinion, we need to see where they are going to be mounted. We need to see the studies they've talked about. They simply say they are interested in reducing the noise the maximum amount. The unsightliness is a secondary issue. They can see where roof mounting of the equipment may, in fact, be less noisy than ground mounting, depending on the location and the conditions. Not having seen those plans, they cannot react beyond what has been said. They would like to reserve the right to make comment at a later time. He continued that Mr. Canning talked about their concems abrnit uses and cha~iges they made to the R& D uses and they certainly appreciate the fact that these are now primarily offic~: structures. Nevertheless, R& D uses in these areas that would involve hazardous chemicals are only a fFw 100 feet farther away, and are not sufficiently protected from their neighborhood to make them feel comfortable. We do propose the elimination of chemicai uses and support the city staff's contention that businesses that use chemicals and other large scale hazardous materials on a daily basis be excluded. If the developers are so certain that their construction and that the City Codes would ~revent those uses, then they should have no problems making concessions of that type. The hours of operation were not referred to. Condition 39 on page 21 deals with that issue. We support limiting the operations from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. as stated in the staff report. We would, however, ask for an amendment that says no outdoor maintenance or other noise-generating operation activities after 8 p.m. sa that that would exclude trash pick-up, street sweeping, gardening maintenance activity, use of fork lifts, loading and unloading of trucks, etc, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. Lighting has not been directly addressed. We've talked to the developers a number of times and to staff about the lighting, but when we see what gets pu~ into the plans and staff reports, we don't see everything included there that we are interested in. Condition 17, page 19, that talks about the final lighting plan, we know that there will be another final lighting plan that will come later on but we want to indicate some changes we'd like to see in the staff s proposal. We'd like to change the height from 12 feet to 10 feet in the areas adjacent to the homes and we'd like to indicate that it applies to building-mounted lighting as well as pole-mounted lighting. We'd like to make sure that this includes 3-sided shielded lighting and insure that it is the low intensity amber lighting. He stated each of these things are conversations thzt they have had with the developer and the developer has said, "yes, this is the way it will be", but they don't see it in writing anywhere. 04-26-99 Page 13 He referred to the trash storage areas, Condition 14, page 18, and wanted to add that the trash storage areas should not be identifiable from the residences and that they should be located away from the residences. The point of this is it forces them to reduce the unsightliness of the trash storage areas as well as to reduce the noise associated with emptying the trash bins. Signage is an issue that has been discussed but in no place have they seen direct reference to the issues they would like to reiterate here. We understand that the monument sign at the entrance will be back lit. There wili be no lighting of the letters themselves which is satisfactory, however, they would like to see that there be some direct reference to the fact that the lettering on the buildings will not be lit in any other way. In addition, they wanted to add a statement that says any logo signs that are placed there by tenants would als~ not be allowed to be lit so they would conform to the same conditions. No final landscaping plan has been submitted, and they understand that has not been required for some time now; however, they wouid like to restate the points that they think have been agreed to by both sides. It has been stated that the residents will have significant input into the selection of the trees and the types, especiaily those that are bordering the areas that are adjacent to homes and pointed to an exhibit. There has also been a statement that the types of trees will match those found in the park across the street and they would like to be sure that the agreement that they have had with Burnett-Polygon is that they will exceed code in the areas adjacent to the homes is put into writing and furthermore, they would like to see that there is mention of the triangle there at Jenifer and the role that the City, County and developers will play in heavily landscaping that region. Those have not been included in the report nor the plan and they want to see that it is left in. He referred to the area of the project that borders Jenifer and stated they would like to request that "no parking" signs be put along these areas and, where appropriate, the curb be painted red to emphasize, "No Parking", in those areas. He stated they also would like to include an issue that has been discussed and agreed 4o and that they were surprised not to see in the plans and that was that there would be a placement of a six-foot wrought iron fence along Jenifer to prevent foot traffic between the neighborhood and the project. Since there is not going to be any parking in that area and there is no outlet from their neighborhood, there really is no reason for there to be foot traffic going from the project to the neighborhood. They feel that this is just a small measure that will help to prevent movement of foot traffic into the neighborhood unnecessarily. Regarding the CC&R s, they would lik2 to request at this time that they be involved in the development of the CC&R's as they come forward for this entire project and thPy would like to make an official request at this point and if it needs to be done in some other fashion, would appreciate being told how they should do that so that they are involved in those issues. He added they would also like to be informed of any R&R considerations that are scheduled wilh respect to th~ project. In conclusion, the; would like to simply state that they have worked cooFeratively with Burnett-Polygon. They tried to be reasonable in their requests and have certainly discussed many issues with them. He was sure the developers feel that they have responded to the vast majoriry of those issues; however, the reighbors feel like they have responded to some but not nearly all. And some of the issues and things they agree~ to did not get into their plan nor were they referenced by the staff repo~t so they have listed some of those here today. It is clear that the amount of discussion and conclusions that need to be reached between the residents and the developers are incomplete. They had a flurry of activity after the last meeting and preceding the submission of the plan, but there has been very little interaction since then, a few e-mails, some telephone discussions but no face to face interactions. Se there are issues that remain, and there are things that they discussed which did not get into plan. There are issues they discussed with staff which did not get into the staff report and they feel that their only recourse to make sure that those issues get put into writing and are dealt with in an official fashion is for the Commission to deal with them here today. They hope the Commission will look at the poinks that they have brought up, recognize that they still have validity and while Burnett-Polygon has responded appropriately to many of these issues, there are still some remaining issues that they think need to be resolved before this is approved and goes on to the Council. 04-26-99 Page 14 John Killen, Applicant: VJith regard to the traffic issues and the ingress and egress, we did discuss the issue of the U-tum, and the issue of adding a U-turn pocket. He painted out the location the homeowners addressed because of the fact fhat people make a mistake, make this tum and come all the way down to make a U-turn and come back and that creates a safety hazard. They are doing a signalization at that location anyway and have actually considered the idea of the U-tum pocket with the signal. That was acceptable and they did so state in their meetings with the neighbors. With regard to the right outlright in, there was discussion about making it a right in only and they were favorable with that issue. He did not believe that a signal at this intersection will significantiy make a difference. In terms of the loop system or the scoot system, that is a requirement they have accepted as a condition of approval, and did state in the meetings with the homeowners that they felt as they did, and that it was important that the synchronization between the intersections be done. We have been conditioned to prepare a set of plans and to have those plans approved for the engineering for the La Paima/Yorba Linda/Weir Canyon intersection and believed the City Traffic Engineer will require the signalization documentation to be a part of those plans that will be submitted and they have agreed to that. With regard to grading, that has been discussed at length. We've asked our engineer to abide by the approach that within the standards of whaYs good engineering standards and what will allow the site to drain without any extraordinary devices or sump pumps or changing all the asphalt areas to concrete. It was his understanding that if you built all of this in concrete, you could actually build a flatter slope. But within the standards of good engineering practice, they have gotten it as low as it can go. He noted John Van Dale from Van Dale Engineering is prepared to answer specific questions. He pointed out the gradinc~ exhibit and to the building which is 7 feet higher. it is, in fact, 7 feet at that intersection and 75 feet away and is lower than all the adjoining properties to the north. He also pointed out the water flow from this site, noting that that pad had to be a bit higher. He referred to the building which is roughly about a foot below La Palma Avenue and enother one about 6 feet below La Palma Avenue. La Palma is going up and the site is going down and pointed out where they have to take the water flow out. Other than extraordinary measures such as sump pumps or paving all the parking areas with Portland cement rather than asphalt, which is cost prohibitive, they believe they have addressed the issue of getting it as low as it can go. The site is open space and that is a fact. But it is not zoned as open space and it has been offered to them as an opportunity for commercial develapment. Also, it has been previously approved as a commercial retail site. He appreciates how the homeowners feel. Their kids have been able to go out and build their forts but after they bought their properties and as things have evolved, what was open space but zoned for development has ultimately come to a point where it can be developed. They are interested in doing that in what is the most compatib!e and sensitive way that they can.. They are going to be doing grading out there, and are going to be building buildings, and they are going to be neighbors, both while the project is under construction and when the project is finished, and he believed they all in good faith, the neighbors and ourselves, have tried to come to the table and get as many issues out early on as possible. Concerning the placement of the air conditioning units, Mr. Killen stated they have the acoustical engineer here and he can address that issue in detail. Concerning restrictions on the R&D uses, specifically chemical uses, there is a very general range there from copier toner to hard specific chemical handling and NH occupancy type uses. They would be willing to support some clarification and restriction on the hard HR type uses. By changing these to offices, it is not their intent to have hard edged chemical handling units or tenants that are in that business. He pointed out that is an o~ce building there, and another one which is office and R&D. He just did not see those types of uses either by code or as a practical matter being uses on the site. We would support some language and work with staff and the homeowners to get them comfortable with that. We are suppo~tive of the hours of operation in Condition 39 on page 21. 04-26-99 Page 15 What we discussed in our group meeting was that we were willing that not having a noise impact on the homeowners was also a priority and language regarding noise generating uses not being permitted after 8 p.m. is acceptable, I don't think any of our users, whether they be engineering companies or computer companies or those types of uses, are going to have a problem with that. I don't believe we are going to have any outside storage that will create a problem there. Lighting as outlined on Mr. Koch's latter to you is acceptable, as long as we can meet the securiry requirements established by code. In some cases we've tried to exceed those in areas where we feel that some of our office workers may be out in the evening trying to get to their cars at 5:00 in ihe winter and we would be happy to work with staff on shielding devices. We don't want to create an impact there. Trash storage areas are perfectly fine. I think good planning practice would deem ~~s responsible in that area. Concerning signage, the staff is going to require a full sign submittal. i have some examples of our sign program as iPs currently proposed. Signage is as important to us as it is to our neighbors. What we intend to do is pick up the architectural elements, the stone, the plaster, the coloration, the use of the copper and incorporate that into a monument sign which is shown on the plan, within the project, and it is internally illuminated and there are no external illuminations proposed. Typically there may be some indication of where a tenant is located or a directory to find their address within the project and there may be some directory signs that are non illuminated or internally illuminated at the worst, and they would be located along the spines and in areas where they have open space. We did discuss at length non- illuminated signs and logos as they face the residential and are fine with that. Where they have some fronts that face the streets and face away from the residential, it may be a consideration. For instance it may be up on the facade where Building 12 faces the intersection. The intent is to be non-intrusive with signage and to do something with quality and character that ties back into the architectural design. He stated they did discuss the landscaping and realize that the landscaping pallet would be up for discussion. We'd be happy to have another meeting with the homeowners specifically on the plant selection along these edges. We have a proposed pallet right now which is Sycamores and they are deciciuous trees along the edge so when the Santa Ana winds blow across, it is not blowing leaves and trash into their yards. There are a number of trees we can use that are used typically around pools and master planned devel~pments and would propose to make the Iandscape architect available to help in that regard. He pointed out a triangle site which is an eyesore, iYs dirt. They have a concept landscape plan for it, and intend to landscape that as well. They feel the entrance to Jenifer is a gateway to the project. The first thing people coming eastbound are going to see is that dirt patch which will be landscaoed. He referred to an exhibit that shows the quaiity of the building and the architecture of the view going eastbound on La Palma Avenue. He explained practical things like "No Parking" signs, wrought iron fencing, etc. are included in their design and budget, and that wasn't a problem. CC&R's are one of the ways to ensure a quality project into the future ar~ the neighbor's input is wel~omed just as it has been in thP design process. He was sure City staff will make sure that everyone is notified on the Reports & Recommendations for other items that come before the Commission. He expressed his appreciation for those neighbors who have given up their Saturdays and softball games with their kids to be a part of this process. This is a continuing process, and it doesn't stop tivith the vote today or with City Council. These are their neighbors as we built and after they build and they intend to have property management and asset management involved in this project, as well as standards that are set by the city. We don't want to have to rely on Code Enforcement to solve problems. Cheryl Flores: Asked the applicant to make a list of the exhibits that he has shown before he leaves today so they could be photographed and returned for our records. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 04-26-99 Page 16 Commissioner Boydstun: Questioned Alfred Yalda, why they put ~"No U-tum" sign at Yorba Linda Boulevard and La Paima Avenue, pointing out that she has missed ;he d~iveway going down into K-Mart. Alfred Yalda: Responded that is not wide enough for people to make a U-tum. He added once they do their study and the intersection is widened, the City generally allows U-turns and that he could take a look at it and see why we have U-turns. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if he wouid see why they made it "No U-turn" because in the past evidently it was wide enough to make a U-turn. Alfred Yalda: I'd be more than happy to do that. Commissioner Koos: The applicant mention that initially the project didn't have that right-in/right-out access and that staff requested that to be added to the development. He asked what the thoughts were in asking for that addition when they didn't have it originally. Alfred Yal~a: Recalled originally we asked them to provide driveways on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Either way if their tra~c engineers look at it and see that it works properly, we don't have any problem with closing th2t driveway. Commissioner Koos: Hs did not think many people would be using that second driveway anyway. it is for that one segment of that development and the vast majority of the people would be going in the main entrance. For those that would be using that driveway, they have to make a U-turn at Jenifer anyway to go home. They come from the west in the morning to enter that site at that second driveway. They have to leave from the west a~~d if they are coming from the east and then they have to leave to the west, it doesn't make a lot of sense where those people are going to go. Those people would have to go back to the main entrance to go east. He thought it doesn't really make sense to have that at ali since it is a point uf contention and the developer doesn't seem too strong about it. Now they are saying that the staff recommended it, they like it because it adds something to th~ project, but he just did not know who it is really serving and how much good it is. Alfred Yalda: Though it would be a good idea to have additional ingress and ec~ress but there might be one concern that people exiting that driveway going to Jenifer and making a U-turn, and in other areas we have prohibited U-turn with the signs and that could easily be accomplished with two signs. Commissioner Koos: Though if you did that, it would essentially just be a rival entrance. Alfred Yalda: That is correct. It would be right-in/right-out and he did not see any really big impact to Jenifer Drive by having that driveway. If you are driving westbound, you are probably going to use the first driveway and did not know why do you have to go to the second driveway and either way it is going to work. Commissioner Koos: Suggested eliminating the entire driveway. He added Commission just got this information today. Granted, he had not reviewed this as much as he would like but there are a couple of exhibits that mention future traffic volume which would imply some type of modeling? Would it be safe to say or is it some sort of calculation when you imply future? Scott Lawn witl~ Greenspan Traffic Engineers, 234 E. Colorado Blvd„ Pasadena. Essentially the future traffic is near term traffic and it was not modeled. It was basically existing plus ambient growth plus our knowledge of related projects as obtained from City staff. Commissianer Koos: Responding to the first lady's comments on the traffic, in particular, and the regional impact o~ traffic on the 91 freeway getting off on Gypsum and then they take La Palma Avenue. He added he knows that is what happens because I live in tho Canyon. Does this study have any assumption about regional traffic movementsl Jack Greenspan: No, it does not. It does not have any assumption that if there are any problems on the 91 freeway we added a loading to La Palma Avenue. This is normal operation. 04-26-99 Page 17 Commissioner Koos: Gonceming what happens to growth out there, he asked how do we account for that on a project level like here and thought that the OCTAM would have all that regional growth impact would be buiit into the forecast. Alfred Yalda: ! think it probably is but regardless of what this project daes, occasionally there will be an incident on the 91 Freeway and as an altemative, La Palma Avenue is going to be used whether this project is in or not. Commissioner Koos: Well I concur with that but generally on a normal daily event, sometimes we choose to use the City's traffic models for projects and sometimes we don't and you didn't suggest looking at that based on this prajecYs trip generation. Aifred Yalda: No, I think that the only numbers we have on this project are conservative and that the appli;.ant has added the two dealership numbers to the project but the dealerships are already open and they are generating traffic. So the numbers that were added are more conservative. In other words even though the traffic existed frorn the dealership, they still added that to the future project numbers. It is possible that there would be 2n incident on La Palma Avenue and that the traffic would be diverted to Santa Ana Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue which has been ihe case for many years. Commissioner Esping: I have some concerns in listening to both sides ir their presentations and the (etters we have received today including from La Palma Avenue Business Ce~ter. They both talk about having these group meetings and working together and that they have had a real good working relationship and ihe homeowners are listening to the builders and back and forth. However, I don't see that much listening frankly. The letters that were received as of just yesterday and today do not sound like they have listened to the builders in any way, shape or form and thai concerns me. There seems to be so many unresolved thir.gs here. They have talked about listening to one another but point after point they'ue said all these thin~s but what changes have been made. The developer has said what changes have been made and the neighbors are saying none have been made and I don't see where all this listening has taken place and it seems like there are a lot of unresolved issues here. Not just traffic but all of the r,omments point by point that have not been addressed at all and it seems we are at an impasse. Commissioner Koos: I don't know if I entirely concur with you, Commissioner Esping, just because the residents say something, doesn't mean he has to do it so they can stili have outstanding concerns that the developer just isn't able to do. in his rebuttal I understand that he is willing to concede to a lot of the issues on this and there are a few left that are outstanding. I would concur with that. We can get into ali th~ particulars now or we can wait a little while. Concerning the chemicai uses, the developer is sort of saying that makes sense but we can condition it to certain types of chemical uses, and he thought that rvould be a great step. r..'heryl F(ores: It may be appropriate to require Reports and Recommendations review for any uses with r.hemicals or whatever else it is that there are concerns about that would come back to Commission. Commissioner Koos: Agreed and stated he doesn't know anybody in this room who is an expert in chemicals so we might have to look into that or something. It sort of goes back to someone in the earlier public hearing said that they were told by their real estate agent that this would never be developed and that's an unfortunate incident but he did not think this property has ever been zoned anything but commercial. He asked if the property has ever oeen zoned open space and for the history of zoning on this site. Kevin Bass: The park was origina~ly located in a portion of that property.. The park was realigned when La Palma Avenue was realigned and it became a remnant piece. The General Plan shows it as General Commercial since 1982 or 1983 Chairman Bristol: LeYs take some of these issues because we haven't addressed them yet. He asked about the pad elevations aspecially close lo La Palma Avenue. 04-26-99 Page 18 Melanie Adams: Pad elevations are a very sensitive issue partfcula~ly in hillside developments. Some residents have inquired if this site is as low as it can flo. The evidence I have seen so far indicates maybe it isn't. I've spoke with the develaper and asked them to have their civil engineer do a detailed analysis to show that each of the pads is indeed as low as it can go. There are a couple of items that we're looking at from the Public Works Department point of view. The primary drainage will be in a storm drainage system, but what we are looking at is secondary overflow in the event that the storm drain is backed up or something is happening there and that it will be able to flow out into La Palma Avenue and not flood the buildings. Other than that the developer does have some options on how to develop this site. One is the addition of slopes or retaining walls. I'd like to hear from the project civil engineer on the technicai limitation of additions of siopes or retaining walls. A change of paving materials possibly on some sections going to Portland cement concrete which would allow the to possibly gain a few feet here or there. Not necessarily the whole site but possibly in areas that are sensitive. She asked the project civil engineer to step to the podium and discuss these issues. John Van Dell with Van Dell & Associates, the projec± civil engineer, 17801 Cartright Road, Irvine California. I've had the opport~nity to regrade this site since 1989 probably at least 15 times. It is an extremely challenging site from a grading perspective. On all sides of this site the project areas are higher than the existing grades in the middle. Currently 4here is a ponding condition whenever rain occurs. He referred to slides and pointed out where a ~ulvert comes out. He thought staff's point that ta prevent flooding of the buildings and make sure that if the drain is clogged, drainage can still get out of this site via overland flow is a very good point. The single biggest item of litigation in projects such as this is drainage and it is buildings being flooded and obviously that is something that is very ~ndesirable and it's not sound engineering practice to design something that would cause ponding which could flood buildings and cause potential hazard to property and life. Mr. Van Dell referring to the displayed overhead exhibit, pointed out areas as follows: • where there is a large grade differential • where there is not a 1% grade (the City's minimum standard) • where there would be a difference in the elevation of some buiidings of 1-1/2 feet • where retaining walis would be necessary • Portland cement could bz used with a 4% grade • where would create big infrastructure needs • where the property would be much higher • where the crib wall would be located . where shoring would be possible, but prohibitively expensive • each 1-foot lowered causes the wall Yo come out an additional foot • soils will not support that kind of slope • where lowering of one area would rriove the entire site further away from the road • and that means the entire area because of tha parking to floor area ratio v~ill move to the west • trying to keep the buildings as far away as possible from the west property line . property is a bowl and drainage is a concern • goai is to minimize expensive import soil, make the site drain and keep everything as low as possible and prevent building expensive infrastructure items . a grade with a 2:1 ratio, which is as low as it can be • retaining walls which would have severe cost consequences . yards of import soil will not offset the cost of the wall, pa~ticularly if shoring is required • existing sewer has 18-20 feet of cover ,vith proposed grading, • that will increase to 40 feet • none of the buildings are near the sewer . drainage needs if a storm drain is clogged, mitigating expensive retaining walls and import soil It is possible to lower the elevation, even though it is not eco~omically feasible. He has done multiple versions of this site and believes this plan represents the best overall compromise of ail the numerous constraints which are used to design this particular grading concept. Melanie Adams - The engineer is saying there are a number of technically feasible ways to lower the site. It would be the Commission's decision whether lowering the elevation would be consistent with the land 04-26-99 Page 19 use wanted here. The site technically can be lowered and a 1-1/2 foot difference could be attained in some areas fairly easily by adding a few walis on the west side. From there it would be more difficult. Chairman Bristol: Asked if staff agreed with the applicant about the roof-mounted equipment on Weir Canyon Road and Yorba Linda Boulevard. He added our code says it must be hidden and it is not going to be hidden. Cheryl Flores: If the Commission is considering roof-mounted equipment, that staff can craft a condition that states that once the buildings are constructed and the roof-mounted equipment is constructed, if it is determined at that time that it will be visible, that it must be ground mounted. The applicant seems to be saying that it will not be visible from the rights of way or the adjacent properties, and if that is correct, we can go aiong with it. If it is determined upon construction that that is not the case, then the equipment should be ground mounted. John Van Dell: Advised the equipment is the last thing to go on the roof, so they would be willing to accept an inspection from Planning and Building staff. They can mock up scraens to make sure. if the issue is visibility, they will abide by that condition. Chairman Bristol: Asked about the term "scoot " Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Explained overail "scoot" is real timing. There will be videos monitoring the traffic conditions at that intersection. Right now there are loops on the street, and they don't see the cars. With the scoot system, the two traffic signals will communicate with each other, and they will have video cameras that tell each other how much traffic is going and will facilitate movement. The difference between scoot and regular traffic signal is that it gives real time adjustment for traffic movements. Depending on day and timing, it will facilitate the movement and make it rnore efficient for a signal to operate. Chairmar. Bristol: People coming out of the homes are very concerned because the lights are synchronized so much right now that the cars can go 40 - 50 mph and when they make that turn, they are moving pretty fast. Alfred Yalda: Due to p.m. peak hours, they'll have an opportunity to make their turn safer. For example, if you are going to turn left off Jenifer, and if the traffic signal is red at La Palma, it will ailow the vehicles to exit, and the only traffic you will have is people making right turns and ttiey w~ll not be speeding at 50 mph. It gives a gep between La Palma and Jenifer to allow the turn. Chairman Bristol: If my 17 year old is going to make a left hand turn off of that street to go onto La Palma eastbound, and if any cars are coming with that little bit of curve, especially if there is an additional s~cond driveway, I would have to think about that. Alfred Yalda: There will be an opportunity when they design it to look at the possibility for westbound traffic to make a turn, then look out for the eastbound traffic to ;nerge into traffic. We've done that in other areas. When you make a left turn, first you have to cross the westbound traffic, lhen you have to loak into the eastbound traffic. There would be an opportunity there to stop and look and tlien make your turn. Alfred Yalda responded to Commissioner Boydstun that it is approximately 600 feet from their entrance to Jenifer. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked why they couldn't have a signal there to get outl Alfred Yalda: Advised the City has already looked at Jenifer; that by Ciry Council Resolution, th2y have to use the warrants in the traffic manual of the Department of Transportation. The installation of a signal at Jenifer and La Palma does not meet any of the warrants. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how far they have to be from the other signal7 04~ 26-99 Page 20 Alfted Yalda: The minimum distance is 1,000 feet, but the accidarat history at this location indicates there were no reported accidents at Jenifer in the last 5 years, and there is a minimum amount of traffic, plus traffic delays are also invoived. Bob Koch: This road has a large curve and has downward elevation which makes it impossible to do what Alfred is talking about. You can't get into traffic, look into your rear view mirror to merge because you can't see what is going on. They have also had conversations with Mr. Lower who agrees that this is not necessary in this complex and for whatever reason, it has never been put into any report. He did not understand why we are not hearing that opinion today. Chairman Bristol: Asked if a U-turn westbound at the main entrance is feasible and can we make that a condition? Alfred Yaida: We can take a look at it during the design of the traffic signal to allow U-turns for westbound traffic on La Palma. Chairman Bristol: Knowing that if somebody misses that access and is flying down there and there is a second entrance, maybe that should be a right turn only, period, no exit. Alfred Yalda: It doesn't really m3tter if you close it cr make it right turn only. Commissioner Boydstun: Right turn oniy would help stop tra~c coming in between the signals. Chairman Bristol: That gives somebody 3 opportunities. If they are going to the project and miss it, they have the next one to go right so they don't get to Jenifer. If they miss it, then they hdve the U-turn to go back. Alfred Yalda: If they are going eastbound on La Palma, most of the traffic generated by this project would be making a right turn to the site. During the am peak hour, you will i~ave 0 impact from this project going westbound. The traffic on the street is traffic that is already out there traveling westbound. In reality, during the 8 am hour you are not increasing traffic by this project because the traffic is coming to this project. During the p.m. peak hour, traffic from this project is leaving so the traffic that is on Jenifer is coming to Jenifer. There is an opposite amount of traffic that is generated by this, and they do not conflict. So if someone is coming off the freeway and makes a left turr~ northbound on Yorba Linda Boulevard to La Palma, they are gong to this project, and they are not going to cross Jenifer Drive Chairman Bristol: Addressed Alfred and said he commented that they cannot request a signal at Jenifer, so the best way, if they keep the first and second driveway, is to make sure there is a U-turn there to take some of the residents' concern away about people coming through. He also suggested making that second driveway right turn only. Alfred Yalda: Heard there was a concern that if you are making a left turn on Jenifer, you will not be able to see the incoming eastbound traffic. There was a similar situation on Lincoln and Mohler Driv2 where they modified the median island and provided an area where residents could stop, look and merge into tra~c. This could be possible here too. They already have an eastbound left turn, and they could give them about 10 feet of gap, modify the raised median island east of Jenifer to provide an area to merge to eastbound traffic. He further explained the median island could be reconstructed so that when somebody is making a left turn, they can proceed and stop and then merge into traffic and there would be adequate line of sight. Commissioner Koos: Asked what this movement had to do with this project. Chairman Bristol: Rdvised some of the neighbors are concerned about it. They stili have to be concerned with westbound traffic, but with a U-turn at the main entrance, and right turn only on the second driveway, that eliminates 2 potential trips coming that direction. Then ail they have to worry about is the eastbound entrance. 04-26-99 Page 21 Commissioner Koos: Did not understand why that movement has anything to do with the project Chairman Bristol: Advised the project impacts the neighbors. Commissioner Koos: Their line of sight issuss are current and that movement will persist whether this project exists or not. He did not see the nexus between that potential change and this pro~ect. Alfred Yalda: Advised some people go west on La Palma and wi!h this project, we could condition this to modify the median island for left turn movement. Chairman Bristol: Said it was a good idea and all it is going to do is help the neighbors. He thought the Commission should do the right hand turn into the second driveway, and make sure that the ~-ti~rn is there and that answers 60 - 70% of the concerns on the traffic. Regarding the pad elevations, he thought they are going to landscape the heck out of it. Bob Koch: All the arguments made about decreasing the elevations and the problems that are created by that have taken into consideration the existing density of the project. If you add to the possibility that you reduce some of the densiry, you reduce some of the square footage, and it doesn't create as mucfi of a problem because then you don't have to have retaining walis. You can have slopes and berms with a smaller footprint. IYs not something that the developers have mentioned, but it is a viable alternative. Selma Mann: A comment with re3ard to the nexus concern, it is required that there be not just a type nexus but a proportionality nexus and if there conditions are going to be imposed that are based upon a particular impact, it has to be a condition that relates just to the type of impact that the project will have. For example, not iust that there will be some right turn movements onto a street, but also to what degree of impact the project will have. So that just because you have some right turn lanes, there also has to be a relationship as to what you are requiring the developer to do. That you're not requiring the developer to correct existing conditions on existing streets but rather the impact of what this particular development is going to be having upon the streets. Commissioner Koos: Regarding that, it looks like the traffic study shows turn movements on Jenifer don't change with respect to before and after the project. He asked Alfred if that is safe to say. He asked where the justification is for the cut in the median. Alfred Yalda: Explained he was responding to Commissioner Bristol's question as to what could be done to make that change, but that Commissioner Koos is absolutely right, the traffic condition on Jenifer will not change and the turning movement on Jenifer will not change. Chairman Bristol: Said to forget the U-turn because it has nothing to do with the project. Also said to take the U-turn from westbound La Palma because those people are not going to the project, they are turning around because they made a mistake. Commissioner Koos: Advised they have already agreed to redo the intersections with the signalization. Chairman Bristol: Asked Selma if they have to find a nexus between Jenifer and turning left on La Palma. Selma Mann: What has been expressed is that there a!ready is going to be a signalization that has been agreed to and in conjunction with that, there can be a no U-turn that can be built to that and that the developer iias already agreed to that. The second issue with regard to creating a space within the median is not something that has been agreed to by the developer. if the developer has agreed to provide something lhat is over and above nexus constraints, that is something that the City can then legally agree to. IYs something that goes above the nexus constraints, but the developer has agreed to it. If you have something that goes above the nexus constraint that the developer has not agreed to, you do not have authority to impose that additionai restriction on the project. Chairman Bristol: Said they will not use that idea unless you want to agree to it 04-26-99 Page 22 John Killen What they are willing to agree to is what is in the co~text of what we have come out of the homeowner meetings with, which was the U-tum movement being part of the inte~section improvements that we're going to build an~nray. We're amenable to the idea with the right tum only whlch allows access to the westeriy part of the property and if someone misses the opportunity to tum into the project through the deceleration lane. There is a right tun in that is going to be created here and we were conditioned to create a deceleration lane. If someone can't get in there, the opportunity to make a right tum movement here is still an advantage. We would be willing to concede that the right out only could be eliminated. i don't have a feel for the costs for improvements at that median right there. We have been through a number of discussions about over and above a nexus constraints. We're nat creating a nexus for that but we agreed to improve it because it was a concession. We've tried to work back and forth on a lot of issues and I'm noY sure where it stops. Mr. Killen responded to Commissioner Esping's earlier comments that they are not that far apart on a number of issues. Your view is interesting because we continue to have this discussion even at the homeowner meeting. We have a 2 or 3 hour meeting and someone in the group will say we're nowhere. I've gone through the list each time and say we are somewhere, we've made a change here, it's a process and we're moving. ~ Commissioner Esping: My concern is that people writing in don't see the concessions being made. John Killen: This is America and anyone can write a letter. We have relied upon the elected representatives of the fiighlands Homeowners Association to make decisions. There is dissension and disagreement among their group, there is dissension among my owners in terms of how we get from here to there. In terms with the people that we have dealt with, I think we're close on a number of issues. We're willing to work with Traffic and Planning to make something work, but iYs got to be in the context of us being able to move on and bring closure to all these issues that appear to be outstanding. Chairman Bristol: The residents have a lot of concerns and we understan~J those concerns, and there has to be a compromise and he thought we are close. According to the City Attorney, there has to br, a no:~us but if the developer wants to pursue tFat down the road, it might be a nice gesture. ACTION: APPROVED THE MITIGA7ED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO 7HE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 362, EXHIBIT A. GRANTED RECLASSIFICATION N0. 98-99-10. APPROVFD, IN PART, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, AS FOLLOWS: Approved waivers pertaining to (a) minimum parking lot landscaping and (d) minimum site area per lot on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to this property, such as its irregular-shape and topography; and Denied waivers pertaining to (b) permitted type ~f commercial identification sign, (c) maximum area of commercial identificaiion signs, and (e) maximum str~~tural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone on the basis that the waivers were deleted folluwing submittal of revised plans. GRANTED, IN PART, CONDITfONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4096 WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS: Modified Condition Nos.14,17, 28, 29, 37, 39 and 40 to read as follow:s: 14. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located away from residences and screened so as not to be readily identifiabie frorr~ adjacent residences, streets or 04-2&-99 Page 23 highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected nom graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gailon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. That each lot shall be required to have one dounle trash enclosure. Said information ~shall be specifically shown on the pians submitted for building permits. 17. That the developer shall submit a final ligt~ting plan, indicating the location and illumination of exterior light fixtures to the Zor,ing Division of the Planning Department for Planning Commission review as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. Said lighting fixtures shall be down lighted with a maximum height of t~~elve (12) feet, except that the maximum height adjacent ta the west and northwest prope~t}r lines where the subject property abuts residential zoning shall be 10 feet (including lighting on 9uildings). All lighting shall be directed ~~way from adjacent residential properry lines to protect it~e residential integriry of the area and shall be so specified on the plans submitted for building permits. 28. That roof-mounted equi~ment shall be permitted on building numbers 3, 4, the south portion of building 5(only), 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11, 12,13 and 1 Y, provided that prior to the installation of any ro~f-mounted pquipment, the developer shall demonstrate to Zoning Division staff, by the use of actual size props placed on tne buildings, that no roof-mounted equipment will be visible from the adjacent rights-of-way or residences. If Zoning Division staff determine that any roof- mounted equipment will be visible to the adjacent rights-of-way or residences, that equipment shall be ground-mounted and screened fmm view. Plans submitted for building parmits shall indicate the locations for both roof-mounted and ground-mounted equipment for these buildings until the actual location of the equipment is determined prior tu final building and zoning inspections. 29. That the proposed industrial uses shall be limited to the following listed uses and further subject to the individual business approval of the Planning Commission as a Re~orts and Recomrrendations agenda item. That an unsubordinated covenant, reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's O~ce so limiting said uses, shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder, a copy of which shail be submitted to the Zoning Division: 1. Laboratories, experimental or research 2. Pharmaceuticals 3. Publi§hing books, periodical newspapers 4. Scientific equipment assembiy 5. Communication equipment, components or supplies 6. Drafting instruments or goods 7. Electrical or electronic eq~ipment, components or products 8. Research, development and testing laboratories and facilities 9. Scientific, optical, medical, dental or photographic equipment, components and products 10. Sound equipment, components or supplies 11. And similar uses as expressly approved by the City. ~2. Any use permitted under Zoning Code Section 18.41.020 "Permitted Primary Uses and structures," and subject to all conditions of said Section. Each irdividual use shall require the written approval of the Zoning Division prior to occupancy which approval shall only be giuen when it is demonstrated that such use is either an expressly perrnitted use in such zone or meets the criteria of Sect~on 18.41.050.135 as modified in the above list of the Anaheim Municipai Code. Said decision of the Zoning Division may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and R~commendations" item. 37. That a final landscape plan for the entire site shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department indicating type, size (min?mum 24-inch box trees) and location of proposed Iandscaping and irrigation fo~ ~eview and 04-26-99 Page 24 approval of the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recomrnendations" item. Plans shall indicate minimum 1-galian size vines planted on maximum 3- foot centers adjacent to all maso~ry walls and ground-mounted equipment screening throughout the development. Plans shall fu~ther indicate a 6-foot high wrought iron fence centered in the landscaped setback for the length of, and adjacent to, Jenifer Drive. Once approved, the landscsoing shall be instalied in accordance with the plan and professionaily maintained. 3~. That the office/light industriai complex hours of operations shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, with no outdoor maintenance or other noise-generating operations or activities permitted after 8 p.m. 40. That the developer shall submit a copy of the precise grading plan to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department indicating the finished pad elevations for each building. Any increase over 1.5 feet (18 inches) in pad elevations for the proposed Building Nos.1, 2, 5, 7,15,16 and 18 (as shown on Exhibit No. 38 and the following table) shall require Planning Commission review and approval as a public hearing item: 1. Building No.1 336.5 ft. pad elevation 2. Building No. ~ 341.1 ft. pad elevation 3. Bui~ding No. 5 338.5 ft. pad elevation 4. Building No. 7 340.4 ft. pad elevation 5. Buildinq No. 15 345.8 ft. pad elevation 6. Building No.16 346.0 ft. pad elevation 7. Building No. 18 349.5 ft. pad elevation Added the following mitigation measures under the Traffic Section of Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 107: That the design and installation of the proposed traffic signal shall include provisions for westbound traffic to make a U-turn at this intersection; and That the westerly driveway shall be designed for ingress only. APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 98•234 APPl20VED SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 99-01 MOTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick deciared a conflict of interest and one vacant seat) , that the Anaheim Cily Planning Commission does ~ hereby request City Council review of General Plan Amendment No. 362, Reclassification No. 98-99-10, Waiver of Code Requirement, Conditianal Use Permit PJo. 4096, Tentative F~arcel Map No. 98-234 and Specimen Tree Rernovai Permit No. 99-01. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bost~vick declared a confiict of intPrest because he owns property within 1,000 feet of subject property and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Planning Commission's actions are going to be set for review by the City Council at a noticed public hearing. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 hours and 12 minutes (2:00-4:12) 04-26-99 Page 25 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 2~, Continued to 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT N0. 2231 (REAOVERTISED) May 10,1999 INITIATED: City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division and Police Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 QWNER: American SiC Trading Company, Inc., 831 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 831 South Beach Boulevard - Rainbow inn. Property is 0.65 acre located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, 830 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division and Police Department) request to consider revocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 2231 which permits a 41-unit, 2-story motel. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. 024KP.DOC • a • • s • OPPOSITION: None Robert Sneider: Asked for continuance because he had just gotten the detailed report and wants to be constructive and wants fo be able to give a detailed response to Commission. ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 10,1999 Planning Commission meeting as ~ equested by the appiicant so that he has more time to come back with a detailed response to staff's concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) tii~~USSION TIME: 2 minutes {1:33-1:35) 04-26-99 Page 26 ~;l:' : 4h. WANER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4111 Granted, in part for 5 years OWNER: Naul Phipps and Vicki Phipps, 8049 Canna Cfrcle, Buena Park, CA 90620 (To expire 4-26-2004) AGENT: Kay Lez - Pacific Rim Architect, 5871 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, CA 90621 LOCATION: 2T80 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.51 acre located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue. To permit a Buddhist Temple and caretaker's residence within two existing structures formerly used for residential and commercial use with waiver of a) minimum number of parking spaces and b) minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-70 3ft1034KP. s • • • e • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Denied waiver (a) periaining to minimum number of parking spaces on the basis that thE waiver was deleted subsequent to advertisement by the provision of the Code-required number of parking spaces; and, approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property due to existing conditions, location, and surroundings and that strict application of the Zoni~~g Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other prope~ties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity which have converted existing buildings to institutional use. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4111 for five (5) years subject tc the findings and conditions stated in the staff report dated Aprii 26, 1999. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai ~~~hts. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:21-4:23) 04-26-99 Page 27 5a. CEQA CATEGORlCA 5b. VARIANCE N0. 435T OWNER: Bob Pickard, 451 Brad Road, Oakland, Oregon 97462 AGENT: Paul Bostwick, 200 West Midway Drive, Maheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 200 West Midway Drive - Anaheim Resort R V Park Properry is 6.E5 acres located on the south side of Midway Drive, 400 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard Waiver of maximum numb~r and size of wall signs to permit two 64- square foot each wali signs in conjunction with an existing recraational vehicle park. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC99-71 Granted • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None Paul Bostwick, agent, explained the request is to replace a laundry and restroom facility which was removed for the widening of I-5 by Caltrans. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of C~;egorical Exemptions, Class 11, as uefined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Variance No. 4357 subject to the findings and conditions stated in staff report dated April 26, 1999. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest nn the basis that he is the agent for this project and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:23-4:27) Selma Mann, Assistant ~ity Attorney, presented the 22-day appsal rights. 04-20-99 Page 28 . ~` ..,._.- .~,:;;,.:..: ~. f~IEETIIdG ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M. , T~ MOtVDAY, MAY 10,1999 AT 10:30 A.M. ' FOR A CEQA UPDATE BY CITY ATTORNEYlPLANNING STAFF Submitted by: ~~ ~'~ - ~1~. c~~~ Edith Harris Planning Commission Support Supervisor ~:n<-2 ~~-c~.~ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist ~~~~~~ Danielle Masciel Word Processing Operator 04-26-99 Page 29