PC 1984/02/22REGULAR MEET_ING OF THB ~NAHEIM GITY QLANNING COMMISSYON
ItEGULAR MEETING The re~)ulac meeting of the Anaheim City plannin~
Commission was called to order by Chaicwoman Bouas ~t
10:~0 a.m., Nebruary 22, 1984, in the Council Chamber, a
quorum being present and the Commission reviewed plen~ of
the ~tems on today's agen~a.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RE(:ONVENE: 1:38 p.m.
PRESENT Cl:airwoman: Bouas
C.ommissioners: Buahore, Fry, King, La Claire, McBurney
AB5F.NT ~~ommisstoners: Herbst
ALSU PRESENT Annika Santalahki
Joel Fick
Jack White
Paul Singer
Jay Titua
.Tay 'lashiro
Kendra Morrles
Edith Harris
Assiatant Director foc 2oning
Assistank D~ rector Ec~r Plani~ing
Assisl•ant City AtturnPy
TcAffic Engineer
Office Engineer
Associate Planner
As~istant Planner
Planning Commission 5ecretary
APPROVAL OP M'!I~UTES: Commi~sionr~r King ofEered a motion, sECanded hy
_._._ .._ ~
Commissioner i,a Claire and MO'I'IOM CARRIED (Commisaioner Herbst abaent , t at
the min~.~tes ~.~f the meetinq of February 6, 1984, be approved a~ submitted.
ITEM_NO. 1.. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3361
PUBLIC HBA.:tING. OWNERS: DAVID C. BOOMS, 229 S. Loara Street, Anaheim, CA
92802. AC•.~NT: OSCAR E. WHITBBOOK, P.O. Box a14, Yocba Linda, CA 92686.
Prooerty ciescribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
a~proximateiy 0.53 acre, 21~9 5outh Loara Street.
Waivers of minimum lot area and minimum lot width to establi~h a 2-lot
subdivi.3lon.
Continued from the Planning Commission meetings of Oc~.~4e~c 31, 1983, Januaty
~, 23 and February 6, 1984.
ACTION: CammisFioner King c~ffexHd a motion, seconded by Commiasioner F:y an@
MOT7U:+ CI~F«tYED (Commi~sionex Herbst absent), thak sub;ect getition be
withdraw~ at the applic:ant'~ request.
84-75
2/22/84
:,.
MINUTES ~ ANAFI~IM C'i7'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 22, 19a4~ 84-76
I~EM N0. 2. ENVI1tUNMENTAL IMPACT R6PORT N0. 256 (PREV. APPRO~i6~~N~IVER OF
CUDE REQUIR~MEN'P ANU CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT t~n. 2541
PUBLIC HEAR7NG. OWNERS: KAISER DEVELOPMGNT COMPANX~ ATTN: ~'L.TNTU~ UAVIS,
P.U. Box 308, Carlabad, CA 92008. Pr.orerty described as an irr~~u~ar.ly-shaped
paccel ~f land ~onsisting ot approximately 37.2 acres located a~ khe aouthwest
cucner of SAf1tA Ana Canyon Road end Wcir Canyon Road.
To pecmik an l~i~lot, planned commercial office and lig!~t indu~trial complex
that includes ~ hotel, restaurant and drfve-through f.inan~:i~l institution witti
waiver of. moxf.mum building h~:ight.
ACTION: Comn~,issianec King otfeced a motion, aeeonded by Cc~m~uis:sianer Le
Claire and MOTION CARRIED (Commissi~nec Herbst ak>aent) kh~t c~nsideration of
aubject petition be continued ko the cegularly-s;heduled r~c~eting of March 5,
1'~84, at thE~ applicant'R request.
ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONAII'I~Ot7AL USE PEF'M1T N0. 2538
4WNER: RQBERT L, WtTZLER AND ETHEL L. WE'PZLER, 317e~ Px~~o '"erra2a, San Juan
~a~istrAno, CA 9"1675. ACGNT: ROBIN OIL COMPANY, AT~'1~: 'fO1~Y E3RISTOL, P.O.
Box 3H67, Soutti E1 Monte, CA 91733. Property is de~cribed as a
rer.t~ngularl,y-shAped ~arcel of land consistinq of apFG~xa.mately 0.5 acre
located at the northeast corner of Eiall Road and 6each uc~ulsvard, 934 South
Beach Boulevt~rd.
To perm:t a convenience market with gasoline saleH and aff-sale beer and wine.
ThPre was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest
and although the sCaff report was not read, it i~s referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
James A. Bristol, agent, 1903 N. Durfee, E1 E4onte, explained they propose to
convect an existiny 3-bay automobile repair shop fnto a convenience store with
off-sale beer and wine and to move the existing cashier's booth into the
building.
THE PUBLIC HEARING h'AS CI.USED.
It was clarified that the station is currently being operated as a repair Fhop
only without the gasoline sal~s.
Mr. 5ristol rE^ponded to Cammisnioner Bust~ore that he was aware nf Plannfng
Commission's atcitude regar~ing the s~~~.e of alcoholi.c beverages with the sal~
oE gasoline.
ACTICN: Commi.ssioner aushoce offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King
and MOTION CARRIBD (Commis~ioner Herbst absent), that the Anaheim City
Pla~ni.ny Ccmmission has reviewed the groposal to permit a convenience mark^t
with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine on a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.50 acre located at the northeast
cotner of Ball Raad and eeact; 9oulevard and furtt~er described as 934 South
Heach Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon _indfng
2/?.2/84
MINU.'ES, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNIN~ COMMIbSION, PEBRUARY 22, 1984 84-77
that it has con~id~red the Negative Decla:ation together with any comments
receivod during th~ public review pr~cege rnd Eurther finding on the i~asis o[
tlie Initial Stucly l~nd any commenta received that there ia no •ubatantiul
evidence that tha pro~ect will liave u significant effect on the environment.
CQmmisaioner T~uah~r~ offared Resolueion No. E~C64-28 and mov~d for its passage
and adoNl•ion that the Anaheim Ci~y Planning Commisaion does hereby deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 2538 on the ba:.•is that retAil sales would include
of~`-~+ale beFC c~nd wino in a convenl~r~ce market witti gasoline ~ales and with
the acceasibility o!' the beer and wine in conjunction with the eale of
gasoline to fuel vet~l.cle~ driven on City streeta could create a dAngerous
situetion with peraona drinking a~nd driving and Eurther, that the approval nf
th~ Qroposecl dual u~~~ on the property could create an undeaicab.le precedent.
On coll call, the foreyoing rssolution wa~ paAS~ed by the following vote:
AYES: BUUA5, RUSHOEtF~ FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BUF2NEY
NOES; tJ~NE
ABSEN'i': HERBST
Jack White, Assiatant City Attocney, pre8enteci the written right to appea.l the
Planniny Commission's decision wi~tiin 22 da,ys to the City Council.
ITEM NU. 4. EIk NEGATIVI: DECLARATION AND CUNDITIONAI, USE PERMI'I' N0. 25~9
PUBLI(: HEARING. OWNERS: SHELL OIL COMPANY, till North BroAkhur.~t Street, P.G..
Box 4848, Anaheim, CA 928U3. AGENT; TGM E. MGItRIS, c/o FRANCAIS ENGINE~P.INE;,
53U0 Urange Avenue, Sui.te 221, Cypce~s, CA 90630. Property described as an
ircegularly-shaped paccel c~f land cnnai~tir~g of appcoximately 0.4 acre,
located at the Bouthwest corner of Lincoln 4venue and eroakiiurat Str.eet, lUl
South i~cookhurst St:set (Sh~ll Oi1).
To permit a cain-operated car wash in an existing service station.
There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
requesk and although the staff. repoKt was not read, it is referred to and made
a part r~f the minutes.
Tom Morris, Francais Engineering, ayent, stated the praject is to renovate an
existing Shell service station and add ~ free cbt wash ~hich will be a
drive-through facility with no nqise-producing blowers.
HPnry Catalona, LD Minor Properti~.;, stated they own and operate the adjacenk
bowling alley and his n~ain concern is whether the traf.fi.c flow would be
through khe ste.lls ont~ Linco7.n Avenue or back onto Brookhur~t.
Neil De Ruyter, 2230 W. Lincoln, sta~ed he owns thP self-~ervice car wash
which is about 250 feet ~rest oE the property and he thought this lot is very
small and there is only ane parking place. He stated he h~s 20 parking spaces
on his lot for people wno want ko dry their vehicle and adJed he thought
unless the operator of the bowling alley is willing to allow th~ir customers
to park on their lot to dry th~eir vehicles, there will be no pl~ce for them to
stop after their cars are washed. He stated there are a lot of car washes in
that area and thought another one would just exaggerate the market.
2/22/84
MINUTES, ANAHE_IM__CSTY Pi,ANNING CUMMISSION. FEbRUARY 22, 198A _ 84-78
Mr. Morrip stated the tcaffic flow w.i.ll not be significAntly changed fro~ whak
is existing nowJ that two drive~ays are pcovided on Hcookliurst and two on
Lincnln and that Shell tiaa aqreed to inst.all a 20U-foot lonq median on
~roakhucat to restrict left-hand turns oLf eroakhur~t into khe facility and tn
restrict left-hend turns out ni the f~cility onto arookhurat and thought this
would bc a aatiafactocy aclution to the tratfic problem. He ctated this ia An
existing faciliLy and the only ct~ange ie a amA].1 drive-tt~rough car waah.
Mr. Morris stated they ~riginal.l.y indieated there would be two employees on
the site, but h~ve ch~nged that to one; and that norm~lly this type facility
is run b; a single em~loyee and that Chey have provided one pecmanen~ parking
~pace for that person. He added, generblly pe~ple do not want to stup thefr
cars after the~~ a[e washed And that has not been a probl~am at similar
facilities they currently operate. He expl~~ined the cars are washed with
dionizeU w~ater which aJmost eliminatea the nee~ to dry it. Ne stated there is
room prov+ded at the exit where a car could park and added that Shell has no
p].ans to provide any drying material~ and wi.ll enco~rage drivers to exit and
dtive oLf immediAtely. He stated thia ia not a coin-operated car wash and it
will be Eree t~ their custumeca. Ne ex~lAined the cAr Wash is just a series
of bruahes with wa~er and a very low concentration ot deteryent and does not
c~ompare favorably with the self-aecvice car wash.
Mr. C•3~alona etated the n~tic~ indicates lt~is wil~ be a coin-operated car wash
and stated if r.he median is extended on Brookhucst, it will not perrnit hi~
customers to come into his dciveway going north on ~eookh~rst. He explained
they have parki~g ~roblems now; that they did meet lh~ County reyuirements far
parking when they got their permit 26 yeArs ago, but with the a~actments in
the area and ather intcusions, the:e i~ a parkinq burden on the bo~ling
center. Fle stated ttie petitioner still has not answered his question as to
which way the traffic will flow.
Commissioner Bushore pointed out the plana ~how the traffic flow. Mr.
De Ruyker stated the pe~itioner has indicated they will only have one operator
and he has gone to similar facilities at Lincoln and State College ~~nd there
were three peopie operating that facility and stated he felt they should have
parking fnr ttie employees and customers who want t.o dcy their vehicles on the
premise:;.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS GLOSED.
C~mmissioner Bushore stated he did not think t~affic wuuld be a pcoblem for
the neighbars and that the median is needed anyway. He stated he is familiar
with the car wa~h At Lincoln and StaL•e College and has nevec seen anyone
stopping to dry their car.
Commissioner La Claire stated she ha~ used this type facility and knows they
da work and that normally people are discouraged from parkir.g on the premisea
and that she has neveL act~ally seen anyone stap. She asked if the petitioner
w~uld st~pulate to instruct the employees to advir~e customers not to park on
the premises ta dry their vehicles. Mr. Morris cesponded that would be up to
the diECretion of the manager of the car wash and he rea:.ly cannat peedict how
people will respond after washing their car. He stated there is ample room to
stop just outside the exit of the car wash, if someone really wants to dry
2/22/84
(
MINUmES. ~NAHEIM CITY PLJINNING COMMISSION, F~BRUARY_22~ 1y84 84-74
theiK cAr. H~ pointed out the acea referred to on the exl~ibit. He atoted it
has been hie experience th~t people drive oway immediately. He odded there
will not bp a continuous flow oE cara through the car waah and he ha~ never
seen a situation whQre thece wae a back-~p of. vehicles at the gas pumpA.
Commi.saioner La Claire atated there is not enough roon for caKa to etop and if
Lhey did stop, they would block the dciveway. She ntat.ed she wnuld like to
see a sign poated to keep people from parking l•here. Commisaioner Bushore
atbted the plans r~re deaigned to di~cauraqe people from atop~inq.
Commissioner King statod he has never aeen a trafEic jam At Lincoln and State
College.
Reaponding t~ Chaicwomnn eouas, Mr.. Marris stat~~~9 it takes about three minutes
~o go througt~ tP~e car wash and ex;lained they do tiave vac~uma at other
facilitiae, but have found people do not usc chem, 8o there will be no
provieion for. a vucuum at this faci.li.ty.
c:ommissionex La Claire stated she t,as seen people park in strange places and
block traEfic. Commissioner Bushore asked Che peti.tioner to stipulate to
place a ~ign to indicate that no stoppinc~ is allow~d on the driveway which he
did.
ACTION: Commisaioner 6uahore off.eced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTICIN CARRi~:b (Commissioner Nerbst absenh), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission t~as reviewed the proposal to permit a coin-operated car
wash in an existing service statio~i on an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.4 acre, located at• the aouthwest corner of
Lincoln Avenue and ecookhurst Street and f~rther d~scribed as 101 S.
Brnokhurst Street (Shrll Uil); and does t~ereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon findir;g khat it has considered the Negative Declatation
together with any commer~ts receLved during the public review process and
fucther firdir.g on the bmsis of the initial Study and any comments received
that there ls no substant;al evidence that the Qroject will have a significant
effc~ct an the environment.
Comr.~issioner Bushore offered Resolution No. PC84-29 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planr~ing Commission does hereby gcant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2539 subject to the petieioner'a stipulation to
provide a sign indicating no par.king allowed i~~ the drivQway and subject to
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
Jack White explained an additional condition would he addEd requiring that
prior to final building and zoning inapections, the property o~aner would post
and maintain at all times, a sign specifying there shc~ld be no parking or
sto~ping at the driveway location.
On r~,ll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fa.ilowing vot~:
AYES: AOUAS, BUSHOR~, FRY, KING, LA Ci,AIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, pr~sented the written right to appeal thQ
Planniny Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
2/22/84
MINUT~S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FGHKUAKY 22. 1984 , 84-80
IT~M NU. 5. GIR N~GATIVE DECLAkATIQN AND CONDITIONAL U5F. PERMIT N0. ~54U
F~BLIC HEARING. t?WNGRS: SAM J. WIGLIAMS, 112 Eaat Commonwealth Avenue,
Fullerton, CA 92632. AGENT; TUNX MARt;E3tUM, 535 S~uth Ranchview Circle, t71,
Anaheim, CA 929U7. Propert,y de~cribed u~ a rect~nyul8cly-A~IA~Qd ~dLC~J of
land conaiatiny of approximately 2.4 acrea, 2131. Weat Lincoln Ave~ue.
To permit on-sale ~eer in a~ropas~d family amuaement center witt~ 102 packinq
gpacea.
There was na one .indica~ing their prr.sence in c,pposition to subject reques~
and aithough the st:aEf report was not read, it is referred to And made a p~rt
of the ntinutes.
Steve Moore, real estate brokec for the cwner & agent, 39U6 E. Chapmdn Avenue,
Orange, 92669, expl~~ined tlie petit.ioner is proposing an indoor family
Untertainment centec whict~ wil.l be u~ed Lor vaciaus forms of enterlainment and
more specifically, z~ game call~d Whirlyba~l wl~ich hPS been ~karl•ed in 31
srates. He explained the game iP played on bumper cars on a baskptball size
couct with a backboard with a 1.`~-inch hole which is electconically operaked;
that the game has tw~~ 5-member teams and is played foc 30 minutes. He
re~erred to the broct~ures and photographs presented illustrating the game. Ne
stated there will be a wnack bar, u p~ol table, a dart board area and video
qames and b~eically, they are requesting approval for the on-sale beer license.
THE PUaLIC HEARING WA:+ CLUS~p.
Commisaioner ~usho[~ stated the Commission does not like the sale of beer and
g~soline and they also do not like the sale of beec in a family entertainment
center becau~e that is takiny away from the family atmosphere.
Mr. Moore stated a bowll.n~ al.ley is a family entertainment center and they
sell beer. Commissioner Bushore po.inted o~t a bawling al~ey als~ serves food
in conjunction with the :~ale of beer. It was clarified this facility will
have a snack bar to serv~ soft dcinks, popcorn, etc.
Commissioner King referred to the recommendations made by the Police
Uepartment and asked if the petitioncr can comply wikh those requirAments
completely. Mr. Moore reFponded they did riot understand Recummendation E
because there is no existing fence since this is an industrial buildLng and
that there is a wooden railing attached to the building.
Kendra Morries, AssiFtant P].annEr, explained when the Police Department made
their investigation of the property, apparently there were some piPces of
boacd attached to the back of the exiating fer~ce which were being used for
steps t~ 9ain access ko tl~e property. Mr. Moore respordpd he would have no
problem in removing those pieces of ~+ood, if that is what is being referred
to. He referred to the Recommendation "D' concerning an 8-foot chain link
fence and explained there ia a paved parkir.g iot and a dirt field which is a
useless piece of g~ound because it has no access and he did not see the need
for the 8-foot ser.urity chain link fence. Chairwoman Bonas stated the zeason
fc~r this request is to provide security for the guests o~ the entertainment
center. Kendra Morcies further explafned the Police did have concern that
2/22/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CYTY P_LANNI_NG CUMMISSION, ~EBRUARY 22~ 1984 _ 84-81
without adequa*e fpncing, i~ would be poseible foc someone to ontec the
pcopert,y f.roin the r.ear and acceae the parked vehicles of tha cuatomers ~f the
enterlainment center and also thero is a pot~ntinl for auapects being pur.aued
t~ get away without adequate fencing. Mr. Mooce stated khe pro~ecty iias
existed this way for a long time, eo that problem would apply for any o~her
~~s~,s that wer~ on the property and he thouvh~ requiring ttie applicant to do
this would create rn undue hArdship.
Chai~w~man aouAfi pointed out the other bu~inesaes did not slay open until ?.:00
a.m. and did not sell beer.. Cort~missioner La Claire stated there would be a
lot ot teenagers Qttracted to tt~is faaility and Mr. Moore repli.ed the avecage
age ot playecs is 26 yesrs of age. fte stated children as youny as 10 years oE
age can pl~y the game, if childten leaaues are Eormed wikh proper releases,
etc. arid the primary aowrce oE income is the whirlyball and the other
facilities ace provided sa there wi11 be ol-her Amusementa all in one
location. He clarif~ed Lhat children and adults would not be allowed to play
khe yame ~it the ~ame time. Ne explained ~here are two teams that play the
game and a referee who controls who play an~l would not allow children and
a~ult~ to play at the aame time and the speed of the cacs is contralled by the
referee.
Commissianec La Claire srated she has no objection to the whi.rl,yball game, but
her primary concern is the young people in this atmosphere and there i~ an
epidemic in thia country of teenayers with alcoholic prol+lems and even thoiigh
she is not a prohibitionist, the pcoblem hae to be faced and tr,e Police ac~
concerned about the teenttgers and the lot in the rear and this type Eacility
does seem to attract all kinda of young people. She stated she does not like
to see families with young childten go in the eame atmosphere where ether
people are drinking a lot and where they would be abie to pick up a glass
someone has left.
Mr, Moc.re stated they plan to have a security person inside the facility to
prevent the children or y~ung people from drinkin9. He stated the entire
concept of the design is to attract the family and it will be a p~.ace where
people can take their wife, date or children. He statE9 they can think of all
kinds vf pl~ces in the City where beer is served in a family atmosphere. He
stated nok allowfng beec does not eliminnte the teenager with alcoholic
problem~.
Cammissioner Bushore stated not allowing the beer woul~ certainly decrease the
problem and ssked why this particular site was cho~en. Mr. Mooce replied this
site was cho~en because of the electrical requirements for the court and the
ceiling height, parking requirements, etc. and this was the only avaiiable
site they could find in Anaheim which met all those requirements.
Chairwoman Bouas clarified that the beer would be secved from the snack bar
and there will be no waitrESSes. She asked what kind of viewiny area is
provided for the playing court. Mr. Moore explainea there is plexiglass in
the wall of the court itself with an eating area on the ~outh and east sides
with tables and chairs raised several inches for a better ~~iew. Ele explained
khe bulk of the playing will be through leagues since it is necessary to have
10 people in order to play. He clarified that in their other establishment~,
not very many chfldren show up unlesc their is a children's league.
2/22/84
~
MINUTES, ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SIQN.~FEBRUJ~RY 22. 1984 __ 84-02
Mr. Moor~: shated putting in the fence requeated by l•he PolicQ Dc~partment ib e
eost that h~A n~t been detecmined aE yet ond explained thwy were only informec!
of L•hat ceyuirement ye~terday. He referred to requicement 'E", tor a
uniformed guard and atated it is Pstbblished they pl~n to have an un-uniCormed
guard in~ide the fdcil.ity and the requirement by the Police pepartment for tho
houra reyu~~~tec~ to hAVe one c~utgide ia not Eeir becAUae they do not. need one
at lU;UU in the mocning, but would not object to t~~ving one from dusk until
c]asing.
Cammissioner 9ushore stated the CommiESi~n is b~la~oring the matler an~3 not.
anawering tt~e r~al isaue which is to requeat the petitioner to agree not to
have beer ~n ttie facility.
Mr. Moore clArif.ted tt~at Commiseinnec eu~hore i~ asking that they nol serve
beer and stated he could not anower ~hut questinn with a yes or no at this
time.
AC'1'IUN: Commissioner Buahure off.ered a motion, seconded by Commissir,ner Fry
and MUTION CAl2RIED (Commifisioner Herbat absent), thal the Anaheim City
Planning Commir~sion has reviea~ed the propoeal r.o permit on-salP beer and wine
in a~copoaed family amusement center with 10?. parking spaces on a
rectanyularly-ah~ped parcel aE land conc~isting of approximately 2.4 acrES,
having a frontage ot approximately 168 f:eet on the north side of Lincnln
Avenue ana further desccibed ar~ 2131 West Linculn Avenue; and does ;erEby
approve the NEgat.ive Declaration upon findit~g that it has considPred the
Negative Declaration tugether with any cortunents received during the publ:c
review process and further findfng on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comment~ received that thEre is no substantial ~vidence that the project will
have a siynificant effECt on Lhe environment.
Commissioner Dushore ofLered Resolution No. PC84-30 and movEd for its passage
~nd adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissio~ does hereby deny
Conditiunal Use Perm.it No. 2540 on the basis thak they do not feel the sale of
beer is appropriate in fam.ily amusement centet which does not serve food and
that the site chosen would create a security pcoblem for the Police DepArtment.
Jack White pointed out the Planning Commission should include one of the
findings required for denial ot the conditional use permit and recommended
`E'~ with Commissioner Dush~re adding he would include that in his resolution
and that the use is denied on the basis that it would be detrimental to the
peace, health, safety and genetal welfare of the ciCizens of the City of
Anaheim.
On roll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the folluwing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NQES: NQNE
ABSE:NT; HERBST
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented ~he written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days ko the City Council.
2/22/84
MINUTES1 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEHRUARY 22, 1984 84-83
Ifi~M NO. 6. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, G~NBRAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 190,
RECJ.ASSIFICATION N0. 83-84-17, VARIANCE NO. 3374 AND REQUEST C:TY COUNCIL
REVIEW OF 6c and bd
PUBLIC HBARING. OWNERS; RBTIREM~NT FUN~ TRUST U~ THE PLUMBING, NEATING &
PIPING INDUSTkY UF 50UTHERIv CALIFORNIA, 501 Shatt~ Place~ Fifth Nloor, I,oA
Angel~s, CA 92507. ACENT: BROWN DEVE WPMENT CGRPORATION, 3595 Prealey
Avenue, Rivecaide, CA 92507. Propecty is described as a rectangularly-ahAped
parcel nf land consistiny af approximate~y 9.6 acrea located on the south A~dP.
of Wilken Way, ~pproximately 615 Ceet east ot the centetline of Harbor
Boulevard.
Z`his is a property ownec initiated General Plan Amendtner.~ to change the
curcent low-medium densiky residential ko medium density resideiitial to
develop a 2S0-unit ap~~tment complex.
There were a~proximately twenty fi•~e pecsons indicat.ing theic presence in
oppoaitiar~ to sub)ect rcyu~~t and although Lhe staff report was not read, ik
fe refecred to and made ~ purt oE ttie minutes.
Richard firown, agent, expla.ined ttiis property was previously opNrated as a
White Front aCore; that a 14"l-unit condom~nium projeck was appcoved in the
past on that pruperty and it was planned tha Willowt~cook would be extended
norther:y to Wilken Way. He atated in their pucchase of the property, they
ayreed to provide a higt~ yuality project and thouytit they had answered some ~f
the worries of the neighbors. E~e added th~y did meer with the neighbors layt
night and tound their concerns were with traff.ic on Wilken since there is a
problem now and lt will become more aggravated witti anything that is built and
they we:e alsu concerned about a ceductian in their pcoper.ty values. He
stated he hoped they had anywered the traffic problem~ by requesting
Willowbrcok not be extended because it could become a cut-off for the
intervection uf Harbor and Chapman. He stated this would ceduce the amount of
traffic tt~at was perrtiitted with tt~e condominiume that were approved. He
stated they had indicated to the neighbors that they would be willing to wark
with therti to work out any problems that could be resolved. He stated the only
significant objection was to the density; however, it is not feasible to
construct the condominiums. He explained they had th~ught about low income
houairig, but determin~d that was not appropriate for this ne.ighborhood;
however, thEy want to put in apartments which the City d~sperately needs.
Weston Pcin9le, ?.65Y E. Chapmac~, Fullerton, Traff.ic Consultant, refeGCed to
the request to discontinue willowbro~ak and not have it go through from Chapman
to Wilken Way ar~l explained they had made that request to discourage through
traffic due to the residential n~ture of the neighborhood; that there will be
an increase in traffic on Wilken, as there would be with any devetopment oi
this property, and tkiey projecr an increas~ of approximately 1,000 trips per
day on Wilken Way. He stated the previous traffic study, which included
Wilken Way as a through stceet, had basicall.y the same nunber projected,
although the pro~ect itself was smaller. He stated the existing traffic on
Wilken Way is approximately 1500 trips per day and adding thi.s 1,000 ~rips
would inccease that number to approxi.mately 2,500 and this volume would be
basically between Madriff anc9 Uertley Drive. He stated the volume of 2,500 is
nat unreasonable for a residential collector stceet and explained 3,000 is an
2/22/8~4
MINUTE5.__ANANEZM CITX P~ANNING COMMISSION, FEDRUAKY 22. 1984 _ 84-84
acceptab]e design Eor a residential collector etceet. tie alao reEerced to a
survey c~nducted uf khe residento living on a]ow-deneity reaidential
collector street with ~imilar volume which indiaated th~~y did n~t feel thece
is a problem with that trafCic volume. He stated Chey do not feel the ~roject
will have n negative impact on the residents on Wilken Way ar on the area.
Walter Howard, 2324 S. Cutt}~ Way, Anaheim, Unit 102, ~tAted his unit border~
against subject property about 20 feet AWAy and tie was concerned about what
would be adjacent to hi~ propart~~ and feund there would be an ~lley and olso
carpurts which he felt would ii~vite people inta the area which coul~ not be
protECted well. Ne stated this is a quiet neightiorhaod at the present time,
surrounded by homeowners in all c9irpctionu, and they f~el moving in renters in
more of a trAnaient ntmoaphere. He asked iE pedeatrians could wa1N through
the emeryency gate. Kendra M~rries, Assistant Pianner, explained the gate
wi.ll be for emergency vehicle~ ~cces~ on1J.
Mr. Noward explained he would be concerned whether or not the police wauld be
able to get back into that a~e~ to E~atrol and did not think they could, so it
would not be monitared very well. He stated he was also concerned about crime
because it would be very easy for sonieone to come xn and yet into ttieir homes
which are unocc:upied during the day. tle ste-ted he moved into the area under
the asaumption that khere would be moce condominiums on that proper~y and not
opartments and he was concerned that renter~ do not drive as carefull}~ as
homeuwners. He added he thouyht their property value would suffe~ because the
current plans show n~ landscaping Along t~i~ property and th~t there would be
an alley and parking structures in that area.
Irene Jennings, 142 W. Cliffwood X+ve~ue, Anat~cim, President of the South
Anal~eim Neighbarhood Council, sl•ated theic membe[s are chiefly concerned about
the density of thia project, and the pcoblems it will create. She stated they
would welcome a lower denaity project, preferably condominiums or townho~ses.
She presented a petitic~n signed by 184 immediate homeowners in the area
o~posed to the prnject. St~e stated they do not feel 250 units would be
compatible with khe sinqle-family dwellings And condominiums now in
existence. 5he stated they feel the additional trafEic not only on their
stceet, but an Naster Stceet, which is already aver-crowded, will be a
pzoblem; that there i~~ only or~ very small park in the area and ~hey do not
feel it can handle any additional children and also she was not sure the
schools could abs~rb any more children and stated they are also concerned
about increase in crime, and decline in their property values. She stated
they feel an enviconmental impact report should have been prepared before this
project was pcesented.
Fern Call statod she owns the property at 333 W. Wi.lken Way and st~e felt 250
units would be a disaster; that the children would all have to be bused to
schools; that the units eaisting were built in the C~unty area and do not have
adequate parking or adequate trash facilities and tho~e are the very things
thie developer is asking for in this project and puttind a lot of people into
the area would be a problem; that tk~e property would probably be managed by a
management company and they will rent the units to just anyone ko get them
rented; tt~at crime will increase and thF police will not be able tc handle it
and noted there has already been an increase in crime since the motel was
constructed in tl~e acea and that she has watched cars from the matei exit onto
Wilken Way and not on Harbor.
2/22/84
M_INUZ'E:i,_ AN_Ak1~IM CITY PL_A__NN_INC CUMMI_SSIGN_, F~BRUAItY 22, 1984 84-85
Churles neacborn, 2241 5~ Oer tley Drive, atated hia pcuperty ad joins sub ject
property and that his main conce~n is traffic nnd don~ilyj that c.he engineor
said r~oat peoplo would go uut on Narbor r hoa~vRr, to the Garuen Crove Freeway
they MpU~C~ hava to go throuyh [iv~ traEEic ~13n~1s und on haater they would
only have to go through Lwn, ao he thougtit they would have to use Haster to
the fre~:way. Ne ~tated the trnffic engineet uaid the atreet ~hou.ld be ~ble t.o
ha~dle 3,OOq tcips per day; however, there io a hazardous turn er Madrid and
Wilken r~nd the pa4ted speed limit ia 15 mile~ per houri however, no one goes
that slow= that thece ia a stop aiqn at Oertley and a 1ot ot people do not
atopt that thore are a lot o£- young children in the ne:ghbort~ood and he
thnught the traffic wi 11 be dan~erous for the young children. FIE reEFrred to
the sCorage are~ behind ktie cac(~orts and otated thoae would be ',idden Lram the
apartments and from their area and would br_ a p.lace where peop]a could
congregate and use drugs or dcink and he thouyht that would be a bad
situation. He etated h~ thought a 142-unit condominium pcoject would be good
for the area, but did not think apartmente are the Answer. He atuted the
field is an e,yeaore and the homeawners would like it ~3evelc~ped, but with
something ~ther than an ~purtment ccmplex.
Mike 8arker, 219 W. Wilken, stated he did nok think th~ streeC can hAnc:le the
traftic; that l:here ar~ trucks and buses using it nc~w and ,~s a homeowner and
parent, he is afruid for his children.
Warren ~eterson, 223 ,'iller Avenue, ~tated he has l iv~d thcce f.oc 27 y~acs nnd
that the area ie busting at tt~e aeams now with arartments artd traffic i~
really heavv, but all the streets don't have cidewalke, and it~e ntreele; ~re not
wide eno~gh to handle a11 the traffic; and that Naet~c is tiised ~o get ko botl~
freeways. He eta~ed they realize that eon~ething needs ta t~e done ti+ir.h the
property and they are in favor with something like townh~uae~ rr c:n:.r~ominiums,
but smal.l apartment uziits bring in a dtffer~ent kin~; ~f pe:•~le and ~h~y a~.•~ady
have problems with the police trying ta keep Harbur Boule~vard ~leAn and people
will be maving in and out of those units cceat~ ng mo~e prublern:~. HP ~~~fereed
to a condominium development at Haster and Simmons which i~ complecea and is
now selling andlioped *he Commiseion wauld consider someth:ng like t:hat for
this proper.ty.
CommissionFr La Claire lei:. thc meeting at 3:00 p.m.
Ctiatles Jenning~, 141 Cliffwood, stated the agenda lists khe Retirement Fund
of the Plumbing, Heatiny and Pipinc~ Industry of Southern C~lifornia as the
owner of the property with Mr, erown as the agent; however, at last night's
meeting, Mr . erown represented himaelf as the owner to khe 5outh Anaheim
Neighbochood Couricil. Ne stated since White Front moved out, the property has
become a real maintenance problem and there was a fire which was a real danger
to the nei9hbore und i t has been a ma jor problem for the Soukh Anaheim
Neighborh~od Council to get it cleaned up. He stated the Code Enforcement
Officer was iqnored and it took the Fire Depactment to c~et any action and
twice tt year the City or Fire Department t~kes care af the weeds, etc. and
bills the ownec. He added they are concerned that if the 250 units are
allowed and they cannot be rented, the property will become an even greater
prob?em. He etated they would like to aee the property developed, but nol• to
the disgrace oi the people in the arQa.
2/22/84
MXNUTE~, ANAHEIM CITY RLANNING COMMISSION, F~BRUARY 7.2. 1984 84-86
Sid Strand, 126 Cliffwoad- stated all the neighboca are c~ncerned with thia
projectt kha! th~ agent had referred to the coot ot the pr~perty ~s the reason
for nReding so many unitst how~ver, the neighbore would like the possibility
of some other alternatlvk~a. He referred to the h~uaing juat co~structed down
Hestet which is very well done and stated anytime someone buya prop~rty, they
are taking A gamble and just because the owner ~~aid thia much for the
property, doean't msan it ia wc,rth that much. lle stated they are concer.ned
about the children and Che tcafti~ and the po8aibi]ity of increaaed ccime and
a decrease in thelc ~roperty va.lue.
Mr. Brown atated, he did not cepresent that he wae the owner of the property
And ttie plumbera Trust owna the pr.operty and they have an agreement to
purchaae it, conditioned upan them being able to use it. Ne atated the only
~uggesCions they have received from the neighhars is C~ provide a candominium
pr.oject, whict~ is not feaaible; that thPy irel discontinuing the extension of
Willowbrook will alleviate tt~eir tcaffic concernst that they have rtiore thnn
the reyuired parkiny an~ the trash collection Areas were increased upon
suggestion from the Sanitation Divisioit. tie ~t•.ated the v~~riances are needed
to cr.eate this Nroject, but they d~ not feel r.hia will h~irt the neighbarhood
and that this pro~ect will relieve the traftic more than any nther project
that c~u.ld be developed on this properl~.
Mc. Brown stated they nre awace that the 250 units ia consideced medium
density which is within the General Pl.~n dESignation for that Area.
Mr. Pringle stated 608 of the traffic wa~ assigned easterly towards Naster as
indicated by khe opposiCion and that one comment was made about the street
being used currently by trucks and bu>es and added this projeck will not be
adding any buses or trucks to that street.
Commissioner Bushore asked if tt~e waiver of minimum floor area was deleted by
increasing the size oE the units from the floor plan originally submitted ot
was it through a desiyn maneuvec. Kendra Mocries responded it was done by
increasing the size of the units.
Commissioner eushore ceferred lo Paye b-g of the ataff report wherein otaff
has recommended that the Planning Commission not approve the negative
declaration and stated he thought ataff had the right to teguest that an
enviconmental impact report be prepared if they did not feel a negative
declaration could be approved foc a project. Kendra Morries responded when
the applicant originally came in, there was a lr,t of discussion reg~rding the
f act that the previous praject did have an environmental impact report
accompanying it, and there was a lot of ~iscussion with the developec
regarding staff's concerns about the increased number oE units, increased
density and increased traffic and also about the fact khat there was a lot of
neighbo:hood opposition to the project and staff did feel that an
environmental impact report should be prepared. She stated the developec
diaagreed and felt the traffic study along with the negative declaration and
other information h~ had indicated he would bring to the Planning Commission
taday would suffice; however, staff still believes, based on the information
pr~,R~~nted, that a npgative declaratian cannot be recommen~ed.
2/22/84
MINUT~S, ~N~HEIM CITY I~LANNING COMMISSION, FEHRUARX 22, 198A 84-8_7
Commissioner F3uahorP stated h~ agr~edl howevor, he felt Commission ~hould talk
about s~jveral of thQ thing~ regue~ted. H~ otat~d there wNre ~hree things
mentioned in the developec's preazntation, 1) the quality of the pcoject, 2)
the Eact that low-coat t~ousiny was considered an~ 3) the c.oat of the landt
that the staEf did mantion that khe devaloper disagreed r.egarding the
enviconmental impact tepor.t ond Also sl•aff did inform Cho dev~lapet of the
t'lenning Commiseion's policy regar~ing the 20-foot wide fully lnndecAped
aetback ad~ar.,ent to single-family residential z~niny and an 8-Eo~t
enczoachment hae been proposed into the aetback. He ~eferred ~~ the propoaed
parking sp~cea whict~ ace smAller than the reyuired size And r~ferred to the
othQC requested vaciances and stated all tt~ene thinge would indica~e to him
that this is not a higti quality project as ~tated by the petitioner and he
thought tt~e P].anninq Commiesior~ would be reluctant to approve a variance with
no many waivers. tfe alao referreci t•o the petiti.oner's comments thaC the
denaity was wi~hin the Gen~ca]. Plan and pointed out it i~ nat because a
Generol Plan Amendment iR beir~~~ reque~ted.
Mr. E3rown stated he ic a conc~rned developer and he did not meon to give the
impression that Ciiey had considered low-coot houaing and wanted to point out
thak they dld have the opti~n of ceyuesking A dr.nsity b~~nus to provi.de
low-c~at huusiny.
Commis;~ioner Bushore stated he realizes th~t, but the neiyhbors da not
understand and the neighbors consider low-cost ho~sing as 'slums" and the
developer ai.auld have used the word affordable.
Mr. Brown stated he has trouble with the word 'affordable' because these are
nat what t~e would c~nsider afforddble and atated t.hey c~id nok con~ide~r
low-cost or affordable housing because they are not Ee~sible foc tt~is area and
tt~ey are not cequestiny a density bor-us for that reason. He stated the
2U-foot ~andscaped buffec area acc~und the pecimeter of the propecty was not
beeause of the distanr_e, but because they Eelt tt~e area wauld be secved best
if the amount of landscaping was restricted cinc~ it was not visible and it
would be bettNr to pcovide more storage area. He stated they could reduce the
storage area and provide mor.e landscapinq and was only offering that as An
a].ternative. He referred to the parking apaces and ata~ed he undecstands they
ace well within Code and requested the waivec on the size of the spaees only,
uased on the size of cars today.
Commissianer F~ushore stated the City's parking ordinance was ju~t recent'ly
reviEed and the size of the cars was taken int.o consideration in khe reviaion
of that ordinance. He stated three years ao~ the Retirement Fund paid a real
premium fOt '~~Lfi property and, fort;;~iaLely, the tract map has exPiced b•~cause
he would y••+. to take another loek at the F~rojec't because things has changed
in the past 4 years. He stated, foctunately, the sale of the property is in
escrow, based on this approval, a~d he did not think this project is going to
work and maybe if it hxd been pe~~°'~nted without the variances, it might stand
a chance. He stated he could not approve an EIR negatfve declaration and
thaught it would be unfair to the ~eveloper to cequest that an environmental
impact report be prepared.
Mr. Brown stated he was told when he came in that the environmental i.mpact
ceport that was available was satisfactory and this matter was scheduled for
the meeting two weekA ago, but it was taken off the agenda when staff said an
2/22/84
MINUTES. ANAH_E_I_M CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. ~EBRUARY 22. 1984 84-88
envir.onmental impact report ehould be prepared ~nd that tF~ey would have
prepared ono had they known one w~s needed. He stated r.hey have a severe time
pcoblem, but was told the environmentul impact report was not necess~ry. He
stated he did talk with the ~lanniny Director and was told thak fn hia
opinion, the environment~l imNact r.eport w~e nat needed. t!e atated when he
saw the sta£E ceport which indicated the ataff would nnt recommend the
~pproval of the negative declarahion, he talked to the Planning Direct.or again
~nd was told that the inten~ w~~ not to say thnr, the staff does n~t recommen~
approval, but that after the traffic atudy was prepared, that an environmentnl
impact report may ~r may not be neceasary.
Commissic~ner E'ry stated he could not v~te for a 250-unit apac~ment eomplex on
this pro~erty anyway and with the help af the neighborhood, the 14?.-unit
candominium was worlced out and approved and he thought the developer is
reaching for thc moon on this projeet with 100 more unitst and iie pointed out
~ommission cann~t be involved with economics of this project.
Commissioner ei~~hore stat he did not belleve the Commission is willing to
compromise And allow apartmenta rAther khan condominiums, ~ointing out
condon~iniums are owned by the occ~~nants. He ~tated he thought the C~mmxssion
should deny the request ~o tt~e de ~loper can appeal that decision to City
Council since he did not think it would be fair to ask him to revise kh~ plans~.
Mr. Brown asked if the Commission is saying they are not interested in
allowing upartments at all on this property. Commissioner Fry stated L•here .is
always a possibillty that apartments could be allowed, but quite frankly, with
the cost involved, he thought condominiums would be more suitable and he dtd
not think apartments would tucn into slums and added he is not Ray^iny h~ W~u~d
not R~e receptive to apartments, but that he is concerned ebaut the density.
Responding to Mr. Brown, Commissioner Susho[e stated the Commission cannat
answer what kind of density they would consider appcoving without plans
because they a11 have different ideas and every project is different; ~owever,
he thought the Commission is saying thE project should stay within the current
general plan. Commissioner Fry stated he did not think there is much roam for
modification in that partic~lar area. Commissioner Bushore statpd the
development has to be ceasonable to the developer, to the City and to the
surroundiny propecty owners and stated this is a reasonable City in terms of
land use. He ctated City staff is guod and does wotk with the developec to
speed the process and does tell the developer what they think the Commission
or City Council will do because they do sit in on these meetings and know what
the Ciky is looking for and he thought they had tried to do tha2 with this
developer.
Commissioner La Clai.re returned to the Council Chamber.
Commissioner Fry stated obviously ~he dev~loper was told that an environmental
impact report was not required and skaff does try to *_ell the ~eveloper. what
they think the Commission will dn and in this case, the Commission fooled t-,e
staff and obviously feel that an envirunmental impact report is necessary •~n a
project of this size and he thought the developer has been spared that expense
so far.
2/22/84
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, F~BRUARY 22~ 19~4 _____ _ 84-Sg
Annika Santa]ahti, ARSistant Dicectoc for 2oning, stated evecy developer who
submits a pcoposal ko the C.ity which includes a variance or a number of
varlances fram Code, ia elways adviaed by staff that the fewer the variancea
thF better and that none 18 best and ehe felt the City Council certainly £eels
the same way and any direction the applic~nG mlght take, would be with the
objective of red~cing, if not elimir~ating, the waivecs.
ACTIUN: Commisaionec Bushore oEfered a mution, seconded by Commieaioner Fcy
and MUTION CARkJEll (Commissionec Nerbst abaent ~nd Commissioner La Cl~ire
absta.ining on the basiA ahe waa not present foc ull the testimony), that khe
Anaheim c;ity klAnning Commission has reviQwed thp proposal to reclassif}•
subject propacty E:rom the CG (Commercial, G~neral) Zone l•o the RM-1200
lftesidential, Multiple-Pamily) Y,ane to construct a 250-unit Aparl•ment complex
wi[h waiver of maximum slructural height, minimum clistance between buildingsr
rtiinimum dimension~ of parking Rpaces and reyuired enclosure nf parking spsce~
on an irregular]y-ahaped parcel of land conaiaking of approximal•ely ~.6 acre,
having a frontage ~f approximately 42U feet an the south side of Wilken Way,
and being located approximately G15 Leet ea~C of the centerline of Harbor
6oulevardj and does hereby disapprove the Negative beclaration from the
requiremenr to prepare an environmen~al .impact reporC on the basis that the
p[oposed use Eor 250 upartment units would have an adverse affect on the
surrounding arsa and there would be significant individual or cumulal•ive
adverse envi~onmen~al irtipaets involved in thie pcopc~sal; and that an
e~vi~conmental impact report would be cequired prior to approval of this
pro7ect.
Jnck White pointed out that si.nce a negative declaration had been denied, the
Planning ~:ommissi~n would not be in a position to approve the ather requests,
b~t could der~y tt~em.
~;ommissioner Bushore offered kesoluti~n No. PC84-31 and moved for its paasage
and adop:ion that the Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion does hPreby der~y
Geneca.l Plan Amendment No. 190 on the basis that revision to the General Plan
is not appropriate at this time.
Un rall call, Lhe foregoing cesolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: 80UA5, BUSHORE, PRY, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
AF3SENT: HERBST
hBSTAIN: LA CLAIRE
Commissioner Bust~oce offered Resolution No. PC84-32 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hereby deny
Rec.lassification No. 83-84-17 an the basis that reciassification would not be
iri con~ormance with the General Plan since General Plan Amendment No. 190 was
denied.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYES: 13UUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY, KING, MC BURNEY
NOE;S: NONE
ABSEN`L': HERBST
ABSTAIN; LA CLAI~tE
2/22/84
MINU7'E_51 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEDRUARY__22, 1984 __ 84-90
Commissioner Bushore oEEecKd Resolution No. PC84-33 ~~d moved for its paesage
a~d adoPtion thet the Anah~im City Planniny Commie8lon does hereby deny
Varidnce No. 337A on the basie that there Are no apecial circumatancea
applicable to tho property such Aa eizP~ ahape, topography, locAtion nnd
surroundinge which do not npply to other identically zoned properhy in the
seme viciniryt and thut strict application of the Zoning Code would nat
deprive the proper~y oE privilegas enjoyed by other propecties in the
identical 2one en~ clASSification in the vicinity.
Un coll call- the toregoing resolukion was paseed by the following vote;
AYES: 80UAS~ BUSNORE~ FkY, KING, MC ~UkNEY
NOES: NONE
AE3SENZ': HERBSZ'
ABSTAIN: LA CLAIRE
It was noted Ghal tt~e cequest to City C~uncil for review of 6-c and 6-d NuuJd
not be neceasary aince they were denied.
commiesioner eushore pointed out that if ~his ap~licanC does app~~; klii~
matter to the City Council, the property owners will be noti[ied in thA ~ame
manner they were notified Lor this hearing.
Commisaioner Fry pointed out he thought the neighborhood had ~1;•ne 4~i.ne job
making their preaentation.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the writter~ zigt~t to apperal the
Planning Commiasion's decisian within 22 days to the City ~ouncil.
RECESS: 3:32 p.m.
RECUNVEN~: 3:47 p.m.
ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION, CENERAL PLAK AMENDMENT N0. 191,
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 83-84-19 AND REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW 7c
PUBLLC HEARING. OWNERS; G~NEItAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 1630 South
SUnkist, Suite 8, Anaheim, CA 92806. AG~NT: RiCHARD E. OGLES9Y ~ JOSEPH T.
WALTHUUR, 17631 Fitch, Irvine, CA 92714. Property described ac an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.2 acres
bounded on the norlh by Sinclaic Street, west by the Orange (57) Freeway,
south by Katella Avenue, and west by Howell Avenue.
This is a property owner initiated Genecal Plan Amendment to change tr~e
cucrent general industrial designation to commercial pcofessional to develop a
six-story executive office structure with a two-level packing garage.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppositian to subject tequest
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Richard Uglesby, agent, explained they are requesting a Genecal Plan Amendment
and reclassification of a 3.24 acre parcel located on the northeast corner of
Howell and Katella foc the development of a 107,000 square foot, S-story
office building.
2/22/84
MINUTBS,_ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUAHY 22. 1984 84-91
THB PUBLIC NBARING WAS CLUSED.
Reaponding to C~mmis~ioner F'r.y, Joel Fick, Asaist~nt DirecCor E~r Planning,
explained there ar.e two areaa of concern which have been high-lighted in
discusslona with the dPVelopers one is the funding f.or a~tudy of land use
strategy in the 5tadium area and staff is rec~mmending that this developer
fund tha~ study and the estimated cost is $70,000. He atated ctaff did m~et
with anothec major pcopetty ow~er, Cabot, Ca~ot and Norbes, and they have
verbally agceed tt~~t they will be willing to fund $20,000 for thia study. He
stated there is another deve].oper, eurnett-Ehline, which has an approved
developmen~ at State College and Oc~ngewood ~nd Lhe City required that they
fund $5U,000 for that study in theic original ~3pproval, subject to
reimbursemenl•, and that Durnett-Ehline has agre~d to Eund $25,OU0 which .leaves
a balanc~ of $25,OOU. He explained Mc. Oglesby had pointed out this morning
that BurnEtt-Ehline is in the process oE revisi~g their plans and will
probably be betore the Planning Commission within a month and it will be
unfAir to this developer to require them ta purely fund this study, and
staff's original thinking was to impose the sume conditi~n ugor Burnett-Ehline
or whoever was in f.irst and it would all work out, but that there ceally
st-ould be a mechaniam in place so that if Busxness Pcoperties funds that
uortion nf Ghe study, and if Burnett-Ehline came in within a month, and that
is prior ta the time that ausiness Properties would pull buainess permits,
that tnoney should be refunded by the City and th~t ~taff has no problem with
that whatsoever. Eie exglained Jac~ White ha~ drafted a conditi.on to that
effect.
Joel Fick stated the second area of concern was the provision thw. tr,e
developer would fund $2.00 per square faot Eoc acea wide developments; thal
that tigure arose ayain from pre•vious developments that have been approved:
tne State College/Uranyewood ait:e (Burnett-Ehline's project) has an existing
condition on it ot ~1.OU pet syu~re foot and it is a 365,OQ0-syuace foot
building and that that project pteceded the CC&F Development ar.d that CCbF has
expended to date, 2-1/?. million dollars in pre-planning and that about 1.6
mil].ion of thaC can be attributed to area-wide studies and that CC&F is
establishing a well site on thei~ property and is giving land to the Utilities
De~artment for an electrical subatation and many of thoae improvements are
area-wide benefits and theic eor,tcibution will exceed the $2.00 per square
fo~t figure and that is where the recommendation came from. He explained
staff is trying to eatablish sonre semblance of equity throughout all appcoval
processes.
Jack White, Assistant City Attoc'Rey, explained staff has racomnended that
Conditions 11 and 12 be amended to read as follows:
11. 'That within 60 days the develuper shall fund (or participate in the
funding of) a compreh~an8ive land use study to be dirpcted and
controlled by the Cit:y at a cost not to exceed $70,000 for the
Stadium industrial Area to identify the estimated extent and
intensiky of development and service constraints and opportunities
assocxated therewith including infrastructure and circulation. In
the event such study has been funded by anothec party, pucsuant to a
similar condition of approval attached to a different project, pcfor
to the issuance of building permits for this project, the developer
2/22/84
MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CIT~ PLANNING COMMISSIAN, FEHRUARY 22. 1984 84-92
shall pay to the City 36~ of Che cost of auch etudy or 525,000,
whichever is le~s, whict~ sum ahall be in lieu oE the re~uirements
for funding auch study contained in this condition end which sum
ahall be reimburaed by the City to the party initiating auch funding
~uch study. In the event the develop~r is the party initiating and
tunding such study, khe City ahall reimburae tn the developer, an~~
amounC collected from any other party, as such other party's ehere
of the coat of such study. In c~rder to achieve timely comp.letion oF
the impcovements which may be found to be reasonably necesaary by
the etudy, concurrent with the developmenl of the aubject aite, the
owner of subject property ~hal~, prior to building pprmit ~pproval,
record A covenant against the ~ropert•y in a form Approved by the
City Attorney agreeing thAt in the event that such study reaults in
the creation of an xmprovement diatrict or benefit area which
includes auch property, which would othecwise reyuire th~ payment of
the f~e as A con~ition of a building permit issuance for the
construction of public impruvertients, oF beneEit, to or reaspnAbly
necesRltated by ~uch a develo~ment, ttie owner ahall pay to the City
the applicable f~e otherwise payable thereunder in an amount not to
exceed $2.00 per ~quare foot of total f.loor atea, natwithstanding
the prior bppraval of khe Buildin9 Pecmit foc such development."
12. "That ttie owners of subject pro~erty shall execute and record a
covenant in a form ap~roved by t.he City Attorney's Office whecein
such owners agree n~t to contest the f~rmation of any a~sessment
districts which may hereafter be focmed pursuanl to the provision of
Development Agreement No. 83-01 between the City of Anaheim and the
Anaheim Stadium Associat~s which ~istrict shall include such owners
property. In the event subject property is hereinafter included in
any such assess~ent district, any cost paid by the ownec pursuant to
Condition No. 11 above and not otherwise reimbursed to owner, shall
be credited to owner's obligation under such assessment di~triat to
the extent permitted by law."
Jack White explained those ace the changes to the staff cepoct, some of which
have been reviewed by the developer and some he has agreed to and some are
basically unresolved.
Mr. Uglesby explained he did pick up a copy af the conditions yesterday and
reviewed them and as far as hey are concern~d at this tirt~e, Conditions 1
through 16 are acceptable, with the exc?ption of Conditions 11, 12 and 13. He
stated the cest of the conditions seem to be standard and are things they have
dealt wit1~ in the past. He referred to Conditior~ No. 13 and pointed out that
should refer to the intecsection of Howell and Stt+te College and explained Mr.
Fringle has submitted a traffic study for ceview regarding that condition.
Pttul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he ht+d received subject study and it
does indicate that a traffic signal was not cequired at this time.
Cammissioner La Claire stated she sees nothing wrong with the project and
would offec the motion unless there is further discuasion.
2/22/84
MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 22, 1984 84-93
Mt. Oglesby indiceted he had Eurther commenta to make if Ahe intended to o£fer
a motion including ~he conditiona. He referred to Condition No. 12 pertaining
to the asaeESment diatrict and ~tated they w~uld like the following referenced
in farm and cuntexC: "Th~t the agreement referred to in the ataff report ia
Che one dated Septenib~r 12, 1983, and ~iyned and recorded between the City of
Anaheim and ~usinesa Properties, because that is t.he agreement they hAVe
previously diacuased Perkaining to the Aeae~sm~nt District.
Itesponding l-o Commiesinner Fry, Jack White stated if the point is to c~tpulake
here that it wi12 be the same agceQment that has been uaed on khe othec
project, tl~e anawer is yea.
Mr. Ogle~by referred to Condition No. 11 and Htated they have agr.eed to make A
costi cont~ibution or participate in the fu~9ing af the study and if, in fact,
tt~ere are commitments fcom two othec propc.ry owners ta cont.ribute the amaunts
necessary, they will contribute r.he balance and if there are eome
discrcpancies they wi11 be willing to r,it down with staf[ and discuss tho~e
and meet immediately with the consultanta to gpt the s~udies going. He stated
the ~econd issue pertains to tt~e ~2.00 ~er square foot fiqure and that he did
not understand and had not read Lhe modified conditi.on as presented by Mr.
White. Ne stated it is their position thak the City has the riqht to cceate
assesament districts and they have granted the City a condition that they will
not contest any asses~ment di~tricts that ace created within this area. He
stated the study shou?d tell the City those areas that may or may not be
involved in the event of future development whi.ch would create a cumulative
impact upon the study area and stated the City has the right to create thoAe
assessments districts and that in itselE should spcve as a mecl~anism to assess
the various property owners within the area and they feel to give the City the
right to create irnprov~ment districts or ~enefit areas that are in nature,
arbitrary, or ~o place amounts and to determine whether or not these dollars,
in effect, do beneEit the existin~ Qraperties or theic pr~perty, they think is
a litl•le harsh and pointed out they do have to do their own off-site
improvements, st[eet improvements, street lights, landscaping, sidewalks, etc.
and they would thinh assessment districks would satisfy the City's need.
Joel Eick stated it is true that if, in fact, the finance mechanism that is
ultimately determined for this area is an assessment district, then the
assessment district condition itself wottld suffice; however, the City's
agxeement with Cabot, Cabot & Forbes specifies t.hat ti~e City shall require
individuals or entities that se~k approv~l for any new development or
redevelopment of rea2 property in the 5tadium area to participate in
assessment diatricts or ott~ec public financing mechanisms that have been or
will be ~stablish~d in the area cegardless of whether or not the impravements
or. services were in place before or after the approvals were sought ~r
obtained. He stated the problem that arises is that if the City is limited in
concept to only an assessment district, under the 1911 ac~, the City would not
have an opport~:nity to require this developer to pay his fair share at some
~uture time becaur,e building permits theoretically could have already been
issued in conjunction with the project. He stated that is why the prsposed
2/22/84
~ .:~
MINUTES. AN~HEIM_CITY PLANNING CpMMISSIO_N~__FEaRUARX 22,_ 1984 ~4-94
condition apAak$ t~ the fect thAt if eome other kype of finAncin~ mechanism i~
proposed, ttie developec ak that time would guacan~ce Ca pay that amc~nt, even
though the building permit may have alreadx been iasued f.or the project.
Mr. Ogleaby atated he has a h~rd time today defining khe wordo •fai~ ahar.e"
and was not evPn sure Lcom I~in discussions with ataff that a final area has
been det~rmined for the industrial Stadium Area as it r~lAtes to the atudyt
that he realizes tl~ere are some gene~al boundarie~, but did nuk think the
final area has been determined. Ne stated he did nnt know wha~ fair shAre is
and aaked if they would contribute money thbt would aet in a"slush" f.und. He
staked it seems the City ha~ those mechaniams to work with to generate the
dollars to sati~Ey those needs. He atated public utilities has the ability to
improve their own services and genera~e thos~ capital costs through rutes. He
stated tie tt~inks tair ahare is a nebulous tecm and very looaely used and there
is nothinq really concrete to say that $2.00 A square foot is a reasonable ~r
justifiable amount to charge the property owner as a benefit or improvement
district when therE are other vehicle~. Eie sCated to clarify one point, they
did agree to contribut~ the $25,(l00 to the study immediately.
Commia~ioner La Claire stated there was a ceiling on the amount and it would
be no more than $'I.OQ per square foot or no moce than $25,OOQ or 36~ of the
study.
Jac~ White stated the first party to develap will have the resE~onsibility of:
having the study prepared and the cost of the study is anticipgted to be about
$70,000 and the cnndition as proposed, would then al.low the first de~eloper,
whether it is this developec or 8urnett-Ehline, to be reimbursed foC 368 of
the cost or $25,0~0 whichPver is less. Ne stated thece is also a commitment
from CC&F t~ make a contrib~~tion of $24,U00, but the actual amounC of lhe
contribution would be the difference be~ween the $70,000 "not to exceed"
figure and the amount contributed and reimbursed Erom ttie other pcoperty
owner~.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if future developera would be required to make a
contribution. Jack White explained after the study is prepared, if ihere is a
financing mechani~m Eor improvements established, futu~e develo~ers would be
required ko contribute to that, but the study is being proposed to be £u~ded
only by the three property owners mentioned.
Joel Eick stated if the finding of the study and the finance mechanisms are
such that the fair share obligation of this propectX owner is les~ than
$25,000, khece would be a refund, assuming it is the amount eus:ness
Properties contributed and following through on the assumption that this
property's portion would Pxceed this amount, it would be credited against
their participation in the district and their. fair share obligations of the
inprovements.
Mr. 4glesby asked if that places a burden on the City t~ create a lonq-range
per develuper-per project fee on eac.h property owner as they come in, ~nd
stated kh~re is no guarantee to the property owners that that is going to
happen. He stated they have said they will give the City $25,000 and haven't
said they will give $25,000 now and have not aske~ for reimbursement, but just
that they will give the City $25-000, but thought other ~uestions would arise
2/22/84
MINUTE;, ANAHEIM CITY_ PLANNING_COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 22, 198d ~4-95
if the amount 1A to be ~7q,000 and the fACt that there ia euppoaQd Co be money
cominy Erum the other property ownere and he thought that is making a faiKly
~ubstantial monetary commitment to the City to fund the ~tudy to det.erm~ne if,
in Eact, there is any cumulative impact. ~nd who, in Eact, can reaolve or
should reaulve those impects, if ~here are any. Ne etated he th~ughk thP
point of the reimbureement of l•he ~tudy is really not an iosue a~ this kime,
but thQ $2.00 per syuare foot is a point beceuae on Lhis project thot is
$220,OOU a~d he felt it ~eems fairly arbitrary without any guid~lines. He
atated if it was to improve the intersectinn oc bring utilities in to this
p~cticulac property, it would he a different issue because thoae nr~ c~st~ of
the pcoject anyway and thuoe are development riaks.
~ommissioner La Claire atated the problem is thot there will be a lot of
building taking place in that aren and the City ia pretty sure ttip
infcastruc~ture will not service it all and the changes will cost a loG of
money and also evecyone in tliat area will mAke a lot of money becauee that ia
a prime areaj that when a d~veloper comes in, if the City is worcied about
those things, they are usually required to do an environmenkal impact repor.t
to give the cumulative effect on ttie ~urrounding area and those repocts
usually cost from ~30,OGU up, depending on how difficult they are, and she
thought what the City is saying in this car~e is that if an environmental
impoct report was requir~d, it would probably cost as much as they ~re being
Asked to contribute. She atated she thougt~t the $2.00 per square foot ha3 tA
do with l•he cost of expected xmprovemenks in the area.
Joel Fick staked in the meetings with In*.erdepactmentel Committee members, the
findings wece that everybody did have problems servicing cumulative
development and aa a result, stafL did not really feel there was merit in
r.equiting Business Propecties to prepdce an environmental impact report when
ir w~s known that khe fi-~ding ot the ceport would bP that a study needs to be
done. He stated since this project itself could, in fact, Ne serviced by the
departments, staff had confidence in recommending a negative declaration to
the Commission with the provision that a ondition be inc~uded for a~tudy to
determine the impacts for the pro7eck. He stated regarding the $2.00 per
square foot figure, ataff'~ only emphasis in that area and Jack White's only
statement was that that ~as a'nut to exceed" amount dependinq upon the
finding of the study and staff neecis some mechanism that this project can pay
its fair share and staff is looking for this pruject tu pay only its fair
share and is not lookiny for anyone ko pick up any benefits associated with
anyone else's propecty.
c:onunissioner Bushore stated the Commission went through these same discussions
when khe other projects came tt~rough and even though the property is ready to
develop, the problem is the cumulative effect and the City has to have some
mechanism arranged to take care of those impacts and without the mechanlsms,
ttie ptoject has to be put on hold. Ele atated the City is trying to work with
the developer to proceed, but in all fairne~s to the developer and the City,
there has to be some mechanisms in order to do it. He stated it boils down to
whether or not the develoQer wants to proceed or do they want to wait for the
study to see what the exact doll~cs are.
2/22/Ei4
t
MINUT~S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FE~l2UARY 22, 1984 _ 84-96
Mr. UglPSby atateh the City controle all th~ mecheniam~ and ~he pro~erty
ow ~re control nonet that under improvement districta or b~neFit aceas, the
prc..ecty owner has very littln cight ta conteat whether or not the ~2.00 or
~1.50 or $1.UU per equare £oat amount is fair, reasoneble, ~ur~tified, if ever
spent, whece epent, and wheti~er they are parC of the impack. He stated th^
City hae tt-e right to formulate an assesement die~rtct as e govecnmental
agency and they are not askirg them not to do that, but are asking the City
net to bucden them with the $2.00 a ayuare foot figure today and not to bucden
them with an arbitrAry right tu say there is a benetit arua and 12 months from
now to aay it will coat $2.00 a equare faoC ar ~220,000 because the City has
decided to collect on r.heir benefit areA or im~rovement area dnd the propecty
owner has no right to contest thoae funds. Ne added he thought tt~at is unfair
a,~d is not a development risk that they norm~~.lly would take walking int~ any
type of rpzonin~ ection.
Commissioner Bushore r~tated if he wa~ the developer, he probr~bly would not
take those ri~ks and if tFie property owner c3oee nothing witt~ the property, ir
will n~t go away bec~use that is a vecy desirable location anci the value wi~l
keep c,oing u~. Ne stated tne City is 'crying to yive the prnperty owner and
thQ developer t. tool to conci.nue and take a riak if that is their position,
but tl~e Planniny Commis~.ton haa the whole City's welfare to considet and must
consider the entire impact of the project and if this i~ going to be A push
and ahove a~and-off, the other property owner's have agreed 1:o da this, even
if iC is arbitcary and the quesCion is whether or not they want ~o wail-. or do
they want lo proceed.
Commissionec La Claire stated stie dnes sympathize with the developer's
problem, but at thiu point the developer wil.l ju~t have to trust the City and
the Planning Commisaion. Mr. Oglesby stated they recogni~e krie City has those
mechanisms available and if what the Commission is saying ia that the $1.00 a
aquare foot to ttie Burnett-Ehline pro7ect is acceptable, if and when it is
built, and if it is going to repair the intersection at State College and Bal.l
Road, then th~t is part of the s~udy acea, and they have that condition placed
on their appr~val, but iE tne $1.00 square foot is going into a fund to
imprave the intersection because the cumulative effect along with other
developments zs burdening that intersection and if they have to develop thn
public utility services to their property and not to a property ovec on
Katella and Howell, that is a cost to the developer's project and a different
concept. He atated !~e is not sayin9 that they d~ not want to re~~p the
benefics of the Stadium area or to pay their fair st~are, but want to be in a
position where those costs are justified ar.d not a selected arbitrary amount
oi $2.00 a square foot which came ~ut of. somewhere.
Commi~sione: Fry pointe~i out the candition says 'not to exceed".
Commissioner Bushore stated the City cannot determinz the amount and that is
the 'horse before the cart• theory. He asked if staff would recommend that
the dollar amount be changed to $2.00 per square foot on the Bur.nett-Ehline
pcoject when ik is brought back for revi~ions. Juel Fick responded that
scaff's recommendation on that project will he consistent with this project.
2/22/84
MINUTBS, ANANEIM C1TY PLANNING_CQMMISSION, FEBRUARY 22, 1984 84-97
Mz. Ugleaby ateted the City will hsve the right to creete An impr~vement
dietri_ct or an dssesemont diatrict and aaked if ho, ea A property own~r, ha~
tho right l•o conteet those districts. He ataked the City will Also t~eve the
right ta creaCe an asaQSament diatricC and they are gronking the right not to
contest that and aeked where the balancP comes.
CommlbsiA~ec 6ualiore 8tated Chat is a development riak.
Joel Fick stated clparly when the findings oE L•he study are nvailahle and the
City gets into lhe subsequent im~lementation of the mechaniama, whether it i~
ah assesE~mant diatrict or a benefit a:ea or whatever the finAnci.ng mechaninms
are. st~f.[ will tie be£ore the Planni~~g Commission and City Council to make .~
determination and the Nropecry owners will be involved not unly in the akudy
ptoce~s iCselt, bul in the meetings wlierP tlie determinatians ace made.
Hal Young, 13AU Maxella, Marina Del Rey, CaliEornia, stAted he thinks the
iusue is roaily the ~tudy and no~ed che recommendation by t~tafE is for tokal
cost, not to exceed $70,000, and Business Propertiea is say~ng they will
c:ontr.ibute ~25,000 a~;d stafE recommend~d 1:h~~.t Buainea~ Propecties fund all the
~7U,OOC~, with the ~ossibi.lity of never yettiny reimburaed iE F~urnett-Ehline or
Stadium Associates or any other propecty owner did not contrib~te at a later
da.te. tie clariEied that E3usinesr~ ProPerties i~ say.ing they w:.ll pay their
fair st~ars and without reimbu~aement contribute $?.5,000, but they da not want
to fund Che whole $70,UG0 with the ~ossibility of not being reimbursed and
they do nak want to pay s~rt~a other property owner's share. He stAted the
~econd issue r.elates to thc 52.00 per 3quare foot figure and ataff is saying
the. City wants $2.Od per syuare foot times the leasable the acea which is
~22U,ODU for irnprovements in ttie area and then Durnett-Etiline is beina
a$t3e~~ed $1.00 per squace Eoot Eor the ~pecific impcovements whirh dicactly
relate to their property.
Pbul Singer indicated ti~at is not correct. Fie explained Burnett-Ehline's
condition reZates to a general benefit area and was not keyed to any apecific
prpject and is khe oame as the $2.00 pec syuare ~oot f_~ure suggested on this
development.
Mc. Young ~sked it ik is known at this time what fmprovements are needed, if
any at all, and asked if it is passible that the,y wr~uld contribu~e $220,000
and Hurnett-Ehline would pay their share and the money wou:d sit in a fund and
then the ~tudy camea back and says th~re are adequate aervices and
capabilit.iea available and the money isn't necessary. He added they fe::l it
would be unfair since it is real;.y not known What the dollars will be spent
Eot.
Paul 5inger atated it is not possit>le to determine what improvements are
needec3 until the stuc3y is completed. Joel Fick added there will be two phase~
oE the study and one is the land use portion And that is the portion the staff
is trying to get underway because there is no way the departments can do their
infrastructure planning to set up these asses~mentR district~ until that
portion of the study is done and the estimaCes have been for three months and
the estimate for all the studies and putting the assessment districts in place
has been At least one year.
2/22/84
H4-98
MINUTES~ A1~AHEIM CITY pL~NNING COMMISSION, t~EF11tUARY 22- 1984 __ -
Cummisaioner Buahore at+~t.~d he thought it would be reasonHble to say they
would put up ~25,000 becauae they know theY ar~ going to d~velop theit
propecty, sub~ect to th~ othec pro~,erty ownere puf:ting up their conhributions
and working out rn agreement tor reimbucsement or credit Eor future co~td.
Mr~ Ugleeby atated thc~y hAVe agreed upon a c~ntr.ibution of ~25,000, ao thought
that i~sue wan settled~ Ne atated the second iasue is the 52.00 per kl~lldCf.
foot foe and all they nre saying is that at thia time, the; do not know if. it
will be $2.00 or whatover and ar~ ~~yiny it could be more oc less And noted
agnin thc! City has r_he r~ght to focm assesamenk districta, but the condil•lon
3tates that in the event the $1.00 syut~ce foot tigure is not satisfactory,
tt~ey will be aubject to a full a~aessment dietrict, so there ia no guarantee~3
lid and the City could turn a~ound ~nd say this i~ a benefiL• are. Ne asked
where the guarantee li~s.
Joel Fick stated it ia correct that ~he City of Anaheim would have ttie right
to focm an assessment district any time. He referred back to Mr. Ogleaby'E
statement that thei r cor~tr ibution to the Eunding of tiie study issue t~A~ been
settled nnd skated there is a difierenc~ of opinion in tt~at the develaper is
ofEeriny a hard conzributiu~, of only ~25,000 and ~~Ying Eor one third oE the
study does not du the Cil:y anY guod; khat L•he City has z+ $'15,000 commitment
from CC6~E, really witl~ no obligation or. tl~ei~ ~art and no possibility to
requice it. tie statod the City i~ loolciny to this dEVelnper and altto any
other project devel oper tn this area for a study to be gotten undecway and it
ie :,i_,~ft's recommendation that the study be tunded and if another developer
come~ ~~ t rior t~ the time this developer pullc b~aildin~l pecmitsr ~hen they
would bE zeimbursed foc their portion uE tt~e funding of the st~dy.
Chairwoman Bouas cla[ified that stafE is reco~~,mending that Businesc Properties
has to agree to pay the $7U,000 now and get Che study underwa;~.
Commissioner Bushore stated ~he Cortunisaion has c:iscussed this in the past anci
that they would Zike to se~ the developer or pcoperty owner develop this
property in a manner he seec £it, but the Planning Commission has to make aure
it isn't going to jeopardize the City in any wa.y and suggested maybe there
shoul.d be a moratorium on the development of this area until a study is done.
E~e atated he knows the developer doesn't wank that, hut it is an alteKnative.
Mr. Young stated i t is not known what the total number is on the beneEit
district and it is their contention t.hat the City has the right t~ levy an
assesement districL and implement it and as~ess a fair share at that l•ime and
the property owne~s are obl.igated to pay it. He stated that they will enter
into an agreement n~L• to contes~ that and iF the skudy illustrates that the
City needs additio~,~,l funds for services, they can impose the asseasment
district and they will then pay their fair share, but they do not want the
City to ask them to pay up front an arbikrary number that could be placed in a
"slueh fund" and then business propertiea wauld have unfairly expended money
that may or may not be uspd to benefit their pcoperty.
Joel Eick stated the City has the right tu form an assessment district, but
this is a protect ion in the event some other type of benefit area or service
area ot sumething else is formed. He stated that tt.e ~2.00 pe~ sQuare foot
figure is not up f[ont money, but is the amount du~ following determination of
the amount of services and benefit area.
2/22/84
v
„
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FERRUARY 221 198A 84-99
Jack Whit~ atated the etudy mAy result in any ot' three thingsJ 1) the fi.r.st
would b~ det~rmining that tha aervice~ aro adequate in the area and no
Qddi tionAl impcovements are nedded, 2) that addiCional improvements ~re needed
and the way to fund ttioae would be through a 1911 Act Aseeasment Diatrl.ct
where evecy pGOperty in th~ areA benefited is assesaed a cectsin amount and 3)
ChP po~sibilfty oi asying rhoae improvements are needed, but the appropriate
way to fund thoae would be h.he establishm~nt of $ome soct of benefit diatrict
whereby the ~:<:velopera are requiced t.o pay a proportionate shace of the co4ts
oE i mpcovements u~on obteining building permits for future development only.
Ile s tAted to the oxtenl• thaG ma jor developmen~a have pro jects ap~sroved and
obtain butlding per.mlte prior to the time that the study is done, the City hdR
effectively loat the ability to use the third alternative in that the more
dev~lohments that ace approved, the le~a the City has tc~ colleck fe~a a~
conditions of buildiny permi.te. He stated whet ia being proponed in the
curccnt canditions is to try ~o preserve whnt he seea as a current statua quo
unti 1 it ie determined what the study asys ~nd the condillons are written in a
wxy that would provide that the dev~loper, in lieu of being required to put up
n lot of moiiey right now tor tuture imc~rovements, would simply record A
covenant sayiny that they are deferring pAyment until a later time thnt woulcl
lae required ~s a ~onditton of building perrtiitc~. He stated iE there ia na
benPfiC area created, then there is no money tc put up and if an assessm~nt
~i~trict is created, obvi~usly, the developec wi11 have to contribute to the
assesement district, .,ut th~t would be ~iven aa a credit to the amount due l:o
the extent perrtiitted by law lhat they had contributed to the study and had not
beeri ceimburaed. Ne stated in the event the s~udy should say that there
ehould be a combination of bott~ these mechanism~, the asaessment district and
benefit diatrict, the intent oE tt~e condition is that it w~uld be unfair to
require this or any other develoC~ec to contribute to both and by sayiny give
us a certain amount of dollars as part of the benefit area, then we will bill
you E~t an as~essment dirkrict that is going to be exclusive of what you
already put up on the ben~~fit area. He stated at the cucrenl• time, tt~ere is
not enough inEormatian to kn~w wh~t mechanismo will be uaed in oKder to allow
khis project to go forward.
Mr. Young stated they will be happy to waive the right to contett the
ass~sament district and when the ~tudy comes back and the determination is
made that therE are certain benefits or districts rec~uired, they wi?1 be happy
to pay their fair shace, but do not want to arbitcarily piek a number and give
money to the City that may nut be cequired which they do not feel is fair.
Jack White asked if it w~uld resnlve the problem to delete the $2.00 per
square foot figure.
Mr . Young replied he tho~~ght that would be fair because the balance of
Conditfon No. 11 talks about the fact that if it is dekermined by the study
that money is required, they will comply with the benefit and/or assessment
dis trict as implied and he thought inherent in that is the fac~ that when
those assessments or benefits distcict~ are established, they uniformly and
equ itably apply to landownera and property owners in that acea. He stated
they Eeel if the $2.00 figure i8 left in the condition, they are arbitcari~y
being selected as the first to pay the lions share when they may not have to
pay anything and if they have to pay something, it will be assessed against
the property.
2/22/sa
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 22. 1984 84-.100
Jack White euggest~d deleting the ~2.00 figure in Condition No. 11 and
modifying it to provide khat nothing contained in the condition nor in thE
covenant to be recorded will c~nsttl•ute A waiver on the right af the proPerty
owner to contest the manner in which the amount or benefit ie de~ermined or
spread among the varioua properties placed in the benefit diakrict.
Mr. Young atated tt-ey w~uld be fine b~c~use basica.lly what they are sayinq is
that whon they find aut wliat moniea, if any, nre needed, they wi.ll equitably
pro-rate that among the people who are going tn benefit.
Jack White atated ttiat would be waiving the ri~ht to contest the creatfon of
the diRtcict., but nok waiving the right tu conteat the benPEit or the apread
of the aasesament based on benetit. tie stated he thauyht this arranqement
would be satisfactory to everyone. He stated he wanted to make sure it iu
cleac that the covenant languAqe would be that the developer wuuld be
deferring the payment to a later date and it w~uld not be a condition of t:he
building pecmil•a.
Mc. Youny stacea they ar.e willing to pay wtiatever their fair ~hare is.
Comminsioner La ~laire a~ked if there is bn arrangement on the cost of the
study. Mr. Uglesby stated ~t is his understanding that there is a$20,OOU
commitment fcom CC&F and if tt~ere is $25,OOU from Buenetk-Ehline, then with
their $25,OOU, the Ci.ty has their ~tudy and that they Are going to start
within the next 60 days.
c;ommissioner t.a Claire stated she will ofter a motion including the condition
the way ik is wcitten conc;ecning the study because if the City required the
developer to prepare an environmental impact report, it would cost at least
$50,000.
ACTIUN: Comrnissioner La Claire offered a motion, secondc~d by Commisaioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioner Herbst absPnt), that the Ar.aheim City
Planning Commi~sion has reviewed the proposal to amend the General Plan from
the current general industrial designation to the cemme:cial~ professional
designation and to reclassify subject property from ML (Industrial, Limited)
to CL (Commercial~ Office and Professional) 2one to construct a 6-story
commercial office building on an irregularly-shaped parcel af land consisting
of appcoximately 3.24 acres located at the nartheast corner of Katella Avenue
and Howell Avenue acad further described as 2401 E. Katella Avenue; ~nd does
hereby approve the Negaki.ve Declaratic~n upon finding that it has conesidered
the Negative Declaration together with any comn~ents received during the public
ceview process and Eurther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there i~ no substantial evidpnce that the project wi.ll
have a si.gniEicant effect on the enviconment and furthec on the basis that. an
environmental impact re~,ort will be prepared on this locati~n to discuss
cumulative impacts.
Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution N~. PC84-34 and moved foc its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning CommiRSion does hereby
deny General Plan Amendment No. 191.
..,' 22/8 4
t
~
MINUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON FEBRUARY 22 1984 84-10.1
Joel Firk suggeat~d that t:he General Plan Amenclment be denied without
pcejudice so that it could be brought back for eubmittal following completion
of the study.
~ommissioner La Clai~e added that should be included ns part ~f her resolution.
On roll cal.l, the foregoing reaolutiore was pasned by the following vote:
AXES: E30UAS~ BUSNORE~ FRY~ KINGi LA CLAIRE, MC QUFtNEY
NOES; NONE
AFISENT; NBFtHST
Commicsioner Lu Claire otkerecl Reaolution No. PC84-35 and moved for its
pabsage and adoption that the Anr~heim City Planning Cornmission doea hereby
grAnt Reclassi[icdtion No. d4-85-19 ~ut~ject to the Ktipulationa of the
app.licant and modifications as indicated by Jack White per.taining to
Conditiona No. 11 and 12, and sub3ect to Interdepactmental Committee
recommendationr~.
On roll call, khe foregoiny rertolut•ion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: fi0UA5, BUSEIORE, FI2Y, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NUES: NUNE
ABSENT: H~RBST
It was noted therE was no need to act on tt~e tequest• to the ~ity Council to
review the ceclassiEication sincP tY~e General Plan Amendmenk was denied.
Jack White, Assistant City Attornsy~ presenked the written rfght to appeal the
Planning CommiHSion's dec.ieion within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 8._ EIFt NEGATIVF DECLARAZ'ION AND RE~UEST FOR RFMOVAL OF SPECIMEN_TkEE5
PUBL?C H~ARING. OWNERS: BUTTERFIELD VENTURE; CURPORATION, 760 North Main
Street, Suite B, Orange, CA ~'~668. AGENT: RON NYGREN, 760 Norkh Main Street,
Suite D, Orange, CA 92668. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 1.0 acra, 609 Peralta Hills ~rive.
Request for the removal of two I;ucalyptus trees to facilitate construction of
a single-family tesidence.
There was no one indicating thei~ presence in oppoeition to subject request
and although the st.afE report was not read, it ig referred Go and made a part
of the minutes.
Jack Norris, 17662 irvine Boulevard, Suite 7, Tustin, Civil Engineer,
explained this is a request for approv~l of removal of specimen trees to allow
construction of a large single-family dwelling; that there are apgroximately
27 okher specimen trees on the properry that will be presexved arid the two to
be removed are in the way ot constcuction and that the trees will be reglaced
by an equal number of treea fcom the City's specimen tree list.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLUSED.
2/22/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMI5SIUN, FF.BRUARY 22,L 19~4 84-102
Commisaioner La Claire stated oh~ is famillar with the property and did not
think the removal of the kwo trees would be a detriment.
ACTION; Commiasioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commi~sionec
McBurney and MoTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst abaent), that the Anaheim
City Planning CommiAeion has reviewed the pcoposal to remove two Eucalyptus
trees to facili~ar.e conatruction ot a single-family reaidence on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f Approximateiy 1.0 acre, having
a frontage ~f appr.~ximately lU2 feet on the south cide of. Peralta Hills Drive
and furthec de~cribed as 609 Peral.ta Hilla Drivet and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it l~as consideced the Neqative
Declaration together with any comments received during the ~ublic CP.V~pW
proceae and fucther finding on the bASis of the Initial Study and any comments
received that there is na subutanti~l evidence that the project will have a
significant effe~t oti the environmEnt.
Commissioner La Claire uffer~d a motlon, seconded Uy C~mmissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner Hecbst absent), that thr Anaheim City Planning
Commisoion does heteby yrant a~proval Eor Che removal of two 'Eucalyptus trees
to facilitate conatruction of a single-family residence on the bacis that
reasonable and practical developmenk of khe propec~y on whict~ the trees are
l~cated requices removal oE the trees and on the basia t,hat it will not have a
detrimental efEect on the neighboctiond and cubject to the following conditions.
1. That the removed trees shall be replaced with the planting on the
same paccel of an equal number of trees fcom the specified list in
the 5cenic Corridor Overlay Zane.
2. That subject property shall be develoPed substantielly in accordance
with plans and specifiGations on file with tt~e City of Anaheim
marked Gxhibit No. 1.
3. That prior to fina.l building and zoning inspection3, Condition Nos.
1 and 2, above-mentianed, shall be complied with.
ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION AND RECLASSIEICATION N0. 83-84-21
~UBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KATHRYN WISE, 2570 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92801 and BGRNARD E. BLUME ANA MARY E. BLUME, P.O. Box 158, La Mirada, CA
90637. AGENT: KUO-KANG CHANG 6 KUO-CHI CHANG, P.O. Box 9064, Anaheim, CA
92802. Property described as a rectangularly-~hapPd parcel of land consisting
of approximately 1.2 acres, 2566-257U West Lincoln Avenue.
R5-A-43,000 and CL tn RM-1200 to construct a 32-unit apartment complex.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and alth4ugh the etaff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a gart
of the minutes.
K. C. Chang, agent, 1779 Colonial Avenue, Anaheim, was present to answer any
questions.
THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED.
2/22/84
~tINUTES_,_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 22, 1984 84-103
ACTION Cpmmiasioner King offeced a motion, seconded by Commigaioner Er.y ~nd
MUTIUN CARRiED tCommiseioner Herbat absent), that the Anaheim Ciky Planntng
C~mmission ha~ reviE~wed the propoaal to rec.lassify sub~ect pr~perty Fcom the
R5-A-43,000 And CL to tho RM-120U 2one ko conatruct a 37.-unit apacLment
complex on a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of approximately
1.2 acres, having a frontao,e of app~oximately 189 £eet on ttie south eide of
Lincoln Avenue and further described As 2566-2570 W. Lincoln Avenuet and d~es
hereby approve the Neyative Dcclacation upon finding that it has considered
the Negative Declaration togeti~er with any cornrtienta ceceived during the p~blic
review ~roces~ and further find~ng on the basis of the Initial Study and anY
commenta ceceived that thece is no substanCial evidence that the project will
have a aignificant efiect on the environment.
Commiasionec ~ing offered Reaolut-ion No. YC84-36 and maved for its paa~age and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission doe~ hereby gr.nnt
Reclaseification No. 03-84-21 aubject to Intecdepartmental Committee
tecommendations.
Un roll ca11, the focegoing resolution was pas~ed by the Collowing vate:
AYES: BOUAS, ~USNORE, FRY, KING, LA CI,AIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HGRBST
ITEM NU. 10. EIit N£GATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFIC:ATiUN N0. 83-84-20 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3375
PUBLIC HEARiNG. OWNER: EILEEN A. GRUIPF, 316 North Siesta, Anaheim, CA
92801. Property described as a rectar-gularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately .16 ac~e, 124 South Harding Drive.
Waiver of minimum aideyard setback to construct a duplex.
There were Lwo persons indica~ing their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was not re~d, it is ceferred to and mnde
a part of the min~tes.
Eileen A. Druiff, 316 N. Siesta, Anaheim, owner, explained khe request and
stated the duplex will be the same size and shape as the other new homes in
the area and it will appear as a single-family residence on the front; that
there will be a 6-foot concrete block wall acound the aide and reer yard
setbacks. She stated this will be t:he same as the duplex she had constructed
at 123 S. Grand and pointed out that unit has been well-maintainEd and has
been an asset r.o the neighborhood. She stated the General Plan designates the
area for medium-density residential land use~s and it will be a desirable
project since it will replace a 63-year old frame house of 'l20 square f.eet.
She stated there are 6 properties in thia area which have been developed as
multiple-family units, one of which ~s contiguous to subject property.
Ms. Druiff stated she had petitions signed by almost every reaident on both
sides of Harding. She presented pictures of subiect Froperty and the proposed
project and etated the project will provide two units of affordable housing at
the timp when there is an ever-increasing need and it is conveniently located
1/2 block from the City bus route and stores.
2/22/84
MINUTE&, AN~H~IM CITY PI.ANNINC COMMISSIUN, FEBRUARY 22, 1984 84-104
Yuen Lung, 12U 5. Nerding, ataCed hia propecty is locAted next door t.o the
propos~d duplex and he understande rhr_re Are aome dis~dvnntages with duploxes
because uaually thQ y~rds are fully covered with concc~te and when it raine
the dtainage floada the n~ighbochood an~ there is a problem now cauaed by with
the duplex at the rear of hie pcopecty. t1e stated children from the duplex et
khe rear o~ h~s prop~tty c~imb over hia fence and throw thingQ over his fence
end if the pnrent~ arr ownera he can uaually tAlk to them once end the problem
is resolved, but renterx move in tind out nnd 1ie tia~ u hard time finding the
pACent~. Cie stated he bouyhk his house abouC 5 year~ ago And wAnted to bui]d
a fence between his pcoperty and subject prope-ty, but could nc+t get the
adjacent property owner to give permisaion And he h~~d to build hia Eence one
foot Erom thc ~rope~ty line and asked if another ~ence is ptopased adjacent to
hia fence.
Ms. Uruiff staLed st~e has signatureE ot every p~cson on ~i~at block of iauth
Harding except Mr. Lung and one other abcentee home owner. She stated she h~a
A letter from tt~e owner oE the private rer~ic:ence immediately north of the
duplex on Grand whic~h indicates that the duplex has t~een well-maintained and
has nat caused any problem~. She IItated rhe upent a lot of extra moitey to pul
in a drain sYstem for that duplex so that block wall will not cauoe a drainage
problem. She Atated s13~ has tried to contact Mr. Lung, l~u~ he was not
interested in talking with her. She at.ated she did not know what he is
talking about r.egaraing the Eence or payme~t; for the fence. She added she is
yoing to put a 6-foot wall on the soukh property line at her own expense and
that hie wall would remain. She explained the existing house is 3 Eeet from
the neiyhbor's property and the new atructure Will be .10 fect away.
Mr. Lung ex~lained his block wall is I foo;. from his property line.
THE; PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL05ED.
It was clarified that the drainage ~roblem Mc. Lung had referred to was caused
hy another property to tk~e rear of tiia property and not s~~bject property.
Commissioner Fry left the meeting at 5:U5 p.m. and did not return.
Mr. Lung re~ponded to Comn-iasioner Fry that he is not apposed to apartments,
but would like to see a larger complex that would be managed by a management
company. Mr. Lung otated he is opposed t.o this request because of his
experience with the other duplex. Conunissioner La Claire asked where the
drainage comes from which ru~s onto his property. Mr.. Lung stated the
property which causea the prablem is to the reac and to the southeast.
Kendra Morries explafned one of the standard conditions is that all
requirements of the Engineering Division tequiring such thin~s as storm
dcains, sewers, drainage, curbs, gutters, sidewalka, etc. would be complied
with so the drainage is samething she will be reqUir~ed to work out with, the
Engineering Department before she gets final zoning and building inspections.
Mr. Lung stated the top of the carports causes drainage problems and they are
located on the property at the rear to the ~outheast which ia owned by the
~ame petitioner.
2/22/84
84-105
MINUT.~S_, ANAHEIM CxTY pLANNING C~MMISSIQN. FEBRU~RY 22. 19~4 _
Comm~seionec Dughore ateted there coul.d be a drain~ge probl~m which c.ould be
reaolved at this time with the cr~nattuction oE thin project. Ha otated the
Commi»efon cannok conttol the ~rc~~lom of children climbing over the walla,
howevet.
Ms. DruitE stated there is only one ~mall ct~ild in the duN]ex to the rear, Ao
the childcen climbiny over hie wAll do not r,ome from hec property. Regardiny
the drainage~ she stated they did ap~nd a lot oE maney aver and above what tt~e
~iky cequires to have ptoper drainager ~o she did not think the drainsge
problem ia Erum her property.
Kendra Morrips aCated the ~tca~n bothered with tt~e drAihaye problem can
contoc~ the CiCy Duilding And ~ngineering Departments and get that problem
resolvedr however, it he iE cnncerned about ~1rAY,Y~A9ethe cotof~af Phe~cacports
apecific condition could be an added requicin9
bP slaped and deFi~n~d to E>rcclude drainaye onto <any adjacent properties.
Commisaioner Buahore referred to the Eence and nsked what would happen ta that
8 to 12-inch area b~~cauce her cement line woulcl ~nly come Lo the prapecty line
leaving that one foot area.
Ms. DruiFf stated tt~e cacF~orts are not located ad~acent on this gentl.emen's
side ~f the p~o~erty~ so he would not get drainage from the carport. She
explained the driveway would be adj~~ent to hia property. Commis~ionec
Buahore stated the driveway would have to be aloped in A manner not to drain
into the dead space ad;~acent to lt~e wall and go into the seep hnles in the
fence.
Ms. Druiff stated they will comply. Comniiscioner La Cleire stated all the
area between the cacpart and the properky is cement and ahe thought the
ptoblem can be resolved if the petitione~r Will stipulate to comply with the
City Engineering requicements with proper drainaqe and if thece is a problem
with tti~ athe~ p[operty, she wil] resolve it.
Ms. DruifE statEd she would agcee to take care of tlie drainage and will take
care of any problems rhat are existin9 and will do ~he same thing on subject
property and stated st~e had phutogcaptis o~ the current drainage piges.
Kendra Morcies cecommended a condition be added to read: 'That the driveway
and cacport~ will be designed to preclude drainage of ruri off water onto any
adjacent praperties."
ACTION: Commi~sioner I,a Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
King and MOTION CARRIEp (Commiasionecs Herbst and Fry absent), that the
Anahefm City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to ceclassi£y
subject property from the FtS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to tr~e
RM-2400 (Rssidential, Multiple-Family) 2one to constcuct a duplex with wafver
of minimum side yard setback on a rectangulatly-ahaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately .16 acre, having A frontage of approximately 50
feet on the east side of Harding Urive and fucther described as 124 Harding
Drive; and does hereby approve the Negative Declacation upon finding that it
has considered the Negative Declaration together ~.~ith any comments received
during the public ceview process and furthpr fxnding on the basi3 of the
2/22/64
MINU7'E5. ANAN~IM CITY PLANNxNG COMMISSION. FhBRUARY 22, 1984 ~~ 84-106
Initiel Study and any commonts rere~ved that thece is no subatantiAl evidence
thdt the pro~ect will heve a significAnt Affect on the enviconment.
Commieaiuner Gn ~laire affered Reso.lution N~. PC84-37 end moved for ite
pasaAge and adoption thaC the An~heim City Planning Cammissi~n doea hereby
ycant Reclassification Na. 83-84••2U subject to the petitior~er's sripulation to
deaign a cacport and driveway in a manner eo that there will be no run-off
water on Any ~djecont propecty and sub~ect to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendr,tions.
Un r.oll call, the foreyoing resolution was paased t~y ~he following vote;
AYES: BOUAS~ BUS}1URE~ KING~ f.A CLAIkE~ MC BURNFY
NUES: NONE
AB5~N1': FRY, HCRBS'1'
Comtnissio~ec LA ~laice offered Resolution No. [~C94-38 and moved for its
paesage And adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commia~sion doea herer.y
grant Variance No. i375 on the basis that thcce are spec~al circumakancea
t~pNlicAble to hhe property auch as sfze, shnpc, topogcaphy, location and
surroundings which do ~iot ap~ly to okher identlcally zoned property in the
same vicinityJ and that strict application of the Zoniny Code deprives the
property of privilegeR en~oyed by other propertiea in the id~ntica] zone and
claesification in the viclnity and ~subjeck to Interdepartmental CAmmittee
recammendations including a conditior~ requiring that the driveways and
carpnrts shall be designed so the run-oEf wate: drainage will not be onto ary
adjacent properties.
On rall call, th~~ foregoiny resolution was passed by t ~llowing vote;
AYES: BOUAS, BUSNURE~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC E3URNEY
NOES: NON~
ABSENT: FRY, HERBST
c:ommissianer La Claire stated she w~uld request ~taff to follnw through on the
opposition'~ complaint regarding drainage onto his property from the property
to the reac and poi~ted out the petitioner has agreed to reaolve the problem
created by the property at 123 S. Grand Avenue.
ITEM N0. 11. EIR CATEGORICAL 6XEMkTION-CLASS 1~ AND VARIANCE N0. 3378
PUBLI~ HEARING. OWNERS: CO'.NTRY CLUB HOTELS, INC,, 14771 "G' Plaza Drive,
Tustin, CA 9268U, AGENT: ~10SAM OZYP, 14771 "G" Plaza Drive, Tustin, CA
92680. F~roperty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land cunsisting
of approximately 1.48 acre, 1251 North Hatbor Eioulevard.
Waivera of: a) permitted lucation of fre~standing afgns, b) minimum distance
between freestanding signs, c) maximum height of freestanding illuminat~d
sign, d) minimum ground cleacance of freestanding sign and e) maximum square
footage of entcance sign to permit two freestanding signs and an entrance sign.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requpst
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
2/22/84
MINU'PES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 22. 1984 84-1Q7
Commieaioner Mcsurney dFClered a conflict of interest as deEined by Aneheim
City I~lanning Commisoion Resolut.ion No. PC76-]57 adopting a Conflict of
Intere~at Code for the Planning Commiasion enu Govrrnment C:ode Sectlon 3625, et
t~eq., in that he may have a financiAl intQCest ii~ the outcame of thia
development and pursuant to the pcovisione of the above CodeE, declared to the
Chairman that he was withdrawing from the heoring in connection with Varf~ance
No. 3378, And wou)d not take ~art in ei~her the diecusoion or the voting
l;haceon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning
Commisaion. There~pon Cnmmisr~i.on~r McB~~rney ].ef t the Counci 1 Chamber .
Josam Uzyp, agent, w~s ~~re~enl to r~nawcr any question~.
THE PUBLZC NEAftING WAS CI,OSCD.
Paul. Brown cepresenting (juiel eruthers, 272 South .T StrceL•, San Bernardino,
the aign company~ explained Che heia,ht request ia necessary because o~ the
freeway and the Eact ttiat tl~e Eigns are blocked and mutels needs to dcaw
gue~ts Lrom the freeway.
THE PUBLIC HENtING WAS CLOSEU.
It was noted the Planning Uir.ector or hiE a~u~t~ocized represenL•ative has
determined thaC the proposed ~roj~ct Ealls within the deFinition of
Categorical Exemptians, Class 11, as defined in the Skate ~nvironmental Impact
Report Guidelines and is, kherefore, categorically exempt Erom th~ cequirement
to prepare an ~IR.
ACTION: CommiE~ioner bushore oifered Reaolution ~o. PC84-39 and moved for it~
passage r~nd adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi.ssion does hereby
yrant Variance No. 3378 on the basis th~at there are ~pecial circumstances
applicable to the property ~uch as aize, ahape, tnpography, location and
surroundings which do not aE~ply to other id~ntically zoned property in the
same vicinityr and that strict application of the Zuning Code deprives the
property oE privileges enjoyed by other pro~erties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and denying waivers (d) and (e? on the basis
that the petitioner stipulated to elimi-.ate the sign identifie@ as 'C" and
combine it with sign 'e' and that it would be 8 Eeet from tlie ground and
subject to Interd~partmental Committee recommendations.
On coll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ KING~ LA CLAIRE
NOES; NONE
ABSENT: FRY, HERBST~ MCBURNEY
ITEl1 12. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEhEPTIUN-CLASS 5 AND VAItIANC~. N0. 3379
PUBI.IC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSE QUENG TIaMZON & FELICITAS B. TIAMZON, 1031
North Baxter Street, Anaheim, CA 92a05. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ap~roximately 6406 square
feet, 1031 North eaxter Street.
2/22/84
MINUTk5-_ ANAHEIM CITY Pt+ANNING COMMISS;ON, FEaRUARY 22, 19R4_...__ __ 84-1A8
Waiver oE maximum lot coverege to construct a raom addition.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppoaition to sub~ect ceque~k
and although the staff report weA not read, it is referred ta And mmde a part
of the minutes.
Joae Tiamzon, ownec, was preaent to anawer any quest~ons.
THE PUBLIC HEARlNG WAS CLOSED.
it was noted Che Planniny Uirector or his au4horized represenkAtive has
determined ttiat the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Cl~ss 5, Aa defined in the State Environmental impact
RNport Guidelines ~nd is, therefore, categoricallv exempt from ttie requiretnpnt
to prepare an EIR.
AC7'ION: Commisaioner Kiny offered Reaolutian No. PC84-40 and mo~ed for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim Ciey Planning Commiasion does hereby
grant Variance No. 3375 on the basis that thece are special ciccumatances
applicable to the pruperty such a~ size, shape, topography, location and
surroundinga whlch do r.ot apply to ~tt~er identi~Ally zoned properky in the
same vicinity; and that strict applieakion of the 7,oning Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other pr~~erries in the identical zone and
classiEicati.on in the vicini'cy and subject to Interdepattmental Conunittee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote:
AXES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, KING, LA CLAIR~, MC BURNBY
NUES: NONE
ABSEMT: FRY, HERBST
Jack White, Asaistant City Attorney, presented the written right Go appeal the
Planning Commission's d~cision within 22 days Lo the City Councfl.
ITEM N0. 13. EIR CATEGORTCAL BXEMPTIUN-CLASS 5 At'.D VARIANCE N0. 3380
PUaLiC HEARING. OWNERS: J~A~UIN SUEIRO S AGNES S. VAIL, 19G9 Deer Creek
Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: CASEY B. JURADO, 2821 Whitestar Avenue,
~C, Anahaim, CA 92a06. Property described os a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 5300 square feet, 1909 Deer Creek Ciccle.
Waivec ot maximum lot coverage to construct a room addition.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and alth~ugh the staff report. was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part
of the minutes.
It was noted the agplicant was not pcesent.
`PHE PUBLIC HEARING WAS C~OSED.
2/22/84
MINU'1~BS, AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION_, FE9RU~RY 22f 1984 84-109
I~ wes noted tt~e P1Anning ~irector or ~iis authorized ceprea~ntetive has
determined that the proposed project fal~e with~n the definitlo~ of
Categorlcal ~xemptione, Claso 5, as define~ in ttie S~ate Envi~onmental Impact
Roport Guidelinea and is, thecefore, categorically exempt Erom the requiremPnt
to prepace an EIR.
ACTION: Commi~sioner Kiny offered Re~alution No. PC84-41 and movtd for its
passage ~nd adoption that the Anaheim City P.lanning Commisaion does hereby
grant Variance No. 3380 on the baeie thAt there are ~pecial circumstancea
applicable to the property such a8 aize, shape, topography, location and
aurcoundinge which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinil•yt and that st~ict applicatlon of the Zoning Code deprivea khe
property of privileges enjoyed by other propertiea in the identical zone and
classiEication in the viciniky and subject to interdepactmental Committee
racommen~ations.
Un ca~l call, the foregoing reaolution was pASSed by the following vote;
AYES: BOUA5, BUSHORE, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NUES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY, NEfiDST
ITEM NU. 14. EIR ~A7'EGORICAL EXEM~TION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3381
PUSLIC t~EARING. OWNERS: WALTER E. COOK & CATHERINE A. COOK, 50a4 Holbrook
Street, Anaheim, CA 928U7. AGEN~`: CASEY B. JURADO, 2821 Whitestar Avenue,
iC, Anaheim, CA 928U6. Yroperty deecribed as ~ rectangular.ly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of• approximately 500U syuare feet, 5044 Holbrook S~rEP.t.
Waiver of maximum l.o~ cove-age ko construct a room addition.
There was no one indfca~+~~y the:r pce~ence in opposition to subject requesk
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Waltec Cook, owner, was present to answer any queations.
THE PUBI~IC HEARING WAS CLaS~D.
It was noCed the Planning Director or his authorized represenkative has
detecmined that the proposed project fall.s within the definition of
Categorical ~xemptions- Class 5, as defineci in the State Environmental Impact
Report Guidelines and iq, therefore. categ~cically exempt from the requf.rement
to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered R~solution No. PC84-42 and moved ~or its
passage and adoption Lhat the ~naheim City planning Commission does hereby
grent Varfance No. 3381 on the basis tihat there are special circumstances
applicable ko the property such as size, shape, topography, location and
surroundings which do not a~~'y to other identically zoned property in the
same vic~nity; and that strict applicat.ion ef the ZQning Code dep~ives the
2/22/84
MINUTES. ANANEIM~ CITY F_%~~~t~ING COMMIS&ION, CEBRUI-RY 22. i984 _84-110
proporty of privilegea Qn~joXed by other properties in th~ ldenticAl xone and
cldsaification in the vicinity and subject to I~terdepac tmontal Committee
recummendationa.
On roll call, the focegoing resolutian wa~ pasaed by the Eollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSNORE~ KING~ I.A CLAIRE~ MC E3URNEY
NUES: NUN~;
ABSENT; ~RY ~ HFRkIST
IT~M N0. 15. __E_IR CA7~ JRICAL EXEMPTION-CI~A.~.'S S AND VARI ANCE NO. 3376
FUBLIC H~AI2ING. OWNEkS: WILLIAM H. REIME3ULD 6 E'AITHE E. REIMHOLD~ 1000 NoCth
Roanne Place, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: MICHABL MC CAR REGL/K~N RIIOqBS, 13Q12
Ct~enshew Boulevard, Gardena, CA 90249. Property deacrib etl as a n
irregulacly-ahaped pRrcel ~f land consiating of approximately 5800 aquare fee~
located at tlie nar~heas~ curnec of Rainbow Avenue And Roanne Place, 1000 North
Roanne Place.
Waiver of minimum rear yArd netb~ck to conatruct a patio nddition.
There was no one indicating :heir presence in oppositio r~ to subject request
and although the ntaff repo~t was not read, it is refer red to and made a part
of the mi.nutes.
Michael McCarrell, agent, was present to anawec any yue stlons.
THE PUk3I.IC H~ARING WAS CLO ~E17.
Commissi.oner King asked if the agent had talked r.o the neighbor t•o thc: re~r
with Mr. McCarrell cesponding he had noG spoken to the ~teighbor, but thouqht
the other agent had and they had Approved af the ceques t, although he did not
have anythiny in writing.
it was i.._ed the Planning Dira~ctor or his authocized representative has
determined that the proposed pcoject f.alls within the c3efinition of
Categorieal Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the Sta te Environmenh.al Impact
Report Guidelines dnd is, therefvre, categorically exempt from the requirement
to pcepar.e an EIR.
Ac:TION: Commissioner King offered Resoluticn No. PCo4-43 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Variance No. 3376 on the basis that there are special circumatance~
applica5le ta the pcop~cty such as size, shape, topography, location ~~nd
surroundinys which do not apply to other ic'entically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that r~trict application oE the Zoniz~g Code deprives the
property of privilege~ enjoyed k~y c~her pcopertier~ in the identieal zone and
classification in kt~e viclnity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendatians.
On rell call, the foregoing resolution was passed by t he following vAte:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ KING, Lc :::aIREi MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY, HERBS:
2/22/84
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING rOMMISSION, F~ORUARY 22, 1984 84-111
IT~M N0. 16
REPORTS ANA RECOMMENDAZ'IONS
A. VARIANCE Nq. 2768 - Request from James A. Lasby, foc an extension of time
tor Vaciance No. 2'168, property located at 836 South State College
~oulevard.
Res~onding to Commissioner Bushore, .Tack White, Aasistant City Attorney,
explained the file lndicates he had abstained prQViously because he had
been the ageut for the property at ~ne time. Commisaionec Buahoce skated
he would abstain now ~ven though he has no legal conflict.
I~ was noted the applicant was not present. Jack White explained there
is no legal reason the Commissfon could not hear the testimony from those
present since this is not A public hearing.
Mary Lou Schulkz, 829 S. Reseda, Anaheim, explained ~he ha~ owned hec
residence for approximakely 20 years and in Epeaking for the reside;~ts of
Placenti.a Park and the 14 persons pre~ent. in opposition. 5he presented
peti.tions containiny, 135 signatures of property owners in opposition and
six letters in oppositi~n and a copy o£ the deed restrict•ion and pointed
out other letters of op~osition have been mailed.
Ms. Schultz stated this variance has bcen vi~lated since 1976 when Mr.
Earle rented it to Mr. Johnson; that Mr. Earle stated on Decernber 6,
1977, that the property would be restored to a residence, but thut hasn't
been done; that the previous extension of time was granted even though
the majority of reaidents wece opposed; khat there is a sign on the fcont
door which reada, "Re~idential Field Services" and there are at times six
tu ten vehicles parked on the s~reet cauaing congestion and traffic
hazards Decause it is a narcuw residential street.
Ms. Schultz atated khey feel the property bhould be re-established as a
residence. She stated they do not wish their properti~s to be blighted
by any fucther commercial zoning.
Charles R. Wright, 931 Cedarwood Lane, Anaheim, representing the Anaheim
Gazdens Homeownec's Association, st~ted theirs is a community of
single-family townhouses and their Board of Directors voted to oppose the
extension of this temporary variance after some of their homeoWners
complained; that they are a9ainst the varfance because the intrusion of
business establishments in the area, southerly of Viking on the east side
of State Colleye, will cause additional expen~e ~n khe care and upkeep of
their privately-owned walls, streets and greenbelt areas. He stated thPy
have had to replace some of the rnasonry wa11 which abuts the alley which
dead ends at their property line. He stated they have overflow parking
from the park already and feel if these businesa encroachments are
allowed to continue, the expense to their community will b~ prohibitive
and propErty values will decline. He stated cars parked on both sides of
Viking eACh day create a hazard foc the students in the area; that all
khe homes have been designated as single-~ani~y homes and further
extensions of this temporary variance will encourage other homeowners to
2/22/84
MINUTES. ANAEI~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N, FEBRUARY 22, 1984 84-112
req uest the same thinq and if they ace ailowed, incidonces of break-ina,
vandaliam and [oot And vehicular tcaffic wi.11 increr~se because it has
bee n provon that crime inccaas~s with buai--esses adjACent t.o priva~e
homea.
fie aaked i the var.iancE ia transferable cinc:e it was issued to Mr. Earle
an d referced ta Condition No. 7 which reada that the aubjec t variance
sh a 11 b~ gruntnd for the petitioner's own o£fice uae only and no portion
of the property shall be rented for uae by others.
.1a c k White explained the variance atays with th~ land and the condition
woul~! be that tl~e ofCicc uae would be for the owner of the property,
whoever l:hat may be r~t lhe time, and if the pr~perty is sold, the
c:ondition could sti.ll be met by the .: ~ owner iF he complied with al ~
conditionA,
It was cla[if.ied that the owner does not occupy ~he ~remises aa his
res idence.
Wa rcen Robertson, 857 S. Rez~ed~, Anaheim, stated there is a]ot oE office
space available in this City wiCh a lot of vacancie~ and he did not aee
the n~~ed to create a precedent by allowing this use in a clean,
well-establishe~ reBidentia: neighborhood.
Co mmissioner McBucney pointed uut thak in the orfginal approval, the
applicant indicated he was ti~e sole owner/occupAnt, but that is not the
si tuation.
Kendi Mocries, Assistant ~lanner, explainEd the origir.al variance was
approved +.n 1976 bv the Planning Commission and City Council and the
ceguest ~~as to convert a single-family residence into an of.fice use and
Plannin~ Commisslon did stipulate that it would be office uses onl,y. 5he
su mmarized the ~ondition~ as: I) dedicationt 2) existing srr~cture to be
br o ught up to minimum Auilding Code requirements; 3) developed
su bstantially in conformance with submitted plans; 4) time limit of 2
yeass~ eubject to review f~r extension~s; 5) gcanted for petitioner's own
of fice use ~nly and no portion of the property shall be ren ted for u~e by
ot h ers. She explained City Council took action and no changes were made
to the cond~tions. She explalned the General Plan cucrently indicates a
de signation of low density and in the past there have been public
heatings relative to amending the General Flan and it was determined that
would cemain low den~ity residential.
Co mmissinner McBurney staCed hs would agree with the neighbors and would
deny itie extension or time.
Jack White explairted thia is not a public hearing and the Planning
Commission and City Council ha~e the power to deny the requ eated
extension of time which would cequire the applicant to either terminate
kh e existing use or to re-apply for a new pecmit.
2/22/84
~. _..~
~'~
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM2SSION~ FEBRUARY 22. 1994 84-113
ACTION: Commiasiunec Mc~ucney nfEerod a motian, seconded by Commiasioner
King and MUTION CARRIED tCommxssioners Ery and I~erbat absent ~and Bushore
abstaining) that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby
recommend to the City C~uncil denial of the cequcssC for an ext:ension of
time for. Variance No. 2768.
Jack White explained there is ar error in tl~e staff report in that the
City Council actually upproved thia request in 197~upon appeal, so the
action of the Commiseion should be a recommendation to the City Council
L•o deny the ceyueat.
Annika Santalahti explained this will aPpear automakical.ly on th~ City
Council agendA in 2: daya ancl anyone wiahing to speak should l~t the City
Clerk know because i.r, will not be A public hearing and explained no
notices of the hearing wLl.l be sent to the homeowner8.
Ei. RECLAS5IFICATION NU. $:t-d2-13 AND CO_N_DI'P7~~NAL USE PGRMIT N0. 2292
Request from Alex R. (Belle) Eie.llehumeuc, St~te Wide Developers, Inc.,
for extensions ot time for ReclaESification No. 81-82-13 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 22y2, property located on the s~uth side of Crescent
Avenue, approximately 330 Lee[. west of the centerline of Braokhurst
Street.
ACTIUN; Commisaioner King off ered a motfon, seconded by Commissionec La
claire and MOTIUN CARRIEU (Commiesionera Fry and Herbst absent), that the
Anaheim c:ity Ylunning Cummission dnea hereby grant a rekcoactive one-year
extension af kime f~r Recla~si.ficalion 81-82-13 and Conditianal Use
Permit No. 2292 to expire on March 8, 1985.
C. TENZ'ATIVE MAP OE TRACT NU. 11158 - Request fcom C. J. Queyral, Anacal
Engineering Company, Lor an extension of txme for TenCative 7'ract No.
11158, property located on Che aouth side of Martella Lane, approximately
720 feet southea~t of ~he centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
ACTtON: Commissionec King off ered a motion, spconded by Commissioner La
Claire and MOTION CARRIED (Commiesioners Fry and Herbst absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does herebx gcant a one-year extension
of time for Tentative Tract No. 111~0 to expi.re on March 8, 1985.
D. CONOITIONAi IISC PERMIT N0. 2061 - Req~iest f rom Annette M. Dodge, I~ope
House, Inc., foc an extensior. of time for Co nditional Use Permit No.
2061, property locaked 714 North Anaheim Boulevaxd.
ACTION: Commissioner King off ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
La Claire and MOTION CARRIEU (Commieaioners Fry and Herbst ab~sent), that
the Anaheim City Planning CommiAeion does hereby grant a three-year
retcoac~,ive extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2061 ko
expire February 25, 1986.
2/22/84
MINUTES, 11NAHBIM CITX PLANNING COMMIS8ION. FEBRU_ARY 22, 1984 84-114
OTHER DIBCUSSIONt
A~~ni.ka Santelahti explained the City Council cequested a work aesaion with the
Planning Commiaeion an~ the Senior Citizen Commisaion ko diacuas poesible Code
amendments regarding devolopment standArds for senior cikizens houaing
projecta.
it wae detecmined that ~sbruary 29th, March 14th or March 24th would be
euitable.
ADJOURNMEN'P: Thete being no further busines~, Commiaeionor M~Bucney offered
a motion, seconded by Commisaioner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Commieaionera Fry and Herbst abaent), that the meeting be
adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Reapectfully submitted,
~~?,~.- ~ ~~.~.
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Plenning Commission
ELH:lm
0033m
2/22/84