Minutes-PC 1983/05/02REGULAR MBBTINC 0! xH~ ANAH6IM CITY PLANNING COMMIRSION
REGULAR MEETING The reqular meeting of th• ~nahe~m City Plenning
Commiosion wae called to ord~r by Chaicmen Pry at 10:00
a.m., May 2~ 1983, in the Council ChAmbec, A quorum being
preaent end the Commie4lon ceviewed plana of the itemo on
today'e agenda.
R~CBSS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m.
PRESENT Chairmen: Fry
Commieaionera: eouea, 9uehoce, King, La Claire, McBurney
(Commi~aioner Herbat arrived at 3:2S p.m.)
ABBENT Commiaeioners: None
ALSO PRESENT Ron Thompaon
Annika Sental~hti
Joel Fick
Jack White
paul Singer
Jack Judd
Denn Sherec
K~ndra Morriea
Edith H~tcis
Plenning Ditector
~e~iatant Director for Zoning
Ass~s~.ent Directoc for Planning
Aaeistent City Attorney
Traffic Rngineec
Civil F.ngineer Associate
~ssociate Plannec
Aseociate Planner
planning Commissiun Secretary
ITEM N0. l. EIR tiQ. 256 (PREVIOUSLY CBRTIPIED) AND RECL113SIPICATION N0.
77-78-64 (READVERTISED)
PUgLIC HEARIKG. OWNERS: RAUPM~N ~ RROAD, INC., 10801 National Boul~vard, Loe
Angeles, CA 90Q64. Property described as an ircegularly-ahaped paccel of land
conaisting o~ approximately 375 acrea located southeast erd southwest of the
intersection of the Rivecside Freeway and Weir Canyon Roed.
Request ~mendment to the following:
tl) Bauer Ranch General Plen ~f Development (Revision No. 4 of Exhibit No. 1)
(2) Ordinance Nos. 4068 and 4069
(3) Resolution No. 79R-607
There was one person indicating his preaence in opposition to subject request
and although the ataff repoct was not read, it is refecrsd to and made a part
of the minutea.
Robert Gall~way, Senior Vice Preaident, Kaufman ~ Bcoad, explained they have
submitted a fourth cevision to the Bauer Rench Gerteral Plan of Development
which basically is to relocate the library and fire atation eites to create an
~dditional commercial parcel dnd transfer reaidential densities in Areae l, 2
and 7. He atated steff has recommended that the Public ~acilities Plen be
amended to reflect the new locations= end that they have traneferred densities
from one area Co enother, but the number of unite remains the same.
83-237 5/2/83
MINUTBS_~~NAHBIM CITX PL~NNING COMMI88ION, M~Y_2, 1983 __ 83-238
Rogec Gtab~e, attorneY, Rutan and Tucker, eteted he ~s representinq the owners
of the Wellace Ranch And d18o ie epeeking for the ownera o! Oakhill Ranch and
Gh~y ere not concerned with the overell project, but with the epecifica of t~R
mdster plan of uti.lities eince their p~operty will be affected by the pcoposed
chAnges and they ~re concerned thet if the plan ia adopted, as preeented, it
will be inconeia+:ent with the adopted public facilitie$ element, perticulacly
the aewer facilitiea. He stated they ere concerned that the master plan of
facilities element will be amended and that they have not hed the opportunity
ka give their input and it doee effect their p.lana for devrlapment of their
property. He stated they want to be able to work with theee people and also
the owneca of other propecties to the soutt~, to inenre khe moet cost effective
implementation of thia plan. He ek~ted if this action today is aimply looking
fcrward to the proceas of chenging the plcn and that they would be a pect of
that change, that would be accepteble and they would present tt~eir concerne eC
that public hearing.
Joel Fick, Assietant Dicectoc for Planning, ~xplained modification to the
fecilitiea plan will be required to properly reflect any changes that might be
made todayt howeve~, this request before the Plann~ng Commisaion today is an
amendment to the Gener~l Plan cf Development.
Mr. Grable stated theic concern is that the utilitiea have nat been addresaed
and there is a queation regarding construcCion of the sewer an~ water lineA
and the conduft that would be cequired for the electrical subatation
relocation. He stated they would like to F~ave the concurrence of the Planning
Commissian that they would be included in the procesa wich a full public
hearing for any changea made to the Pacilitiea Plan because they do not want
to ahirk th~ir financial obliqations, but also do not wdnt to incur any
addition~l costs.
Chairman Pry clacified that the Public Facilitfes Plan was appcoved by the
City Council on March 17, 1981.
Mc. Galloway atated stsff agreed they do need to change the General Plan of
Development to accommodate the changea they needed foc development of
Areas 1, 2 and 7 and that they would need to come in later with a raviaion to
the Public Facilities Plan, but unfortunakely, they have not been able to do
that yet becauae of negotiations between the City and SAVI; however, they are
in the process of revising the plan and he assumed it would b~ :evised at a
public hearing and other owners would be involved.
Mr. Gall~wey stated they have met with all the adjacent property owners
concerning the realignment of Weir Canyon Road and he believed they have
agreed on that realignment and otaff agreed it was in conformance with the
General Pldn. He stated this realignment would affect some of the graphics
included in their Generat Plan of Development, so they would like it approved,
subject to the reali~nment of the aouth end of Weir Canyon Road. He atated
the realignment would eliminate P~ccel No. 11 aa ahown on the General Plan oP
Development anu increase the size of Parcel No. 3. He pointed out the
proposed realignment on the exhibit on the wall. He stated the realignnent
ceduces the grade ftom in accese of l0i to 68.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
MINUTSS. AN~HEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, M~Y Z. 1983 __ 83-239
Responding to Chairmen Fry, Mc. Gelloway atated realignment of Weic Canyon
Road wuuld enhence the development of the Douglas and ~Allece renchee because
of reduction in the grdde end it also eliminatea some of the cuta.
~oel Fick etated the realignment of Weir Canyon Road affecta ~ome of the othec
exhibita, noting the ptopoeed servicea and facilities in the Public Facilities
Plan show a aewec in Weic Canyon Road and khia would eliminate it end thet is
the concecn of some of the other property ownerg.
Chairman Fry stated he is concerned about the Public Pacilities Plen which haa
been adopted, but thaC pla~ is not an 1ASUe at khis hearing and it will etand
exectly as it wae adopted. Mr. Galluway steted adequate newec facilitles will
be brought to the south terminus of the p[operty.
Commiasioner La Claire noted the Commission i8 being aaked to appKave khe
three tentative tcacts following this action. D~an Shecer, Asaociate Planner,
clarlfied thio request is ta adopt a reviaed General Plan of Development for
the BAUer Ranch, which wauld be Revision No. 4 oE Exhibit No. 1 and that does
include the three tentative mapa presented in Item No. Z. Fie ~tated Reviaior,
No. 4 does set forth the number of dwelling unita for each parr.icular area,
plus the commercial acreage, and the tc~cts are con~iate~t with the unit
count. He stated the primary issue in this requeat is the propose.~ relocation
of electrical subar.ation site, librery site and park sikes. He ar.ated thia
tevision does transfer aome units between Areas 1, 2- 6 and 7j however, the
total numbec of units [emains the same at 945.
Dean Sherer responded to Commissionec MeBucney thAt this is not ~n amendment
to the Public Facilities P].an; however, the General Plan of Aevelopmenk doea
show whece the new public facilities are pcop~sed to be located~ but thesQ
eites would not be approved ~nless the Public Facilities Plan is adopted by
the City Council.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, stated the action of the Planniny
Commission should be a motion rathec than a resolution reGOmmending approval
to the City Council of amendmenk to the bauer Ra~ch General Plan of
Development and Amendment to Ordinance Nos. 4068 and 4069 and Resolution No.
79R-607 in accordance with recommendations ot the staff report.
ACTION: Chairman Fry offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner 8ouas and
MOTION CARRIED (Conuaisaioner Herbst being absent), that the Anaheim City
Plannino Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Amendment
of the Bauer Ranch Gene=al Plan of Development and Ordinance Nos. 4068 and
4069 and Resolution No. 79R-607 be approved as recommended fn the staff report
to the Planning Commission dated May 2, 1.983.
Ron Thompson, Planning Director, auggested the Planning Commisb+~n app:ove the
General Plan of Development, in part, wher~ it does not conflict with the
Public Facilities Plan, rather than approvin9 the entire General Plan of
Development because as ft is right now, it would conflict with the Public
Pacilities Plan.
Jack White suggested that the motion should include a reservation that
approval is limited so that it would be cle~r thet the subsequent hearing held
MlNUTBSi 11N~HdIM C_ITY_PLANNINQ COMMIS~ION_MJ1Y 2, 1983 83-240
on the pcoposed amendm~n~ to the Public Pacilitiea Plen would not hava be~n
predetecmined by any ection taken todny.
Chairma~ Pcy clarified that thie ection will not affect the Public Pecilitiee
Ple~n in Weir Canyon at this time.
ChaicmAn Pry reatated hie motion that the Anaheim City Plenning Commieaion
doee heceby recommend to the City Council appcovel of the l~mendment of the
Bauec Ranch Genernl Plan of Development and Ordinance Nos. 4068 and 4069 end
Resolution No. 79R-607, subject to the reservation thet approval ia limited to
those areas where it doea not conflict with the Public Fecilitiea Plan ds
epproved by the City Council on March 17, 1961, the foregoing motion wP.s
carried (Commissioner Hecbat absent).
Jack White stated these matters would eutomatically be heard by the City
Council and the City Clerk will set a public hearing and notices Will be sent
ta ttiose peraons who received notices of today's hearing in the 8ame mAnner.
ITEM NO 2. EIR NO. 256 (PREVIOUSLY CERTTFIED) AyD xBNTl-TIVE M11P OI~ TR11CT
NOS. 10980 L1U981 and 10y82
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KAUFMAN 6 BROAD, INC., 138 S. Imperfal Highway,
Anaheim, CA 92$07. AGENT: JAMES E. CROSBY ~;NGINEERING, INC., 1820 E. Ueere
Avenue, Suite 100, Santa Ana, CA 92705. Property described as three portione:
Tract No. 10980 (Portion A) is an ircegularly-ahaped percel of land coneisting
of approximately 46.0 acrea genecally locaCed aouth and west of the
intersection of Santa Ana Can~~on Road an9 the proposed $outherly extenaion of
Weic Canyon Road. Request to establi.:h a 163-1ot (plus 2 open spa~ce lots)
RS-5U00(SC) (Residential, Single-Family (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone
subdi~~ision.
Tract No. 10981 (Poction 8) ia an irregulacly-shaped patcel of land concisting
of approximately 65.8 acres genecally located aouth and west of the
intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the proposed southecly extension of
Weir Canyon Road. Request to e~tablish a 163-1ot (plus 2 open space lots,
fire station and park site lote) R~~-5000(SC) (~teaidential, Single-Family
tScenic Corridor Ovetlay)) 2one suLdiviafon.
Tract No. 10982 lPortion C) is an irreg~larly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 8.9 acces generally located south and w~st o° the
intecsection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and tha proposed southerly extension of
Weir Cartyon Road. Request to eatablieh a 1-lot, 73-unit (plue library eite
lot) RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family (Sc~nic Corridor Overlay)) Zone
subdiviaion.
Thete was no ~ne indicating their pcesence in opposition to subject cequest
and a~lthough the staff report wna not read, it is referced to and made a part
of the minutes.
Robert Galloway, Senior Vic~ Pcesident, Kaufinen & Bcoad, explained these
tracts ~re in Areas l, 2 d('1~ ~ and ~hey are in conformance with the cevised
General Plan ae of last June wit:h single-family residential in Aree-s 1 and 2
~IINUTBS. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION M11Y 2 1983 P..._ J-?41
and multii~le-fsmily in Aree 7, with 163 lote in J-caas 1 end 2 each end 73
unita in J~ree No. 7. He etAted theae trecte dre in conformance ~rith City
standarda and ordinAnces. He referred to Condition No. 31 Lot TGact No.
10980, requirinq e 6-foot high combindtion maaonry end wrought i~on wa11 to be
~rovided at the top of the elopes end to the cear of th~ residential
atructurea withfn said tract and explained it wae hie understanding et the
meeting with City staff that the walls should be nt the top oE the slopea of
the cegional shopping centet.
Joel Fick, Aaeiatent Director foc Planning, expleined it waa cleacly akaff's
intent that the wall ahould be at the Cop of the ~loPe immediately adjacent to
the shopping center. Mr. Ga1lowAy clarified with khe arch~rect, Mr. Negar,
repcesenting TauAmAn Compdny, that any decocative well wou1~ be auitable.
Referring to Condition No 32, Mr. Galloway stated it would aeem to indicate
L•het they would have to grade the re~ionnl shopping center et the tlme they
grdde thls site and that was not in thelc plans. Ne etated etaff is concerned
that they wauld not be building a slope ~n the notth end of the~ trect which
would preclude the grAdi.ng oE the reyional shopping center At a la~ter date.
Abner Negar, Taubman Company, acchitect, 24301 Southland Drive, Haywerd,
atated thi~ i~aue was discussed in detail and their engineer, Willdan
Associates, recommpnded a similac condition be inrluded with the intent of
insucing that the grauing done between the residerntial and ahopping centec
propertles is done in a manner that Chey would not lose eny acreage becauae of
any unforeseen conditions.
Joel Fick staked another condition is requeated ~~s a reault of the ~elocation
of the facility ai.tee and the Libcery and Parka l~partments have agreed with
the relocation sitest howeve[, they are aoncec,~ed about acceas or deaign and
have reached ar~ agreement that et some point, prior to final tcact mep
recocdation, there could be some minor lot lcovaldof$amfinalamapAtheelotdlinea
following condition: "That pcior to the app
and rights-of~way as shown on tt~e approved tentative m~p shal'L be subject to
readjuetmcht. as necessary to provide that any lots dedicated or reserved foc
public facilities coi~focm ta the needs and r uirAmenta of the City as to lot
area, access and other design crikeria to adequately accommodate such public
facilitiea; and that any 8UCh ceadjustmenta as requiced by the City ahall be
deemed to be in substantial compliance with the approved tentative map'.
Mr. Galloway stated he has no problem with t~~e recommended condition and would
stipulate to comply.
Annika Santal~hti, ~ssistant Director for Zoning, s~ggested that the following
conditione be amended since aome of them ace tied into periods of time rather
than final tract map approval: N~. 12, inaert That pcior to final tract map
approval, the tract map ahall be cevised to show...; No. 13, That prior to
final tract map approval, the tcect mr~p shall be revised to shoW...t N~. 19,
That positive assurance ehr~ll be provided prior to finel tract map appruval..t
No. 22, changi~g the wocd tentetive to finalj No. 25, That prioc to final
tract map epproval, all public facilities shell be designed..s No. 26, That
prior to, or in conjunction with final tracti map approval, the ~wner shall
dedicate...~ No. 30, That griot to final tract mep approval..t No. 31, That
~ 1
83: 2/Z
MINUTRB. ANAH6IN CI~ p~NING COMNI98ION Ml-Y Z 1983
prior to finsl traat map epproval, a be~d oc other e~curity aaCisfactoxy to
the City •hall be pested to guarontee construction of.~t end No. 32, mhat
prior to final tr+~ct mep epprovel- a bond ah all b~ poeted...
Jeak White expleined the conditlone impoeed are conditlone that the City
wiahea to be carried out es a condition of a pprovel before ginal recordation
oE the trect mA~r and thet the dbility the C ftY rovetorrcefceincfromiance is
therefore, prodicetad upan ita ebility to d i~~pp
epproving, the final map if they ere not met . Ne etated the conditione lieted
ece not iteme thAt can be tied to confarman ce prior to finel map recocdati~n
and ece of e nature thet would not lend the~elves to erforcement by the City
At a later da~te. He stated once the map ia recorded, the City could not go
beck and require compliance with a tra~t ma p condition. He atated he thinks
most of the condikiona ace covered and thoe ~ not covered would be thoae thinga
~lceady covered in the ordinanr.e or thoae t hinga tl~e Pl+~nning Department does
not Eee~ would be a problem.
Reaponding to Chairman Nry, Mr. Galloway ar ated they plan aingle-family
residenkial developments on Parcels 1 and 2 and multiple-femily with a highec
density on PArcel No. 7.
Responding to Chaicman Fry, Jack White expl ained the Commisaion can require
that the plans come beck to them for appcov al.
Joel Fick stated he believed that is requir ed as a part of the Planned
Community Zoning.
THE PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CLOSED.
it was noted Environmental Impact Repnrt No. Z56 was pceviously certified by
City Council an June 8, 1982, for subject pcoperty.
I~CTipN: Commisaioner McBurney offer.ed a motion, aeconded by Commisaioner
Bouae and MOTION C1-RRIED, kha~ the Maheim City Planning Commission does
hecpby find that the proposed subdivieion, together with ite desiqn and
improvement, is consietent with the City a f Anaheim GenerTOV~1TentetiveaMa~tof
Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, the~efote, app
Tract No. 10980 far a 163-1ot, p1uR 2-open space lots auDdivision s~bject to
the following conditions as amended by sta ff:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as moce than one
subdiviaion, each aubdivision tt~ereof shall be submitted in
tentative form for approval.
2. Thnt in the event subject prope rty is to be divided For the purpose
of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved
division of aubject property sh all be submitted to and approved by
the City of 1-naheim and then be recorded in the office of the Orange
County Recorder.
3. That prior to final trect map appcoval, street names shall be
approved by the City Planni~g Depertment.
4. That tempnrary stceet name siqns sh~ll be installed prfor to any
occupancy if permma~nent stre~t name signs nave not been installed.
!,+l,INl1T43. ~1N11EILRIM CITY PWINNING COMMI9$ION. Ml-Y 2~ ~983 83-Z/3
5. That dteins9• at aub j~ce pcoperty ohall ba dispoeed of in a manner
satisfectory to the City Rnqin~ar. Ifr in the pc~paration o~ the
site~ eutticisnt grading 18 required to n~c~4aitidte a gredin9
pecmit, no work on qr.ading will be pecmitted between Oclobec 15th
and ~-pril 15th unless all required oFf-site drainage lscilitiea have
bee~ inatelled end are operstive. Poeitiv~ asaurance st~ell b•
provided to the City that euch dreinege facilities will be completed
prior to October 15th. Neceeaa~cy righz-oE-way Eor off-~ite drainage
~acilitiee ehall be dedlcated to the City, or the City Council ahall
h~ve initiated condemnation proceedinga thecefoc lthe co~te of which
aha 11 be borne by the developec ) pK ior to the commencenaent of
gcading operetiona. The required drainage fecilitiea shall be of a
size and type aufficient to cecry tunofE wetere originsting f~om
higher properties through aubject ~roperty to ultimete diaposal as
approved by the Citx Engineer. Said dcainage facilitiee shall be
the firat item of construction and shdll be completed and be
funckional thcouqhout the kract and Erom the downstream boundary of
the propecty to thr. ultimate point of diepoeal ptioc te the iseuance
of Any final building inspections or occupency permits _ Drainage
district reimbursement egreementa may be made availabl~ to the
developers of said property upon their requeet.
6. That gcedinq, excavation, a~nd all othec conatruction activities
shall be conducted in auch a manner eo ae to minimize the
posaibility of any silt oxiginating from this project being carried
int~ the Santa Ana River by btorm aater ociginating fcom or flowing
through thie project.
7. That all lots within tt~ie tract shall '~e serve~9 by unc~erground
utilities.
8. That prior to commencement of structural. framing, fire hydranta
shall be ir~atalled and charged as required and determ~ned ta be
necesea[y by the Chief of khe Fire Department.
9. That pr~or to final etreet inepections, "No parking for atreet
~weeping' aigns shall be inatalled as required by the Street
Maintenance a~nd SanitAtion Dlvision and in accordance with
specificatiuna on file with said division.
10. That the seller shall provide the purchaser of each r~sidential
dwelling with written informatfon concerning Anaheim ~lunicipal Code
Section 14.32.500 pertaining to 'Parking restrictad t o Eacilitate
street eweeping". Such wc itten information ahall clear ly indica~e
when on-street pArking ia prohibited and the penalty for violation.
11. That prior to final tract map approvAl, the oric,inal documents of
the covenants, conditians, and reatrictions, and e letker addreased
to develaper's title company authorizing recordation theceof, ahall
be submitted to the City l~ttocney's Office and appcoved by the City
~-ttorney'a Office, Public Otilities Depactment end Esaqineering
Diviaion. Said documents. as approved, will then be f~ led a~nd
recorded in the Office ot the Orange County Recordec _
~
INUTES ANAHEIM CI'PY PL1-NNINti C MISSI N MI-Y Z 1983 83-244
11. That prior t o linsl trect m~p approvel, the t~ntative mapa ahall be
r~via~d to shoW thet 8t.reet "D" and Str.eet •C" ahall b~ a minimum of
54 feet in r+idth with a 40-loot tcaveled way from curb to curb~ and
that ell cu ~-de-eaca ahell b• coi~etructed in eccordence w~th the
City o! 1~nataeim Standard Plens.
13. Tha~t fuel breaks ahall be providecl aa determined to be neceeadcy by
the Chief o~ the Fire Dapartment.
14. Thet natlve alopea adjncenC to newly conatcucted homea ehell be
hydtoaeeded with a low fuel comb~atible aeed mix~ 8uch slopea ahall
be aprinkle red end weeded es required to establiah a minimum of 100
feet of se paca~tion between flammable vegetetion And any structure.
15. That r.eason able landscaping, including icrigation facilities, ahall
aleo be ins telled in the uncemented poction of the parkway of eny
arteriel a G reet and any interior or collector etreet whece there ia
an adjacen t slope to be maintained by rhe Homeowners Asaociation.
The Homeowraers Aesocietion ahall assume ttie responsibility f or
maint~nance of said parkway l.andscaping.
16. That prioc to Einal tract mep approval, positfve assurance $ha11 be
provided t he City ~ngineer thet the existing off-eite drainage
facflities are adequate to handle on a temporary basis the increased
drainege f rom aubject property in addition to the drainage greaenkly
being hand led by theae facilities. The developec shall poat bonde
with the C ity prior to approvel of grading plane foc subject
property, in the amuunt and £orm approved by the City of guarantee
the constr uction of the ultimate off-aite facilities prior to the
commenceme nt of any qcading on ph~se four oE the development of the
Bauer Ranct~,
17. That appra :al of the final Map of Tract No. 10980 is subject to the
cor~~letion of Recleasification No. 77-78-64.
18. That the p~titioner shall preaent evidence that the proposed
subdivisio ~ shall provide, to the extent fe!asible, for future
paasive or n~tural heating or cooling opportunitiea in the
subdivisi~n prior to the isauance of building pecmite.
19. That prio r to final tract map a~prnval, all public facilitiea
(including equeatrian and hikinq trail location) proposed either
within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision shall be designated
to conforta to the Public Facilities Plan for Development of the
Bauer Ranch as adopted y City Gouncil on March 17, 1981, and any
further au~endments pectaining to said glan.
20. That prio r to or in coniunction with final tract mep recordation,
the owner te) of subjpct property shall dedicate and improve a
10-foot w ide equestrian end hiking trail as ahown on the Equestrian
and Hiking Trails Component of ~he ]-naheim Geneca~l Plan and also
that a bond in an aTOUrt and form satisfactory tu the City of
Anaheim sta~ll be posted with the City to guarantee the installation
of sa-id isiprovements in accordance with standerd plana and
specificatione on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
MINUT$S. AN~H6IM CITY PLANNINO COMMI88ION. MAY 2, 1983 83-245
21. That in eccordance with th~ r~quiremanta o! S~ction 18.02.04 7 0! the
~naheim Municipal Code pacraining ta th• initiel asle of ree idences
in tihe City of ~naheim Planni~g Area "e", the sellsr ahell pravide
e~ch buyer with writren informetion concerning th~ Anaheim Qenerel
Plan and the exiating zoning within 300 Eeet of the boundariea of
s~~b~iect trect.
22~ That prior to finel tcect map Approvel, finel apecitic plane ahall
be aubmitted to the Planning Depertment and approved in ecca rdance
with proviaiona of Chapter 18.85 of the Aneheim Municipal Co~e, the
"PC" Plenned Community Zone. 8eid plans ahall include eny propoeed
apecimen tree removal, which removal is subject to the ttee
preservdtion reguletions in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Mun icipel
Code, the "SC" Scenic Corridor. Overlay 2one.
23. That pcior to Einel tract mep approval, the owner(s) of aubject
pcoperty ahall obtdin a wa;ver of tha Hilleide Grading Ocd.tnanee t-s
it pectains to the location of lot linea and tract boundar:te s at the
top of the slopQe.
24. That prior tc~ final tract map approval, e bond or other security
satiefectory ta ehe City sha11 be poated with the City to quarantee
the aonatruction of a 6-foot high combination conccete masonry and
wrought iron wall at the t~p of slopes and along the pcoperty line
separating the ceeidential lote and the adjecent regional s hopping
center site. Said wall ahall aerve to acceen the regional shopping
center from the adjacent residences. Said wall ahall be co~etcucted
prior to final building and zoning inspection of the cesidencea.
25. That pcior to final trar_t map approval, a bond shall be pos ted with
the City to guacantee grading and landacaping of the elope adjacent
to the c2gionr~l shopping center site in accocdance with City
standards and specifications. Sa id grading and landecaping to be
cumpleted prior to final building and zoning inspections of the
cesidences.
26. That the 8omeowners Association of subject property shall enter into
a joint agreement with the owner(s) of the re~ional ehopping center
to maintain the slope between the two properties. Said agreement
shall be aubmitted to the City Attorney for review an~ appraval
prior to the issuance of building pecmits fur residential
conetruction. Said agreement shall eubsequently be recorded in the
Office of the Orange County Recorder.
27. That the seller ehall pcovide the ~purchaser of each dwellin g unit a
copy of the esuer Ranch General Plan of Development. Said plan
shell include t-11 the elements of the Planned Communicy and ahall
contain any amendments agproved by the Planning Commiasion and/or
C' .y Council.
28. That prior to final tract map approval, the lot linea and
rights-o~-way as ahown on the $PProved tenteLive map ehall be
__ ... ....... .. . _ .._. _.. ....__. ..___...._.~..._._~_.w___._..,:,~..~.....~,.,w...~.,~
•ubject to r~edjustment se n~c~seary to pcovide th~e eny lots
dediaated or reaecved foc public Eacilitiea ahell conlorm to the
ne~do end raquiremvnts of the C~ty aa to ~ot ecea, accesa and other
deeiqn criteria to edequstely accommodet• such public facilitie;t
and thet dny euch readjustime~te aa requiced by the rovedetentetive
deemed to be in subetential complience with the app
map.
29. That prior to iesuence of e building permit, eppropciete park end
recr~etion in-lieu fees ahall be peid to the City af Anaheim in en
emount as detecmined by the City Council.
30. That all requirementa of Pire 2one 4, otherwiaesuchncequirement8re
Adminiatretive Order No. 76 O1, she11 be met. rotected
include, but are not limited to: chimney eperk arrestors, p
attic end under floor openinge, Clees c: er better cooting materiel
and one hour ~ire reeiative conetcuction of horizontel surfaces if
located within 200 feet of adjacent bcu$hland.
31. That en eroaion siltakio~~ control plan muet be eubmitted to and
approved by the Califocnia Regional Wa~~eermitlity eoacd, Santa Ana
Region, prior to iseuance of a gcading p
32. That prior to issuence of a building permit, appropriate water
asaesamentnedeb 8thelOfficeiof4thehUtilitiea Genecel/Manegeremount
as detecmi Y
33. That prior to ir~suAnce of building permits, the applicant shall
pcesent evidence ~atiafactory to the Chief Buil.ding InapectNumbert
the pcoposed pcoject ig in conformance with Councii Policy
542 'Sound Attenuation in Reaidential Projects'•
Commission~r McBurney offeted a motion, aeconded by Commiasionec eouae and
MOTION CARRIED, thet diviaioneit getherlwithnitspdeaign~end~improvement,nis
that the proposed sub ~~8uant to GovecnmPnt Code
consiatent with ttre City of 1-naheim Gene~~OVe1T~~tative Map of Tract No. 10981
Section 66473.5t and does, therefore, apP
to permit a 163-locc ~o~~he folloaingeconditionse station and library lot
aubdiviaion subie
~~ subdivialon,teachesubdivisionbthereof~ahd118be~submittednin
tentative focm for approval.
2. That in the event subject properrarce1tmapetoirecordithetappcov d$e
of sale, lease, or financing, a P
divi,sion of subject property shall be submitted to and appcoved by
the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange
County Recorder.
roval s~reet names ahall be
3. That prior to final trect map epp .
approved by the City planning Depertment.
MINUT68. ANAHBIM CITY_PLANNZNQ COMMISSION, MAY 2. 1983 _ 83-247
4. Thet temporery stro~t name aigne ehall be inetelled prior to eny
occupency i! permAn~nt street name eigna have not been inatalled.
5. Thet drainage of eubject propecty sh~ll be disposed of in a mannec
satiafectocy to the City Engineer. If, in the prepatekion of the
eite, sufficient gceding ie required to neceseitete a grading
permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th
and April 15th unlesa ell required off-site drainage fecilities heve
been inetelled end are operative. Poeitive aseurence ehall be
pcovided to the City thst euch drainage fecilir_iea w~ll be completed
prior to October 15th. Neceesary right-of-way for off-aite dr3ln~ge
fecilities shell be dedicated ro the City, or the City Council ahall
have initiated condemnation proceedinga therefoc (khe coste o~ which
shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of
grading operati.ons. The required drainage fecilities shell be of n
size and type aufficient to cerry runoff watera originati~g from
higher properties through sub~ect property to ultimete disposal as
approved by the City Engir~ ec. Said drainage Eacilities shall be
the first item of conatcuct.~n and ahall be completed and be
functional throughout the tcact and from the downatredm boundary oE
the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the iesuence
of any final buildinq inapections or occupancy permits. Drainage
district reimbursement agreementa may be made availeble to the
developers of said property upon their request.
6. That grading, excavation, and all other construc~ion activities
shall be conducted in auch a manner so as to minimizp the
poseibility of any silt originating from this pcoject be~ng cacried
into the Sante Ane River by storm water otiginating from or flowing
through ttiis project.
7. That all lots within this tract ahall be served by underground
utilities.
8. That prior to commencement of atructural framing, fice hydrdnts
shall be inetalled and charged as required and determ~ned to be
necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
9. That priar to final street inspectiona, 'No perking for etreet
sweeping' siqns shall be inatall~d as required by the Street
Naintenance and Sanitation Division and in accordance with
specifications on file with said division.
10. Z~hat the seller shall provide the purchaser of each cesidential
dwelling with wtitten information concerning Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 14.32.500 pertaining to •Parking restricted to facilitate
stceet aweeping`. Such wriCten information shall clearly indicate
when on-street parking ia prohibited and the penelty for violation.
11. That prior to final tract map appr~val, the original documente of
the covena~ts, conditions, and reatrictions, and a letter addreesed
to developer'~ titl~ compAny authorizing recordation thereof, shall
be subm~tted to the City Attorney's Office ~nd ~pproved by the City
MIN~TB AN HSIM CITY PLIINNINa COMMI8810 ~ MAY 2. 1983 __ 83-240
~ttorney'8 O[tice, Public Utilitie~ Aepar:ment and Bnyin~erinq
Aivieion. Sa1E documenra, ae appcoved, will then be filed and
recorded in the 0lfice of the Orenge Counl•y RecorAer.
12. Thet prioc to finel tcect mep epproval, the tentetive m~p ahdll be
ceviaed to ahow that 8traet 'C", 8treet 'F• and 3treet 'G• ahell be
a minimum of 54 feet in wiQth with e 40-foot tcaveled way from cucb
to curbt thet if thie trect ie conetcucted prior to Trect No. 10982,
the entire treveled way of Stceet •~" ahall be constructed with thie
trACtt end that all cul-de-sece shall be conatructed in accordance
with City of ~naheim Stand~rd Plans.
13. That prioc to iasuance of n building permit, appcopriete park and
recreation in-lieu feea shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in ~n
amount as determined by the City Council.
14. That dll requirementa of Fire Zone 4, otherwiae identified as Fire
Adminiatrative Order No. 76-01, shall be met. such requirementR
include, but are not limiteA to: chimney spark arreators, protected
attic and under flonr o~enings, Class C or better roofing mateci~l
and one hour fire ceai~~ive can~~truction of horizontal surfacea if
located within 200 £eet of adjacent b~uehland.
15. That fuel breaks shall be providec as ~ietermined to be neceasary by
the Chief of the Pire Department.
16. Tt,at native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be
hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopea shall
be gprinklered and weeded as requiced to establish a minimuin of 100
feet of aepar~tion between flammable vegetation and any structure.
17. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation f~cilities, ahall
be installed in the uncemented portion of the parkway of any
arterial street and any interior or collector atreet wher~ there is
an adjecent slope to be maintained by the Homeowneca Association.
~he Homeowners Association ~hell asaume the responsibility foc
maintenance of said parkway landscaping.
18. That prior to final tract map approval, positive asourance shall be
pcovided the City Engineer that the exieting off-site drainage
facilities are adeyuate to handle on A temporary basis the increased
drainage from subject property in addition to the 8tainage presently
being handled by these facilitiea. The developer shall poat bonds
with the City in the amount and form approved by the City to
guarantee the construction of the ultimate off-site facilities prior
to the commencement of dny gcading on phaae four of the development
of the Bauer Ranch.
19. That an erosion siltation control plan must be submitted to and
appcoved by the California Reg~onal Water Quality eoard, Santa Ana
Region, prior to igsuence of a grading permit.
i ~
E ~
MINUTBS, ~N HBIM CITY PL1-NNINO CQNlMISBION. M~Y 2. 1983 83-Z49
20. That prioc to isauance oi a buildiny permit, spproprieke wetec
seae~sment feea ahall be pAid to the City of Aneheim, in an amount
ae determined by the OFtice ot th~ Utili~ias Generei Manager.
21. That approval ot the final map of Tract No. 10981 ia granted aubject
to the completion of ReclAesiEication No. 77-78-64.
22. That prior to ieauance of building permits, the applicant shall
present evidence setiafectocy to the Chief Building Inapectoc that
the proposed project ie in conformance with Council Policy Number.
542 "Sound Attenuetlon in Residential Projects".
23. Thdt the petitioner shell present evidenc• that the proposed
aubdiviaian ehall provide, to the extent feasible, For future
pasaive or natural heating or c~olinq opportunitiea in the
aubdivision prior to the issuance of building pecmita.
24. That ~riar to final tcact map epproval all public facilities
(including equestrian and hiking trail location) propoaed either
within or adjacent to the propoaed aubdiviaion ahell be designed to
conform to the Public Pacilitiea Plan for Development of the Bauer
Ranch as adopted by City Council on March 17, 1981, and any fucther
amendments pertaining to said pldn.
25. That prior to or in conjunction with final tract map recordation,
the owner(s) of eubject property sha11 dedicate and improve a
10-foot wide equeatrian end hiking trail as shown on the Equeatrian
and Hiking Trails Component of the Anaheim General Plan and thet
improvement plane, in accordance with standard plans and
specifications on file in the Office of thelantyand/ocethAt$aabonde
s~~bmitted in conjunction with the grading p
in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of ~naheim ahall be
posted with the City to guarantee the installation of khe
above-menti4ned requirements prior to occupancy.
26. That in ~ccordance with the requirementa of Section 18.02.047 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the initial s~le of reaidences
in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B'- the seller shall pc~~~ide
each buyer wfth written information concernirtg the ~naheim General
Plan and the exiating zoning within 30U feet of the baundaries of
subject tract.
27. That prior t~ final tract map approval, final epecific plans ehall
be submitted to the Planning Department and approved in accordance
with provisions of Chapter 18.85 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the
'PC' Planned Community Zone. Said p~ans shall include any proposed
speciman tcee removal, which removal is sub~ect to the tree
preservation regulationa in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, the 'SC' Scenic Corridor Oveclay Zone.
28, That prior to recordatio~ of rhe f1na1 tcact map~ the developer
shell dedicate the £ir~ st~tion and park aitea shown on the plans.
MINUT_ BS~IU'1AH~IM CITY PLl-NNINO C~MMI88ION. M~Y 2. 1983 _ _ 83-250
Wi~thin 18 montiha of the is~uance o! building permita, ~he fice
atation and peck eit~a ehell bt greded and a caah bond in the anwunt
o! s100,000 eh~-11 be depoaited with th~ City to guerantee
perfocmancs o! the gceding nt the time of ;Eira-1 kract map approvel.
29. That prior to finsl tract mep approval, the proposed fire atetion
aita and park aite shall be appcoved by the Fire Depectment end
Pncka and Recreation Depectment. Said eitee ahall setiefy the
location and aite development criteria set forth by the ceapective
City i~pertmenta.
30. That pcior to final tract mep approval, the Public Facilitiee Plan
for the Bauer Ranch ahall be amended to ahow the relocated fire
atation and park sitea.
3i. That prior to findl trnct map approval, the owner(a) of subject
pcoperty shell obtain e waivec of the Hilleide Gcading Ordindnce as
it pertains to the location of lot lines and ~ract boundaries at the
top of slopea.
32. That prior to final tract map approval, the ownec(s) af subject
property ahall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City
for the funding of the fice station and park citee as set forth in
the P~~blic Facilitiea Plen for the Bauer Ranch.
33. That the ~eller shall provide the purchaser of each dwelling unit a
copy of the Bauer Ranch General Plan of Development. Said plan
shall include all the elements of the Planned Community and shall
contain any amendmente approved by the Planning Commisaion and/or
City Council.
34. That prior to final trACt map approval, the lot lines and
rights-of-way as ahown on the appcoved tentative map shall be
subject to readjustment as necessary to provide that any lots
dedicated or reserved for public facilities shall confarm to the
needs and requicements of the City as to lot ar~a, access and othec
desi~gn criteria to adequately accommodate such public Eacilitiest
and that ~ny such readjustments as required by the City shall be
deemed to be in subatantial compliance with the appcoved tentative
map.
Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner eou~s and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find
that the proposed subdivision, together wi:h its dee.ign an~1 improvement, is
consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66473.5t and does, therefore, approve Ten+:ative Map of Tract No. 10982
for a 1-lot, 73 unit plus library site lot subdiviaion subject to the
following conditione:
l. That should this subdi~ision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdiviaion thereof shall be submitted in
tentative form for approvdl.
83-Z51
MINUTBS ~N~HBIM CITY PL~NNINQ COMM~I88ION MAY 2 1983
2. That in the event subject propecr.y ia to be divided tor the pucpose
of e~le, leese, ur finAncin9~ahellrbelaubmittedetocendhappcovedeby
division of aul~ject propertiy
thR City of ~-neheim And then be recorded in the Office of the Orange
County Recocd~r.
3. That prior to final tract ma~p approv~l, street namea shell be
approved by the City Planning Depa~tment.
4. That temporary street name signa ahell be instelled prioc to Any
occupancy if permanent street name aigne have nat been i~atelled.
5. That drdinage of aubject propecty shall be disposed of in a menner
satiefectory to the Ciky Engineer. if, in the prepecation of the
site, aufticient grAding is required to necessitate a greding
permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th
and April 15th unless all required ofE-site dreinage facilitiee have
heen inatalled dnd are ~pecative. Pasitive eeaurance ahall be
provided to thc City that such drainage Eacilities will be completed
prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage
facilitiea e~hall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council ahall
have initiated condemnation proceedinga therefor (the coata of which
shall be borne by the developec) priur to the commencement of
grading operationa. The required drainage facilities shall be of a
eize and type sufficient to carcy tunoff waters originating from
higher properties through subject property to ultimate dieposal as
approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities ehall bp
Che ffrst item of construction and ahall be completed and be
functional. thcoughout the trect and from the dawnstream boundary of
the property to the ulh.imate point of disposal prior to the issuance
of any final building inspectiona or occupancy pecmita. Drainage
district reimbucsement agreements may be made available to the
developers of said property upon their request.
6. That grading, excavation, and all other conatruction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the
possibility of any silt originating from this project being ca~rried
into the Santa Ana River by storm water ociginating from or flowing
thtouqh tl~is project.
7. That all lots within this tcact shall be aecved by undecground
utilitiea.
8. 'That prior to commencement of structural Eraminq, fire hydrants
shall be inatalled and charged as required and determined to be
necessary by the Chief of the Fice Department.
g. That prior to finr~l street inspections, 'No parking for etreet
sweeping' signs shall be installed as required by the Street
Maintenance and Sanitation Division and in accordance with
specifications on £ile with said division.
10• dw~lling withewritten information concerning AnaheimrMunicipall(;ode
~ ~
MINOTBB 11NAH61M CITY 8LJINNINO COMMISSION M~X Z 1983 83-252
Section 14.32.500 perteininq to •Perkinq reatcicted to fecilitste
atreet sweeping•. Such written information ahell clearly indic~te
w~ien on-ekr~et perk~n~ is pcohibited and the pen~ity for violation.
11. ThAt prioc to Einel trect mep approvAl, the ociginal documente of
the covendnta, conditione, and reatrictione, And a letter eddressed
to developer's title company Aulhorizing recordation theceof, shall
be aubmitted to th~ City Attorney's Office end approved by the Gity
Attorney'a Office, Public Utilities Department end Engineecing
Diviaion. Sald documenta, ae apprcved, will then be Filed end
recorded in the Office of the Ocange County Recorder.
12. Thet prior to final trect map appcoval, the tentative map shall be
revised to ahow Street 'A• ah~ll be ~ minimum of 54 feet in width
with a 40-foot traveled woy £rom curb to curb and khat if thia tract
is constructed prior t~ Trect No. 10981, the entire traveled way oE
Street •~' shall be conatructed with this tract.
13. That prior to isauance of a building Nermit, Appropriate perk end
recreation in-lieu fees ahall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an
amaunt as ~etermined by the City Council.
14. That all cequirementa o~ pire 2one 4, otherwise identified da Fire
Administirative Order No. 76-01, shall be met. Such requirements
include, but are not limlted to: chimney spark arceatora, protected
attic end under floor openinge, Claes C or better rooEin~ materfal
and one hoar fire reaistive conatcuction of hoci2ontal surfaces if
located within 200 feet of adjacent brushland.
15. Thet fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be neceasary by
the Chief of the Fire Department.
16. That native clcpe$ adjacent to newly constructed homes ahall be
hydroseeded with a low fuel combuetible seed mix. Such slopes shall
be aprinklered ~nd weeded aa required to est~blfsh a minimum of 100
feet of separation between flartanable vegetation and any atructure.
17. That reasonable lAndscaping, including irrigation faciliti.ea, shall
also be inatalle. in the uncemented poction of the parkway of any
arterial street and any interior ar collector arreet where there is
an ad~acent slop~ to be maintained by the Homeowners Aasociation.
The Homeowners Association ahall assume the responsibility for
maintenance of said parY.way landscaping.
18. That prior to f~nal tract map approval, poeitive aeaurance shall be
provided the City Enqineer that the exieting off-site drainage
facilities are adequate to handle on a temgorary basis the increased
drainage from subject property in addition to the drainaqe presently
being h~ndled by these facilities. The developer shall post bonds
with the City in the amount and form epproved by the City to
gu~rantee the conar.ructio~ of the uitimate off-aite fecilities prior
to the commencement of any grading on phase four ~f the development
of the Bauer Ranch.
t `~l
19. Thet an ecosion ailtation ~Retionel1weteC~Q~alitybBoa~rda Santadl~na
a~pproved by the Californie 9 ermit.
R~gion, pcior to iasuance oE a gr~ding p
rioc to iesuanae of e buildin9 pecmit, appropriate water
Zp. That p e~id to the City oi Anaheim~ in en amount
a~sesament feee aha-11 be p
as determined by the OfEice of the Utilities General Ma~ndger.
oi Tract No. 10982 is granted subje~~
21. That a~pproval of the f inal map
to the completion o£ Recl~ssifi~o~ion No. 77-78-64.
ecmite, the applicant sh~ll
22. Thet priot to issuance of buildon~he ChieE Building Inspector thdt
preaent evidence sat1sEectory ~ Number
the proposed pcoject ie in conformance with Council Fo1 CY
542 "Sound Attenuation in Reaidential Projects'•
reaent evidence that the pzopoAed
23. That the petitioner ahall p
subdivision ahall provide, to the extent ortunitieBfin theuKe
passive or natural heating or cooling oPP ermits.
subdivision prior to the iasuance of building p
24. That prioc to final tract map app~a'~al, all public facilitiea
proposed either within or adjacent to the proposed subdivieion shall
conform to the Public Facilities plan for Development of the Bauec
City Council on March 17- 1981, and any further
Ranch ae adopted tiY to said plan.
amendments pertaining 02.047 of the
25. That in accordanie with~the requirements of Section 18ha11 provide
Code rtainin9 to the initial sale of re$idences
Anaheim Municipn Acea 'B"r the selle~
in the City of Anaheim Planni~.g
each buyer with wtitten ~in°rwa~hin 300cfeetnoftthe b~undariese f
Plan and thP existing 2an 9
subject tcact.
rior to final tcact map approval, final specific plana shall
26. That p ~partment And approved in accordance
be submitted ko the Planning 1 Code, the
with provisions of Cheptec 18.85 of the Anaheim Municipa to osed
•p~• Planned Comtnunity Which cemovall i8~8~b jecti tol the tcee p
specimen 'tree removal,
pceservation regulations ir. Chapter 16.84 of the Anaheim Municipa
Zone.
Coder the 'SC' Scenic Corridoc Overlay
the property owner
27. That prior to recordation osi~eeBhownlonrthe plans. Within 18
shall dedicate the libcary site shall
mor.ths of the isauance of buildiny permits, the libca~Y
be graded and a ~ash bon~o 9uaranteeuperformanceoofstbe19~ading at
depoeited with the City a roval.
the time of final tract map PP
Zg, That prioc to final tract map aPProval, the pcoposed librarY aite
roved by the Libcary Department. Said site shaZl
shall be app
satisfy the location and site development criteria set forth by t~
Library Depattment.
~
i
MINUTB3. 11N1-HEIM CITY PLI~NNINli COMMI882UN. M11Y 2. 1983 83-253
19. That an erosion eiitation contc~l plan muaC be eubmitted to and
approved by the Cali.fornie Reqional Water Quelity BoArd, s~nta~ 1-ne
Region, prior to iseuence af s grsding pecmit.
20. Th~t prior to iseuance of a building permit, appcopriat~t water
naeeeement fees ahall be paid to the City of 1-neheim, in en amount
as determined by the Offiae ot the Utilitiea Generel Manager.
21. That approval of the finA1 mep of Tract No. 10982 is granl•ed aubject
to the completion of Reclaesification No. 77-78-64.
22. That pcior to iseuance of building permits, the applicant shall
preeenk evidence eatiefactory to the Chief Building inapector that
the pcopoeed project i~ in conformance with Gouncil Policy Number
542 •3ound Attenuation in Residential Pcojects'.
23. That the petiticrner ahall present evidence that the proPosed
subdivision shall provide, to the extent feasiblE, for future
paeRive ot natural heating or cooling opportunities in the
subdivision pcior to the issuance ~f building permita.
24. That prior to final tract map appcoval, al1 public facilities
proposed either within or adjacent to the proposed subdiviaion shall
conform to the Public Facilities Plan for Development of the Bauer
Ranch as adopted by City Council on March 17- 1981, and any further
amendments pert~ining to eaid plan.
25. That in accordence with the cequirementa of Section 18.02.047 of the
1-naheim M~nicipal Code pectaining to the initial sale of reaidencea
in the City of Anaheim Planning Area 'B', the aeller shall provide
each buyer with wcitten information concerning the A-naheim General
Plan and the exieting zoning aithin 300 feet of the boundariea of
aubject tract.
26. That prior to final tract map approval, final specific plans shall
be submitted to the Planning Department and approved in accordance
with provisions of Chapter 18.85 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the
'PC' Planned Community Zone. Said plans shall include any pcoposed
apecimen tree removal, which removal is aubject to the tree
preservation regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, the •SC' Scenic Corridor Overlay 2or-e.
27, That prior to recordation of the final tract map, the property owner
shall dedicate the library eite ahown on the pldns. Within 18
montha of the iasuance of building pecmits, the library site shall
be graded and a cash bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be
deposited with the City to guarantee performance of the grading at
the time of final tract map .:pproval.
28. That prior to final tract map approval, the pcoposed library site
shall be approved by the Library Depertment. Said site ahall
satiefy the loc~tion and site development criteria set forth by the
Libracy Department.
~l
~
Zg. Thet the Publi.c Ea~eailibraryasitelpriorBtoetinalctcect1mepfaPPco dl•
to ahow the relocs
30. T.het prior to final tract map approval, rhe ownec(a) oE aubj~ct
pcopecty shall obtein a weiver oi the Hill~-ide 4radinq Ordinance ae
it p~rtains to the location of lot linea end tract boundaries et the
top oE elopea.
31. That priar to fi7.a1 tra~c.t map appro+al, the ownerle) of nubject
pcoperty ahAll entec into a reimbureement, agr.eement k~th the City
for the funding of the libcary aite as eet Eorth in the Public
!-ecilities Plen for the Beuer. Ranch.
32. That prior to final tract map approval, a bond or othec secucity
satiafactocy to the City shall be poeted with the City to guerentee
the conatr~ction of a 6-foot high combination concrete masonry and
wrought icon w~ll at the top of slopes end elong the propecty line
separbting the residential lote and the adjacent regiona~l ahopping
centec eite. Said wall shell serve to eateen the ed~acent
residences. Said wall shall be constructed prior to final building
and xoning inspection of the re~idencea.
33. That prior to final ttact map approval, e bond ohr~ll be posted with
the City to guecantee grading ~+nd lnndscaping of the slope a° acent
to the regipnal shopping center in accordance withtoibe completed
and specifications. Said gcdding and land3cAping
pcior tc final buildinq and zoning inspections of the residen~es.
34. That the Homeowneca Asaociation of subject property shallinntcentec~
a joint agreement with Lhe owner(s) of ~h~e [~ge$nalsaidpagreement
to maintain the slope t~tween the two p Pe
shall be aubmitted `.o th~ City Attoe[mita~for~ceeidentialproval
pcior to the iaeuance oE building p
construction. Said agreenent ahall aubsequently be cecorded in the
Office of the O:ange County Recorder.
35. That the sellec shall pco~•ide the pucehaser of eaeh dwSaidnpla~it a
copy of the Ba~pr Ranch General Plan of Development.
shall inalude all the elem~oved bytthePPlanning~ ommiasion~and/or
coritain any ar.~endments app
City Council.
36. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activiti~s
shall be conducted in such d!aa~nec so as to minimize the
poesfbility of any silt originating from thie project being carried
into the Santa Ana River by storm water ocigineting from or flowing
thcough this pro~ect.
37. Th~st prioc to f~nal ttact map approval, the lot lines and
righte-of-way ae ahown on the approved tentative map shall be
subject to readjustment as~ necessdry to provide that any lots
dedicated or reserved for public faasl~oilot8area,caccess andtorh~r
neede and requirements of the City
r_
MINUTBS. ~-Nl1HEIM CITY PLAliNING COMMISSION. MAY 1,y 1983 8_,_ 3-25~
29. Thet the Public Pecilitieu Pla~n !or ths Bauer A~nch shali be am~nded
to show the rel ocated library aite prlor to final trect mep ~ppcoval.
30. Thet prioc to E inel tcect mep epprovel, the nwnec(a) oi eubject
properr.y shall obtain a waiver of th~ Nillside Grading Ocdinance~ as
it pertai.ns ko the location of lot linea and tract boundariea at the
top of elopee.
31. That prior to f inal trect mAp appcov~l, Ghe owner(e) of aubject
property ahell ~nter inta e reimbuceement agceement with the City
Eor the funding of the library site as set forth in the Public
E~ecilities Plan Eor the Bauec Ranch.
32. Thet prior to f inel tcdct map approvdl, a bond or otiier security
eetiefec:~ry to the City she'.l be poeted with the City to guerantee
the constructio n of e 6-foc~ high combination concrete meaonry and
wrought iron wa 11 at the to~~ of slopes and elong the propecty line
separating the residentiat lu!e~ and the adjacent regional ehoppinq
centec eite. Said wall ehall ~aerve to screen t:~~ ad~ecent
residences. Sa 3d wall shall be constructed pcioc to final butlding
and zoning inspection of the reaidencee.
33. Thet prior to f inal t•ct mep approvel, a bond shall be posted with
the City to gua :antee ~rading and landscaping of the slope adjncent
to the cegional ehopping center in accordt~nce with City standArds
and apecificati e~s~ Said grading and landeceping to be completed
prior to finai building and zo~ing lnepectio~a of the residencea.
34. Thet the Hameowners Aaaociation of subject froperty shell enter into
a joint agreeme nt with the ownerlef oE the reglanal shopping center
to maintain the slopc between the two pcopecties. Said agreement
ahall be 5ubmit ted to the City Attccney far review ard epproval
prior to the is suance af building permits for residential
construction. Said aqceement ahell subsequently be recocded in the
Office of the Qrange County Recorder.
35. That the selle r shall provide the purct~aser of each dwelling unit a
coFy of the Ba ~ er Ranch Genecal Plan of Development. Said plan
shall include all the elements of the Planned Gommunity and shall
contain any am~ndmenta approved by the Flanning Conuniasion and/or
Ciry Council.
30. That gradf~~~, excavation, and all other construction activities
sha-17 be conduched in such a man~~er ao as to minimi~e the
possibility of any eilt oriqinatino Erom this project being carried
into the Santa Ana River by storm weter origina~~~g from oc flowing
through this pr oject.
37. That prior ta :inal tract map approval, the lot lines and
riqhta-of-way ae ~hown on the approved tentetive map shell bF
sub jPct ta read justment es r~eceseary to provide that any lote
dedi~:ated or reaerved foc public 'qcilitie~ ahall confocm to the
need$ and requ ireme~ta cf the C:.. to lot area, access and other
MINU+, TRB. 1W,,,~-HRIM CITY PLJINNING C MQ,~, I88ION. M11Y 2. 1993 ~3'Zgs
d~siqn ccit~cia to adequetely eccanmodata such public Eacil iti~ai
and that Any euch c~adju~t~ent• aa requic~d by the City eha 11 ba
daem~d to b~ in substanttdl complia~c~ with th~ ~proved tc~ntative
mep~
Co~,unission~r Buahoc~ referred r.o ths cammente about khe deneity trena~ ~ere and
the Ge~eral Plan and ~sked whore thare ia en inhercnt right of trenaf er if it
wilt o~ will not wock~ Joel Pick eteted thet proviaion doee not exia t on tho
1-nah~im (3enerel Plent however, the Planned Communlty Zone waa approve d on the
Bauer RAnch Gene[al Plan oE Develo~ment, and there wae e provieion approved hy
the City Council and Plann'ng Commis+sion that pecmitted density trans fera
within the ranch itself. He stated at the time ehe PC Zoning wa$ approved, it
waa conaidered there wece poeeibilitiee for more specigic informaCio n whereby
unita could be tcensferred on the rench to e be~ter locetion.
.1eck White, Asaiatant City Attorney~ presented the writcen right to a ppeal the
Planning Commiasion's deciei~n within 10 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLJ-AATION AND CONDITIONAL USB PFRMTT NO. 1564
~ RE110VERTISED
PUBLIC HEJ-RING. OWNFR: JOHN 11. NUISN, 33208 Paseo De La Cervela, San Juan
Capistrano, CI- 92675. 1-GENT; 30UTHERN IkDOOR SO(:CER GEAGUE, 433 Tolbett
Stceet, Bred- CA 91621. Ptopecty deaccibed ae an ircPgularly-ahaped purcel of
lAnd coneisting of approximately 7.0 acres located at the aouthwest corner of
Cerpenter Avenue and Sh~pard Street, 4145 Nocth Sheperd Street (l~nah eim Fun
Centec).
To permit en outdoor soccer field in conjunctian with an existing re creational
facility.
There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to s u bject
requeat and although the staff ceport was not read, it ie referred t e end made
a pact of the mi.nutes.
John Huiah, owner, st~ted they propoae ~n indooc soccer field behind the
building and the indoor refera tcs the sixe of the fieldt that the f i eld will
have a wall around it. He atated he had told one of hls neighbors t hat he
would install barbed-wire fence last yeac and has n~t done it yet, but is
rrflling to put up a~5,000 bond to guarantee it will be done.
Kacl Sator~ S& S Investmenta, 3150 E. La Palma Avenue, explained t helr
propecty ia the industriel park icnr~iediately ~o the weat of subject property
and they have no objections to the use other than to -iake sure they get full
use of their ptoperty. He steted they hsve had considerable probleea~s with the
young people croasing their pruperty to ge~ into the amusement cent er by
climbing walls, etc. He etated the last time they were here, the petitioner
promiaed that barbed wir~ wo~tld be installed on top of the wall, bu t to date
that has not been donet howevec, the p~titioner ha,a promiaed today it would
get done. Ne stated they are also cencer~ed about ba12e being throe+nacross
the fence.
{ ~ f
\
MINUTBB. l1NAHEIM CITY PLJ1tiNZNG COMMI83xON. MAY l, 1983___ 83-256
Fred Kinney, Camelot Minist uce c3olf CourAe, atated ~heir property ie directly
to the esat end they are no t oppoeed to the use, but th~y have hed probleme
becauae th~ 1-naheim Recrea t ion Center doea not hAVe edequate packing ~nd when
the roll~g ekating functio n wea added~ 35 epa~ces were auppoaed to ba
conetructed, but ehey have not done that yetr thet the Cemelot hae 97 spacea
on one aite with an overflow parK~ng foc 200 spacea and they feel 30i of the
cera ace trom the Anaheim RecreAtion Cent~er in their parking lot end laet year
they aterted cherging a pa r king fee of ~1.00 which wee cefun~leble when the
pereon ueed the Camelot fdc ilities. He stetes they averaged ebout 60 tickete
which werR never redeemed w hich indicetea thet probably 60 vehiclea were
perked thece from the 1-neh cim ReccPation Center. He stated they j~at want to
aee thet khere is aufficie ~t packing.
Mr. Kinney clarified they h ave approximetely 300 perking ~pecee for the
Camelot fecilities.
Mr. Huish eteted he has be ~n in this buainesa for aboul 25 yeare and has
learned e lot ebout parking eituatione and expla~ined they are dealing w~th
teenayers and there axe pa rking problems becauae they come there and park
their vehicles to listen t o the music and cirink. He atated theY have been
policing thetr parking lo t in addition t~.~ charging the ~1.Q0 admission fe~.
He stated a lot of the peo ple who come to play miniature yolf pack at the
Anaheim Recreatio.ti Center parking lot. He atated they did not need the
additional parking when th e r~ller skating rink wae added becauee the bueinesa
was not very good and the accident lest yeac in Orenge, dep. :.ed the wetec
elide businesa, so they c~f d not n~ed ~dditional parking for that activity.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSF.D.
Mr. Huish responded to Cc~mmiesioner King that he would stipulate to provide
131 packing spaces as req u ired in Condition No. 1 oE the akaff repoct.
Uean Shecer, A~sociate P1 a nner, explAined when the roller slide activity was
approved, the plan~s ahowed the exisc:ng 97 packing spaces wiGh 37 additionAl
apaces to be improved in t he futures howevec, those apaces have not been
improved and staff is reqc~esting that be done.
Commiseioner Bushore expl ained his concecn is that it was i~ot done then and
there is no guarantee it will be done now and maybe if it was improved, there
would not be this parking problem opposition now.
Mr. Sherer explained staf f would not be able to determine whether or not the
conditions have all been met except by phyaically inspfcting the property. He
stated they will not be a b1e to u$e the field until they g+et final permitss
however, some activities do not require the iasuance uf building permi.t.s.
Commisaionpr Buehore sta t ed he wants some aasurance that if this is approved,
the improvemente will be inade hecauee if it had been done, maybe there would
not have been theae probl em$ and maybe this petitioner has not been a good
neighbor.
Mr. Huieh stated he will put ln the 34 parking apaces.
MINUT88. ~N~HBIM CITY PWINNINQ COMMI38ION. MAY 2. 1983 ___ 83-257
Ray Anderson, Vice Preaident, Calitornis Youth Soccec Aecuc iation, ateted they
heve 40 tedma repreaenting 600 playera who will play for th ree monthe and they
ace in the pcoceea oE aesembling enothec 30 to 40 keems which will give them
enother three months of ~lay. He etAted three gemes ace pl ayed eech night and
echeduled for 1-1/2 houra each and each team has 6 pleyers with 12 pleyera on
the field at one time. he atated this ie en indoor type soccer field and
there is only ono okher indoor aoccer Eield in Southern Cn1lEornia. He ~teted
the field is 175 feet by 75 feeL and there are no other facilitiea evailable
in this City for playing soccer. He ateted it would be compardble ta e hockey
rink and he did not think it would be a great ep~ctetoc spoct and they do not
chACge admieaion and ace centing the apace from the Aneheim Recreation
Center. He etr•ed there will be two aeta of bleacheca to a ccommodate 30 to 40
people end a biuck wall is proposed with a 10-foot nactton of chein above that
to diminieh the numbec of balla leaving the playing area. Mr. ~nderson atated
he did not think thie use will disturb the neighbors.
Responding to Commiss:onec Bushore, Mr. Anderson stated th e field is the same
size ~s a profeseional indoor aoccer field and atated they have not signed a
leaAe as yet. He stated they have 6 teame for players under 19 yeara of age,
8 teama far playere under 16 years of age end l4 teems for playeKS undec lA
yeara of age and G teama Eoc playeca under 12 yeare of age and 5 teams for
playecs under 10 years of age. He stnted he thought the playeca would arcive
three or Eouc to each vehicle and he thought there would p rohably be 6 to B
cars per game. He statel they expect to use the field thc ee monthst however,
he is adding another eague through the YMCA which would p lay the fallowing
three months for e total of aix months.
Commisaioner Bust~ore stated the Commis8lon wanta to aee thie use so the youth
can play the spor~, but not if it is going to cause problems for their
neighbors. He remi.nded the neig;~bora, hoWever, thia uae, if permitted, would
be allowed with appcoval of a conditional use permit whic h is cevoceble, so if
there are any problems, they should be [eported to the Pl anning Department
staff.
Commissioner La Claice stated there have been problems at this location
already, so she would like to see apProval limited to a o nQ~year time peri.od.
Commissioner King pointed out the petitioner cannot get t he final zoning
inspections until they have f ulfilled the parking requirements.
it was noted the negative declaration was previousl; appr oved.
D~an Sherer asked that Pacagraph 2 of the staff report be amended to read:
"That the petitioner requests approval under authorit~ of Code Section
18.61.05.0360 to permit an outdoor soccer fie1~7 in conjunction with an
existing recreation facility.
ACTION: Comm~ssioner King offered Resolution No. PC83-87 and moved for iks
passage end adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi ssion does hereby
grant apQroval for an outdoor soccer field in conjunctioa with an existing
recreational facility granted under Conditional Uae Pecm it No. 1564 for a
period of one year to expire May 2, 1984, and aubject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommendations.
~
MINU~SS. 11NAHdIM CITY PL~lNNING COMMISSION. MAY 2. 1983 8l-258
Jeck wt~ite, 1-aoietant City Attocnay, clacified the one-year time limit meen•
the petitioner will have to reapply in one yeec becaus~ thie permit will
expire.
nn coll edll, the Poceqoing cesolution was pasaed by the lollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUBHORE~ FRY, KII:C~ GA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NO~S: NUNE
~BSENT; HER6ST
Jack White, Assiatant City Attorney, preeented the written right to appeel the
Planning Cummiasion's deciaion within ?.2 days to the City Cn~ncil.
ITEM N0. 4. EIR NEGATIVE DECL~RIITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2435
PUBLIC H~ARING. OWNERS: CAMPI~G WORLD OF CALIPORNIA, INC., 249Q1 W. Pico
Canyon Rodd, Velencia, Ca 91355. AGENT.: .1EFFRBY L. THUMP30N, 866 S. weat
Street, Anaheim, C~ 92802. Property described as an irregularly-ahaped parcal
of lend conaisting of appcoximately 3.0 acrea, 866 S. Weat StreeC (Camping
World).
To retain overnight customer parking (camping) in conjunction with an existing
rpcreational vehicle aervice facility.
There were five pecaons indicating theic pceaence tn opposition Co aubject
request and although the staff report was not read, it ia referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Jeff Thompson, Cempin~ World, steted they are propoaing 24 overnight couctesy
camping spaces to accommodate thei~ customera.
Paul Bosty[ck, Midway Mobile, 1411 S. Anaheim Boulevacd, Anaheim, stated
allowing RV camping outaidp an RV park result~ in loss of room tax revenues
for the City and it fs very unsightly not only for the West Street reaidents,
but for the people traveling on the Santa 1-na Freeway and that camping along
freeways should only be allowed in an RV park where facilities are provided
auch as: dumpina facilities, el.ectrical and ~rater facilities and fencea
encloaing rhe park completely.
Mr. Boylrlck atated there is really no need for this type service in this area
because there are 6 RV parka wlthin 1-1/2 milesof thia facility and 7 moce
parke within five milea. He etated Anaheim has the Stadium, Convention
Cent~r, Disneyland, etc. and he thought tbat ia the reason Campfng World came
to Anaheim. He added the RV parks in this City ace well done and pcovide the
best aecvice possible and ere a real credit to the City. He stat~d the City
has jwst qone through A lengthy procese concerning mobilehome perk conversions
and he would not want to see that happen to RV parks. He Btated RV parks are
in the business of selling space to people and that he and Cnmping World arP
in the bueineea of selling servicea.
Peke La~ i~a o(secretary could not verify name), 1-naheim Junction Campground,
1230 S. West Street, stated if Campinq Wocld wants tQ run en RV park, they
shou.ld have to meet every requicement that Anaheim Junction had to ,neet,
otherwise it is not fair to them or to the Ci~y.
~ .'t
MIMUTSB, ANIIHEIM CITY PLIINNING COMMI$8LON, MI-Y 2. 1983 _ 83-Z~9
Ted Pr~eaton, W~rther Corporetion, Vecati~nlend, 1343 8. West Str~et, stat~d
they ere oppoeed to ellawing cvernight cemping at Camping wocld ~ec~uae it
would pcobably sek a~ dangeroue p:~-c~dent with other p~ople wenting tu uae
their pdrki.ng lots !or RV packing.
Mr. Thompeon refertad to the concern with RV'e parked along the freeway end
pointed oue that would occuc anyway becsuse vehicles would be there for
cepaira. He atated there will be e bloak wall, so the use would not be
unaigh~ly to the reaidents on West Street. He atated they do not want to be e
camping ground end that he cecommends that the cuetomeca go to the othec
campgrounda diter the vehiclee ere cepei~ed.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Reaponding to Commiasioner Buahore, Mc. Thompaon skete~ ~igt~t now th~y are not
contcolling the park and stdted efter thie is approved ~hey would control ~t
after houre the same ss any othec bueinesa would, but there is no way to
really contcol a parking lot ~~nleaA tt is chained up completely and no perking
lot is chained comp:letely.
Commisaionec Buahoce at~ted he ia concerned because there i,s no wAy to control
who comea into the lot or what they do and 8ome pROp1E might want tu sit
outaide their vehiclee and cook dinner ar drink and that the~ people in the
area alreudy have enough noisa fcom the fceeway. He stated people cculd stay
there who da not have proper facilitiea in their vehicle.
Mc. Thompaon etatQd he wae sure all of his neighbora wPre notifiei of this
hearing and that no one has showed up. Commissioner Bushore stated the
original complaint was from a neighbor, but unfortunately the neighbors have
to wock and could not attend. He stated over the last month he haa gon~ ~ast
rhat lacation every marning and has aeen trailera and vans parked thece and
busses that have been converted into RV's, ~tc. Mr. Thompson stated he woulc~
mark off 15 sFaces as le3al apaces for packing.
Commi.saioner Bushore atated the petitioner hrs not even offered to put up
afgns indicating that overnight parkfng is nc.t a1lowAd and he thought the
p~titioner h3d the intent of converting those lampposts to electrical outleta
from the beginning.
Mr. Thompson stated he will do whatever the commi88io~ feels is necessaty and
that he will put up the fence. He stated staf~ told him not to do anything
and also told him that the people who were thece would not be cited until
after this hearing and there was no big concern until aftec this decision was
made.
Commissioner King etated one of the conditions requires a 6-foot high wall
plus a gaLe and he thought that would control the people.
Commiesioner Bushore atated that would not work because they could not lock
the people in with Com,nissioner Bouae nuting their vehicles were bei~g
cepaired and not serviceable anyway, so ahe did not see why they could not be
locked in.
MINUT~8. ANAHSIM CITY PLANNING COMl~ISSION, M~Y Z. 1983 83-260
Commiasi~ner Buehore ok~ted he haa no pro~lem with thooe npople whoae vehiclea
w~ce being worked on, but he knowe there aas a ~ouple wh~ stayed there aver
two weeka end left their tcai.ler the:e while they went off to work. Mc.
Thompeon stated he wes told not to do anything, h~wever, he has removed the
two vehicles.
Commisaio~er Bushore stated the eitudtion could be controlled if e certain
aree ie designated end tire buaters are inetallyd ao that people could exit in
case of emergency, but not be dble to get back in and that would pcevent other
people from coming into the lot And thet it could also be posted.
Commiasioner King stated a locked gate w~~ld prevent people from cominq in And
Cammissioner Buehore atated thece would have to be n way for people to get out
i.n caae of emergency. Ne also pointed out some of the vehiclea could be
driven out in the evenings. Mc. Thompeon etated they do not want to drfve the
vehicles acound. He ex~lained they do nok repaic drive-trains on the vehicles
and eimply inatall and repair acceseo[iea so the vehiclea co~ld b~~• driven. He
~tated the~~ are interested in accommodating their out-of-atatP customera who
have come in tu hav~ work done on their vehicles and may arcive in Anaheim At
midnight, etc,
Commissioner Bushore ~tated he hau talked to aeveral people on the lot and
found that none of them were having work done an their vehicles. Mr. Thompson
stated he does not want a campground and there were no vehicles at the lot
this morning. Commisaioner aouas noted th~k there were no vehicles at the lot
this mocning bec~use the petitionec expected the Commiesioners to touc the
lot, but there were vehicles at the lot yesterday.
Comn~J.s:ion^c Bushore st~ted he thought the requeat ehauld be d~nied becauae
there i~ ^o way to conl•rol it.
Commission~r La Claire stated she zympathizes wikh the petitioner's needs, but
this is Ana~eim and the City does trp to sta} away from dual uses on the
pcoperty.
ACTION: Conmissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec
Souas and MO'ION C~RRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
rQVipwed the E:~oo~al to retain ov~rniqht customer paKking (camping) Ln
conjunction with a~. existing recreational vehicle service facility on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.0 acres having
a fcontage of approximately 7~U feet on the east side of West Street and
further desecibed as ~b6 S. West Street (Camping World); nd does heceby
approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare ar~
enviror.mental impack report on the basis that there would be no significant
individual or cumulative adversc environmental impact due to the approval o:
thia Negative Declaration since the Anahaim General Plan designatea the
subject property far commercial recceat~on land uaea commensurate with t~e
proposalr that no aenaitivo environmental impacte are involved in the
proposals `hat the Initial ~Ludy submitted by the retitioner indicates no
significant individual or sumulative adverse environmental impactet and that
the Negative Declaration substantiating the i~regoing findings is on filF in
the City of Ar,a~efm Planning Department.
Commisaioner La Claice ottared Resolution No. PC83-88 and moved Eor ita
paaaage and adoption that the Anahaim City Plenning Commiesion do~a hereby
deny Conditionel Use Pecmit No. 2435 on the baais thet thia would create a
dual uee on the pcoperty and would have e detrimental ~ffect on the
eucrounding pcoperty ownece.
On r.ll cell, the focegoing resolution wae pesaed by the fallowing vote:
~'tE5: BOU11S~ BUSHORE~ Fn~~ KING~ L1- CLAIRE~ MC 9URN~Y
NOES: NOHE
AB3ENT: HERBST
Jack White, Aseistant Cit.y ~ttorney, preaented th~ written right to appeal the
Plenning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
RECESS: 3:05 p.m.
RECONVENE: ~:15 p.m.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DECL~RATION, WAIV~R OP CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 2436
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER5: RICHARn J•CAH92801.AN~GENTNETGEORGE BILIOS3AND•CARL
Lincoln Avenue, Suite O1, Aneheim, property described as a
MARCHBS, 1739 W. La ~alma Avenue, ~naheim, CA 92801.
rectengulacly-shaped p~rcel of land ^•onsiating of approximalely 0.6 acce, 1739
w. L~ Palma Avenue (Delisi's Sandwich Shop).
To permit on-sale beer and aine in an existing ceataurant with waive: of
minimum numbec of parking epaces.
Thece was one person indicating his p[esence in oppoaition to subject requeat
and although the etaff report was not read, it is referred to and made e part
of the minutes.
Commiasioner Bushore declared a conf.lict of interest as defined by ~naheim
City Planning Commission Reaolution No. PC76-157 adopting d Conflict of
Tntereat Code for the Pl.anning Commiflaion and Government Code SeG~ion 3625, et
£,eQ., in that he is associated in other ~artnership interests, but not on this
~~articular item, and purauant to the proviaiona of the above Codea, de:lared
to the Chairman that he was withdrewing from the heaci[~ in eithertthe With
Conditional Use Permit No. 2436, end would not take p
discussion or the voting theceon and had notnaCommissionec88 ahore left the
member of the Planning Commission. Thereupo
Council Chamber.
Cherles Marches, ag~nt, was present to answE~ any questions.
Reba Ramos, stated she owns the beauty shop at 1747 W. La Palma, and was
opposed to having the eale of beer at thfs location and pointed out a permit
for a cocktail. lounge Was denied in July of 1982, because °Shehstatedcshe~has
would have on the ~the: little shopa i~- the neighborhood.
se~n this dcea going downhill Loc the laot three years and she is aleo
concerne.: that people will come to this restaur~nt just to drink beer. dhe
MINUTE3. AN~H6IM CITY PL~NNING COMMIS&ION, MAY 2. 1983 ___ 83-Z6~
etated packing and eccees ~re problema and the alley is ~lways ueed by th~
people in the epartment~.
Chairmen Pcy atated a letter was received fcom the Ad~ecFnt property ~o the
weet, Peul Willieme, end he was concetneQ ebout the parking dnd noked thet the
parking in the reac was of little uae and explained this letter will be m~de
part of the record.
Mr. Marches expleined this facility ie a sandwich ahop and not a restaurant
and they normally close at 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. He explained they did mrke a
survey of the parking situation.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commiasianer La Claire, Mr. Ma~ches stated they have 30 to 40
customers per d~y and tt~ey are arriving ~hroughout rhe day and they do not
have a big crowd at ~ne time. Ne compared this ait~ ~o a simila~ shop in La
Mirada which is lacat~d in an induetrial ac~ and does must of ita busineas
between 11:30 and 1:30 and noted thia bubinesa will be a:l day long. He
explained three membera of his [aRily wi11 serve the customers and the
restaurant aea~s 36 people and also they do make delivecies and would delivec
beer, if requested.
Commissionec La Claire aeked about the petitioner's commenr_s that they would
make deliveries of the beec. There was a b:ief discusaion pectaining to the
delivecy of beer, since there is a State law t;,at it must be consumpd on the
premises with Jack Whitc, Assi~tant City Attorney, explaining that situation
would be regulated by the 4lcoholic Beverage Contr~l eoard and that Che
Commission does not have the prerogative of making thoae stipulations.
Commissioner La Claire stated she wants a clear understanding of the type of
Iicense he is getting becauae it makes a difference on the way she votes.
Commiasione~ bauas clarified the proposed t,oucs of opecation are 9:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Herbst arrived at 3:25 p.m.
~CTION: Commissionec King offered u motion, seconded by ~ommissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviswpd the
ptoposal to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing cestaursnt with waive~.
oE minimum number of packing apacea on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of appcoximatel.y 0.6 ~cre havfng a frontage of apFroximately 200
feet on the north side of La Pa : Avenue, approximately 350 feet west of the
centerline of Euclid Street and turther described as 1739 w. La Palma Avenue
(DelisS's Sandwich Shop); and does hereby aprrove the Negative Declaration
from the requirement to pcepare an environmental impact report on the basis
that there wo~~ld be no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of thfs Negative Declaration since
t,~e 1-naheim General Plan designates the subject property for genrral
commercial land uses commensurate witn the proposal; thak ~~o sen~itive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal= that the Initial Study
submitted by the petition,r ~nd±catea no significar.t individual oc cumulative
~ }
83-Z63
MINUTBS ~N~H~IM CITY PLANNINQ COMMISfiION MAY 2 1983
ed•~eraf envi~onmentel impactat and that the Negative Decleret~on
aubstantiating the for~going findinqe ie on file in the City of Anaheim
Plenning Departmer~t.
Commiseioner King offered a motion, eeconded by Commieeionec Bauas and MOTtON
CJ-R12IED, that t~-e 1-naheim City Planning Commiasion doe8 hereby grank waiver of
code requireme.~t on the beais that *he variance will not ca~uee a~ inareaee of
traffic congestion in the immediete erea, nor edvereely effect any adjoining
ldnd uaes and that the granti~g af the vacience under the conditions imposed,
if any, will not be dettimental to the peece, health, sa~ety or genecel
welfare of the ciEizena ot the City of l~na~heim.
Commie~eionec King offered Resolution No. PC83-89 and moved for ite passage and
Adoption that the Anaheim City Plenning Commicaion does grant Conditional Use
Permit No. 2436, ~ubject to intecdeperkmental Committee recommendationa.
On roll c~ll, the for^going cesolutton wes passed by the following vote:
AYE3: BOUAS~ FRY, KING~ L~A CLAIRB, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BUSHORE
ABSTJ-IN : H$RHST
ITEM N0. 6. ~IR NEG1-TIVB DECLP-RATION, WAIVEK OF CADE REpUIREMBNT 4N~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2437
pUBLIC HEARING. OWNER5: DALB E. 7-ND SARAH 1-NN FOWLBR, 3178 E. La Palma
1-venue, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: LEON H. BJhRVIN, 102a2 Camcien Ciccle, Villa
Park, C11 92667. Fcopetty deaccibed as s rectangularly-sheped paccel of land
conaiating of approxima-tely 5.1 acre, 3192 F. Lc Palma A~~enue.
To permit a sandwich shop in the M~L Zone with waiver of minimum number of
minimum number of parking apaces.
Thece was no one indica~ing their pcesence in opposition to aubject requeat
and although the staff report was not read, it is refecred to and made a part
~f the minute~.
Leon Barvan, a3ent, ceft~red to Condition No. 1 of the staff report requiring
sidewalk$ along i.a P~lma and pointed out the e.~tire street doe~ not have any
sidewalks in that areA. He stated he has a letter from the landlotd
rpquestitt~~ !hat tht-t [equirement rA wdived.
Jack Ju~' Ci.vil Engineer Aasaciate, explsinedEngineeritioner can request a
waiver ~ aidewalk ce4uiremente from the City
M•. Barvin stated thexe was a concern ~hat there would be a~rking problem
and a etudy was conducted at three diffecent timea of tt~e day and it w~+s found
that approximately 60$ of the parking ~ras not used.
THE PUBLIC HE1~-RING WAS CL03ED.
Mi~ ~g`AN~H~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MAX 2. 1983 83-264
Commiseioner Ln Claire clacitied thet no beer and wine licanee wes being
requeated et thie time.
ACTION: Commiesioner La Claire offKred a motion, aeconded by Commiesionec
Ki g dnd MOTION C1IRRIED, ~hat the Aneheim City Planning Commis~ion has
ceviewed the proposAl to pecmit a sandwich shop in the ML (Induetria~,
Limited) 2one with weiver of minimum number of parking epaces on a
rect~ngulacly-shaped percel of land conaisting of approximAtely 5.1 acrea
loceted et the southweat corner of La Palma Avenue and Shepard stceet and
furthec deseribed as 3192 E. La Patma AvenueJ end does hec~by epprove the
Negative Declaration fr ~qu9.rement to prepare an environmental impect
repart on the basis that would be no oignificant individual or
cumulative adverse environn~~.tal impact due to the approvel of this Negative
Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property far
general induatrial land uaea commenaurete with the proposalt thet no senaitive
enviro~me.~tal impacta are involved in the propoeali th~t the In~tiel Study
aubmitted by the petitionp* indicatea na significant individual or cumulativ~
edvecae environmental impactat and that the Negative Declaration
substantiat~ng the foregoing fi~dinys is on file in the City of hnaheim
Planning Department.
Commissioner Le Claire offPred a motlon, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby grent
request for waiver of code requirement on the basis that the packing variance
will not cause an increase in packing congestion in tne immediete vicinity or
adveraely affect any adjoining land uaes and thnt the granting of the parking
vaciance undQr the conditions imposed, if any, will. not be detrimental to the
peace, health, satiQty oc general wplface of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim.
Commiesionec La Clair.e offered Resolution No. PC83-90 and moved for its
pa~sage and adoption that the Anah~im City Planning Commiesion does hereby
grant Conditfonal Use Pecmit Nu. 2437 subject to Interdepactmental ~ommittee
recommend~tiuns.
On roll call, the foreqoing reaolution was passed by thp following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FR'f, HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABS~NT: NOr .
ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3330
PU$LIC HEARIl~G. OwN~RS: G. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL CORP., P.O. BoX 1438,
LoUiaville, Xent~^ky 40201. I~GENT: C1ILMAI2K DEVELOPME'iT CORP., P.O. Box 2128,
Santa Monica, CA 90406. ATTN: Scott Howell. Property described as a
rectangularly-shapec7 parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.33 acres,
950 South Gilbect Street.
Waivers of: (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum
etructural height, (c) minimum floor area per dwelling unit, (d) minimum
distance between buildings and (e? minimum number of parking spaces to
conetruct an 85-unit affordable apartment complex.
MINUT~B. ~NAHEIM CI_TY PLANNtNV ~OMMISSION1 MAY 2, 1983 ___ 8~-265
There were app~oximetely fifty pereone indicating their pceaence in oppor~itian
to subject requeat dnd Although the staff report was not redd, ~t is refecred
to and made a part of the minutea.
Scott Howell, Calmark Development Corporation, explained their proposel ie !n
reapon~~ to an RFP aent out by ths City and State to replace some of the
butned-out housing as a result of the Anaheim fires that the propooal ia for
85 ~partment units - 37 one-be~room unita, and 48 two-bedroom unitsj that 16
unita will be asaioted unita and the oth~.c 70t will be market rate units so
they will have to be in good condition to attrect thp tenants. He atated thia
waa the only aite in Anaheim they coulc9 find whete they could put thia project
and at~ted Calmark wae the only respondent to the RFP. He stated they are
proposing 3-story structures with elevdtots and a,ool and are providing 106
parking apaces which is 2~1 apaces per. unit. Hn s~aked they have a parkinq
atudy which indicPtes the spaces proposed would ~e adequ~te. Mr. Howell
stated they have desi~ned the et[uct~res so all thE units, except 24, dre
tucned into the interior away from the aingle-family dwpllings and the units
will have solid faced balconies and very denae landacAping which will provl~e
the buffer between the project and the surrounding homes. He stated tha ~~~dc
requires that an,y atructure t.as to be set back 150 feet from the single-f~mily
residential atea and po.nted out there wa5 a hoapital propased on t~is site
and thia is a ptoposal for residential uses in a residential zone. He atated
they have a recommendation ,°rom the Anaheim Hou~ing Commiasion to grant up to
$300,000 far the assisted portion of this project and they have almost $4
million dollacs committeu from the State of California for the development of
thia project. He stated 20 neighbors attended a meeting and expressed
concerna that apartments would bring down their property values and also
objected to the inclusion of a~sisted unita and the view into their homes and
they were also concerned that parking would ovecfla~,v into their neighborhood
He stated some of the neighbor$ suggested a wall all around the pecimeter an
some wanted the wall to be hiqher than the 6 feet pcoposed and they als~
suggested concrete posts in front of the parking so cars could not protrude
into tihe landscaped buffec and they alao wanted carports to be cuntinuous all
the wa,y around the units and the llghting to be directed away from their
backyards an~ that mature trees would be planted. He stated they will be
happy to com~ly with those 3uggestions.
Mr. Howell stated if they could not do this project on thie site, they will
not be able ko do it at all• He atated the City suggested that the assisted
unita be rented to those qualified from the eligibility list from Anaheim
only. He added it takes this kind of government financing in ordec to
constr.uct apart~~ants today and that assistance always comes with the
requirPment for low and moderate income units.
Dean Sherer, Associate Planner, presented the petitions aigned by
approximately 453 area cesidents oFPosed to the project.
Ptorman Jessen, 913 S. Gilbert~ Anaheim, stated he has owned this property, the
third house north, foc 27 yeacs and is speaking on behalf of the 423 people
who si~ned the above mentioned petition oppasi~ig the deve~opment. He stated
they do not oppose a nice apactment complex on that cornec, but they want the
structure to be compatible with the neighborhood and would ask that it be
constructed strictly in accordance with the Code. He etated they object to
MIN~'T~S. ~NAH~IM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, MAY 2, 1983 83••366
the height of the etructure an~ the higF~ denaity of the project and the Eect
it will depreciate the value of their property. He steted n thcee-etory
atructuee would not be compatible with the aurrounding one-et~ry structucea
And the tenants will be eble to look directly into their windows end beckyerde
and the homeownere think it ia outcegeous to heve a atrucCure of thie hPight
on.l.y 70 feet from theic homea. He added they feel that belconiea actually
invite people to ]ook do~rn into their yards. He atated the Code requires a
1-story atructure to hR 150 feet awa;~ from sinqle-family reaidential eree, but
this developer wa~~ta to put a 3-etury etructure half that distance end the
Cnde doesn't permit e 2-story structure much le~s a 3-atary structure= that
~ode ellows modiEicAtion if the prope~ty ie depcived of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the same vicinity and ~hey ere not aw~ce of any other
property thek has tF~ia privilege. He added they ~ce asking for a major
vaciance and the neighbore do not see any ovecriding reason to ellow this type
of vaciance with this structuce tieight to an absentee landownec and stated the
Code was written to protect the homeownecs.
Mr. Jeasen stated, howev~r, if the Commisaion do~s grant this variance, the
neighbora should have Che 20-foot wide landscaped buEfer :vith mature trees and
a block wall at le~at 10 feet high and the decks and balconiea should be
eliminated.
He ~dded the proposed car.portG would onl,y accommodate one vehicle and also a
signi.ficant numbet of apaces pcoposed are dicectly behind anothec space er~d he
thought the t~nants will alleviate that problem by ~arking their s~econd
vehicle in the aurrounding area. He atar.ed the entire southerly end of the
continuuue open carpocts would be vi.aible from Ball and Gilbert and the
npposition feels those open car epaces will be a mess and that the cacpo•rt,s
should be fully enclosed.
Mr. Jessen stated the oppoaition alsa feels the tenanta of this complex should
tse given a break and the project should nor be approved with all the veriances
requested. He stated if there are kwo adults and two childten in each unit,
they wouid estimate 340 people would reside on this 2.3 ecre parcpl and they
are also concerned because there is no way k~ control the number of people who
live in one of t~eae units, but with at. leagt 213 addit±onal vehiclea and
cpcreatfonal vehicles and gueat parking, this will overbucden their
residential area.
Mr. Jesser- stated they estimate there could be 170 youngsters in this c~mplex
witbout adequate playgr~und area because they are only propoeing a sw.imming
pool and a tot lot and the 394 Rquare fept of recreational-leisuce area
includes the balconiea. He stated the childcen will be playing ~n the
surrounding area and competing with the heavy traffic on Ball and Gilbert and
explained on Friday between 4 a~d 4:30 on Gilbert, he had peraonally counted
401 v~hicles going both north and south. He stated theic friends who vi~it
will not dcive into their driveway because of the hazard of backing ~ut onto
Gilbect. He stated they feel an additional 230 vehicles wf.ll create
additional traffic hazards, d heavier traffic flow, parking and congestion
problems. He added it must be shown before any variance can be approved that
the variance will no~ cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate
area nor adversely affect any adjoi~ing land use and it ia evident from the
City Traffic Engineer's recommendation against the parkinq waiver, that io not
the case here.
( ~~
MINUTB3. 11N11HSIM CITY PLANNINO COMMI38ION. MI~Y 2, 1983 83-267
Mr. Jesaen etated they ere concecned about the poseible increeee i,n crime and
greffiti which comea with diaaCventeged peoplet end Aleo Che overcrowding oi
the schoolsi and the difficulty of fighting firea in the complex. Ha eteted
the aurrounding ~rea may drteriorate and ell theae things ace detrimental to
tl~e peac~, heelth, aafety end genere:. welfere of the people in the a~ee and
they would atcor.gly recommend thet an environmentel impact repott be prepared
before any deciaions ere made.
Herry McCluskey, 9732 Mystic Lane, Anaheim, etated twu yeara ago the Planning
Commiseion gevP permisaion foc 60 unite acrosa from hie property and now he
hea 2-ar.~ry unitA And people with balconies looking right into his backyard
and triet he hdd to install atiade awninga in order to have a little bit of
privACy a~nd also the dreinage from ~hat complex comee into Myetic Lane an~
they have curb-to-curb wetec every time i.t ceina or they sprinkle i:heir
l~wna. He added he is elso againeL subaidized houainq because no matter haw
you look at it, it is a tax.
Dr. Alex Go stated he is part owner ~f th~ property south of this property and
io opposed to the pcoject beca~_se of the ovec-population of the ereA= that
thi~s ia only a 2.3 scre parcel and pointed out Gilbert is very nacrow and
there ace a lot oi accidents And thie project would inccease the traffic and
congestion. He stated the public alley j~st south of this property only has
one lane on the east end and he did not think there would be good traffic
flow. ee atated they ace concerned that people lfving in thia pcoject would
most likely turn inko their parking lok and drfve through. He pointed out the
Traffic Engineer has recommended that Code be fallowed. He ad~ed he is aleo
concerned about the carpoct adjacent to the alley since their pt-tienta uae the
pu~lic alley and t~e wae sure there would be plenty of accidenta because the
alley is only 2Q feet wide and there would be cars pArked on both eides.
Dr. Go agceed F~ouaing is neede~d in Anaheim, but he did not think it should ae
developed at t-~e expense of the other homeowners who heve lived thece for
yea:s and did not think the deveic~pers should make extra money on thie project
at their expense.
Dave Phillips, 2392 Mystic Lane, stated he bought his home thcee yeara ago
with the intention of making ~t into his dceam homet that aome of the housea
in the area were run down, but already several of them heve been purchased and
brought up to standards and they have gotten e lot of complime~its from the
aurrounding neighbors Eor making this a nice neighborhood to live in again.
Hp staked he is opposed to this profect because of the invasion of priv~cy
with 3-story units luokir.g ~'~wn into their backyacda and it would be a direct
shield access for burglaries, vandalism and albo it is posoible their
backyarda wnuld be used ae a trash can and asked ~f hia investment on his
property would be endangered.
Larry Seifert, 2380 Mystic Lane, stated he realizes people who own the
oroperty have a right to build aomething ~;~ it and the neighbors are nnt
opposed to an apattment as long as it conforms to Code, but they are concerned
about the 3-story structure becau$~e it looks right into their backyards and it
would require a wall 13 feet high to provide eny privacy and a 13-fo~t high
wall would cceete shade problems. He s~ated he thouqht this would create a
vandalism problem because people would be able to look right into their
~.~..._.. _~~
i~A3 83-s6e
MINUTBS. 1-Nl-HEIM CITY PLIINNINCi C4MMISSION MJ1Y Z.
windowa ~nd learn their pattacna and riqht now ehey heve no •~Andaliam
probleme. He added he thought thie would deval~e hie home and he haa just
epent threa- yeera trying to increase the value. He eta-ted if a peraon had c
choico betw9en two houaea of equal vw 2ue ~•o purchaae and one hed e 3-etory
apectment looking right into the backyerd, th• b~.yec would chaee tt~f one
withnuk the ~pertment. :le steted, in fact, Mr. Howell hed e maeting this week
ar~a answered the question whether or not he ~hought thte would 9eve~lue r.he
properties, that it won't help them n rd may devalue their homea.
Joan Guillet, 9832 He-rveat Lene, ste t ed khe developer only eent out ten
lettera to the homeowners and there were 20 FQOPIe present and she wented the
Commieeion to know 60 people attende d e meetir~g et her houae after A
thcee-hour notire and they obtained 4 23 aignaturea in just 48 houre which were
aubmitted to the City Clerk'e Office and if they had had moce time, th~y could
have gotten moce signatures and more interPa*_.
Catherine Smith, 921 S. Gilbert, sta ted ahe owne commercial end reoidential
proFerty in the are~ and ie against thia project becauee it would bring many
childcen into khe ecea and it would be dangecoua ta expose them to the traff.ic
~-nd congestion on a single-lane atre et, auch as Gilbert, and there ace othex
better usea for that property.
George Paltcidge, 2374 Mystic Lc~ne, stated heWilllnotlbe getting themeeahealth
standpoint becauae he fs older and t?~at they
breeze and sunshine and that they w i 11 be receiving the Rxtra exhaust fumes
from the open cdrports which would be trepped in their backyecd and he thought
~lder people will have their health to considec. He stated there will be
automobilea and motorcycles going into the open patking etructure all night
and it will diatucb theic sleep and all their bedrooms are facing that way.
Hr. Howell stated he only Aent 10 letters becauae he was trying to address
those people who live adjacent to t he project who would be moet affected. He
atated thie is the only site he knouas whece there would be lese than 10
adjacent homeownecs involved. He s tated a lot has been said about the visual
impac~ and they would be willing to remove the balconies on all u~its faci.ng
the reaidential area, but that woul d decrease the amount of open epace and
recreational area. He stated the p=oject hae to be 3 stories becauae of the
par~cing required to meet Anaheim Coclea. He stated 44i of the unitR are
He ceferred to
1-bedroom units and they are provid ing 2.18 spaces per unit.
the commenta pectaining to the 10-f oot high wall and atated they would be
willing to coneider that. He added they cannot provi~ie the 20-foot wide
buffer because there is just not en ough coom. Concerning management pcoblems,
he atated their company currently ~~nages over 4,000 units (958 occupied> and
they have to be kept in good condi tion in order to attract good tenants.
Concerning ator~ge, he explained tt~iere is storage in each carpoct. He atated
448 of these units are 1-bedroom u nita and he did not think there would be any
children in those units. He added the company does nok plan to build :he
project and then sell it, but will ret~in ownership ao they have an incentive
fot keeping ~hem up. He added thf s is a family proiect and thexe will be
children. He stated he did not requeat that parking be abandoned on Gilbert
Street and that was e City requeat . He atated itwaa mentioned there was a
concern that haviny disadvantaged people in these unita would cause graffiti
and vendalism pcoble,na and atated those people who will qualify for the
83-269
MINUTB J1N11HBIM CITY PLI-NNINa COMIMIaSION MJ1Y 2 1 83
essiated unira ece ciiained thececac~eitwodfireVhydcantanwi~hin thenpcoject and
fire concetne, he exP
the dreinaqe will be i~to Gilbert wiiere ~hey will be putting in e dr a in oc
run-off watar. He compeced 1-neheim's perking requicement co aucrou~d ing
citie+~ And stated othew ~itbesaubaidized~8 Hedeteted`henhadacommentednthat9ain
only 30~ of the unita il rties around it.
this project might develue prope
THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSEU.
Commissioner Hect~r steted he hAS bee~ on the Commisaion f.or e numbe r of yeara
and did not think he hae ever aeen a pro~ect thet impVenst°~ the9neig hbocsa on
much aa thia one does and he Eelt leas thougt~t was q
He etated
this project than eny other k>:oject in the City of Anaheim.
ordinancea were adopted over the years f.or a lot of reasone and part icularly
to prokect the aingle-family reai.dential aceat that the 20-Eoot lend acaped
buffer has been a Commission policy for e long time and he helped in stigate
that policy aftec aeeing construction of apactmenke without that po licy
ad~ecent to single-family areas. He added tanrlem patking can wock i n some
aituationa, but thought it would be a problem here and he thouqht t h e new
He atated 3-atocy
parking ocdinance had been used L•o its ultimate.
construction is out of the queation, fn hia apinion~ but he might c onaiHer 2
atoriea, if propecly designed Ciia tryinguto putQt~o much~onetheb pr eperty and
stated he thought the de~elope
it is being done at the expense of the neighbors.
Commiasioner La Clalre st~ted she underatands what the petitioner i s trying Co
accompliah and she undetstands the constraints and difficulty gett i nyathy foc
financing and the high cost of construction and ahe has a lot of sy mp
the developer, but agreea with Commisaioner Herbst that this projec t would
impact the area too mucht that Gilbert is a busy stceet andSherstat edeit
problem. 5he stated she is also concerned ebout privacy.
ceal?y ircitates her w[st_classecitizensabecause[she9knowsparlotn o fdpe~p~eewho
something lesa than fi
live in apartmenta ~nd1ehfamily residential•units forndelong~timesandeshe8le
been 2oned fi~iin mul ip
not opposed to apartments if they do not invalues~intthepareacY S hetstated ahe
neighbocs and if they do not hurt propecty
knowa what the people'8 concerns are, eBPen~a~oyprotectmthatpinvestmenttand
inveskments are in their homee and they
added she thought this City has tried to pcotrovalhof~thiseprojec t~the beat
triey can. She stat.ed ahe cannot vote for app
.Tack White, 1-seistant City Attorney, atated the developer is proposing to
grovide a minimum af ZS~ain themuastlow8lncome~rental~propetty f o ruaimi nimumhe
would t~e requiced to re
of 30 yeara and that the CiteBL$~oebei~evelopmental standarddwai verabthat,do
that waivers tb) and ta) 8PP
not directly relate to denaitysce9uirementsdendiifrthose were(th edo~;lyptwo to
be directly related to
waivers requested, in hia opini.on, the Planning Commiesion and C i ty Counc
would be mandated to approve those two waivers. He stated waive r(e) pertains
to patking and another type of finding would be neceasary for approval of that
r~quest. He at~ted it ia his belieE that th~ two wal.v~ra thet dicectly rele~e
to den sity are ao intricetely bound up with the orhec waivecs that if it is
khe C ommisaion'a inte~t to diseppcove the proj~ct, they could dieapprove all
Eive waivera or could approve weivere (al and (d) und~3r the denaity bonua law
of Government Code section 65915.
Commiasionet La Claire stated ahe wvuld nnt be oppoae~ to appcoval of weivera
(e) e nd ld), but felt the project ahould be r~designed and reviewed by the
Plann ing Commisslon or thet she would dl~~ga~swhelfeelu~theepcojectncouldnonly
if the developer ehould deaice, but it epp
be dccompliahed in thia manner..
Mr. Howell stated evrn aith the aeaietance in this projQCt and with the number
of unita on eite, thie pco~ect runa negAtive foc ygars .and apartments do not
make aense and there is no aay to elimin~te the third sf~.ocy.
Commissioitiec Buahore atated thia City hae hed three majur apartment praject~
go which Were~ecordYtoWahownthAtna~artmentscdcehnotibeingfbuiltYe~K~ so he did
not wa~nt the
Mr. Howell etated purchasing the land today at the pcice~~ availab2e in the
City of Aneheim, placea developers in a different cate~ory then ~ornaone who '
elready has the property.
Comm iasioner Bu3hore atated the Commission cealizes the price of lan~l dictAtea ~
the iiumber of unitlatbe anveasy task~in$the namehofhthedfice8victimappr did ''
not think this wou
AC_TION: Commiesioner La Claire offered a motion, seconde~9 by Commisslaner
~our $ and MOTION CI-RRIED (Commisaionet'$ Haheim CityBPlanningoCommisaiondhas
Commigsioner McBur.ney abaentl~ thdt the M ,
reviewed the pcoposal to constcuct an 85-unit affotdable zipartment complex
with waivers of minimum building eite ac=adPellinelunit,uminimumxdistance
structu~cal heiqht, minimum floor area pe 9acea on a
between buildings and minimum number of parking ep
rec'.:angul~rly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximetely 2.33 acres
hav ing e frontage of approxim~tely 280 feet on the east siae of Gilbect
Street, approximately 210 feet north of the centecline of Ball cove the
fucther described as 950 S. Gilbert Street; and does hereby app
Negative Declaration ftom the requicement to prepece an environmental impact
report on the bssis that there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Npgative
~:claration since the J-nAheim General Plan designates the subject property for
low density ~esidential land uses commensucate with the proposalt khat no
aensitive er.vironmental impacts are involved in the ptoposal; that the I~itial
Study submitte6 by the petitioner indic~tes no significant individual or
cumulative a nve~he foregoingnfindingsCisjonnfileainttheNCityiof Anaheimtion
subakantieti g
Plannirh Depertment.
Commiasioner La Claire stated she would offebea£o=8den~alROfowaivecs1(n)tmnd
Jack White suggesting the reaolution ahould
(d) on the basie thAt while the Commiaaf~n recognizes that Government Code
MINUT~B. AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI$8 ION, M~Y 2. 1983__ 83-Z71
Section 65915 would otherwiee requice t he City to gcant a deneity bonus which
would entitle ths developer t~ theee t~ra waivera, theae waivera ece in
conjunction with three other waivsrs which are so intricately bound-up into
one project, that the Commisaion ie de nying them on the baeie of the findinga
on Paqe 7-d, Perngraph 22 and that aaivera (b) end (c) ere denied Ear the
reaeona that aubject waivera ere waive ra ~f developmental atendarde which do
not meet the findings as eet forth on Pege 7-d, Item 22, of khe etdff report
and denial o! waivec (e) on th~ basia th~t thie is e perking waiver which doee
not meet tu r.equired findinge ea set f octh in Item 23, Pege 7-d of the ataff
repuct.
ACTtON: Commiaeionec La Cl.aire offere d Rea~lution No. PC83-91 and moved foc
ike paaeage and adoption thet• the Anah eim City Planning Commission does hereby
deny Varidnce No. 3330 on the basie t h at while the Commiesion recognizea that
Government Code Section 65915 would o t herwiae cequire the City of 1-naheim to
grant a density bonus which would enC itle the developer ko l•hese two waivers,
they ere in conjunction with three ot her waivers which ere ao intricately
bound up into one project thak the Commiasion is denyinq them on the basis
that there are no special circumetancea applicable to the property such ea
aize, shape, topogrephy, locACion or surroundings, which do not apply to other
identically zoned properties in the v icinityt z+nd that stcict application of
the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileg~a enjoyed by other
properties in identicel zoning classification in tha vicinityt and denying
waiver le) c-n the basis that the pack ing waiver will cause an increase in
traffic congeati.on in the immediate v icinity and w~uld adver$ely affect
a~djoining land uaess and that granting af the waiver will be detrimental to
the pesce, he+~lth, sdfety or genecal welfare of the citizena of the City of
Anaheim.
On roll call, the foregoing reaolution Was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE
NOES: NONE
~-BSENTt MCBURNEY
Jack Wh.ite, Aesistant City Attorney~ pr~sented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision withi n 22 days to the City Council.
Commissioner La Claice left the mee t ing et 4:30 p.m. and did not return.
ITEM N0. 8. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO~1 AND VJ~RIANCE N0. 3331
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: J.R. AND PHYLLIS D. ESTRELLA, 1222 W. Apollo Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92802. Property deac~i bed as a rectangularly-aha ped parcel of
land consisting of appraximate~y 6,0 06 feet, 1222 W. Apollo l~venue.
Waiver of required type of parking s paces to retain a garage conversion.
There wa~ no one indicating theic pr esence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
MINUTES,1 ~NAHBIM CITY PLl-NNING COMMISSYON. M~Y 2~ 1983 _____.__,_, 83-272
Ray Estcelle, owner, presented e petition eigned by 32 families or 6~
neighbora within 300 feet of hia home and also preaented aevec~l photogrephs
af the property ~nd explei~ed he ia requeeting e veciance to dllow him to
provide a place foc hie 79 year old mother to live. Ne stated he does not
think thia will have an advecae ~"ffect on the neighborhoad becauae there ie
more then adequ~te parking and he will bQ happy to ccnetruct d covc~red carport
with dcceee to the elley. He etated he had no oppoaition to the pl.en fcom hie
neighboca. He suggested ik could be approved for a limited period of time and
he will be happy to eign anything thet the unit will not be uaed as a rentAl.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to CommiF,sioner tiecbst, Mr. Estcelle explained apparently someone
compleined because they were constructing something in the garage and stated
he did plan ta get pecmits and explainr~ Li~e garage door is ati~l there and
still aperable and stated again it was not intended as a pecmanent HituAtion.
Jack White, Assiatant City Attorney, explained if the Commisaion wi~hea to
grent this on a temporarX basis, a condition can be added which will cequire
that a covenant be recorded againat the property to provide thet the
conversio~ w~s tor a limited period of time and the expiration date would be
provided which would require that thE owner reconvert the garage. He
explained thia will give subsequent property aa~~ers notice that it is a
limited uae.
Cammiesioner Buahore stated thece was a nimilar situation on Dale an~ Ball
wherein the petitioner apecifically bought a residence because they had a
handicapped member in the family and the garbge was converted and that was
handled with a deed restriction requiring thet it be converted back upon sale
of the pr~perty.
Commiasioner Herbst stated this ia a very difficult aituation when the
property has already been convected and approval would make people think the
Commisaion is encoucag~ng this type ~f development and they are definitely
opposed to it. He explained there are ordinances requicing that cars be
parked off the street, etc. and when a convecsion is done, it neyatea the
purpose of the nrdinances and createa problems. He added he could go along
with this cequest, however, if it can be done for a limited peciod of tima.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Estrella stated five years would be
adequate.
Responding to Commissionec Bouas, Mr. Eatrella explained he would begin work
on the carport cight away.
Jack White, Asaistant City Attocney, ~tated the variance should be app[oved
for a 5-year period to expire MAy 1, 1988, which would be co-incidental aith
the date of the recorded covenant and a condition should be added requiring
thet the owner would execute a recorded covenant against the property
sntisfactory to the City Attarney's Office which would require that the garage
converaion be r~converted to an opecable garage on or befare May 1, 2988, and
that any zoning approvala permitting such conversion would expire on that daCe
and that s~fd covenant shall be executed within a period of ninety days.
MINUTE3. ~N~HBIM CITY BL~NNING COMMI98ION, M~Y 2,~1983 83-273
Mr. ~strella ateted if the City Attocney would dreft thet covenant, he would
execute it and record it~
ACTION: Commiaeioner Herbat ofPered a motion, second~d by Commieaioner King
and MOTION CARRIED (Commiaeioneca La Glaire end McBurney ebs~nt), thet the
Anaheim City Plenning Cammiaeion hae reviewed L•he propoeal to cetain n garage
convereion witt: waiver of required type of perking spaces on a
rectengulacly-ehaped percel of land consiating of approximately 6,006 aquare
feet having e frontage of approximetely 66 feet on the eouth aide of Apollo
Avenue, approximetely 290 feet weat of the centerline of Walnut 5kreet end
further dRacribed ds 1222 W. Apollo Avenuej and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report on the basie that there would be no significant individuAl or
cumul~tive adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative
Declaration since the ~naheim Ceneral Plan deeignates the subject property for
low deneity reoidential land uses commensurate with the groposalr that no
senaitive environmental impacte are involved in the proposalt that the Initial
Study submitted by the petitionec indicatea no aignificent individual oc
cumuletive adverse environmental impactej and that the Negative Declaration
aubatantfating the foregoing findings ie on Eile in the City of Anaheim
Planning DPpactment.
Commissioner Herbat offered Resolution No. PC83-92 and moved for its passage
and adoption khet the ~nahetm City Planning Commiaslon does hereby grant
Varfance No. 3331, for a period of five years to expire on May 1, 1988, and
subject to the condition thaC the owner ahall execute and cecord a covenant
satisfactory to the City Attorney's Office which will require that the garage
convereion be reconverted to an opereble garage on or before May 1, 1988, and
that any zoning appcoval for eny such conversion will expire on that date and
that said covenant shall be executed and cecorded within 90 days of the date
of thie resolution and subject to Interdepactmental Cummittee rec~mmendatfons.
On roll call, khe foregoing reaolution was passed by the fol.lowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE, MCBURNEY
ITBM N0~ 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANA VHRIANCE N0. 3332
PU9LIC HEARING. OWNERS: SWO-WE2 CHAY, ET AL, 921 S. Harbor Boulevard,
ANAHEIM, CA 92805. AGENT; K.K. CHANG, P.O. Box 8064, Anaheim, CA 92802.
Propecty described as an i.rcegu.larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 1.6 acre, 921 S. Harbor Boulevacd (Sandman inn).
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to expand an exiRting motel.
There wns no one indlcating theic presence in opposition to subject requeat
and although the staff ceport was not read, it is refecred to and made a part
af the minutes.
K.K. Chang, a9ent, explained they are proposing 26 additional gueat roomA in
order to help meet the dem~~d of the 1984 Olympicg and are requesting a waiver
MINOT~$, ~NAHBIM_CITY PL3~NNIN_ a COMMISBIDN~ MAY 2._1983 __„_ 83-274
of parkingt thet they h+rd ~ demaind parkinq etudY done and it showed thet they
only nead .63 ~talls per coom combined With the reaGeucsnt and they are
propoeing 86 epaces for 100 cooms.
THB ?UBLIC HEIIRING Wl-S CLf)3E0.
Commissionec Bushore aeked how meny of the gueata are there through toura dnd
how mt~ny people arrive by individual vehicles. Mr. Ch~i, rnanager~ stAted 60t
of theic gueats ece r'rom tour peckegea, so not very mdny g~~eats arcfve in
individuel vehicle,a. He explained he aleo hae a motel in Newport Beach.
Commiseioner Bushore etated he did not seQ the tra~ffic st.udy and that this
petitioner ie requeeting moce of a vacience than eny ~ther veciance granted or
ahown ko be reasonable.
Mc. Chei atated he has 74 rooms and 68 were occupied t-.~is morning and 55 of
thoae roome were occupisd by touce, so that about 75i nre from toure ~nd there
were only about 10 vehicle.~ in ~he parking lot this morning.
Commissionec Herbst stated this ia ovec what the Commission has been allawing
and indicated he was concecned what the motel operator would do when he ran
out of F~rking spa~es.
Mr. Chai steted they have nevet had a packing prot~lem. He etated there ~re
also perking spaces at the restaurant and that they do share the parking.
Commissionec Herbst atated next year rhe Olympirs will be hece and thece will
be mote cars and moce ~eople. He explained the Commiasion also looke at some
o£ the motels' parking lots and sometimes they ~re full and 408 ia more than
the Commiseion has normally approved.
Mr. Chang stated they do have a cestaurant ac'~~acent to the motel and they park
on each othec's aite and he thought the~ do !~ave a recorded agceement.
Commissioner Herbet 8tated a legal parking :~greement muet be recorded before
it can be con~idered by the Commieaion.
Dean Sherer, J~s~sociate Planner, explained the parking was figured on the basis
that it could be shaced between the resta~arant and hotel and that 40i is the
overall shortaqe with the restaurant.
Commissioner King atated the Traffic Engineer pointed out the parking
facilitiea are not adequate.
Paul Singec, Tr'ffic Engineer, stated if the applicant would not count the
cestaurant parking, hie percentaga would be higher because it is the
restaurant which is actually sboct. ez added he has asaumed there is a
reciprocal parking agreement. He etated if the restaucant property was
eli~inated, the waivec rPquest would only be 22g inatead of 40~.
Commissioner Bushoce aeke~f if the ceataurant was given a varianee foc their
parking shortage and Paul Singec rep2ied the restauran*. wa~a approved under the
old parking ordinancea and the new ordinance has a much higher ratio for
MINUT~B. 1-tiAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION, MAY~2`,_I983 83"~~5
teataurente. He ekated he ie not in favor of any packing weivers being
gcantrd, but wt~ntod to b~ auce the Commiaeion waH eware oP the f~ars.
Commiesioner euehore clarifie~ thece are 86 perking etalls fac 100 rooma end
that doea include the resteur,~nt with the reatewre+nt cequiring 62 apacea elone
and the motel requiriny 81 spacee. Mr. Chang sf:ated it ie impoeaible to
separete the twa uees.
Paul Singec atated esaentially the findinga of the parking atudy were: 'The
Study has examined existing parkinq chardctecietice oE the Sandmen Motel end
evaluated proposed ex~aneion plena. The exlef:ing facility wae found to have a
peak pdtking demand ratio of .63 spaces per accupied rooms inr.luding pArking
for the t+djacent coffre ahop. With proposed expAneion the motel/coffee shop
combineCion waul~ have a ra~io of .8b spaces'. He atated there ia adequate
pariciny far the .86 spacea per room if the restaurant is included end it wes
found (the study was condureed during the we~ekend Sepkembec 1, 2- and 5th)
that based upon existing perk3nq characteriatica and previoue motel parking
studies, that thp proposed plen would be adequate. The propoaed plan aleo
provides fo~ two ,~ue parking and 229~ ~~enie'~`I spaces. He atated the traffic
engineer for *w~~ study wxs not abie to separate the restaurant pt~rking from
the rnotel paTK-: ~..
Mr. Chang ~=,`~4; •-n !`~he weekend of February 19th which Was a l~ng weekend, on
Saturdsy m~r~~~~°,"~y ""~~ had 74 raoms occupfed with nnly 46 cara in the parY.ing
lot which ~^~ uda~ r'~ mo~el gueat~ and cuskomers in the cestaurant.
Commies~ ~~~ `~:s"ivre atated the sQaces needed for the cPStaucant ace not
subtra4cF~: ~u{ ~~re added and he diil not think it is a proper parking srudy so
the peti:~s~~ ~ts the best of both worlds. He stated the figures do not add
up.
Reapf~nd~~r!`. r~c Ctammissioner Bushore, Dean Sherer, Associate Planner, ceviewed
parking*r~si~rs for other motela ir. the atea as included in the traffic study
as follvr~~: ~Carousel, .66; Sands, .96; Tcopicana, .80; Rip Van WinKle, .73;
Westwar~ ~o-, .751s Lucky 7, •72t International, .56j a~nd indicated those ace
the ~re~i=~+s studies showing the percentagea of used parking spaces p[epared
by ~9esL~u+ ~+aingle Associates.
Chairsan -~ y sta•.ed it wuuld appear that they are just trying to overbuild the
prcgaerty:: that ossibly they do have a heavy tour businesa, but he~ did not
thi~~. triat sho ld dictate to the Cotamission complete disrespect for the
par~ing ~Code with 143 parking apacea and 86 proposed.
Deari 5herer pointed out 67$ ie the maximum waiver given by the Planning
Ganimission and t•hat restaurants were included in some of the approvats. Mr.
Sherer apologized for the Commission not receiving a copy of the trdffic study
in their packets. He explained the list of parking veria~nces was not included
in the ataff re~ort becAUSe ataff was trying to avoid approval based on
previoua actions and if a waiver is to be granted under the new par~cing
ordinance, it sbauld be granted on the basis of a study which has been
suDmitted to the Traffic Engineer and Planning Commission for evaluation for
khat particular project, rather than the hardehip findings made in the past
and all those motels whfch were grAnted waivere were based an a statement ftom
MIN~T~B~ 1-N~HEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION. MAY 2. 1983 8J-276
the applicant thet e percentege of guesta acrive by trensporCation modee other
than automobilea.
Commisaioner Buahore atated ha wante to compere whether or not other motela
which were epproved had e reskeuron~ in conjuncL•ion with them and noted the
Commiasion is not tied to the 67t Eigure, but he ia concerned beceuae thie
petitioner alre~dy hee the edventege of the new pArking ordinance which gives
him a greeter edvAntage and he ia aAKing for much more than the 67t.
Chairman Fry ateted it oppears he would heve about 1~ unite too many.
Dean Sherer euggested the petitioner request a contin~~ance so he can dec.ide
whether or not ko redeaign the plens and also to give ateff an opportunity to
present the tcaffic atudy to the Commissiun for their review.
Commiasionec Buehoce ref.erred to the recommenddtion that the petitioner entec
into a future parking assesament district serving the commerr_ial recreation
area around Dieneyland and asked how that coul~ be enfocced.
Commiasionec Hecbst suggesCed the petitioner request a two-w~ek continuance
since the Commisaion hae not seen the traffic atudy and alao in ocder for the
developer to aee if there is any way to add more parking. He stated he wents
to see thfs development, but would like to see a break-down as to how many
apaces are requi*ed because he did not want to penalize the restaurant.
Commiosioner Bus~~ore stated he would 21ke to know for aure whether or nAt
there is a rpciprocal packing agceement between the restaurant and motel.
John eig, SMC Motor Inns, stated they awned and operated subject property from
1974 to 1982, when it was sold to this petitionec- r.nd they found they had to
turn away some of the tours because they did not heve enough cooms and also
the Carrows cestaurant is very busy, howevec, they did not experience any
problems with patking during their operation nf the property. He stated he
would assume the operator can fill the 26 rooms with tours.
Mr. Chai r~queaked a two-week contfnuance.
ACTION: Commisaioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commieaianers La Claire bnd McBucney absent), that
consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the
regularly-scheduYed meetinq of May 16, 1983, at the request of the petitioner.
ITEM NO. 10. ESR C~TE~ORIGALLY EXEMPT-CL1~SS 5. AND VARIANCE NO. 3333
PUHLIC HEARING. OWNBRS: PETER GWOSDOF, ET AL, 1695 W. Crescent Avenue,
~naheim, CA 92801. AGENT: TERRY MECHLING, 1172 S. Coast Highway, Laguna
Beach, CA 92651. Pruperty described as a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land
conaisting of approximately 0.2 acre, 872 S. Harbor 8oulevard.
Waiver of minimum sideyard setback to construct an office building.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a taotion, seconded by Commissio~er 9ouas
and MOTION CP-RRIEn (Commissioners Le~ Cleire and McBurney absent), that
consideration ot the afo=ementioned maetter be continued to the
regul~rly-scheduled meeting of May 16, 1983, at the request of the petitioner.
MSNUTE AN~NEI CITY PLANNING COMMI SION M/1Y 2 1A83 83'Z~~
ITEM N0. 11
R~PORTS AND RBCOMMENDATIONS
~. TENTATIYE TRACT N0. 10983 - Request Erom K~ufman and Broa~9, Inc., for
approval of cevised specific plene far pcoperty located at the eouth~aet
cornec of Santa ~na Cenyon Roed and Weir Ceny~n Road.
Dean Sherer, Asaociete Planner, explained this i~ e request for epproval
of revised plans for a previoualy ~pproved trdct on the Beuer Ranch on
the eaet eide of Weir Canyon Koad.
RobeCt Galloway- KauEman ~ Hcoad, Ine. ateted they have cequeated this
oppoctunity to preaent the Plenning Commiasion with a new product far
Area No. 5 of the Bauer Ranchs that they master planned thiA ared some
yeers ago and two yeecs ago were rerdy to atact moving dirt nnd wece
telking about buildiny a duplex unit and the zoning is RM-2400 which is
for tental type productst and since they wanted to sell the units they
were developing under thp RM-3000 ordinancest that e duplex is an
attached zero lot line unit with a common wall and baoed on the original
market atudy they had a lerger unit, but now the macket is not for lacgec
units, but smaller unite with more amenitiea auch as vaulted ceilings,
atrium~, etc. and something that is basically affo~dable ar eomething
people can qu~lify to buy and pceferably ia to avoid common we11s. He
steted this ie a new conGept whfch does not have common wdlls and the
size ie reduced to 950 to 1200 square feet, but the units are widec than
previouely propoaed (35 feet i~etead of 25 f4et) and that the lots are
the same size and they are not changing the aite plans. He stated they
are ceady to proceed. He atated the RM-3000 Code indicates that the
unlta can be attached ot semi-ettacfied and they really want to get the
defin3tion of what semi-attached meang since there is no definition in
the Code.
Peter Ladden, architect, presented exhibits displayed on the wall and
explained they previously had a subdivieion of 35-foot wide lots in Area
5 and by keeping the lot widths the same and with the garages placed on
the left aide of the property lot, the unit would have a 15-foot frontage
and the entry is exposed to the street and the advantage of this is that
you don't aee 44 feet of garage with two garages side by side. He added
this concept provided more outdoor living and they are providing an
anti-court and masonry wnll with gate with the livable acea more on the
side than on the back so each owner hae more privacy and m~re outdoor
area. ~e stat~d they would r~ever repeat more tha~ four of these 1-atocy
units in a row.
Mc. Galloway referred to item No. 5 of the staff report which refers to
the developer's proposal to construct detached condominiums i.nstead uf
attached ~a required by Code and stated the Gode aays attached or
semi-~ttached. Also, the plana show lots of 3500 square feet which ie
the same as before and the lot coverage figure8 as shown in the staff
report are incorrect at 45B and it is nctually 34 to 37e which will
provide room for expansion. He added he thought the drainage problem
c~uld be resolved with gurters or easements, etc.
83-218
MINUT~S. ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 2, 1983
Mr. Gallcway re~erred to Item No. 7 in the etaff cepoct which mentions
aemi-~ttached end re~exred to the referpnce that the developec ia eeeking
to develop a sub-etandacd singlAiaap~ga8 withVnoiusableeopennepeceBmaHee[
end narrowec lota ~nd mi~imum Y
painted out wikh gmaller unite the people w~uld Ximate1c930taof thee
uaable yn~d ereas snd the green epacea are app Y
aite. He atated not less Lhan 25~ of the entire 400 actes of the ranch
is open space which is part of the original condition.
He teferred to Item No. 8 of r.he ~:eff repoct which camparea this pcoject
to a project in Yorba Linda and he did not think thie compares because
that prciect has cacpocte with manufactured units and this project will.
have two-car garages and conventionnl conatruction.
Mr. Galloway stdGed Item No. 9 of the staff repoct mentions the need Fnr
a variance, but he thought with a proper definition of semi-attached, a
variance would not be requiced. He atated the unlts would be tied
togethe[ by either e roof ot by wallu. He stated they feel this would be
a better pco~ect with a better stceet acene and they would like to move
dirt by the firat quarter of next year. He referred ko the last sentence
of paregtaph No. 9 pertaininq to a deve~opment agreement whereby ehe cost
of the dwe111ngA to Euture purchasers Lwouldefixntheupricea andQmaterials
suitably re9ulated. He asked how they
and asked why this is being requested.
Commissioner Herbst atated he lives in Lake Summit which ia a zero lot
line patio type home development; howevec, it ie on a private atreet wiCh
adequete off-stceet parking and a homeowne~'s association which controls
the landacaping. He stated this developmNnt b~~thers him b~cause it abuts
a public etseet and he thought there would be b~~ttec control with private
stceeta because there would not be the through ttaffic with people
circulating Around the area. He stated th~y hwhecheise9uiteeadequate and
designated in their project Eor gueat packing
the concept works and zeco lot line projects ace needed. He stated thece
ie not room in eh~heeidea~ofFall~thengarages[coming outjontpublicsstreete
he does not lik
and it could be redesigned with private streete.
Kendte Morries, Associa~e Planner, presented n slide pr~sentation of
several projects in this area, aointing out it is staff'-3 desice to ahow
the difference in the attached and detached ithouaing8to bendeveloped in
Rtaff is primacily concerned with the typ
the Santa Antt Canyon area.
Commissioner Bushoce left the meeting at 5:3~ p.m. and did n~t return.
The slidea included a plot plan of the prapased pro~ect and Ms. Morries
indicated that the eaves of t~rtmenteindicates ihat leta problemabecauae
property and the Building Dep
of the drainaqe and also staff feela it is a ptoblem because of
aesthetica; indian 8ills, unincorporated acea of Riverside, called
MINUTE3. ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION ~ M~Y_2, 19~3 83-279
Edet Meedowa done by Keutmen i Bcoad which is a~ingle-femily detached
project at 6.3 units pec ncce with lot aiz~s co~parable to those propoeed
in this project and unit eizes from 1,037 to 1,534 equare f.eet at a price
rAnge of ~65,000 to s81,000t Green Hillfi, Yorba Linde by ~.usk Homea, e
eingle-family deteched pro~ect at 5.5 unlta per ecre with :~ta renging
from 4,OU0 to 6,900 aquere feQt And the unit sizes 1028 to 1123r Vista
Filare, lrvine, deteched single-family wikh 2,625 squece f~et minimum lot
aize, 35 foot by 75 font lots and the unit aizes 1,058 to 1,589 square
feek with a aelling pcice of ~128,000 to $154,000 with accesa off a
pcivate atteet to the ceacl Coltage Nomea, Icvine b.y Braadmoor,
~ingle-family deteched at 8.1 unita per Acre, 36 foot by 84 foot minimum
lot eize with unite acceaeed off a central courtyard: Singing Wooda,
~naheim Hills, single-family attached project with private skreetsJ
another pco~ect right down the street Dy Singing Wooda off Mountain Loop
Treil and Scout Trail with zero lot line ak 4.4 units per acrei another
sinql~-family attached ttact i~ Irvine ~~ith zera lot 11ne with a lake and
heavy landecaping buffer~ an exAmple of an RS-5000, Tract No. 6220, Via
Arboles, Anaheim Hills, single-family dt~tached, with lota 50 feet wide
with some common landecaped areas.
Chalrman Fry asked why this was not set 1'or a public hearing because it
is completely :hanging the basic concept as far as unit aizes and also
chnnging design fcom detached to aemi-attached, etc. Commiasioner Hecbst
agreed there should be a pub~ic hearing.
Annika Santalahti, Assiatant Directoc foc 2oning- explained the developec
feels the aemi-attact~ed nature with [oofs ~~ttactied would yualify the
project for the condominium zoning and it ie ata£f's poaition that in
ordec to qualify, the units would have to be aktached in a more
subatantial manner.
Chairman Fry gtated he would not expect: to see somebody's roof dcair.?ng
onto a neiyhbor's property.
Commisaioner HPrbat stated with a zero lot line concept, it would be hard
not to have that happen, pointing out that does occur in the project
where he lives an; their lots are about 35 feet wide.
Commissioners King and Bouas agreed that ttiis should be set for public
hearing.
Mr. Galloway stated they wanted to informr~lly explain thia concept to the
Commission because they feel it is a nice project and unfortunately the K
~ B project ehown in the slide was undec conatruction and did not give a
good appearance.
Annika Sentalahti atated if the Planninc~ Commission looks Lavnrably upon
thia kind of project with smaller units and amall lots~ perhaps the Code
should be amended to permit auch a pro~ect.
~ ~,
MINUT~8,J ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~AY 2. 1983 __ 83-280
Joel Fick, Asaietent Director for plenning, steted th~t waa diecuesed
because ateff did not know what type of heering to edvertiae beaauae ~he
developer very ademantly maintainad their type of houeing wea a~tached
hou3ing or rt leAbt aemi-attached and, therefore, not aub)ect to the
requiremente of e mingle-femily zone ~nd it ie etaff's poaition thet Code
emendmenta waul~ b~ required to proc~as that type of houai.ng.
Commiesionec Herb~t etated he did not even like aome of the alidee ehown
end thought the pro~eck could be better de~eloped with private etreets
and with more lendsceping and with the help of the homeowners asaocietion
to control the traffic pcoblems. He stated maybe it should be built with
privete atreets because the public street standerds are more stringent.
He atated he l~ves in a pntio home and nwns hia own lot and houae and he
likes this concept.
Mr. G~lloway atated private atreets generate a need foc a homeownec'a
association becauae it puta the people in a position of maintaining their
~~wn streeta. He atated they ace definitely tryiny to get away from
having a homeownera associationr and that there will not be an
association.
~nnika Santalahti stated the standatda in terms of denaity with the lot
aize and unit eizes ace under the condoTinium zone and that is the way
staff will consider it, Pxcept they are wanting detached unita.
Commiasioner Herbat asked how the units could be conai.dered detached
homes if they are attached in any way. He asked what the developec means
by aemi-attached. Mr. Galloway stated the coof-lines are attached but
felt these should be consideced as semi-attached and that fite insurance
would be handled the same as it would be Eor a duplex with a commor~ wall.
Commissioner Herbst stated this City doeo not have an ord:nance to deal
with what this developec wants to do.
Jack White explained he underatands that K s B is here koday to ge
approval of these revioed plans as a requirement of the appcove~ of
the tract map and it is theic contention that this is a se.ai-attached
configuration and the Municipal Code refera to three different types of
units in the RM-3000 2one (attached, detached and semi-attAChed);
however, there is no definit~on of these three types of units. He stated
the devel~per is saying what they have is aemi-attached unita and under
the Code they would be allowpd to build ~ccording to the RM-3000
standard, but ~1 if they are conaideced detached, they would be allowed
to build in this zone but according to the RS-5000 standacds which would
require eithec 50 foot lote or they would have to apply for a variance.
He stated the Planning Department ataff feela thPSe are not semi-attached
units, so they have to conform to the 50-foot lot line requirement or
obtain a variance.
Commissioner Herbst stated when the condominium ardinance was adopted, it
was primarily for condominiums and was not intAnded to permit detached
homes ~nd the condominium projects require homeowner's asaociations to
~aaintain the alopes and Asked who will m~intain the slo~es in this
project.
MINUT68. I~N~HEIM CITY PL NINO COMMI88ION MAY 1 1983 6~,-~81
Mr. 0alloway ~tated thrre would be a homeowner'• association t~ mainta~n
the elopee and open spaca.
Commiesioner Hecbat atAted all theee narroa lote will back out onto e
public stceet and he felt condominium project velues are maintained by
the a4aocietion end he could aee wher~ thio could become s deteriorated
eree in a vecy ahort time. H~ atated he thought thia rhou~d be aet for
public hearing ao the developer can come in with e set of plana end e
copy of CCi Ra .
Mr. Gallowa~y etated they heve all ot thet in the previous ~pproval of
thie map and they have CC~R~ to be submitted.
Jack White atated he ia concerned about setting thie for public heering
becduee thie requoat is Eor approval of cevlsed preciae planP and the
interpretation of th~ Code and neither of thoae matters re~~ice a public
hearing, but the Commisaion mAy contemplete eetting a public hedring to
rehear the tcact map oc a v~cience.
Commiasioner Aerbet atated he would like to aee the tract revised.
Jack White stated the only thing before the Commission today is epproval
or disapproval of. the revised speciEic plens and it ia up to the
developec to decide where he wante to gA Lrom there and ea part of that
appcoval, the Commiasion is being asked to make a Code interpretdtion ae
to whethec or not this is semi-ett+~ched or ettached housing and bdaed on
thar. interpretation, appr~ve or disappcove the specific plans.
Commiasioner Herbst stated it eounds like it ehould be consideced
attached houeing.
1~nnika Santelahti atated atAff interpreted that when aomething ie
attached in any form, then it ^ould1bearemoved9andianything1501norimoret
an architeckural design which
is attached and anything leas would be semi-attached.
Chairman Fry atated the C~mmisaion should direct steff to come up with a
definition of semi-ettached.
Mc. Galloway stated he would like to have Pn answec es snon as posaible
because he has been waiting on the market to change so he could at~rt
these units. Be stated they are propoaing 160 units.
Jack i~hite stated Planning ataff and the City 1-ttorney's Office wtll get
together er~~1 almoat definitely come up with interpretation that this
development doea not meet the definiti.on of attached or eemi-attac-~.~
housing and maybe this petitionar would pcef~r the Commisaion take actinn
ao he can appeal the decision to the City Cauncil if necesaery.
Mr. Galloway stated if they had a definition similac to what Annika
Santalahti had desccibed wherein 50t Would be conaidered attached, and
anything leas would be aemi-attached, then they could design a project
with that defin:tion in mind.
T '
1 1
93-zas
1T68 1-Nl1HBI CITY PJ+ANNINt3 COMM288I4N M1-Y 2 983 ,
Annika Sant~lAhti explained the PlanningCBn~:commendaapprovalnto thar in ,
two week• and iE it is acceptable, they
City Council the followinq week and they could introduca AQ~irPe~iodeief
they like the answer et About khe same time the 22-deY PP
over. She stated Mc. Gallaway wae cor~ect in his figurea on the 45• lot
cove[agt in the stof~c~e~~euee~oEltheecost and edmittedlyi~hatQproduct
the Yorba Linda pc j
is modulec type housing.
1-CTION; Commiasioner Heebsk oEfeced ~ mo~:ion, seco~ded by Commisaioner
Bouae and MOTION C1-RRIED (Commiesionere &uahoce, La Cleire end McBur~ey
ebaent)r thet the 1-nah~fiCevisedpepecificCpldneefoc Tenta~tivebTCactyNohe
requ~at foc appcoval
10983 on the ba818coved planaeforlthisatrdctbskankielly diffecent than
the originally app
Commiasioner HexbsC oEfered a motian, seconded by Commiasioner Bouas end
MOTION CI-RRIED (Commisaionere Buahore, La Cleire end Mrecommendbtunthe
that the Anaheim City Planning Commieaion doee heceby
Pldnning Depa~rtment $taff thdt clarified definitione of attached,
detached and aemi-dttached housing units be submitted to the Commiseion
with~n two weeks.
Ron Thompson, Planning Director'Counciltsdcevieweauch daclis~thisethen or
reasons foc denial for the City ~
type of housing the Commiseion wanta to see in the area, etc.
Commiasioner Herbat stated he doe+~ ~~hadikcivateustreetacwith CCSR'stU
the public street and if the projec P
then it may be an adequate product. He noted the Robin Hill Deve1coundt
was juet denied by the City Council. He stated there ace no playg
facilities and very sm~ll lot sizes and he felt a homeowner's asaociation
should be conaidered.
g. C~NDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. ~~211ocated~nt 1460 NarRed~Gum1Stceet.An
extension of time for prope Y
ACTION: CommiasiC~RlEDngCommie8aonerst8u~shorecoLaeClaire~andsMcHucney
Boua~s and MOTION
absent), th~at thenAQfh~imeCfor ConditionalmUseBPermiteNo.e2321 toaexpire
one-year extensio
on MeY 17, 1984.
ADJOU:tNM~NT: There bea~96n00fprmhec business, Chairman Fry ~djourned the
meeting
Reapectfully aubmitted,
~ •
~ ~
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planc~ing Commisaion
BLH:lm
0504H