Minutes-PC 1994/03/21ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MARCH'L1, 1994
10:00 A•M• - WORK SESSION WITH CITY ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS THE LATEST LEGISLATION
REGARDING THE BROWN ACT FOLLOWED BY A PRESENTATION BY THE PUBLIC
WORKS-ENGINEERING DIVISION TO DISCUSS THE WATER QUALITY ENGINEERING
PLAN, AND THE NEW PARKING LOT AT THE MAIN LIBRARY (HARBOR BLVD. AND
[fROADWAY `
11:00 A.M. - ~'iiELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW (NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ACCEPTED)
1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their
evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commisslon,
~l such aaddRional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to
present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants.
The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks,
but rather by what is said.
3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission In each hearing.
Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting.
4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing ;;closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing K, in its opinion, the ends of
fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing,
including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence,
shall be retained by the Commisslon for the public record and shall be available for public
inspections.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on Items
of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items.
Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak.
AC032194.WP
.~
ta. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.281 Previously
Certified
1 b. SITE PLAN FOR TRACT MAP NO. 13266
OWNER: THE BALDWIN CO., Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Haie Avenue,
Irvine, CA 92714
Approved
Approved
revision to
previously
approved site
plan
LOCATION: Property is aQproximately 6.4 acres located on the south
side of Serrano Avenue and approximately 1100 Teet west
of the centerline of Marblehead Drive (Tract No. 13266. The
Summtt of Anaheim Hlils Soeciffc Pian (SP88-2).
Petftioner requests a revision to the previously approved she plan for Tract
Map No. 13266 wfthln The Summft of Anaheim Hills Specffic Pian (SP88-2)
in order to construct 10 single-family residential structures ranging from
3,395 to 3,911 square feet (previously ranging from 4,141 to 5,657 square
feet).
Continued from the October 4, November 15, December 1, 1993, January
24, and February 23, 1994 Planning Commission meetings.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 9 people opposed
Commissioner Taft stated he listened to the tape for this item.
PETITIONER:
Hon Freeman, Senior Vice President for the Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA.
They have been before the Commission a number of times on this issue. Exhaustive reviews
have been conducted wfth all parties involved.
One month ago they requested a cont(nuance to make some final revisions to the plan per the
request of the Commissioners. They have done that and have resubmitted their plans.
They reviewed the staff report and due to the fact they did make some plan revisions the
footages have Increased on these unfts. Plan 1 footage is actually stated In the plans currently
at 3,427 feet.
Plan 2 is curcently stated at 3,636 although ft grows slightly wfth the latest plan submittals
beyond that number.
Plan 3 Is at 3,911 feet and is actually 3,950 feet and will grow to over 4,000 feet.
After taking a look at staff's review of the submttals, they are content with the staff's findings
and will look to request a decision today.
Page 2
OPPOSITION:
!-~ Jonathan Goldste(n, 1096 S. Taylor Court, Anaheim. This is the sixth time the homeowners
have been here. Because of the current sftuation, the homeowners have asked him to speak
first.
As a preliminary matter, he is compelled to make the following comments. All of the hearings
have been well attended by the homeowners. There are some homeowners that are very
upset with what happened at the last hearing. At the conclusion of the January 24th hearing,
the Commission requested a staff report to be prepared with regard to the February 23rd
hearing. The directions to staff were very specific. Cut through it; compare the plans to their
homes; compare them to the specs that Baldwin had for the build to suit and compare them
to the proposed houses.
The staff then went out and did a very specific report. They compared them and caught
Baldwin when they tried to submft different specs that had previously been done. They noted
substantial differences-front elevations, garages in the proposed plans being the Dominant
force and different windows.
The staff came back and said that the recommendation was to reject the Baldwin plan.
However, at the February 23rd meeting the Commission came in and made no reference to
that report. This Is the report that the Commission wanted. There was no ind'~ation as to
what ftems the Commission disagreed wfth or why the Commission disagreed, why the
Commission made no reference to ft, or why the Commission disregarded ft.
At the beginning of the February 23rd hearing, per the staff report, Mr. Freeman, on behalf of
Baldwin, referenced the report and asked what addftlonal changes did they have to make?
The Commission basically said everything Is floe, they did not have to make any addftional
things. The Commission was ready to approve ft without the rear and side elevations. They
finally asked Baidwin to submft them and then continued it until today.
The February 23rd meeting showed a total disregard to that report. That report made the
specific comparisons. They noted the key dH`arences as to the windows; as to the front
elevations; as to the garages; they indicated clearly that the proposed plans were not
architecturally consistent with the existing models.
The bottom line Is that these homes will go on Sunstream. When you drive on those two
streets, those streets will look different then their street. If they are architecturally consistent
and comparable, they will not be able to tell, but you will be.
Baidwin ciaims the proposed plans are consistent, btrt they are not and they were never
Intended to be consistent because ff they wanted consistency all they have to do Is build
Model 1 and 2 of their plans. Size wise Models 1 and 2 of their plans are consistent with what
they want to build. They want to build a different product; a cheaper product with a different
front elevation; a different roof line; the dominant front garages; and different windows
because it is cheaper to build.
Baldwin claims the reason they have to do this is due to economic condftions. The economy
has changed since they built their homes and they do not think there Is a market for their
homes so they have to build a different, cheaper product so ft can be sold at a lesser price.
Page 3
'~,
They cannot control what they sell the houses for; they cannot control what they put (nto the
.-. inside of the houses; they are entitled to have the new houses be archftecturaily consistent
with their homes. They have a building plan approvEd and they are now asking for a revised
building plan and the only reason is their own economic benefft.
They are all suffering economically. Some of them are not making what they previously made
and their homes have gone down in value. That Is not anyone's fault. They cannot change
the rules in the middle of the game because of the ecc~omy and neither can Baldwin.
There are no changes in Baldwin's proposed plans since February 23rd other then the
submittal of project(ons for the side and rear elevations. They still have the dominance of the
garages; they still have a different front elevation; they still have the aluminum windows; there
have been no changes. The staff report now indicates approval. Why? The reason is the
staff has prepared a report consistent wfth the Commission's comments and what the
Commission wanted at the last hearing. Everyone In this room knows k--the record knows it.
They are asking the Commission to do what is right. There is no basis for this revised plan.
They are asking that they correct the problem now rather than having the City Council or court
having to approve ft. It will not stop here. These houses are not consistent with their houses.
They are not designed or Intended to be that way and there is no basis and no reason for a
revised plan,
Mary Ellen Dwyer, 1059 S. Taylor Court, Anaheim Hills. The Summft Point roof Imes are
simple and consistent in form to create a more eYective and more powerful archftectural
statement. The proposed plans contain several ridge Iinas; creating a complicated form and
detracting from the powerful statement made by the simple large roof Imes.
In the previous staff report, the Planning Department did refer to the ceiling piste Tines and
roof lines are similar to roof Imes in other development areas of SP88.2. These proposed
plans are not visually unified; they do not provide order and coherence and lack visual
presentation In all directions.
The Baldwin C•~-ipany has continued to propose a product that Is Incompatible and not In
harmony with the unique identfflcatlon of the Summft Point.
Mari Penny, 8125 Oxley Court, Anaheim, CA. They have hired a professional architect. They
wanted to be as objective as possible in explaining how these plans are Incompatible with
their existing homes. They have hired Michael Lan of Lan & Associates. He did an analysis of
the existing models and the proposed models. She pointed out some differences on the
exhibits.
Nannette Minow, 1071 S. Taylor Court, Anaheim, CA. She expressed her feelings and
expressed how outraged she was when she left the last meeting. Staff is being paid and they
put together a vory comprehensive report and ft was totally ignored and that is not fair at all.
There is absolutely no consistency between the two projects. She elaborated.
Dr. Robert Minow, 1071 S. Taylor Court, Anaheim, CA. They would like to make some kind of
compromise proposal. He personally would like to propose that the existing homes wfthin
Summit Point, that have been developer, continue to be developed as ft is wfth the same type
of homes. The rest of what was to be Summit Point be separated out Into a separate
community (guard gate or not) wfth separate walls and separate identity and consistent
characteristics.
Page 4
-- ..
I~9
I!
Marilyn Ryder (phonetically spelled), 8115 E. Bailey Way, Anaheim, CA. She is on an interim `
~. occupar ~..y agreement with the Baldwin Company because they were unable to soil her the
house. She entered into a sales contract with them in June of 1993 and they moved In f
December f, 1993. They have Just told her they could close escrow.
They told her the models that would be across the street front her would look exactly the
same as their homes; they would have the wood windows and the only differences would be
that they would be smaller in square-footage and that they would have fewer luxurious interior
amenities.
She Is a realtor and gave some statistics relative to resale homes. In 1993 only one home
over $500,000 sold in the entire East Orange County Board of PQaltors. In the last 3 months
each and every month there have been 14 to 15 homes sold over $500,000.
Supply and demand is a real estate Issue and they are going to miss the mark again. The
reason they are going to miss the mark is because Anaheim Hills is over built with entry Ievei
housing and first time move up housing and they have only 3 luxury estate homes In gated
communities at two million dollars plus. She added those homes are 10 to 15 years old and
are becoming dated.
Their argument is that there is no market for this and it is her professional opinion that they
continue to build the same homes they have been building-that there will Indeed be a market
for them. She submitted the statistics for their review. She added there is a 21 % Increase in
sales in the luxury housing market in the last 3 months.
Mark Grossman, 1080 Taylor Court, Anaheim, CA. He gave some further statistics. It is unfair
to put these houses noxt to their homes. Theso homes are not compatible because they are
not putting the money into them.
Hildegard Casey (phoneticaily spelled). No address given. They bought their home believing
they would be living in on particular area. Now within their guarded gate, they Intend to
change s(gnfficantly, to the point where she feels the Baid~vin Company is steeling from them.
She asked the Commission to see that that does not happen.
Jane Grossman, 1080 Taylor Court, Anaheim HIIIs, CA. The proposed models resemble many
of the other tracts in their neighborhood. Their homes are very unique and special. The
models do not fit Into their neighborhood. The person who owns the lot next door was denied
the use of aluminum windows on the custom home he was going to build next door and yet
they call out for aluminum windows on the proposed homes. Please do not put up these
homes in their neighborhood.
REBUTTAL:
Ron Freeman stated many of the comments that were made were purely subjective in nature
and somewhat attacking in character as well. They have worked with staff consistently and
tried to receive Commission Input regarding these homes; they are clearly consistent with the
SpecKic Plan guidelines; they are compatible with the existing residences and they would be
proud to build them and requested a decision on the product today.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ Page 5
,;
;~
3
3
DISCUSSION: s
~. Commissioner Henninger asked H these are essentially variations on the houses they bunt
across the street?
Mr. Freeman explained they are a completely different product type. They have never built
them anywhere before. The product type reference is from 2,500 to 3,000 square feet and
they are 3,500 to over 4,000 square feet.
Commissioner Caldwell stated there Is certainly less of a similarfty between the revised
drawings and the current drawings wfth Summit Springs. The first ones were very similar with
similar roof Imes and front doors shoved over to the left but he guessed that could vary. They
seemed to have changed ft somewhat There was no doubt in his mind that they were putting
a lesser quality product in. They are going to price them less and have less amenfties. They
are going to have aluminum windows versus wood windows. This is a tough call. They are
offering something that is more similar to what they have in Summit Springs then what they
have at Summft Point.
Mr. Freeman stated they are putting them in the Summit Point project because they are
compatible wfth Summit Point and not with Summft Springs.
Commissioner fv!ocSe stated there was mention made that they would not be doing
landscaping of the needy designed units as they had done for the older unts that are in. He
asked ff they do landscape%
Mr. Freeman explained the statement was made that the landscaping on the houses would not
be to the same level that the existing landscaping on the production houses are occurring.
That is an ind(vidual landowner's decision as they do not landscape houses. That is the
owner's preference. He does not personally agree with that comment.
Chairman Peraza stated in looking at the old drawings and the new drawings, there is a lot of
difference. He knew the homes would be smaller, but the back ends really look very different
and the angles and cutaways, etc.
Commissioner Messe stated he would like a comment from staff relative to the roof i(nes of the
proposed models and the roof lines of the existing models. He asked what the differences
were.
Kevin Bass, Planning Department, stated because the new models are slightly smaller, there
will be a different pftch because ft is a lesser area to cover. With the larger homes, because of
the height Iimft of 26 feet, you will end up having a shallower pftch and a more powerful
statement because there are less roof ridges. It is a shallower design, whereas the new
homes, because they are slightly smaller, are going to have more of a pitch given the sam,
constraints because there is not as much area to cover. That is where the maJor differences
come in.
On the new homes you will have more roof ridges ff you count the number of rldgE.
Commissioner Messe asked H he felt what was submitted at the last meeting was pretty flue to
what will be built out there as far as roof lines are concemed7
L
Page 6
i
T
?i
,t
Mr. Bass explained the computer drawings show that the roof lines are shallower than what
was originally proposed on this revision giving tl~e illusion that it is similar. The roof design x
cannot be similar because the houses are smaller. They are going to be a different pftch. ~
Also the design of the houses are going to have different roof ridges and a different number of
roof ridges.
Compatlbilfry is a tough question to ask. From the photographs they submitted they do look
similar.
Commissioner Henninger addressed the Deputy City Attorney, Selma Mann, and stated at the
last meeting there was some discussion about what the appropriate standards were to use
judging this. He asked for her to review the Specffic Plan language that governs this.
Ms. Mann stated on the Site Plan consistency section, she thought they would go back to the
She Plan approval and look at the standard for that. What they would be looking at would be
consistency with the Specific Plan and the Zoning Chapter for the Specfic Plan which is
18.72.040. She did not think there was any question, but that there was consistency wfth the
Zoning Standards, so what would remain would be to look at the Specific Plan ftself.
The Specific Pian does have reference to design guidelines and ft means pretty specifically
what Is in the Specific Plan document ftself and she believed that some of the property owners
quoted from some of the language in that. Where some of the confusion came in, Is that
there is more than one document that is being called Design Guidelines. Whereas there was a
comparison to the Design Guidelines, that the property owners are required to conform wfth
when they purchase the property. Those are not the same Design Guidelines as are {
necessarily in the Specific Plan document ftself.
The Specific Plan Indicates that the Design Guidelines expressed design Intent rather than
absolutes. It would then be up to the Planning Commission to make a reason judgment with f
regard to whether something is consistent or not consistent. It does not mean Identical, but I
consistent. Obviously there is going to be a subject(ve element and the test would be that '
decisions not be arbitrary or capricious in whatever decision the Commission reaches and that
ft be based upon specffic facts.
Commissioner Henninger asked what the guidelines were that were in the Specific Plan?
Ms. Mann stated the Design Guidelines are attached as Item No. 1 to the staff report. It has
provisions wfth regard to sfte planning and wfth regard to archftecture. She read same of the
specifics Into the record.
Commissioner Mayer had a question regarding the proposed compromise. She asked ff they
were to divide the property and build out what they have next to their homes and start a
second development, how many lots would be involved ar.d have they looked at this at all?
Mr. Freeman explained he has looked at that and ft Is not feasible. He has fi0 lots graded
;ght now with streets in and to do what is proposed is something they would not consider. ~
Commissioner Caldwell stated throughout all of these hearings we have been tempted to take i
a basic tract style house design and he is going to use Summft Springs as an example and try
to make ft compatible with Summit Point.
~ Page 7
~ ~.
2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 Continued to
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4-18-94
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3253. 3414 AND 2905 (Readvertised)
INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anahelm Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
OWNERS: SO CAL CINEMAS, INC., Attn: Bruce Sanborn, 13 Corporate
Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660; DEBEIKES INVESTMENT
CO., Attn: Richard Debeikes, 2300 Michelson Drive, #200, Irvine,
CA 92715-1336
LOCATION: INC EMAPOL~IS -Property is approximately 5.54 acres located on
the north side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 300 feet
west of the centedine of Imperial Highway (5635 E. La Palma
Ave.). IMPERIA'-PROMENADE -Property is approximately 4.4
acres located on the northwest comer of La Palma Avenue and
Imperial Highway (5645-5675 E. La Paima Ave.).
Request for possible revocation or modHfcation to condRlons of approval of an
existing movie theater complex and commercial retail center.
,-
Continued from the January 10, 24, and February 7, 1994 Planning Commission
meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 18, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
VOTE: 7.0
Page 9
He did not think, in this sftuation, based on this criteria, that they are compatible and they are
not architecturally the same. We are trying to take a product that is not similar to these and
mako k similar. In his mind, and fairest Judgment, he dkJ not think they were accompiishing h
and they are going to have a street scope. Th3 neighborhood Is going to be extremely
dKtcrent. They will be able to pick out the originals and additions. They have bulit some
beautHul homes and they are trying to squeeze that beauty out of a tract house and it Is not
working in his eye.
ACTION: Approved previously certHied EIR No. 281
Commissioner Caidwell offered a Motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and
MOTION FAILED TO CARRY (Commissioners 6..,.istun, Henninger, Mayer, Masse
and Taft voted no) to deny the revised plans for Tract Map No. 13266.
Cormissioner Masse offered a Motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Caldweil, Henninger and Peraza voted no) that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission doas hereby approve the revised plans for
Tract No. 13266 with the following added condftlon:
That the 4-car garage option shall be limited to a maximum of 2596 of the units within
this tract.
VOTE: 4-3 (Commissioners Caldwell, Henninger and P:-~aza voted No)
r-,
Page 8
3a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously f ,proved Approved
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3514 Readvertised Approved
amendment to
OWNER: IMPERIAL PROMENADE PARTNERS, 2300 Michelson Dr., #200, condRlons of
Irvine, CA 92715 approval
AGENT: ZENDEJAS MEXICAN RESTAURANT, 665 W. Arrow Hwy., San
Dimas, CA 91773
LOCATION: 5665 E. La Palma Ave. Property is approximately 4.4 acres
located north and west of the northwest comer of La Palma
Avenue and Imperial Highway.
Petitioner requests modification or deletion of condition of approval pertaining
to the prohibftlon of pool tables wfthin an existing enclosed restaurant.
Continued from the February 7, 1997 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9440
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
~ PETITIONER:
Tony Zendejas, ZendeJas Mexican Restaurant, 5655 E. La Palma, Anaheim, CA.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved request, modified Condtion No. 11 of Resolution Na. PC92-51 to read as
follows:
"11. That no more than two (2) coin-operated pool tables shall be permitted.
Said tables shall be located in the bar/lounge area only. No other coin
operated games shall be maintained upon the premises at any time.'
VOTE: 7-0
Page 10
;.#
II 4a ~EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3662
OWNER: WEST STREET DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., P.O. Box 16021,
Anahelm, CA 92817
LOCATION: 6270E Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is approximately
.94 acre located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
and approximately 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont
Boulevard.
To permft a 4,416 square foot private educational facility (pre-school to 3rd
grade) and a 4,372 square foot church wfth waivers of minimum landscape
setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary and minimum setback of
institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary.
Continued from the February 23, and March 7, 1994, Planning Commission
meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9441
;~
K
Approved ~
Approved, in
part
Granted, in
part
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 3 people present/correspondence was received In opposition
PETITIONER:
given atrthe I st meeting by the Planning Comml sion, he redesigned the elevatio s t ithe
building to be in keeping with the area including pRch roofs and a stucco texture to the
outside of the buildings.
OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS:
Susan Siegmann, Member of Anaheim Hills Business Coalftlon. She read a letter Into the
record on behalf of Norman Barsky, 6277 Rio Grande DrNe. Subject letter is on file in the
Planning Department.
Other Opposition: Peggy Meadows, Rio Grande DrNe; Ray Pontius, 6276 Calle Jaime (he
read a letter into the record from Daniel P. Huffman, 6275 E. Calla Jaime).
Major Concerns: View; remove air condtioners off of the roof; noise from air conditioners;
would like a site plan for grading; temporary arrangement for church; noise Issues from
starting pre school at 6:OOa.m.; unfinished horse trail; nothing against children; ask that this
not continue on as a CUP; parking against residential; concern regarding thievery and
persons Jumping the fence; italian cypress trees need to be planted closer together than
what is on the renderings; freeway sound wall; Mr. Brown has a "For Sale" sign on the
property; do not want rat trap that is next to them; would like for them to do something
about the rats such as having pest control come out; verbal promises are not sufficient; has
Page 11
about the rats such as having pest control come out; verbal promises are not sufficient; has
-. not put down on paper, any plans or specs.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Brown stated he spoke wfth Nlr. Pontius yesterday and measured the distance between
his cypress trees. They are about 28 Inches on center. the archftect stated they should be
4 feet on center. He really did not care efther way. He will plant them closer together ft ft
will help. The cypress trees will eventually make the building irnisible.
The only 35•foot height reflects those peaks that they put on the roof which are genuine
archftectural features. The building height is still the same. Nor is there any deviation from
what is allowed in the height to setback ratio.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Messe stated the air conditioning is fully enclosed and asked Mr. Brown to
explain that.
Mr. Brown explained they have managed to Iimft tho air condtioning units which are in the
attic to air handlers. Air handlers effectively make no noise, they are just a fan and a
furnace. The compressors are located behind the gates between the buildings on the
revised elevations. You will not see any air conditioning unfts-you will see a clean roof
except for the vent lines. He added he was not seeking any height variances.
Commissioner Boydstun asked ff this changed their setback any from the residential with
the 3 feat added?
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated ft would. He assumed that Mr. Brown, in his final
drawings, is going to make sure at those points where the building is 35 feet in height, that
ft will be setback a minimum of 70 feet from the west property Ilne. There are some
variations in the roof height, so ft depends on where the peaks fail. He would need to meet
the 70•foot setback for the 35-foot building heights.
Mr. Brown explained the minimum proximity for any of the projections from the building of
the roof height, is 70 feet. In most cases, ft is a little more then 70 feet, but not a lot more
because of the lot's narcowness.
Commissioner Messe commented they received a letter from George Slatten dated March
15th which essentially is the same a: 'iat was submitted last t(me.
Mrs. May thought Mr. Slatten measured the noise level of an older children's class which
means a second and third grade class and a pre school. He actually measured a pre
school class and then the'K" class. What he submitted was the reading he got from his
"K" class. They only have the data on pre schooiers and "K" students at this time.
Commissioner Messe stated the noise measurements he took were an 30 and 24 children.
He was wondering how many children were going to be at this school.
Mr. Brown explained the maximum number of children proposed is 100, however, the
playground will not support that. The class recesses go in approximate Increments of 25
children.
Page 12
Commissioner Mayer asked about the early morning Issue that one of the homeowners
brought up. She asked for clarfficatlon ff the children are on the playground early in the
morning.
Mr. Brown stated in the operating statement that he submitted, ff sets forth that recess
begins around 9:OOa.m. When the children get to the school, they go inside. Aker a
certain amount of class time, they recess. The classes do not all go out at once. It Is not
practical and they are not allowed to commingle third graders wffh pre schoolers.
Therefore, recesses are rotated.
Commissioner Messe asked ff he stipulated to no more than 25 children on the playground
at one time? yJould he accept that as a condition of the CUP?
Mr. Brown indicated that Mrs. May would have to answer that question.
Commissioner Caldwell asked about signage.
Mr. Brown explained he has 3 parcels and would like to put up 3 identifying signs. If he
only puts up a 5' X 4' sign he was not sure ff h would be adequate identfffcation for the
property. At this time he will see ff the operators need more identffication. At this time he
is willing to go wkh staff's recommendation. The size ff 20 square feet.
Chairman Peraza stated Mr. Pontius mentioned they were going to propose an 8 or 10-foot
wall.
Mr. Brown slated they discussed the possibility. He would do what was necessary to
privatize the neighborhood and mftigate the sound. At the present time the wall is a
minimum of 3 feet. In many cases ff is higher than 6 feet.
Mr. Borrego read the following correction Into the record; He referenced page 3 of the
staff report. The table that lists the building heights (paragraph e) should be changed to
read 35 feet rather than 32 feet as shown on the report. On the foliowing page (paragraph
no. 10), the middle portion of the table should read 70 feet fora 35-foot high building rather
than 64 feet fora 32-foot high building.
He also suggests to add a condftion of approval limiting the maximum enrollment of the
school and also the hours of operation.
Mr. Brown stated Mrs. May did clarity that 25 children would be the maximum allowed on
the playground at any one time.
Commissioner Boydstun asked for clarffication as to when they would start using the
playground?
Mr. Brown statal his letter of operation said around 8:30a.m. (t3:30a.m. to S:OOp.m.).
Commissioner Messe stated they show 9:30a.m. to 4:OOp.m.
Commissioner Boydstun asked what the operating hours would be?
Mr. Brown stated 6:OOa.m. to 6:30p.m.
Page 13
Commissioner Taft asked staff ff they looked at the view from Rio Grande. He asked ff the
addftional 3 feet had any affect on the horizon view?
Mr. Brown explained that the lower 7 or 8 feet of the building is completely obscured by the I
parking lot (subterranean), so therefore, there is no affect. The homes behind there do
have a legftimate concern regarding the view that they may be enjoying at the present time
out Into the freeway. The highest point of his building is lower than grade of their tot.
There is no line-of-sight view. The trees in the park across the street are higher than the
top of his building. He did provkle a line-of-sight from Calle Jaime and from the front of the
building. He was not sure H the Commission was In receipt of that or not. It is on the new
elevations of the building.
Speaker did not identify himself. if they move the playground up against the west wall, do
they have a nose study that would compensate for that?
Mr. Brown stated he has no plans of moving the playground and he would not be allowed
to do that based on the approval he is requesting. If, in the future it is moved, it would
require a separate variance because ft is an institutional use next to a residential property
line.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement -the waiver pertaln(ng to minimum
setback of insttutional uses to residential zone boundary was deleted following public
notiflcatlon.
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3662, In part, with the following added condftions:
1. That the signage on sub)ect property shall be limited to one monument sign.
.--.
2. That operating hours shall be Iimfted as follows: Monday through Friday from
6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
3. That the maximum enrollment. of children, ages Infant through 3rd grade, shall be
Iimfted to one hundred {100).
4. That the playground hours shall be Iimfted to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 and that no more
than twenty five {25) children shall use the playground at one time.
5. That the proposed Italian Cypress trees shall be planted no more than three (3)
feet apart.
VOTE: 7-0
Page 14
5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
5b RECLASSIFICATION N0.93-9408
OWNER: LIVING STREAM, A CALIFORNIA NON PROFIT CORPORATION,
1853 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: ANDREW YU, 1853 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: X01 S. Emoire Street. Property is approximately 2.97 acres
located on the west side of Empire Street and approximately 700
feet south of the centerline of Ball Road and further described as
1301 S. Empire Street.
To reclassify subject property from the RS•A-43,000 (Residential/ Agricultural) Zone to
the RM~,000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 2-story, 40-unit,
condominium complex.
Continued from the March 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0.
Continued to
April 4, 1994
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMI: !ON ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Commissioner Henninger stated he did listen to the tape on this hem from the March 7, 1994,
PC meeting.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, advised the Planning Commission that the public hearing
was not continued on this hem. They cannot take in extra testimony, but they can deliberate
and take a vote on k based upon what was already discussed last time.
She further explained they do hale an alternative, i.e., ff they did want to take additional
testimony, they could readvertise the public hearing.
Chairman Peraza asked for clariflcatlon ff they could continue k and Ms. Mann indicated that Is
correct ff you wish to have addffionai testimony prior to a vote.
Commissioner Henninger stated when he listened to the tape, ff sounded like Living Stream
obviously had some problems with their church operation. He understands from staff they are
looking Into that. He asked ff they were going to have a report from Code Enforcement under
Reports and Recommendations?
Page 15
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, explained that Code enforcement is going to come back
.~, and report on the operation of the church. There is a CUP that authorizes the church and
they will take a look at the exist(ng operation to make sure they are compl~ing wfth the
condftlons of the original condftional use permft for the church operation.
Commissioner Caldwell stated this really is two complete separate issues.
Mr. Borrego stated they do Intend to keep them that way.
Commissioner Messe clarified this is Just a reclassification.
It was determined that this hem would be continued and readvertised in order to hear further
testimony frnm Interested parties.
Ms. Mann suggested this be the first ftem on the next agenda.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 4, 1994 Planning Commission meeting to
readvertise ft and to re-open the public hearing. This will be the first ftem on the
agenda.
VOTE: 7-0
1~~;
+`.;;..
.~
Page 16
_i
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved lpproved
6b. VARIANCE N0.4235 Readvertised Approved
amendment to
OWNER: ALEX WHITTLE C/0 Whittle InvestorsState College, 234 E, condiions of
Colorado Blvd., Ste. 200, Pasadena, CA 91101-2282 approval
AGENT: GARY BASTIEN C/0 Bastien & Assoc., Inc., 8 Corporate Park,
Ste. 100, Irvine, CA 92714
LOCATION: 2050 South State College 90 lu evard. Property is
approximately 5.13 acres and located on the east side of State
College Boulevard and approximately 195 feet north of the
centerline of Orangewood Avenue and further described as
2050 S. State College boulevard.
Petitioner requests modfflcatlon or deletion of a condition of approval
pertaining to required site screening in conjunction with a prevlously approved
general services and materials management facility with waiver of site
enclosure and screening +equirements.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC9442
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Don Purdue, Bastien & Associates Architects, 8 Corporate Park, Suite 100,. Irvine, CA.
They are the owner/agent. They have reviewed the staff recommendation and are
content with it granting their application.
They received a second address for the building. For this protect ft will bo 2040 S.
State College Blvd.
He referenced condition no. 3. It says conditions are to be met within 60 days. They
assume the project will be done in about 60 days. The northerly fence is one of the
last items they will do. The City Is investigating the status of the railroad easement
property, 10 feet of which is on their side. They assume k will be resolved by then
and should know whether or not they can move their fence. Until that is done they
cannot move the fence which means they cannot put the slats into the fence. They
asked for some latitude on that hem.
Commissioner Masse asked ff 60 days from the date of the resolution would be
sufficient?
Mr. Purdue Indicated that would be floe.
Page 17
Commissioner Henninger suggested 90 days.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~~.
1...
DISCUSSION:
No further discussion took place.
Commissioner Messe asked staff to look Into changing their ordinance Section
18.61.068.030. Moved that they rewrite it for future recommendation to the City
Council for a change. (Peraza second).
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaretion
Approved subject request wkh the foliowing change to Conditlon No. 3:
3. That CondRion Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be completed within
a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution.
VOTE: 7-0
Page 18
I
7a. ,CLEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATI N
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3666
OWNER: CONVENTION CENTER INN, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Attn: Ashik
Patel, 1734 S. Harbor Blvd., Anahelm, CA 928U?
AGENT: JOHN SWINT, 707 W. North St., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 2017 South Harbor Boulevard (Convention Center Innl. Property is
approximately 3.3 acres located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard
and approximately 380 feot south of the centerline of Conventlon Way
and further described as 2017 S. Harbor Boulevard.
To permit an 84-foot high, 5•story, 312-unit motel complex, including the demolition of
a 78-unit building and a 3,800•square foot restaurant, remodel of the existing 122-unft
building, and construction of a 190-unit building and a 5,776-square foot restaurant
wfth waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, minimum structural setback,
permitted encroachment into front setback, requlred landscaping of surface parking
lot, required landscaping adjacent to parking structures and permitted signs for
motels/hotels.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
Continued tc
4-4.94
~ ~, FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
John Swint, 707 W. North Street, Anaheim, CA. Requested a 2 week continuance.
ACTION: Subject request was continued to the April 4, 1994 Planning Commission mzeting, as
requested by the applicant at the public hearing.
VOTE: 7-0
Page 19
I
i-,
8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3668
OWNER: DONG HO HAHN, HYON M. HAHN, Y.H. HAHN AND B.J. HAHN, 8672
Cortez Ave., Garden Grove, CA 92644
AGENT: FERNANDO DALY, 3136 W. Ball Road, #12, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 1214 DALE AVENUE. Property is approximately .43 acre located on
the east side of Dale Street and approximately 210 feet south of the
centedine of Ball Road and further described as 1214 Daie Avenue.
To permk a 990•square foot convenience market (grocery store) within an existing
13,000•square foot commercial retail center.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC9443
Approved
Granted
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING ;;OMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
`~' PETITIONER:
t
Fernando Daly. He would like to open a market. No plans for alcohol. Only vegetables, fruit an
traditional items from his country Panama.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Boydstun asked if they sold meat? i
Mr. Daly, stated in the future, yes. However, right now the Health Department told him H he sells
meat it must be (n packages and not open.
She asked if he was the owner of the building?
Mr. Daly explained he was the owner of the store. He leases the space.
Commissioner Boydstun stated the owner needed to do some things. The parking lot is a mess.
Mr. Daly stated he and the owner will work together. He is only plannfrg on being there for
approximately one year.
Commissioner Boydstun stated the owner needs to fill the pot holes in the parking lot and fix the
driveway at a minimum.
Pace 20
l
Mr. Daly stated he agrees wffh that.
Chairman Peraza asked ff he was in the building now? He noticed an abandoned counter in the
back. He asked ff that could be put away, stored or thrown away?
Mr. Daly explained the counter in the back is from the liquor store. It is not his. ~
Chairman Peraza suggested he talk to the owner about getting rid of ft and clean the place up in the ',
back.
Mr. Daly agreed.
Commissioner Boydstun stated he must clean it up or they will send Code Enforcement out there.
Commissioner Henninger asked what means do they have other than condffloning this CUP to repair
the parking lot?
Mr. Borrego stated, unfortunately, to repair or restripe a parking lot, ff does not require a permff.
They usually do not have any sort of a catch to verity these things. The parking lot does need to be
resurfaced and it does need to be restrfped. The only way to do that is to actually condfflon this
application.
Commissioner Boydstun asked ff they could send Code Enforcement out and let them go to the
owner?
Greg Hastings, Zoning D(vfsion Manager, explained Code Enforcement does have a little bit of
leverage in terms of a nuisance ordinance in the City. They could go out and she the property
i~ owner independent of this request.
Commissioner Boydstun ~uated this man is not responsible for fixing the parking lot, the owner is.
Mr. Hastings slats' they could pass on the Commission's direction to Cade Enforcement so that
Code Enforcement can go out and sfte the owner.
Commissioner Caldwell asked ff there was some way they could monitor that through a Report and
Recommendation?
Mr. Hastings stated they could ask Code Enforcement to report back to the Commission.
ACTION: Approved N6gative Declaration
Approved Conditional Use Permft No. 3668
VOTE: 7-0 ~
I
1
Page 21
;#
t
.-
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2651 -REQUEST FOR AN Approved
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: {to expire 2-26-95)
Dwight R. Belden, Vice President Anaheim and Company, 450 Newport
Center Drive, Ste. 304 Newport Beach, CA 92660-7640. Request for a
retro-active extension of time to comply wfth conditions of approval for
Condtional Use Permft No. 2651 (to permit an 11-story hotel and a 12- and
15-story office complex) to expire February 26, 1995. Property is located
at 2400 E. Katella Ave.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3356 -REQUEST FOR AN Approved
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF (to expire 1-15.95)
APPROVAL: Tom Grifffth, Protect Manager, Rockefeller and Associates
Realty, LP., Four Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA
94111. Request for a retroactive extension of time to comply wfth
conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permft No. 3356 (to Permft two
13-story office towers and a 134-unit hotel) to expire January 15, 1995.
Property is located at 1750 South State College Blvd.
C. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ANAHEIM Recommended
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS. Count con to City
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2910 -SUBSTANTIAL
d Determined that the
revised plans are fn
.
CONFORMANCE REVIEW OF REVISED PLANS: City Inftlate
Conditional Use Permft No. 2910 for substantial conformance review of substantial
nformance with
revised plans in conjunction wfth a child day care facility for a maximum
units located at 1108 N.
dwellin
il
f
l co
original plans
g
y
am
e-
of 24 children and two multip
Acacia Street.
Continued from the February 23, 1994, Planning Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Henninger stated there has been some substantial progress made
about cleaning up tha Code problems and the staff is recommending that the
plans as proposed are in substantial conformance.
Page 22
~~
Commissioner Caldwell stated he wanted to make sure that the progress
continues and that they will be kept appraised of any issues that may come up
that may be a problem with safety, health and welfare of the peoplo that use the
facility.
Mr. Borrego stated all structures on the property will have to be brought up to all
applicable Codes and permitted.
END 9•D
E. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION PERTAINING TO STATUS OF Determined that
SLOPE LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE SUMMIT OF ANAHEIM HILLS another report shall
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP88-2). come back to the
Planning Commisslon
on July 11, 1994 for
further review
DISCUSSION:
Melanie Adams, Public Works•Engineering DNision, stated at the last meeting the
Commisslon requested a review of the slope landscaping and irrigation within
Development Area 101, l.e., Summit Point.
The staff report basically outlines what has happened since the last time the
Commission has reviewed the Specfic Plan and what is happening to date.
Basically, the project has gone through several stages. Initially the Specific Plan
talks about the basic aesthetic impacts they are looking for in the area. It was
very general and she did not really specify plant materials except for the Oak
Woodland Habftat area.
Further, the condRions of approval required that landscape plans be submitted to
and approved by the Planning Department prior to the approval of each grading
plan and that the installation should be completo prior to the first occupancy in
each subdivision.
Further, the Baldwin Company did submit a preliminary landscape concept plan
for the Development Area and that was presented to the Commission at the June
19, 1989 meeting. That did include a specific pallet of trees, shrubs and ground
cover and in addition they had some more information about the Oak Woodland
area and fuel modfficatlon slopes.
She did have the original plan and asked that they lay it out on the front table or
have ft posted on the board.
She explained the Baldwin Company moved forward and did have slope
landscape plans prepared as each grading plan was approved, however, they did
fall behind schedule and the landscaping was not complete on several tracts
before homes were occupied. This was the case in the Summit Point. Many
;~ameowners have been living there since 1990 and others will be able to testify
a~ to when they moved in.
Page 23
'~
There was a period of time when the majority of the slopes were completely bare.
, They did begin receiving a large number of complaints in March of 1992 and they
began working wfth the Baldwin Company at that time.
The Baldwin Company did report, and dkl have substantiated by their Soils
Engineer and Landscape Archftect, that they had indeed planted large areas of
the slopes, but the plants were dying off due tc the high content of Iron sulfate
and other salts resulting (n a low PH.
The Cfty began working wfth Baldwin and are striving for revised landscape plans
that would remediate the problem.
Baldwin did have their landscape archftect prepare a trial program and they
worked on a small area of the slope looking for what type of plants and what
type of irrigation techniques would be compatible and suftable for the soils In the
area.
As far as a perspective from the Public Works Department, their first and primary
concern is safety and their concern in this case was a surface erosion and that
the slope area would be covered. Also, to minimize any potential for surface
erosion for the short term and potential failures in the very, very long term ff
these slcpes era left exposed
They had their consulting landscape archftect review the revised plans and also
review the trial program and what they basically concluded was that they would
go with a program of some very hardy shrubs that did well in poor soli
conditions. In addftion to that, instead of using the highly omamentai ground
cover, switch the use of native grasses that would provide the cover on the
slopes.
Their negotiations with Baldwin and working with them, they are not moving as
fast as they would have liked them to-that was in May of 1993. The City did
declare, in writing, to the Baldwin Company and their Surety, that the terms of
the bond had nut been met and the City intended to take act~en against the
bond. Many of ttie homeowners did receive a copy of that letter. Upon receipt
of that letter the Baldwin Company did pledge and has engaged in a very
aggressive program to bring the slopes wfthin that community up to date. Public
Work's staff has been meeting with Baldwin on a monthly basis since October
1993.
They project that Tracts 13265 and 13512 will be in full compliance by the end of
June 1994, and therefore, the City has not proceeded any further on taking
action against the bonds and this is one of the things that the homeowners were
concemed about. Now that they are having progress with them, they would like
prefer not to go against the legal actions iF they can possibly help ft.
Public Works is concerned about the safety issues and they would like to bring
back to the Commission the aesthetics Issues; gat the Commission's Input and
consideration as to whether they believe the aesthetic goals of the slope
landscaping program wfthin the Summft Point have been met and to determine if
they would Ilke to have further review on the aesthetic aspects of the project
before future landscaping plans are approved.
Page 24
Commissioner Caldwell asked what the landscaping sSuat(on would be in June of
--~ 1994 and how she would describe that?
Ms. Adams stated In June of 1994, all of the shrub materials would be planted in
the density required by the plan. Also the native grasses would be fully grown in
the sense that they would be spreading across the slope. Some of the grass is
just starting to come forth. WSh the onset of spring we should see some of the
native grasses Sourish.
Commissioner Messe asked what happens to the native grasses in the mid
summer and fall months?
Ms. Adams explained going towards the end of the summer, they are not going
to be looking green-they will start looking brown again. The shrubs that were
selected will have begun spreading even more. Eventually as the shrubs spread,
the grasses will be cut back. In a few years the grasses will be almost non-
existent.
Commissioner Caldwell asked with this landscape plan, when would the erosion
problems come to an end?
Ms. Adams explained In terms of significant erosion, they believe the
homeowners havo seen the worst orosion. The establishment, during this year,
of the plants would be substantial. As they go Into the rainy season, starting late
October and November of 1994, that the surface erosion should be minimal.
Commissioner Caldwell asked ff she could report back to them on their July 11th
meeting as to the progress of the landscaping, l.e., whether or not it is meeting
established goals.
Ms. Adams stated they would be happy to report back to the Commission.
Commissioner Messe asked ff the shrubbery planting was done on a more dense
basis, would that be of any help fn accelerating the elimination of the natNe grass
on the slopes?
Ms. Adams stated ff may, however, there may be a little more disturbance on the
slope. She asked 'rf their goal is the coverage or is their goal omamental?
Commissioner Messe stated he was thinking in terms of getting relief on the
ornamental side for the slopes.
Ms. Adams stated that would be at their discretion and they would have to look
at a revised plan for the omamental.
Commissioner Messe stated he was just asking ff that would accelerate the
elimination of the grasses.
Ms. Adams explained h would because they would have to remove more grasses
to put in addffional omamental plants. Then you would have to look again as to
the overall concept. If the goal is omamental that may be accomplished. The
Baldwin Company has been working diligently with staff to cover Tract No. 13512
and while it is at their discretion to go back and do additional work on ff, they
Page 25
were actually hoping that the focus would be on future tracts within the
.- development.
The following persons had concems regarding landscaping Issues:
Hobert Minow, 1071 S. Taylor Court; Nannette Minow, 1071 S. Taylor Court; Mark
Grossman, 1080 Taylor court; Eieanar Zoota, 1055 Taylor Court; Hildegard
Casey, 1031 S. Taylor; Marl Penny, 8125 Oxley Court; Mary Ellen Dwyer, 1059 S.
Taylor Court.
Ms. Adams responded to some of the homeowner's concerns: She explained
the Fire Prevention Division has been up to Summft Point and has reviewed the
condftlons of the grasses around their homes and did not find a fire hazard.
The review was done Just before the rainy season and the F(re Department does
do annual reviews of the area. It will be looked at again es we go Into the
summer season.
Another hem was the concern that several of the homeowners had relative to the
native habftat. That is an integral part of the Specific Plan that the Commission
approved and that area which was called the Oak Woodland area. That is the
area that is most bare now and would be the next area of focus on the
landscaping.
A number of the homeowners were concerned about a lack of seeing IMgatlon
11nes and sprinklers in the area. The ult(mate plan that was approved for Tract
,.. No. 13512, which is on the southwesterly side of Taylor Court, is a drip Ircigation
system. The reason for that system is because of the condtlon of the soil. She
explained as you start loading ft wfth water the iron and salts start leeching out of
the soil.
The condition of the soil is not ifmfted to the Summft Point area. Unfortunately,
The iilghlands Tract No. 12700, experienced a very similar problem. They had
mass plant failures and plant die offs similar to lvhat the Baldwin Company has
been experiencing.
The Presley Company, which develops the Highlands, have been qufte
aggressive in their program and they have gotten a number of species to grow
well on their slopes.
They are starting to see the same soils problems in a couple of other areas within
the Baldwin Company that are very close to the Summft Point Development.
The difference In looking at the slopes and then looking at the back yards of
Individuals homes, Is that there has been an amendment of their soils at the
bottom of their slopes.
Page 26
\y
4
Ct
The tebhniques that the landscape archftegt has used so far is to build small
^ wells around the plants and *.o amend the soils in those wells to nourish the
plants in that area rather than doing a complete slope which would be quite
complex. Therefore, they hav9 gone wfth the minimal approach of trying to
amend the soils right where the plants are planted. They were going for a
spreading effect of the limbs of the shrubs across the slope.
A few of the homeowners were concerned about the condftion of sidewalks
within a development. These are private streets and the first response would be
for the Baldwin Company. If there are areas they are still developing to maintain
those streets, and ff ft Is has already been fumed over to the homeowner's
association, the association would maintain those sidewalks.
She asked that the City Inspector go out and check the condftion of the sidewalk
as Baldwin is still developing that area and they are responsible for keeping the
sidewalks in good condftion until development is complete.
She asked Mr. Freeman to describe his program as to how he plans to complete
the landscaping wthin the Development Area 101 for Summft Point.
Ron Freeman, Senior Vice President, Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale Avenue,
Irvine, CA. He stated in response to the homeowner's concern regarding lack of
slope landscaping behind the existing homes. He explained they have had
problems in getting germination. They are intending to step up the focus on this
particular tract to make sure ft is planted per planned and turned over properly to
the homeowner, association.
~~ This has been a very sore point for everyone and it is a point of personal
frustration and grief for him. He would Tike to make sure they do everything they
can for everyone Involved.
Wfth regards to planting other slopes wthin the Summft Point tract, there are no
other slopes currently that are within the purview of the association wfth
anywhere near a chance of turning over to the homeowners association. Their
unplanted slopes are in tracts that are not recorded; there are no subdivision
agreements in place to guarantee landscape installation. There are moving
ahead wfth the tract map recordations to onsure that those bonds will be put in
place at the appropriate time.
There is a quirk in the tract design behind the easterly side of the existing homes
that has a slope in it that is graded and unplanted. It is not part of the either the
tract at the toe of the slopes or at the top of the slope. it is designed a;g3n=;iY•
They are moving ahead wfth future tract maps in the Summft Point.
Page 27
They are required by the City to erosion protect and control slopes that are
graded and they have repeatedly Indicated to the homeowners that ff they have a
problem and they are not solving it, there clearly is a discussion to be had wfth
the Engineering Department who can send their inspector out and require, per
the Grading Code, that they eroslon protect those slopes. They have done that
in every Instance where it was required of them.
They are not, at this time, obligated to plant some of the slopes that are being
referred to and yet they do want to move ahead to correct some of the alleged
indiscretions in the past. He added they are trying hard.
Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Freeman, 4vhen you say you are not obligated, is
that due to the fact that those tracts have not been approved yet?
Mr. Freeman explained they sre tentatively approved. They do not have final
maps, therefore, there are no subdivision agreements in place which would
contain a landscape bond.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarffication ff he had responsibility for all lntemal
slopes?
Mr. Freeman indicated that was correct, i.e., of a certain height. if ff is under 5
feet, it is a homeowner responsibility. The slopes they are talking about are
cleady their responsibility.
Commissioner Caldwell addressed Ms. Adams and stated they now have a plan
that will address the problems that have been found.
l
Ms. Adams explained they have a plan in place for Tract No. 13512 which Is the
tract that the majority of the homeowners reside in. The southwesterly slope is
within their tract bowidary-that is the plan that includes the landscaping and
Irrigation.
She referenced the slope on the northeasterly side of the street that is outside of
their tract boundary. They are attempting straight erosion control, i.e., the use of
sandbags; cleaning off the terraces; and using a polymer coating on the slope.
Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarfficatlon ff at this time they have a plan for
those areas that the Baldwin Company is directly responsit~ti "tor? We have come
up with solutions to the problems and why the plants did not grow in the first
place.
Ms. Adams indicated they did. She further explained that by the June meeting
they would see a lot more coverage, however, the question is aesthetics. Even
when coverage is growing well, there will be a few plants with color in them.
Commissioner Caldwell stated aesthetics is important, but he thought eroslon
control, fire prevention and safety would be the number one issue. By October
of 1994, they will have slopes that are protected and safe.
Ms. Adams stated that Is true and that has been the focus of the Public Works
Department.
Page 28
Commissioner Caldwell asked again ff we now have the answers to the problems
and ff we will get these slopes in place?
Ms. Adams stated the safety Issues have been adequately addressed, however, in
her opinion she did not believe the homeovmers would be satisfied because they
will still have the unaesthetic look. At that time they will stilt net have pretty
plants on tho hillside.
Commissioner Caldwell stated they were getting an unbiased third party report
that the effort is going forward and they are making good progress.
Commissioner Messe stated ft could be three years before slope coverage is
really achieved.
Ms. Adams agreed ft could be a couple of years.
Commisslonei Caldwell asked then they could achieve erosion control by next
winter?
Ms. Adams stated most deflnftely. She explained they may see some erosion
control that does not Include planting.
Commissioner Messe asked ff ft was permissible through their Specific Plan, that
after a slope has been rough graded ft does not have to be landscpaed?
Ms. Adams explained the key point of the Specfffc Plan was tied to occupancy
within that tract. However, there Is some language that talks about the phased
~.._ development of the slopes. The strict language really talks about the landscaping
~ of the slope tied to the first occupancy wfthln that same tract and that is where
the same problem was on that side of Taylor Court.
Commissioner Caldwell stated when they approve this Report and
Recommendation, that come July, they want to see there has been progress and
they are moving in a way that will solve these problems.
Commissioner Henninger stated ft sounds like they have some plan In place and
there are suppose to be some plants growing in June. That is something they
can take a look at.
Ms. Adams asked ff they were concerned about'[he plant pallet, the plants that
have been used on the slope and would they like to see plans prior to future
approval on future tracts? They have the safety Issues under control and are
coming to the Commission for a question about aesthetics.
Commissioner Henninger stated to the eMent possible, the slopes should look
nice. If there is going to be a native look to ft, i.e., brown most of the year and
weedy, it would be nice ff we could do better than that.
Commissioner Mayer asked ff the plant mix used on Serrano has a mix of native
flowers as well as ornamental and is it Irrigated?
~~ Page 29
Ms. Adams explained the plants used on Serrano are highly omamental and they
~, use a number of highly omamental shrubs and ground cover. They will be
showy almost all year round.
The plants that were used on the back side of Taylor Court were chosen more for
their hardiness with the soil condition and they will be showy only a few months
of the year and the grasses will be somewhat unattractive for a tew years until
they are completely cut back and replaced by the spreading shrubs.
The plan that has been approved (Tract No. 13512) as it stands today, will never
be as showy as Serrano. They are missing the real showy attractive ground
covsr and they are not being used because of the amount of water that would be
required to be loaded onto the slope to bring them out.
There were other things that could be tried, and in addition there were a few
other plants that were successful on the Highlands slope. They tried a wide
range of slopes and there was just a very narrow band of ground cover that
really made ft through.
Commissioner Henninger stated they get Into a problem with leaching these Iron
salts and other salts out of the soil and that has been counter productive to
erosion control.
Ms. Adams stated it has in the past. it would mean a lot more of making the
small wells to plant more omamental shrubs. It could be done, but K would be
an intensive effort.
~. Commissioner Messe asked about the staining and Ms. Adams explained that is
coming from the hills-h is all of the Iron leaching out on the soli.
Commissioner TaR stated in the Highlands there is a slope near Canyon Rim Park
that is fairly steeps and does quite well. He asked that they leek Into some of
those plants and see what they are using and possibly use those.
Ms. Adams explained the actual slopes they really had a problem with were on
the interior of the lots wfthin the condominium development. At a future time
they may wish to take a tour of the area. They did find a few more omamental
plants to use on their slopes, but h was a dffficult search for them.
Commissioner Messe stated H those hava been successful, they should be added
to the pallet.
Ms. Adams stated that would be reasonable.
This speaker did not Identify herself. She asked the Commission to use her
home as an example.
Mr. Scott, 8135 East Oxley Court., he has planted shrubs and one year later he
has plants and color. He did not understand what the problem was.
~!
Page 30
F
_}
'1
~.
Ms. Adams asked for clariflcatlon if they would like to review this in their first
meeting in July? Commissioner Messe was looking for use of the ornamental
ground covering used in the Highlands.
~ommissloner Mayor stated she would also like to know tf~e size of some of the
nathre plants that are going In. Some of them are slow growing. Perhaps they
should go in in larger sLes.
Commissioner Messe asked between now and the report, would ifiey be
monftoring the Baldwin Company?
Ms. Adams indicated they would continue to meet with them on a monthly bas's
and wiU keep The Summft Point the focus of their meetings. They have made
great progress (n the other areas wfthin developments and this Is the last trouble
spot.
END OF 9•E
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3568 -REQUEST FOR Approved precise
REVIEW OF PRECISE FLOOR AND ARCHITECTUR/ L PN.AN floor plans and
FOR WALLMART elevations
AUTOMOTIVE CENTER. Donahue Schdber, Agent, 3501
Jamboree Rd., Ste. 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Ernie
Weber; California State Teacher's Retirement Systems, 7667 Vote: 5.0
Folsom Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95828. Petftioner requests (Commissioners
review of precise plans for Conditional Use Permft No. 3566 (to Peraza and Taft
permft phased construction of a regional shopping center wfth declared a conflict
Indoor entertainment facilftles, an automotive repair and parts of interest)
installation facility In conjunction wfth a major retali tenant,
semi•enclosed restaurants (outdoor dining/food court), and an
auditorium/communfty meeting room). Property location is
500-600 North Euciid Street.
}`dk
~~ Page 31
n
~,
l ._,
G. PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED REQUEST TO DISCUSS Continued to
INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT 4.4-94
OF THE GENERAL PLAN: Property is located at 1301 South Empire
Street.
FURTHER DISCUSSION:
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a Motion, seconded by Commissioner
Messe and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Cky Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the Cky Council determine whether k would be appropriate
for the Planning Commission to review projects involving Cky owned facilkies.
ADJOURNMENT: The Anaheim City Planning Commission adjourned the
meeting at 4:35 p.m. to the regularly scheduled Apri14, 1994 Morning Session at
11:00 a.m.
,,~ ~
~J
Page 32