PC 1984/07/23.+..
;
ItEGULAR MEF.TING OF THE ANRHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City P~.anntng Commission
was called to order by Chairwoman Bouas at 10:0U a.m., July
23, 1984, in the Council Chambe[, a quorum being preaent end
ttie Commission reviewed plans of the itema on today's agonda.
REC~SS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENF: 1:30 p.m.
PRESENT Chairwoman: Bouas
Commiasioners: t3ushore,
ABSENT: Commissioners: Herbst
ALSO PRESENT Annika Santalahti
Jack White
Jay Titus
Pa~~l Sfnger
Chris Jarvi
Greg H~sstings
Edith Harris
Pry, King, La Claire, McBurney
Asaistant Director ~or 2nning
Assistant City Atturney
Office Engineer
Traffic Enyineec
Parks Superintendent
Assistant Planner
Planning CommiASion Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUmES: Commi.ssinner King offered a mo~ion, second~d by
Commissi~nec Bouas and MOTION CARftIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the
minutes of the meeting of June 25, 1984, be approved as submitted; and that the
minutes of the meeting ~f .IUly 9, 1984, be approved as corrected to Fhow that
the public hearfng was closed following the first parayraph on Page U4-447.
I'PEM N0. 1. EIR NEGAZ'IVE DECLARATION RECLASSIPICA~'ION N0. 83-$4-23 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3384
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; rON C. AND TAMIRIS DUKE, 3538 W. Savanna Street,
Anaheim, CA 92804 ana DUANE FREDERICK AND SALLY ANN PETERSEN, 600 S. Nutwood,
Anaheim, CA 92804. AGEN:': JOHN KING, 19522 Independence Lane, Hu~itington
Beach, CA 92646. Property is described as a rectangularly~shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.78 acre, 3538 W. Savanna Street.
RS-A-43,000 to the RM-1200
Wai~~ecs of: (a) maximum structural height, (b) mi~iimum fl~or area, (c) minimum
landscaped sethack, (d) permitted encroachment into frant yard and (e) permitted
location of tandem parking spaces to construct a 28-unit apartment complex.
Continued from April 2, 16, 30, May 14, 30, June 11, 2S, and July 9, 1984.
ACTI~N: Commissioner Houas offered a motion, seconded by Commissfoner Fry and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissiuner tierbst abaent), that conaideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Augu3t
6, 1984, in order for ~he petitioner to submit revised plans.
84-454 7/23/84
84-455
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 23 1984
ImEM NU. 2. EIR NEGATIVE DECLAAATION RECLASSIQICATION N0. 83-84-29 AND
VARIANCE N0. 33~8
PU~LIC H~ARING. OWNERS: SAID LAHIDGANI, ET AL, 1332 Amberwick Lane, Anaheim,
CA 92804. AGENT: STERLING K. CARLSON, 447 E. 17th Street, Costa Me~a, CA
92627. Prop~rty doacribed as a r~ctangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 1.18 acros, 2910 and 2918 West Ball ~aad.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200.
Waivers o£ maximum stcuctural height and permitted location of open parking
spaces to eons~ruct a 42-unit apartment complex.
Con~inued Ec~m ~he meetinga of May 30, and June 25, 1984.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offeced a motfon, seconded by Commisaioner Pry and
MUTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Herbst abaent), that c~nsideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
August 6, 1984, in order for the pelitioner to submit revised ~lans.
ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF COD~ REQUIREMENT_AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2551(READVERTISED)
PUBI,IC HEARING. OWNERS: HAROLD K. AND KAREN L. OERTLE, c/o Capitnl
Industrial Properties, 310 W. Orange~hor.pe, Placentia, CA 92670. AGENT: JEFF
JILKA, 244 Briardale, Orange, CA 92665, Pcoperty described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.62 acres
locnted at the northwest cocner of La Ccesta Avenue and Red Gum Street, and
further described as 1251 North Red Gum Street ("Mild Ta Wild").
Request to retain thcee automobile customizing shaps i~ the ML (Industrial,
Li~ited) Zone with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Continued from the meetings of April 30, June 11, 25, and July 9, 1984.
There was no one indicating their presence ir~ opp~sition to subject request
and although the staff ceport was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Jeff Ji1ka and Heidi Podlich, agents, and Harnld Oertle, owner, were present
to answer any questions.
Mr. Jilka stated they have reaolved their parking problems and the landscaping
has ~een cleaned up.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Oertle stated the representative for Chuck's Unlimited could not be
present because he is out of town, but he ha~ agreed with all the conditions.
7/23/84
M__INUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC C~M4lISSION~ JULY 23~ 1984 84-456
C~mmis~ioner Bouae asked if everything has been cleaned up i~,cluding the aofa
dnd landacaping. Mt. Jilka stated the debris in the parking lot has boen
cleaned up and the objectionable cars have been rQmoved.
Greg Hastings, Assietant Pla~ner, atated the Planning Department ataff
inagected the property on July 18th and found the violatione noted in the
staEf report, Page 3-d, Paragraph 19, were still theret however, staff has not
been back since that date. Mr. Jilka stated Mr. ~ceeman from the City staf£
was at the propecty today.
TH~ HEARING ON THIS MATTER WAS TABf~ED IN ORDER ~nR THE STAFF MEMIIER WHO
INSPECTED THE PROPERTY TU BE PR~SENT.
Following the hearing on Item No. 4, Bruce Fzeeman, code Enforcement Officec,
explained he had inspected the propecty today And the violationa he had cited
them [or laet week have been removed; and that the campec has been rpmuved and
the majority of the vehicle3 parked on the property were cemoved. He
explained part of the packing problem is caused by an ad~oining pro~erty
owner. He further explai.ned there is a painting operation next door and somp
tr~cks have been parked on the property waitin9 to be painte~. Responding to
c:ommissioner Bushore, Mr. Fceeman staked the )andscaping ie beinq watered on
the side of Mild Ta Wild, but not on the othe[ side.
Heidi Podlich, Goldwing Productions- explained their busine~e haa only bepn
there for two months and they have taken care of the landscaping in the front
and have contacted a landscaper regarding the narrow strip on the side and
that landscaping will be kaken care of.
Commissioner Bushore stated the Commission ~a concerned with the mannzr in
which thie property has been maint~ined in the pa~t and if this permit is
granted, it can be revoked at any time. He a~ded they have cleaned up in five
da;s what should have been d~ne a long time ag~.
Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire asked who maintains what on the property and
if pach busi.ness has a certain amount to take care or exactly who iS
responsible for what and is it clearly designated.
Ms. Podlich stated they have the same landscaping person taking care of both
and they are both responsible for paying separately.
ChairwomAn Pro Tempore Claire stated the Commission is ~rying to avoid this
problem in the future and if the uses were separate, the Commission could tell
who is not taking care of the property and then everyone's permit would not
have to be cancelled if one person doesn'k maintain their portion.
Mr. Oertle explained there is only one lease on the property and he, as owner,
is responsi~le for the taxes, building and insurance and it is up to the
lessees to maintain the landscaping. He stated the ~andscaping is under one
time clock and one watering system and the inFraction referred to is very
7/23/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION J'1LY 23 198 4 84-457
tninoK b~cauae there wao ~ bccsek in the line a~i~ three watut heada on the small
Atrip were diaconnec~.ed. He atated the building and landecaping ara in
excellenl nhape. He explained the other tw^ t~nanta ar e auble.asing.
CommissionRC King pointed out Lhe owner is r.esponaible and the proporty should
be kapk in good condition. Mr. Oert.le etated they hav e afive-yeAr leese with
o; ~iona and it stgrted about 1-1/2 yeare ago and he p1an~A to reviee it r~nd
break it into individual leases.
Commissioner BuBhor.e asked if it would be better lo have three separate
cnnditional uoe permits. Commissionrr Fry atated it a h ould bP tied ~o the
owner and it would be up to him to ~ee that it. is maintained. Mr. Uertle
stated that would saCic~fy him and he woulu ake c~ntrol of the s;tuation.
Jack White, Aasiatant City ACtorney, atated th~ propos al ie ta isaue one
conditional use permit by one cesolution ttiat will authurize the three
businessea on the property, and in the event there i~ a ~efault in the
pecformance of any of the conditions of the pecmit as to anY of kh~ three
busine3seo, the Commisz~ion would then F~e locking at a revoca tion ot the permit
which would apply to all three buainesses. Ne stated thenlternative would be
to separate these inta three sepacate resoluti~ns, but the own~~r has
stiQula~ed that this would cEmafn one permit and then all the conditions would
h~ve Lo be complied with as ~u each of, the three busineases or the entire
permit would be subject to revocation.
Chairwoman Pro 'Tempore La Cltlice etate~j ~he wou.ld want them separated iE she
wae the owner, but since his lease is with one tenant, the uses could not very
well be separated. Mr. Uertle asked if. the permit co uld be gcanted with the
uses being tied together at this time and in the future lf the lease is
reviaed, there could be a reviaion. Jack Whit:e stated there would have to be
a reapplication and anothec public heariny to sepacat e the uses in the permit.
Commissioner. Bushore stated in addition to the mainte nance, th~re could be
another pcoblem with outdoor stor.age, etc. Gr~g tiast iny~ stated apparently
th[pP. separate busine^s~µ licenses have been applied for and he thought if the
permit was divided into thraP• if there was a problem in th e parking lot ~r
mainlEnance of the landccapi~.~, staff would not know who was responsible.
Commissioner Bushnre added he would rather have it a 1 1 tied together with qne
permit since th~re is only one lease.
ACTIUN: Commissionec Hushore offeced a motion, secon dPd Uy Commissioner
McBUCney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissione[ Herbst abs e nt), Chat the Anaheim
City .Planni.ng Commission has reviewed ths proposal to reti-in three au.tomobile
customizfng shopa in tt~e ML (IndustriAl, Limitedl Zo n e with waiver of minimum
number of parkinq spaces on a rectnngularly-shaped p arcel of land consisting
oF approximately 0.62 acceg located at the northwest corner of ',a Cresta
Avenue and Red Gum Street and futther desctibed as 1 25t.North Red Gum Street;
and does hereby approve the Negative Declarakion upo n f,nding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with an y comments received during
the publi.c review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comm~nts received that there is no substantial evid~nce that the
project will have a significant effect on the env;.ron.ment.
7/23/84
MINUTES. AN~HEIM CJTY PLANNING COMMISBION. JULY 23, 1984 8A-458
Commissioner 8ushore ofEored e mo tion, seconded by Co~misaianor McBurnoy and
MOTION ~ARRIED (COmmiasioner. HerG st ~beent), that Che ~naheim Ciky rlenning
Commisaion doea hereby granl• waiv ec of code requirement on the baei$ thAt the
parking waiver will nok cauee an increase in traffic conge~tion in the
immediate vicinity nor adversely afEect a~y adjoining land usea and gcanting
oE khe packing waiver under khe c onditiona impoaed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the pQace, haalth, safoty and ganerdl welfare of the citizena
of the City of Anaheim.
Comminsioner Bushore ~fEered Res o lution No. PC84-146 and moved for ite pessage
and adoption that the MAheim Cit y Plunning Commiscion does hereby grant
Conditianal Use Permlt No. 2551 ~ ubject to the petitioner's stipulation that
any chz~nge in the usos of the properl•y will necF 3altaCe a separate filing for
a conditional use permit and tha t the permit ehall be granted £or a period ot
3-1/2 year~ to expi:e on March 31, 19d8, the termination date of the current
lease and aubject to Interdepart-menta.l Committee ~ecommendatians.
On roll call, lhe foregoing reao 1 utian was paased by the following vote:
AY~S: EiOUAS. E3USN(~R~, FRY, KING, I~A CI.AIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: H~RBST
ITBM Nn. 4 EIR NFGATIVE DECLARATIpN, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREM~NT AND
CONUITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2549
PUBLIC HEARiNG. OWNERS: COMMONWE;ALTN FINANCIAL GORPORA'PION, P. 0. Box 76478,
Los Angeles, CA 90076. AGENT: UNITCC Sl~i'PES OF AMERICA, INC., ATTN; ROBF.RT
F. FULLER, 450 Newport Centpr Dr ive; Newport Deach, CA 926G0. Pcoperty
described as an irregularly-sha ped p~~rcel of land consistinq of ap~coximately
6.34 acres located at the souChe ast corner of Frontera Street and Glassell
Street.
To permit a 7-story, 212-room h o tel complex and restaurants with on-sale of
alcoholic beverages with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and
maximum structural height adjac e nt to single-family zoning.
Continued from July 9, 1984.
There wa~ ane ~erson indicating his presence in opposition to subject req~~est
and although the staff report wa s not read, it is referred to and made a part
oE the minutec.
Ken Bco~rn, architect, Granada Royale Nomtels, ~xplained a parking study was
submitted based on a similar pr oject in Arcadia and on ather projects which
they have done and th~y felt th e parking requiremenks they actually
experienced were less than wha t was required by the City of Anaheim.
George Engleage, Orange County Steel, 3200 E. Frontera, Anaheim, stated they
a•~e not so much in opposition t o the project and ace actually for tihe
development ;;nd think it will be an asset to the Ci~y and will enhance the
g~neral area; however, they wou ld like the proposed acces~s on Newkirk Road,
7/23/84
~
MINUTES, ANAHESM CITY PLANNING COMMI3SION, JULY 23, 1984 84-459
which ie the abandoned County road, clarified as to whether or not it will be
actually uaed tor accese and if ao, what kind oE traffic will be using it. He
ateked a18o this use is not in the same natuce ae the cucrent operrst;lone on
that etraet and theira ls e growing compan.y ~nd in tha future tliey wiah to
expand, ~nd they would r~ot want the hotel cepresentatives to oppoae any such
cequeats be~auae thQy were there f cst and juat wanted to maka sure they ere
well aware of the type of bueinesa that is taking pl.ace now.
Mr. Bcown stated they do not intend to use the access road ~nd all their
accesa will be off Frontera. He stated they are very much awace of l•heir
neighboca and have discussed this with them and recognize their concern about
whet might happen in the future and the neighbocA have indicated khey would
file an objectfon to that point and they acknow.ledge that objection.
THC PU6LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
N.ssponding to Commiasioner Bushure, Mr. Brown atated the choice o~ that
pacticular site was a reaJ. eatate decision. He cesponded to Commissioner
Buahoce ~lso that they do not anticipate a lot of bus tour b~siness and thak
most of their gueHte~ would be Pcom the freeway.
Commission::r Bushore discusaed a facility in West Covina which fs right on the
freewey. He r~sked if the petitioner is willing ta go along with the Traffic
Engineer's recommendation khat the re~taurant not be added until a later time.
Mr. Brc~wn respandEd that recommendati~n concerns them because they feel they
have suffi.:ient parking provided and that they could handle the restaurant at
this time and explained they have not entered into negotiatiuns with a
reataurant aperator at thi3 ti :. He explained there will be a minor
restaurant o.;~erati.on in the hotel romplex j~~st Eor room service, etc. or a
small coffee shop type restaurant. Ne stAted the parking study is based on a
typical ~ituation.
Commissioner Bushore aQked iE the petitinner would have any objection to
exclud~ng the restaurant at this time until the City gets a firm hand on the
parking ~ituation. He explained t.hey could then ceapply for a seQarate
conditional ~ise permit after they have done the negotiati.ng since it would be
a separate operatiun. Mr. Brown responded they wculd ~not object to that as
long ~~ they did not have to stipulate to a particular time limit.
Commissioc~er La Claire stated the Commission :s concerned about the packing
and variances have been granted for motels near the Disneyland area, but a lot
o€ those motel guests arrive by bus tours, etc.
Mr. Brown stated they h~ve built about 15 or 20 simflar projects and they feel
comfortable with the parking proposed.
7/23/84
MIMUTBS ~ ANAHGIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION._ ~J_UT.Y 23~ 198_,.,4 _ ___ 84-460
Commiss ioner Buahare Aaked how the old perking ordinance comparea with this
requoet , noting thia i~ 30~ lena than the nQw atendard. Greg N++atinga
xeaponded the new atandards are skricter and he thoughC there would be about a
lOt dif Eerence.
I~~ul Singer, Traffic Engineer, atated hia concern is that reataurnnt opecators
have a tondency to overflow their Lacilities and he would first like to have
some experience with the hotel to determine the aclual pACkiny npede of the
hotel beEore a restaurant goes in, and obviously, that requirea come time
afL•ec the hotel ie opened so they have c+ faw days of peak occupAncy to
determ ino the hotel packing needo and whakever is left aver will detecmine th~
eize o£ the restaucant and somehow a date has to be keyed to a certain time
follow ing the opening of the hote~.
Jack Wt-~ite stated the Commiasian or Council could always deny the conditional
use pe r mit reqiiest if they do not have suEficienk information or experience
with tY~o ~arkiny situation for r.he hotel upon wt~ich to dete:mine wliether or
not tt~ere would be a parking problem in connection with the cestaurant. He
atated he would have some difficult.y in imposinq a time limit prohibiting a
pera~ n Ecom filiny an application until after a yiven period of time. He
sC~te d he thouyht the statements have been made clear ta khe applicant today
ta in d icate that it might be prudent to wait until ttiere is some experience
w:th t he operation of the hotel befare seeking approval for ~ restaurant.
Jack W hite suggeaked thpt Condition No. 23 be reworded as folluws: 'That no
build ing permita shall be issued for any proposed rec~taurant on thE property,
excep t following approval of a separate conditional use permit for oubject
rPsta urant use'; and that this permit itself would then indicate it is
exclu sive of the restaurant operation and be limited to the other uses.
Greg Hastings stated staff would also change Condition No. 22 to read: 'That
in c o nformance with 2oning Code Sectior~ 1A.0 2.058014 pe~taining to
non-Lonfocmir~g uses, three t~illboards currently existing on the property shal].
be removed' .
Mr. B ruwn stated he would agree with that cundition.
ACTION; Commis~ion~r Bushore aEfECed a motion, seconded by Commissionec King
and M OTI~JN CARRIED (Commiss{oner Herbst absentl, that the Anaheim City
Plan n in9 Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 7-story, 212-room
hote 1 camplex and restaurant with on-sale of alcoholic beverages with waivQr
of m i nimum number of parking spnces and maximum structural height adjacent to
sing 1 e-family zoning or~ an irregularly-shAped parcel of land consisting of
appr oximately 6.34 acres located al• the southeast corneX of Frontera Street
and Glasaell Stre>~_; and does heceby approve the Negative Declaration upon
find i ny that it has considered the Negative Dealaration togethec with any
comm ents received during the public review process and further finding on the
basi s of the Initial Stu~y anci any comments received that there is no
subs tantial evidence that the pcoject will have a significant effect on the
envi ronment.
Comm issioner Bushore offerPd a motion, secanded by Commissioner McBurney and
MQT Z ~N CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
7/23/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISBION, JULY 23, 1984 84-461
Commission dues hereby gcant waiver (a) on the besis thet the petitioner has
stipulated to ~xclude the re~teur~nt Erom this permit and also on the basia
that the pa[kiny wai•er will not cause an incKebse in traftic congestion in
the immediete vicinity nor adversely aff.ect any Adjoining land uses and
granting of the parking waivec undec the conditions fmpoaed, if any, will not
be detrimental to the peace, healtt~, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheimi and Eucthe~ grantiny waiver (b) on the bsais
o[ the findinga containRd in Section 18.03.030.Q40 on Anaheim Hunicipal Code
thet there are special circumatances applicable to the property ouch as sizP,
shape, topography, location and curroundings which do not epply to othec
identically zoned property fn the same vicinity; and that strict application
of the Zoning Code deprivea the propert,y of privileges en~oyed by other
properties in the identical zone and clasaiE~cati~n in the vicinity and
sub;ject to Interdepattmental Committee recnmmendatior-s.
Commissioner Bushore oftered Resolution Na. PCBA-147 nnd moved for its passage
and ad~ption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doea hereby grant
Conditional Use Perm:t No. 2599 pursuant lo Anaheim Mun±.cipal Code Sectione
18.03,030.030 tt~rough 18.03.U30,035 and subject to the petitioner's
stipulatfon tu exclude the request for a sep~rate restaurant £rom this permit
and subject to InterdepartmPntal Committee recommendati.ona as modified.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, F3USHOFtE, FRY, KING, LA CGAIE~E, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSEN'P: HERBST
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written cight to a~peal. the
Planning c'ommission's decision within 2? days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DECL~ARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQIIIREMENT, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT N0. 2597 ANU REQU~ST FOft REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TEXACU ANAHFIM HII.LS, INC., c/o THE GUNSTON HALL
CO., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: SENIOR INNS UF
AMERICA, 2699 White Road, Irvine, CA 92~14, ATTN: r,EORGE HANSEN. Propetty is
described as an ircegularly-shaped par~el oE land consisting of approximat ~y
3.5 acres, 380 South Anaheim Hills Road.
To construct a 46-foot high, 130-room senior citizens retirement facility with
waivers of minimum number and type of parking spaces and removal of nine (9)
specimen trees.
There was no one indicating their presence in ~pposition to sub~ect request
and although the staff repor~ was not read, it is ceferred to and made a pact
of the minutes.
Geocye Hansen, agent, explained the backgr~und of the Senior Inn~ of Amerfca
which currently operates two other facilities (Van Nuys and Santa Monica). He
presented slides of the subjer.t property and pruposed improvements.
Concecning the waiver of parkfng spaces, he explained most oP the residents do
r~ot drive and also the residents are full time and they lease or rent their
7/23/84
MINU~ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION. JULY 23. 1984 84-462
units According ta the program that fits their nPeda. He Dkdt@d the majority
o[ the reeidenta are the aurviving apouse ~nd the mrles ec~ usually 70 to 7'
y~acs of age and the females are usually in their early 80's. Ne stated aome
oE the residents do have a drivere lic~r~ae and do drive dnd they wish ta livs
in this kind oE facility in ocder to remain ind~pendent and not depend on
theic children. He stated Che children ot these residents uaually live within
3 Go 5 miles of these facilities. He stated the cost per unit ranges Erom
$d50 to ~950 pec month and up L•o $1500 pec month for a~uite and 33e oE thp
figure is for rent, pointing out this ia ceasonabl.e rent considering the
social opportunitiea, the ~ppoctunities to travel, me~ls, etc.
A model of the facility was preaented. Slides wer~ presented showing a) the
site, noting it fs ad~acent to a ahopping centert b) an American Elm tcee
which will be preser•ed in the courtyard ~nd it was pointed cut the height of
the tre~ is exactly the same as the propoaed dining hall; c) surrounding
development~ d) vegetation on the site= e) the shopping center which wi11 be a
major ingresa und egress to the aitp; f) the service sta~ion site on which
they have an eaeemenk as a secondary access~ g) a wind row of trees which will
remain; h) meandecing etream down the middle of the courtyard, etc.
Mr. Hanson stated the major is~ue has to da witti the parking and they did
c~eview bo~h of their own facilities and other similar projects which have been
built in the last 5 to 7 years, He atated the ratio they have come up with
shows they are providing 30 spaces for 13p units whicti is about .23 ~paces per
unit wtiich is consideratly undNr Anaheim's ozdinance and they would like the
oppoctunity to demonstrate khey are proposi.ng more than adequate packing.
He sta~ed they have the room and the area and can work with staff in the event
parking does become a problem to pr~vide additional on-Hite parking; and that
they do nok like to get inta massive gradin~~.
Mr. Hanson asked about the Park and Recreation in-lieu fees in Condition No. 3
and stated they can understand that need, but wou.ld like to put thoae fees
back into their own project since tbeir residents would not use the park and
recceation facilities arid normally stay on the site. Commissioner Fry pointed
~~~at the Commisaion has nothing to do with that requirement.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEn.
Responding to Commissioner McBurney, Mr. Hansen stated they have easements
recorded over the service station property and the shopping cent~r.
Commissioner McBurney asked if khey would be able to obtain an agrEement Eor a
certain number of parking stalls in the shoppinq center. Mr. Hanson xeplied
those are areas they have pursued, and at this point the station owner has
indicated Eull support and willingness ta impcnve its own situation and the
situation of the proposer~ pcoject.
Commiesioner McBUrney asked if they would be able to obtain a parking
agceement with the shopping center if this permit was conditioned upon that
cequirement. Mr. Hansen replied they wouZd pursue a parking agceement.
Commissioner Fry asked the maximum nu~nber of people that c~~ld occupy this
development. Mr. Hansen stated with one person in every room, there would be
'130 residents, ~ut it is usually much less. ~ommissioner Fry asked if it
7/23/84
MINUT~S. ANAElEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI58ION. JULY 23. 1984 84-463
would be conceivdble to put two people in erch room Eor A total of 260
reaidenta. Mr. Hanaen etdted thet is poeaible, but the pcoject is not
designed thet way and it is not the direction they ace heading or th9y would
have cAnaidered aparlmenta.
Reaponding to Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire regarding co~king facili.ties,
Mr. Hanaen explained three meals a day are served with bceakf~st anG lunch
usuAlly being a buffet-style meal and a formdl sit-down, candl~lSght meal in
lhe evening. He atat.ed they do hAVe a multiple-purpoae areA ~esignad with
kiCcheno which the residente can use if they w~uld like to cook for their
gueats. He stated there are no cooking facilitiea in the ~ndividual rooms.
Reaponding to Chairwoman Pco Tempore La Claire, M~. Han^~n stated safety-wiae,
all the rooms havo pull cords, inteccoms and the telephone foc emerqency
Purpoaes and that etaff does check to make sute the residents do come to eat
at mealtime and if they are not there, ataff checks to see if something is
w:ong.
Reaponding to Commissl~~ner Ery, Mr. Hansen stated therp would be 9 full-time
employees.
CommiasionEr Bouas asked if visitore would be welcome on holidAys, et.c. and
whether or not visitors can have mesls with the cesidents. Mr. Hanson replied
they like to involve l•he familiea and they can eat in the rest~~urant and pay a
nominal fee.
Commissioner Hauas stated there might be a parking problem on holidays. Mr.
Hansen agreed that if ~11 the residents have quests ahow up at the Bame time,
there could be a parking ptoblem. He stated that has never occurred And most
children come to visit during the week and the parking demand will inc~eaAp
from 12 to 158.
Responding to Commission~r nushore, Mr. Nanson stated each room has a smoke
alacm and all the units are sprinklered. He atated the Fire DepartmenC did
have some c~ncerns regarding the distance to the units, but that has been
cesolved with the spcinklers.
Greg Ha~tings stated the Fire Department representative at the
Interdepartmental Committee meeting required fire sprinklers in all units
which precluded them having to get back to the cear units with a Fire truck.
Commissioner Bushore indicated co~cern if there was a hillside fire and the
Fire Department needed access to tihe rear of the property. Mr. Hastings
responded the Fire Department was satisfied with the proposal.
The removal and relocati~n of the existing treps was discussed with
Commisaioner Aushoce asking if a problem would be created if one of the trees
could not be cemoved and relacated. Jack White responded there is a condition
requiring khat if a tree cannot successfully be relocated without dying, they
would have to replace it witr a tree from the approved tree list and that
staff could administratively require a new tree.
7/23/84
MINUTE3, ANAHEIM CITY ~LANNING COMMISSION, JULY 23, 1984 84-4G4
Responding to Commlesionec Buahore, tir. Heneon etated the ontire coof wi11 be
grey tile.
Mr. Hansen responded ta Commiasioner Buah~re that the elevAtors could handl~
gutneys. HQ also respanded thet the everege stey of th~ reaidenta was 20 to
25 y~ata, explaining thei~r company took over an exiating f~ci~ity which hAd
been totelly cehabilitaCed in Van Nu,ys and that is what ttiey base thelr
expecience on.
Reapanding to Commiesioner Bushore, Mr. Hansen stated the parking catio at the
Van Nuys facility is actually leas than what ~s propased here and the one in
Senta Monica is very much t}~e same.
Norm Zollur, partnPrr stated the parking in V~n Nuys is 1 epace for 6 rooms
and 1 apace to 3 rooms in Santa MonicaJ and that the ratios do not apply in A
retirement hotel and it has to do with skaf.fing and the ratioa don't really
work with moce than 100 unit~ because there is only one manager f~c 100 units
or 150 unita ~nd thece would be only 1 chef ~nd 1 head housekeeper either way.
Commissioner Bouas stated in thia location people have to drive their cara to
get to work. Mr. Zollcr stated the maximum number of stAff on the pXemisea at
any one time would be 9. He stated the muid~ would help aerve the meals end
the peak number oE employees required in the kitchen is Ear the evening meal
and that many of the other workers have gone home at that time.
Commissioner Bushore stated the biggest concern is the parking and the
Commission needs aome justification for approval and painted dut the City does
not have an ordinance for thie type Eacility and the ordinance that is
currently being drafted calls for .8 spaces per unit and this d~velopment
pcoposes .23 spaces per unit and if this is granted, everyone in the future
will refer to this ceques~ and want the same consideration.
Mr. Zollar responded to Commissioner Dushore that the Van Nuys and Santa
Monica facflitiea are in comparable areas to this in terms of avaflability and
convenient shopping and th~y are n~t in downtown areas and they do have public
transpocta~ion close by and there fs public tcansportation about 1/2 mile from
this facility. He stated in their experience the senior citizens almost never
u~e public transportation be~ause the step to get an a public bus i~ 18 inches
high and only 7 inches high to get into one of their vans.
Commissioner Bushore clarified thut the V~n Nuys faa:lity has been thece for
many years and thfs company took it over and .it had an existing ratia of .23
spaces per unit. Mr. Zo11ar stated they took that facility over because there
was not generally mnre than 5 cars in the parking lot for 60 residents and
thak includ~d staff. He stated the study did indicate a need for about 10
spaces Eor 100 units and the parking was decreased when the facility was
pxpanded. He stated kheir experience indicated 1 to 10 is what is happening
and 1 ta 6 was re~uired and they had covenanted wit~ the City of Van Nuys to
increase the parking if they should evec determine it was needed.
It was noted the Santa Monica facility Was rehabilitated and was an existing
senior citizen facility and was closed down several yeacs ago.
7/23/84
~
i '
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY__E~LANNZNG COMMISSION, JULY 23~ 1984 84-465
Commisaioner guahore etat~d thero ia anather fecility in thia City ~imiler to
this and it will be intereating to see wh~t happena when they come in ~or a~
expansion Eor 140 rooms with a packing ratio of 1.879 spacea per unit.
Mr. 2ollac atAted the parki~~g atudy included pec-k hour demands of three
facilikies in the City of Anaheim. He stated in a larger facility, Che
percentage dema~d actually goes down, but thRy did include facilitieA which
were smaller than the proposed and that the .25 apaczs per unit provides a
cushion. .
Commissioner Buahore stated thP only seniar citixen facility included in this
study which the Commissiui~ers are ft~mi].iar with is the La Palma Royale And the
sCudy doesn'k tell wha~ the public ~canepoctation ia around those facilities
and thi~ site is in a suburban Area ~nd noktiing the petitioner has said has
satisfied him Ghat the parking ratio proposed ie adeyuate. He stated he
thought approval ahould be conditioned upon a parking agreemenk with Che
Texaco Service station owner or the ah~pping center owner because the pArking
study shows 33 spaces needed and they are proposing only 30.
Commi.ssioner La Glaire stated she lives in that area and thouyht many people
who work in lhe area do ride buses becauae she haa aeen them. she t~tated if
the average age of the tenants is as indicated, she doubted if parking would
be needed, but r~he did feel there should be a packing agreement. She Added
all the Commissioners do feel there is a need fAr this type facility and this
is a nice area and she thought it would not impa~t Che area at allt however,
the biggest concern is parking. Mr. Hansen stated without making any
modifications to the entry, they are in a positton to add an additional 12
spaces which would eliminate the majority of the landsc~ping right at the
entry and also they could provide about another 15 spaces on the Texaco
pcoperty which would involve using the easement and would bcing the ratio to
almoat 1/2 space ~er unit if it is needed, and also that would include using
the City's allowable number of spaces for compact vehicles. It was clarified
they could pcovide 65 spaces which would be .45 spaces per unit.
Commissioner Fry stated he thought that would be more than Adequa~e and if
they would make stipulation that those spaces would be provided if needed, he
would vote for approval.
Mr. Hansen stated they have pursued this with the adjacent property owners and
they contend that the parking situation is maximum for their ~ses which were
granted, so they would pursue it with the service station owner since th~y do
have enouyh room, but they also need some assistance in working out some of
their problems, so he woul~ like to know when the study would be done or ~f it
would just be done in the event a complaint is fileA.
Chairw~man Pro Te:npore La Claire st~ted if the approval is granted and after
occupancy there are a lok of complaintis becauae of parking, the Traffic
Engineer w~uld review the situation and require th~t the spaces be provided.
'7/23/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISbION, JULY 23, 1984 84-466
~aul Sinyer, Tcaffic Enginear, stated he would like tu guerd againet that
aituAtionr that if there io a compldint or if it is Eound the Eacility ia
overf~owing onto ad~acent properties with parked cara, he would tcy to do
somethiny about it and withaut thie L•ype condition, the City would be
pawerleas to do enykhing oinca the conditianal uae pernit would have already
been granted.
Jack White atated based on what he has heard, he would recominend that
Condition No. 26 be modified to read as follows: 'ThAt in the ev~nt a parking
deficiency occurs following occupancy of subject ~roperty and as demonatcated
in a parking demand atudy, funded by the property owner, u~on the request of
the City Traffic Enginee[ and reviewed and approved by the City TrafEic
Fngineer, additional parking not to exceed a b~ank number of spac~s be
provided in a manner approved by khe City Traffic Engineerj and a cavenant be
recorded in a farm approved by the City Attocney'A Office obligating them to
pro~ide such parking". He explained that condition would leave it open-ended
ae to specifics and as to where the parking would be provided and allow a
cectain amount of adminiatrative disccetion. He Ktated the maximum numbet of
spaces to bring this up to Code would be 74 additional spacea; however, the
Commission can determine the number they feel is goiny to fill the need. He
added he would be reluctant to encourage the Commission to talk in terms of a
reciprocal parking agreement becaus~ that meano the spaces could be use~ by
either party. He stated the shopping center is cight at Code requicement foc
parking spa~es now and they do not have very many exceas spaces lhat can be
devQted to the use without impacting their Code required packing. He stated
the wocding uF this condition would allow the petitioner to provfde the spaces
on the property or get an agceement to pcovide them on adjacent property.
Chairwoman Pro Tempoce La Claire st~ted the City does not have an ordinance
which is the reason the Commission does not krtow how many spaces are
required. She stated in this case the Commission has L•he inf~rmatian provided
by the skudfes and based on what the Traffic Engineer has said, and will just
have to take a look at the ages of the residents (62 years) a~d the kind of
people who will be residing thece and also the people who will be driving
there to work, and will i~ave to make up their minds wh~thec the proposed
parking is adequate.
Commissioner King suggested leaving the number of spaces required up l•o the
City Traffic Engineer when he makes the determination that additional parking
is required. Jack White stated the applicant is entitled to have a maximum
required.
Commfssioner La Claire atated about 1/5 of the spaces at the shopping center
is all that is ever used and the whole lot i^ usually empty; howevec, that
could change in the future. She added she does not want the petitioners to
encroack~ lnto the shopping center and prohibit their businesses, but she did
not see that happening.
ACxiON: Commissior.ec Bushore offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTIOI~ CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission hes reviewQd the proposal to construct a 46-foot high,
130-room senior citizen retirement facility with waiver of minimum number of
7/23/84
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING_CQMMISSION, JULY 23, 1944 84-467
parking spacea on an irregularly-ahaped paccel of land consieting of
approximately 3.5 acces having approximate frontages of 34.5 feet on the
northeaet eide of Anaheim Hills RoAd and 89 feet on the northwest side of
Canyon Rim Road and further described as 380 South Anaheim Hills Roads ~nd
does hereby appruve the Negative Declaration upori finding that it has
conaidered the Negative Declar~tion together with any comm~nts received during
the public review process and furthec finding on the basis of the Initial
Study and any commenta received that there is no substa~tial evidence that the
project will have s aignificant effect on the envitonment.
Commiasioner Bushore offered a motion, ~econded by Commissioner McBurnPy and
MATION CARRIED tCommieaioner He[bet abaent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant waivec of Code requicement on the basis of the
shape of the property, as well as the type of the use proposed, and an the
basis the petitioner has agreed to provide more parking, if necQssary, and
further on the baeia that kh~ parking waiver will not cause an increa~e in
traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely aEfect any
adjoining land uses and gcanting of the parkiny waivec under the conditiona
imposad, if any, will not be detcimental to the peace, health, safety and
general welfare of the citizens o~ the City of Anaheim.
Comrniesioner Bushoce ~ffered Resolution No. PC84-148 and mov~d for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit Na. 2597 pursuant to Anaheim HunicipAl Code Section
18.03.030.030 threugh 18.03.03U.03~ and subject to the petitioner's
stipulatian to provide Eire sprinklers and smoke alarm 3ysteme in each room,
and also that the elevators shall be widE enough to accommodate a gurney in a
parallel position and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations
as modified to include khak additiorial parking shall be provided in the future
if ne~essary and that a covenant shall be recocded guaran~eeing aaid
additional parking.
Jack White stated he under~tood the Commission is requiriny 65 parking spaces
which will mean an additional 35, if neces~ary. It was clarified the number
that would go in the blank oF the condition propoAed was 35.
Mr. Hansen stated he would like to have the option of providing 15 of those
parking spaces on the adjacent property with ~ parking agreement.
Commissioner Bushare stated he would include that in his resolution. Jack
White clarified 30 spaces would be built r:ght now and if additional spaces
are required, 15 of those spaces may be located on the adjacent property to
*_he south under a parking agreement.
Tim Kruer, part.ner, stated they want to have the optiun of putting 15 spaces
on tt~e adjoining property ana then, if necessary, the othec 20 would be on
~ubject property in the future.
Jack White stated 30 sFaces are to be built when the facility is constructed
and h,he City may in the future, based on a parking demand study, require up l•o
35 additional spaces and of those 35 additional spaces, the applica~t may have
the option, iz he can so provide, to locate those additional spaces on the
adjacent property known as the Texaco Service Station. He stated he does not
have a problem with that. Mr. ~ruer stat~d that would be acceptable to them
and L•hey will take the burden upon themselvQS to get a parking agreement with
Texaco.
7/23/~4
MINUTES, ANABEZM CITY P~ANN:NG COMMISSION~ JULY 23, 1984 84-468
Jack White stAtod Condi~ion No. 21 should be modiEied with Additional wording
at the end that a covenant should be recorded by the ownere of the pruperkies
in a focm approved by the City Attorney's Office so limiting auch occupancy oi
the unite to persons 6Z yeare of ege or older ao any subaequent pucchasers
w~l~ have knowledge that thoae units are gor 8enior citizens. Mr. Kruer
responded they would heve no problem with that condition.
On roll call, tt~A foreqoing reaolutian was passed by the following vote:
AY$S; HOUAS, BUSHURE, FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES; NON~
ABSENT; HERBST
Commissioner eushore offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Houas and
MOTIpN CARRIED (Commfesionec Herbst absent), thAt the Anaheim City Planni~g
Commission does hereby grant the request for approval of relocation or removal
of 9 specimen trees on the basis that the topograp~y of the building aite
granting this cemoval is reasonably necessar.y.
Commissioner Fry asked if the law that has been recently changed pertaining to
age discrimination will affect thie project. M:. Hanaen 9tated that point
will have to be argued with the State and in ordec to be .licensed, khey have
had to pgree with that critecia.
Jack Wt,xte, Aasistant City Attorney, prese.nted the wcitten right to appeal the
P~anning Commi~aion's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
REC~SS: 3:15 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:25 p.m.
ITEM N0. 6. EIR NEGATIVE DE~LARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQJ.?REMENT AND
CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2598
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: McDONALll'S CORPORATION, c/o JUDY PLAHUTA, 10960
Wilshire Bivd., 4600, Los Angeles, CA 90024. Property describ~d as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel ~f land consisting of approximately 1.4 acres,
1500 South Harbor eoulevard.
To permit a dr~ve-through reatiaurant in the CR Zone with waiver of minimum
landscaped set~ack.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Cammissioner Fry and
MOxION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent), that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meetir.g of
August 6, 1984, in order for the petitioner to submit revised plans.
ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATTVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3407
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CINllERELLA MOTEL, 3764 E. Ametican Avenue, Fresno,
CA 93125, AZ'TN: RALPH KAZARIAN. Property de~cribed as a rectangularly-shaped
garcel of land consisting a€ approximately 2.9 acres, 1747 South Harbor
Boulevard (Candy Cane Motel).
7/23/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX ~LANNING COMMISSION, JULY 23. 1984 BA-469
Waiver of minimum number of packing spaces to expand a mot~l complex.
There was no one indicati~g their pr~aence in oppoeitian to subject request
and although the eCaff report wes nut read, it is ref~rced to and made a part
oE the minutes.
Jotin Swint, 707 W. North Stceet, Anaheim. agent, explained the proposed
restaurant will be for motel gueats only. tle stated CFiis motel was built in
1958 and they do actively puraue bus toura and explained r.hey can provide 26
additional parkin~ spaces if the City ;ra~fic Engineer detetmines that a
parking deficien~y exiats in the future.
THG PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSGD.
Greg Hastinga, Assistant Planner, atated when the staff report was prepAred,
staEf did nat cealize that the 101 units will be demolished before the new
addition is builtt therefore, staf.f wou.ld recommend an additional condition
requiring the owner to submit a letker requeating termination of Var~ance 876
which was grsnted in December 1957 to permit the 101-unit complex.
ACTION: Cnmmissioner King offered a moti~n, seconded by Commissioner Fry and
MnTION CARRIEU (Commissionec Herbst absent), that the Anaheim City P~anning
Commiasion has•reviewed the Qroposal to expand a motel complex with waiver oE
minimum number of par.king spaces or~ a parcel oE lan~ cnnsisting of
approximately 2.9 acres, havfng a frontage of appr~ximately 210 feet on the
west side of Harbor Boulevard, and being located approximately 250 feet north
of the centerlin~ of Katella Avenue and further de~cribed as 1747 South Harbor
6oulevard (Candy Cane Motel); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratinn
upon finding that it has consid~ced the NegAtive Declaration togpther with any
comments received during the public c~view pcocess and Eurther finding on the
basis of the initial Study and ar.y comments received that there is no
substantial Evidence that the pr~ject will have a significant effect an the
environment.
Commissioner King otfered Resolution Na. PC84-149 and moved foc its passage
and adoptxon that the Anahelm City Pianning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3907 on thP basis that the parking waiver will nat cause an
increase in traf£ic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect
any adjoining land uses and gcanting cf the parking ~aiver under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare ~f the citizens of the Ciky of Anaheim.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votP:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
AASENT: HERDST
ITEM NO. 8. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1142
(READVERTISED)
PUBLIC HEAitZNG. OWNERS: 808 BAS~JIAN, et al, 1231 N. Blue Gum St;~eet,
Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: ANAHEIM TRUCK DEPOT, 1231 N. B1ue Gum £,treet,
7/23/84
MINUTES~ ANAHE~M CITY pL~1NNING COMMISSiON, JULY 23, 1964 84-470
Anaheim, CA 92806, ATTN; pAM ~iAZ. ProperL•y deeczibed as ~
rectengulACly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of Approximately 8.87 acres
located at the northwPSt cornec of C~~ronado 5treet and B).u~ Gum Str~er, 1231
North Blue Gum Street (Anaheim Tcuck D~pot).
l+mendment to certain condiCions of a~proval of Planning Cammi.anion Resolution
Noa. PC69-229 and PC59-265 pertaining to the expan~ion of an exiating
non-conforminq tranait and tranaportation aquipment storage yard, including
the establishment of an enclosed restaurant with waiver of enclosuce of
out~oor uses.
There was no one indicating their pcesence in oppusition to subjeck cequest
and although the eteff report was not read, it ia referred to and made a patt
of the minutes.
William C. 'Bill" Tmocamina, agent, ceviewe~ the p.topased chbnges to the
conditions and explained what they are willing to do to comply and the ones
that should be deleted or changed. He presented a receipt for the watec fees
which were paid today for $15,341.
THB PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED.
Greg Hasting~ pointed out the staff recommendations are included in the staff
report and they are diffetent than the proposed amendments by the petitioner.
Annika Santalahti ex~lained that. Condition No. 2 for the improvements such as
curbs, gutters, streeks, gradfng and paving, drainage feea are all
cequirements of the 2oning Code and in this instance, when the property was
proposed for development, only the nacthern 1/2 was expected to be utilized;
however, activities have expanded and the Utilities Department would like t~
r~ee these conditions satisfied.
Commisaioner Bushore pointed out Lhe petitioner is proposing to post a bond
for a limited peri~d of time, with Annika Santa.lahti pointing out that has
been allowed in the past.
Commiasioner Bushoce asked why these conditions have not been met sinae 1969.
Annika Santalahti pointed 4ut thia uae just expanc~ed and staff has only been
working with the petitioner for the past couple of months.
ACTION: Commissioner Bushore offered a motion, seconded by Com.missioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbat abaent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the pro~osal to amend certain conditions af
approval pertaining to expansion of an existing non-conforming transit and
transportation equipment ~torage yard, including the establishment of an
encl~sed restaurant with waiver of enclosure oL• outdoor uses on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.87 acres
located at the noCth~est ~orner of Coronado Street and Blue Gum Street, having
approximate frontages of o15 feet on the r-orth side of Coronado Street and 628
feet on the west side of Blue Gum Street, and further described as 1231 ,yorth
81ue Gam Stre~t (Anaheim Truck Depot)j and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration
together with any comments received during the public review pcocess and
7/23/84
MINU'rES. ANAHEIM CITY pLANN1NG COMMI&SION. .IULX 23. 1984 84-471
further finding on the barsts of the lnitiel Study and any commente received
thot tP~eGe ia no substant~cl evi.dence thdt the pcoject wil.l have e aignlficant
et•fect on the onvironment.
Commi.s~sionvr BuAhore offered Resolution Na. PC84-150 ar.d moved for itn pas~age
~nd adoptinn that the Anahoim City Planning Commiesi~n doea hereby omend
certain can~litions af z~pps~~ral of Planning Commission Renolution No. PC69-229
a~d ~C69-265 pertaining ~~ ihe r~xpane~on of An existing non•- -~nforming tcansit
and transpoct~tion eguipment storage yard, inclu~`;ing tha estab;ishment of en
encloeed reetaurar~t wf th wnive r of or.closure ot outdoor uses, with the amended
canditions to K@Ad as :o.llawe:
1. That the ownern of. 9ubject property Khall ~eed to the City of Anaheim
a acr.i~ of land 45 Ceet in width on ~]ue Gum Stceet, and 3Z feet in
width on Coronado Street, trom the centerline oC the street, For
r~tree: wideni ng purposes.
2. T.hat all engineer.tng requirements uf tiie C'ity ~~f An~heim along Slue
Gum Street and Coronado Sl:rePt, inclu.ding pcepuration of improvement
plans and insta114tlon of all im~covoments, such as curbs and
gutters, sid~.~wi~1kA, strept grading and paving, drafnage facil.it:iea,
or ort~ec appurten~nt work ehall be complied with as require~~ ~~ the
City Engineer anci in accordnnce with standard plans and
specif ications on Eile in the off ice of the City Fnglneer j that:
street liyhtiny fbcllities along Blue r,um StcEet and Coronado :itreet
sha.tl be ins~alled as reyuir~d ~y the nirector of Public urili~:ie8:
and that a bond in nn amount and form satisfactory to thr Cit,~~ of
Anaheim sha11 be nosted with the City ta guarantee the instnll~~tion
of the street liStite; ;~ovlded- that within a period of sixty (60 )
days from the date here.~ a bond may be postea to ensuce the
fnstallation ot sAid stre.t lights along Coronado SlreeC withir~ a
periud of five (5) y~ars Erom the date herein or prior to iseua~nce af
building permit~ for :.+ny new construction, wh~chev~r occucs first.
3. That f ire F~ydrants eha11 be inatalled as required and determir.Pd to
be neces~ary by the Chief of the Eire Department,
4. That all air-conditioning facllities shall be properly shielded from
v,tew.
5~ That the er.isting atructures shall be brought up t.o minimum stanclards
of the City of Analieim, including the Uniform euil.ding, Plumbing,
Electrical, Mechanical. and Fire Codes as adopted by the Citiy o:E
Anahefm.
6. Thst the entire arr.a of ~ubject property, excepting structure
locations and requiced landscaping aceas, shall be paved prior to
utilizati~n vE suyject property for the purposes gruntad under this
conditional uae permit; furthermore, those areas enclosed within ttie
screened starage yArd shall be permitted ta be maintained with oiled
decomposed granfte~
7/23/84
~
MINUT~S. ANAHETM CITY PLJINNING CQMMISSION. JULY 23. 1984 8a-472
7. mhar Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ~+nd 6, above-mentioned, eha11 be
complied with within a peri~d oF 60 daya from c7ate heceof, or euch
othec time as the Planning Comrnisaion or City Council ehall deL•ermine.
~. That subject property ahell be developed subccantially in accordance
with pl~n~ and s~pecificationa on f.ile with the Ciky of Anahei.m,
mecked ~xhibit No. 1.
9. That e~ bond i.n e~n amourit end form s~tisfackory to the City of Anahc~im
shall bQ posted ta insure the construction of a 6-foot masonry wal.l
along the Coronado Street frontage At such time as the cemairder of
l•ha property is developad, sai~i t~ond to be Filed with the City within
6u days from date hereof.
10. Tha~ e aix (6) foot higt~ conarete block wall shall. be conatructed and
maintain~_' a~jacent ko the we~t property line, and that a six (6)
£oot high redwood or c4dar-i•'~atted chAin link Fence shall be
constructed and mainteined aiiacent to the north property line.
11. That a 6-toot chain link fence ohell be conatcucted along the full
distance oF the aoutherly bou;idary of the area proposed for immediate
~3eve:oC~ment - located approximal:ely 200 feet north of Coconado
Street, wit.hin 60 day~ from date heceof.
12. Z'hat A five (5) Loot wide irrigated landscaped area shall be provided
and maintained adjacent to thp suuth prope~ty linP abutting Coronado
Street.
On roll call, the focegoiny ceao~ution was passed ~y the following vote:
AYES; BOUAS, BUSMOItE, E'RY, KING, LA CLAIR~:, MC BURr.EY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NERBST
ITEM N0. 9. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMYTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3411
PUBuIC HGARING. OWNERS: HAWAIIAN VILLAG~ I2~CR~ATION CLUB, c,'~ WILLIAM
YOWELL, 2230 Grayson Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT; WII,LIAM ORTIZ, 1379
Shannon Lane, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Property described as a
rPctangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.24 acre,
1253 and 1257 Brookhurst Street.
Wr~ivers of minimum front yard setback and orientati.on of buildings adjacent ~q
artertal hi9hways to .:onstruct two single-family residences.
There was no one indicating their presence in apposition ko subject reque3t
and a.ithough the staff report wt~s not rea~i, it is xeferr~'~~ and made a part
cf th~ minutes.
Bill Oztiz, a~ent, was prnsent to answer any guestions.
fiHE PUBL:~ HEAkINr, WAS CLOSED.
7/23/84
MINUTES, ANAHEI! M CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, JULX 23,_ 1984__ 84-473
It wae noted tha Plnnning Dicectoc oc hie authorized repc ~aentat~ve has
determined thet the prap~sed pr~~ect falla within the def inition of
Categorical Bxemptiong, Clase l, as defincd in the Stdte Environmental Impac t
Repoct Guidelinea and ie, thocofore, aetegorically exempt ~~m the requireme nt
to prepoce an EI~.
Coro.~iasioner King ofLeced Keaolution No. PC8A~151 and mo v ed for ite paeeage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion d o as hereby grant
VariAnce No. 3411 on the basis that there are speci8l cic cumekdnces aPplicab lo
to tihe property Huch a~ ~ize, ahape, topogrephy, locatio n and surroundings
which do not apply to other idenrically zoned properr.y in tho sAme vicinitys
and that strict application of the Zoning Gode deprivee tho pcopecty of
ptivilpgea enjoyed by othec propertieA ~n tlie identical zane and
classific~tion in the vicinity and s~ibject to Interdepar t mental Cammitkee
recommondationa.
Un roll cali, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following voke:
AYES: HOUA5~ BUSHORB~ FRY~ KING~ LA CLATRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSEN'!': tiER85T
ITEM N0. 10. EIR NEGATIVE DECI~ARATIt~N AND VARIANC~, N0. 3414
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GEORGIA ROSE WILLIAMS, P. 0. Bax 265, Somis, CA
93066. AGENT: WILLIAM E. HUGHES AND .~T:;ART CALDL•'R, 4621 Tellar Avenue, Suite
130, Newport Eieach, CA 92660. Property described as a r ecGangularly-shaped
parcel of .land coneisting of approximately 1.1 acces loc ated at the soathea sk
corner of Kenwood Avenue and Eant Street.
Waiver of mi~imum number of parking spaces to conskruct a self-etorage
facility.
There was no one indicaking their presence in oppositio~= to ~ubject request
and although lhe staff report was not read, it is refec ~ ed to and made a pa rt
of the minutes.
Bills Hughes, agent, was present to answec anv question s and explained he
would like to assure the Commission ttiat the building wlr~ich is being built is
for a mini-warehouse with a Full second-story and a clear span of 10 feet
which coulci be converte6 back int~ an industrial use in the future.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claice, Nir. hu~3f-es explained they
would generally have one carek~ker present wtiich ia a c ouple and an aseist a nt
manayer, so they need parking spaces~ for two cars.
Respoc~ding to Commissioner ~uuas, Mr. Hughes explained the mini-warehouse
would be constructed immediately after approval of this pecmit.
7/23/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM_CITY__P_GANNING COMMISSION, JULY__::3, 1984 84-474
AC7~ION: Commiasianec King offerad a motion, seconded by Commiasionec Fcy dnd
MOTION CARRIEU (Commieaionec Herbst ebaent), th~t the Anaheim City Plen~ling
Commission has reviewed the prop~~s1 to c~nstruct a eelf-stocage fecility with
waiver oE minimum number of perk ing apaces on A rectangularly-sh~ped parcel oE
l~nd consisti.nq of ~pproxlmately 1.1 accea locAt~d at the southeest. corner of
Kenwood Avenue and ~Aat Stcoet, having approximute frontagea of 220 feet an
tl~e south side of Kenwaod Avenue er,d 21Q faet on the west aide of East Street
and fucther deaccibed as 1225 North East Strentr And does herek~y apprave the
Negative Declaration upon findir.g that !t hae considerod the Negative
Doclaration togekher wir.h any commenl•s recei.ved during the public review
procesa and further findiny on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
ceceived t:hat there ia no substantial evidence tt~at the project will have a
significant effert on the enviconmenL•.
Commissionec King oEfere~l R~so2 ution No. PC84-152 and moved for its passage
and adupkion that the Anaheirt~ City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3414 an the basis that t~~e parking waiver wil.l not cause an
increaae in trafffc congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adverssely affect
any ad~oining l~nd uaes and granCing af the p~rking waivec under the
conditions imposed, i.f any, will not be dekrimental to the peace, health,
safety and genecal welfare of the citizenG ~~E l•he Ciky of Anaheim and subject
to Interde~artmental Commitkee recommenda~ions,
On Yoll call, the tocPqoing resolutian was passed by the foll~wing vote:
AYBS: BUUAS, BUSNORE~ FRY, K2NG, i~A CI.AIRE;~ MC BURNGY
NOES: NONE
A~SENT: HERBST
ITEM N0. ..1. EIR CATEGORICAL E XEMPTION-CGhSS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3A13
PUdLZC HEAitING. OWN~R~a: TSU Y I REN/SHIRLEY REN, 1415 Clifpark Way, Ane~heim,
CA 92805. AGENT: MIL CUNSTRUCTION CO., 15451 'B" Redhill, Tustin, CA 92680.
Property described ea an irregu~etly-st~aped Parcel of land consisting oE
approximately 5,568 square feet, 1415 East Clifpark Way.
Waivers of maximum lol• coverage And maximum number of bedrooms to construct
room additions to a single-family residence.
There wa~ no one indicating their ptesence in opposition to subject request
and althouyh the staff report wac not read, it is referred ~o and made a part
of the minutes.
Mark Svoboda, agent, was present to answer any questions and explained the
peta tioner is proposin9 to inc rease the living space to 5 bedKaoms because
L•hey have a large family.
THE PUBLIC HBe1RING WAS CLOSED.
Responding t~ Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire, Mr. Svobodn explained they
would have t~ relocate the garage because of f.ts side entry.
7/23/84
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY P:.l-NNING C~MMISSION, JU~Y 23, 1984 8d-475
Reaponding to Commiasioner Kiny, Mr. Svoboda explained the petitioner has 7
children and anly 3 bedrooms at the preaent time. Ne aleo explained they
would also have off-street pACking in frant of the house with 2 cara in l•he
garAge and ti~e driveway.
Commisaioner D~ahore Kef~-red ta thQ ane bedro~m propoae~ in l•he northweflr
cornec of the building, h4ving a door to walk through another bQdroom and
pointed out that is nv ordinary situation. Mr. Svobodn pointed out he had
diecusr~ed that with the petitfoner and that did not bother them becauae the
older childcen want the prlvacy of having their own :oom and arQ willing to
walk througi~ Another r~om.
Commiesionet Bu~~ore pointed out he was concerned bec~ausc~ wikh the design of
this building, i~ would be very difficult to sell, even though there are many
femilies who need 5 bedrooms, but it would be an idea.l Eacility f.oc a group
home and he had aome real concerns far that type use.
Commiasioner McBurney p~inted ~ut it could be converted back and Chairwoman
Pro Tempore La C1Aire poinL•ed out there are 5-bedroom homea in many plt~ces in
the City which do not becottie group homes. She stated she did nat aee any
problem with this, especimlly since none of the neighbocs ace objecting.
It was noted the Planning Uirector ur t~is authorized cepresentative has
detecmined that the proposed project falla within the definition of
Categorical Exemption:~• :lasa 5, as defined in the State Environmental impact
Report Guidelines and ~s, therefore, categocically exempt fro~~~ the requirement
to prepure an EIR.
ACTION: Commis~io-'~~ King offered R~solution No. PC84-153 and moved for its
passage and adopticn that rhe A.~aheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Variance No. 3413 on the basie that there are special circumstnncea
applicable ta the proper.ty such a3 sixe, shape, topography, location and
surc~undings which do not apply to ott~er identically zoned property ir, the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the 2oning Code depriveo the
property of privileyes enjoyed by other pr~perties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdeparr.mental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURN~Y
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST
ABSTAIN: BUSHORE
ITEM N0. 12 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIC"iS
A. CONDITIONI.'- USE PERMTT N0. 2361 - Request from Jeanne L. Blankenship for a
one-year retroactive extension of time, property located at 5900 East
Santa Ana Canyon Road (Hephatha Lutheran Church).
Continued from the meeting of July 9, 1984
7/23/84
MINUTESj ANAHEIM CI7X ~~ANNING ~OMMISSION. JULY 23. 1984 __ 84-476
Pdator Meyer, Hephatiia Luth~cen Church, etated during the paet yeer *.he
chucch has camp].eted the ovecall architec~urel drawinga (~26,000) and
ceceiv~d bida for the final drdwinge 1~8,000)t tha~ they hired a landecape
acchitect to finalize the landacdpe masker plan (51,800)1 cnd have also
hired a schaol p~incipal to aggresaively wock toward formalizing the Ein~l
bui~ding design nee~s an~ have also establiehed a financial board to
evaluate funding alternatives. I~e RtAt~d they currently have 97 ~tudenta.
Responding to Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire, Pastor Meyec expla~ned
they had 84 students last yeac.
Chairwomun Pro Tempore La Claire stated Commiaeion was concer.n~~: about the
portable classrooms And the neighbocs' concern regacding noise and the
improvements that were r.o be made, and anked iE any of the improvementa
have been made and iE khe neighbors hAVe yeen bothered by noise and a~~::ed
if there have been any complaints.
Pastoc Meyer responded they have had no c~mplaints and ~lso that khey
would be completing khe impcovements required in th~se three conditionn
this year.
Commissioner Bushore atated he war-ted to be assured that ~rogress is being
made and that the modular units will not be there for any qtven t:me and
wanted to be sure they are not buil~inq up the student enro~lment to u~e
as predication for the loan. Pastor Meyer Atated they are not trying to
build enrollment to apply for a loan and the church organizari~n funds its
own.
Commissioner Bushore stated the Commissionecs are nut objecting to the
permanent building, but to the krailers.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, stated two one-year extensions are
being requested, one retroactive.ly, and one to expire August 9, 1985.
ACTION; Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent), that the
Anahcim City Plan~ing Commission does here~y grant a cetroactive one year
and a one-year exkension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2361, ~o
expice August 9, 1985.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2093 - Request from Robert Sanchez for a
retroactive two-year extenaion of time. Property located at 911 South
Syl~~an Skreet.
Continued from the meeting of July 9, 1984
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded Uy Commissfoner
$ouas and MOTION CARRJED (Commissioner Herbst absentl, that a retroactive
two-vear extension of time for Conditional Use ~ermit No. 2093 be granted
ko expire an June 30, 1986.
7/23/84
MINUTES. ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING CONMISSI0~1, JULY_23~_1984 84-477 _„
C. CONDITiONAL USE PE~MIT N0~2<73 - Requeat ~rom F.dward H. Endo for a
one-yoar extenoion of time. i-operty located at the northwest carner of
Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevaru ~3033 Weat Orange Avenue).
ACTION: Commieaioner K:ng offered a m~tion, seconded by Commiesioner
Bouas and MOTION CMRIED (Commissioner Herbat abeent), that A one-year
extenaion of time foc Conditionel Uoe Permit No. 2473 be granted to expire
August 8, 1985.
A. TENTATIV~ MA~ OF 'L'RACT N0. 10980 - Request f[om Kaufman and Broad for
review ~nd approval of ~pecific plans. Property located nouth and west of
the intpr~~ecCion of Santa Ana Canyon Robd and the proposed southerly
exten~i~n oF Weir Canyon Road.
ACTION: Commisaioner Fry offered a mor_ion, seconded b~ :ommis~ioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent), th~t ~~ Anaheim City
Planning Commisaion does hereby approve ffnal specific plans to satisEy
conditions of approval for Tentative Map of Tract No. 10980 (Bauer Ranch).
E. CONDITIONAI, USE PERMIT N0. 2391 6 TEN'PATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1176~ -
Rwqueot from R~bert D. Mickelson, Robert 0. Mickelnon Planning
Consultants, inc. for recommendation lo the City Council for approval ot
waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pectaining ko :~ound AtCenual•ion in
Resider.tial Projects.
Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire stated thi~ i~ a request Eor waivec o~
Council Policy No. 542 per.tainin9 to aound attenuation Ln resid~nt~al
pro~ects anr] ia not just a waiver oP the 18-foot hi9h wall; and thak the
policy was adopted for the protection oF those people who t~ought
condominr.ums converted fcom apartments. She atated st~e is fam.tliar with
this apactment complex and she thaught the train g~es by some 35~ timea a
day and ~ person cannot talk on ttie telephone, even with the windows
c?osed, while a train is passing. She added there i~s a w~ll existing.
Commissioner~ Bouas and McBurney felt some eo~t of suund attenuation
measure, other tnan the 14 to 15-foot high wa.l, should be required and
that this recommendation, as wc.itten, should not be appraved.
Greg Hastings, Assistant Pldnner, suggested recommen~irg that the interior
sound attenuation he acc.ompliahed which could be done thr~ugh the use of
double-paned glass, insulation, etc. and that the exteriar saun~
attenuation be waived since there is 6-1/2 to 7-foot tiigh wall existfng
and a 12 to 14-foot high wall would c3uae more problems than the sound
attenuation itself.
ACTION: Chairwoman Prc Tempore La Claire offered a motion, seconded by
Commiaa~.oner McBurney and MOTION CARRIEA (Commissioner 'lerbst absenC),
that the 1Uiaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recor,unend to the
City Council that interio~ s~und attenuation for Tentative Tract No. I1766
b~ accomplished tt~raugh tt-e use of double-paned glass windows, insulation,
etc. and that t«e exterior sound attenuation be waived since there ia an
exfstinq G-1/2 foot to 7-foot high wall and a 14 to 15-foot high wall
would cause more probleme thr~n the sound atLer~uation itself.
I
7/23/84
MINUTFS. ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 23, 1984~~~ 84-478
F. ANAHEIM PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE REV1S'_'.)N^ - Praposed by Anaheim
Depactment of Parks, Recruation and Cummu~~ity Secvicea.
chris Jervi, Directoc of the Parka, Racreat.ion and ~ommunity Servicea
Department, explained in the early 70's, the City developed a Pack
Dedication Ordinance which cQquired develapere to provide both the coat of
land and the cost o~ development for new parks and the formula used was
basically the coet of land, the cost of park development on an acreage
basis, tt~e denaity of that eubdiviaionr the number of people that might be
within each unit And tt,P park etanddcds for the City which were based on 2
acres for every 1,000 people introduced into the City.
Mr. Jervi atated in 1976 the ~rdinance was again revised to update the
figuxea to $50,000 per acce for bcquisition and $28,000 per acre for
development and since that time thece F.as been no revision t.o the
ordinance. He stated obviously ducing this period of time, thece has been
a great deal of escalation in the coEt of development and value of '!and
and when he beceme Director in 1983, he felt it was at least time to louk
at the Park Dedicacion Ocdinance to see if it w~a still meeting the intent
it,wa established for. He atated they did studies on the Quitnny
Oxtt~n~nce and with the real estate people on updating the residential land
values and the coat of park develoE~,~ent in this acea and what othec cities
in Ora~nge County were charging,in the way of park dedication f.ees.
Mr. Jacvi stated using the ac~~,al ~.ntent o£ the ordinance which was ~o
provide park land at no cost to the genecal taxpaye:, but that would cost
tho8~ people who were gofnq t~ usp that tservir.e, they were able to come up
with a$300,000 figure for acquiaition costs and $50,000 per acre foc
deveir.~:~ent costs. He ~tatPd this was done becauae he did nok feel the
City cou:~ keep pace witt~ pe:k development requi.rements of the new
developmentr,, particularly the Anahefm Hills area, and it became so
difficult ta keep pace, that at the request oP the City Council and
through the .~ublic Facilities Plan process, they were cequired to ~sk the
eauer Ranch cevelopers for both land and full park dedication fees. He
stated he feels a re~l ol,ligation to rt~eet the uriginal intent of the
ocdinance.
Mr. Jarvi, stat~a in a~ldition to the costs isaue, some of the thinys
inGluded in the orc,:~^anc~ are: (1) updated costs, (2) requirement tt~at
the costs will be updated on a yearly basis by resolution, rathec than
having to come back every eight years to try to increase the fees based on
revising tnp ordinance, (3) clarifying how and when fees ~~11 be charged,
(4) tied speciEically to park site selection critexia, (5) revised t'e
proposed per dwelling unit figures downwards based on the 1980 census, (6)
specific prohibition to obtaining o~en space in lieu of park land because
they don't feel somE of the ~pen space which was dedicated, particularly
by e~naheim Hills, Inc., is seally park land given the steepness of the
slopes, etc., (7) cequired publfc acceas developeu to the park site and
(8):the method of dealing witt~ excesc prcperty acqiiired under the Quimby
Ord'ifF~nce which is determined not to be neceasary later on and it means
the excess land can be sold as long as the prc`its are used for the people
who orxginally provided tho~e funds.
i; 23/84
MINUTB~, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSJON, JULY 23, 1984 84-479
Commiesioriec Fry atated he hns been thinking abou~ this ordinance more
than anything Rlse on tod~y'e agenda ~nd felt eeQing this in writing tias
really brought home to him the exorbit~nt cost uf luxury and esked if we
are approAChing an eca and area that we can il.l-effard any longer. He
stated he rsalizes what land costo Ace, but in 1976, the fee per dwelling
unit was $578 and the proposed rate in 1984, is $2,268 per single-family
un~ and the cate for acquisition is $300,OOU per acce to be charged to
',e developer. He added he wondered 1E the Cfty has reached its maximum
aboorption for Parks an~ Recreation. Ije stated he would guesa that
probably the City of Anaheim, for ite size, has more parks and apen apace
than any City in the United States and ~echape now is khe t.irne for the
citizens to say wt~ether they want more parks and vote for a bond issue.
He sl•ated t~e was formerly the Chaicman of the Park~ and Recreation
Commiasion and knows wt~aC the City is up againsk, but the City can hArdly
afford to take care ~f the parks it now has, yet he knows if the City does
not get the sites now, they will ~robably never be able t~ get `hem,
especially in ~he Canyon acea. He stated he hAS no doubta th,,t these
figuces are the actual costs, but he has a tough time passing those costs
on to ~he homeowners who will be bu,ying those houses, so that he may or
may not be using a park that may or may not be developed and he just
cannot vote for increasing the fees up to $300,000 per acre, but
unfortunately he daes not have a creatiue alternativE to oEfer eithec.
Mr. Jarvi stated in many of khe newly developing areas, while ~300,000 is
the land £ee that has bee~ establish~d, the developer will n~t have to
come up with that fee, if they actually provide th~ land. He stated
Anaheim has a fine system oE parks, but in tecros of acreage, Anaheim has a
very small parks system and the City uses the space it haa to the maximum
degree. He atated he has grnppled with this issue too and thougl~t the
real question that has to be aealt with is whether or not we are going to
provide the people out in the Canyon area the same thing the people
downtown are pcovided. He stated it has been his experience, particularly
in the Anaheim Hills area, that thoae people still demand the services
because they ace provi~ing more in the way of tax mon~es Eor the
maintenance oE park facilities in thc~ reat of the City and they are the
ones that will end up without a park and he felt somehow thg City will
have to respond to that issue in the t.utur~. He stated right now through
t!~e Public Facilities Plan process, the City is getting the acreage an~
the park development fees, but it is not being required under the park
dedication ordinanc~. He st~ted having to make deals :~ith each developer
as they come in, makes it more dlfficult ~uc him and he would rather have
it in the ordinance.
Commissioner Bushore stated he was at the Park and Recreation Commission
meeting when this was approved, but was in a hurry to get somewhere else
and he did vote in favor of the park dedicatiun ordinance, au~ based on
what he has heacd t~day, it can be argued both ways; that the people want
the services, yet they don't wdnt ro pay for them an~ the people moving in
are the ones gettinq taxed. He stated looking at the Hill and Canyon
area, there are existing ~arks (Eucalyptius, Oak C~nyon, the one next to
the freeway in conji~nction with the scho~l site, the one next to the
stable, land for develoPment on the Bauer Ranch) and explai::ed they expect
7/23/84
MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONI JULY 23, 19$4 84-a8o
t•o cequire the sam~ thin~ on the Bcyant And Wallace ~.anchea, the Yor~a
Regional Prrk and Feathecly Pack. He stated the ~2,266 dollar figure ia
tne fee to develop the perk and the donation of the 1And is really the
peytnent of the 5300,000 and that ie passed unto khe homeowner when he buys
the home. Ne stated the Eeea are t~iyher com~ered to some citiea, but this
City _s a lot diEferent than some of the other cities and we do need the
parks and the peo~le are qoing to d~mand thNm and he doesn't know another
way to get khem.
Mr. Jarvi stated there was a park bor~d iasue ucross the S~_ate and the two
isaues that ~assed with the highest vote (63 and G48) were the pack bond
act and a nakure bond issue which indicated that people are interested in
this type o~ thing.
Commissioner Fry stated he w~uld agree and that is what is ~,eading him to
believe that p~sa.ibly we ha~~e reached that point in tim~ where if we are
to have more park sites and add maintenAnce, perhaF there should be ~
bond issue before th<~ whole City.
Commissionec La Claire skated she knows the City needs p~~rks ar.d it i~
expensive to purchase the land and develoN them and she felt there is
nothing wrong with the developer providing the l~nd and the rough
improvements such r~s the grading and sewres. Shr stated the homeowner~ in
the Canyon area are paying a lot more kaxes and ace disturbed becauae they
are providing upkeep £or the rest uf tt~e park system, but with khis
ordinance, the developPr would be dedicating t',e land ~nd pay'.ng the fees
foc each unit and she thought that would be tciple-taxing those people
buying th~ homes because they woulci be paying mo~e Eor their home which
means taxes on a higher purchase price. 5he pointed out hames are not
selling in that area right now.
Mr. Jarvi stated the ~iggest question i. whether we can afford to develop
as we have been and maintair. the level of st:andard we have cuccently in
our park s;~st m. He stated the homeowners would get some di~ect benefit
out of the $20U0 khey would have to poy For their home because the park is
in their neighborhood and that would increase the value of their homes anci
they will eikher be paying l•he taxes and not having a park or they will be
paying the taxes and have a park. He stated the rea.l problem is if they
are paying the taxes an~~ not having the s~me service;; as the rest of the
people in Anaheim. He stated there are regi~nal parks in the area, but
they ~o not ;,ieet ttie same needs as a local park.
Commissioner Hushore s~ated many people come from other cummunities to use
Anaheim's parks because they me a particular need. He stated the City
is constantly coming uo with way. to improve the manpower a;:d hcurs spena'
in service and to keep the fees down, etc. anc: the Parks Director has
become very innovative and has done a good job. He stated the thing he
hates the mnst about our parks is the lack of enf4~cement in terms of what
people are getting away with in the parks and he would be more inclined ko
vote in favor of khis proposed reviaPd ~rdinance if maybe t5~ of the fees
w~'!I''put towards enforce~ent of things like braken beer bot':les~ the small
gang~s that h~ng around the parks, the restrooms that become hangc,ute,
7/23i 89
MINUTES~ ANAHBiM CITY PLANNXNG COMMI$SION. JULY 23, 1984 84-461
motorcycle riding, bicycle ciding, etc. He atated maybe enforcement could
be havi.ng a Park Ranger in every pack during peak hours oc something
similac. Ho referred to the Ranger program end et~ted the Ranger ie not
there to enforce tha culeo, but is there to sh~w thE people he is thece
and people aee him coming and do not even put khe!r beer can away knowing
he is not go~ng to haesle a group of 5 or G men alone. Hp stated if ~
portion of the fees went Eoc something like l•hat, he would sup~ort it
completely becau~e th~n thero would be more people usiny the parks,
~ointing out there is a big L•action of this community khat won't ga into
the parks alone because af that re~son and will only ga in as a group.
Cotnmiasioner Bushoce stated ha t~ao a few problems with the proposed
or~inanee reviaion the way it is pcoposed even though he s~ppocted i~.
Mr. Jarvi state~ there are several problema with that enforcement
augge~tion and one would be that it would be imposaible within the lew
because the monies tiave to be used for the benefit of ~hose people who
provided the mon~y in the first place and it h~a to te for park land
acquisition and development.
Commissioner eushoce atated ~his City is vpry crcati~e an~ h~u thoug!it they
could come up with a way ~o da that wikhin tt~e legal acop~~ of the law.
Mr. Jarvi ~~ated the State laws would have to be changed.
Mr. Jarvi statQd the second problem is tt~at if some of thal• money is kaken
away for enforcement, there will not be enough to provid~ thP acquisition
and developrnent for the park site. Ne stated thece arE areative ways of
~ealing with that pr~blem and he Eelt the Park Ranger program is ~ step in
the right direct~.on, but ik is a problem the department has to deal wfth
and he is pxobably more concerned about ~h^ pr~blPm kh2n anyone else
bECause the quality of the system i~ reflected by w;~~t. is going on in ~he
parks.
Commissioner La Claire stated people buy homes in the hills because of khe
hills and then expPCt a nice flat 10-acre park for soccer fields, etc.
She stated it seemR like the people who buy property in Anaheim Hills
should expect the amenities t.ist go wit~i the hills and if they want a
soccee fi~ld, they shoul~ purchase ~ ho~e in another part of the City
where thF:e is flat l~~d. S;~e stated it is only about one mile from any
pl.ace in Anaheim Hills to L•he flatlands and t.~ere is also Yorbc Regional
Park.
,4r. Jarvi atated he is open to a~~y idces and thought the department has
demor~s~r;.~ed through past experience that they have been able to do that
and no• ak~ any ~f the fees. ne referred to the Yorba Regional Park and
explained that was County land and the County developed it and gave it to
`•he City to operate. He stated he wi'1 take the fees and u: ~ them to
t~nefit the neHds in the area in any creative fashio[~ po~sible whether it
is doubling them by ge~ting a federal grant, etc. He stated not having
the fees means they dc rot have anythfng and the people r~ant the services
and the problem is ~omi.ng in the future. He stated he is looking at every
7/23/84
MINUTBS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULX 23. 1984 84-482 _
angle and r~ght now he is wti~rking on ~ ~ommunity center right within Yorba
Regional Park which is needed very bad~y, and explained that is the only
PJ.eG land that is availab~e which he could get at no cast. He stated
th~ce ia about 6 acrea of Cou~ry land in the Area And the County is
wi3ling to go in wikh the Ci~y, both on the land and development costs,
and he thought he cou.id put kogether a community centec that will not coat
the City of Anaheim any money. ~e stated the City of Yorba Linda is also
intereated in a community center and it would have a dual use to be used
by the City of Anaheim and lhe C~ty of Yocba Linda.
Chaicwoman Pro Tempore +~ ~' e~tated all the Commiesioners think khe
Park Director ia doiny lstic ~ob and they do realize the problem.
She stated probably he ; ~en working on this new ordinance for a year
and the Commissioners have only had it since Friday and it was a~hock to
~ee theae Eigures.
Commiasioner Fry stated h~ will vote 'no" on the requeat because he cannot
Iiandle it and he wAUld atsu like the City Co~~ncil to aee 1E they think the
City shou.id follow this road and pc•ovide the parks in the futu:~~, adding
he thought it is a luxury which we cannot aff.ord. He stated he felt the
City should be concerned about maintaining and keeping the parks we
already have.
Mr. Jarvi ~tated the City is constantly looking at ways to streamline its
maintenance operation; that the Cily took 50 to 60 a:res o£ park land in
the Canyon Area without any additional maintenance peraonnel in the last 3
years and he knnw~ there are additional ways of cutting costs such as
growth iri~ibitor~, etc.
C4airwoman Pro Tempoce La Claire stated maybe it 1.s time to say to the
people who live in the hills that they r.annot have a flat park bec~use it
costs to~ much to develop; and that the developer ehould still cledicate
some park land, but it juat costs too much to develop it as a flat land
park.
Mr. .latvi stated after the Eact, a park cannot be developed and it comes
down to the kind of quality we want to have in this com~ounity.
Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claite referred ~ the sale of dedicated land.
Mr. Jarvi e~•~lained the ordinance provides that the City can sell the
land, but ti~e money must be uped to benefit the people wha provided thQ
money in the first place.
Commissioner King stated when businesses are planning to move into
Anahefm, one of the first questions they ask is about parks. Mr. Jarvi
stated he has heur.d that directly from a representative from the Hilton
Hote~ and one of the rr~sons he came to Anaheim to manage that hotel was
because the city has such a clean image and thaC clean image is directly
related to what the parks look like and it is very important that the City
does have a very strong park system from the ausiness standpoint.
Commissioner Bushore stated the golf course is gettin~ ready to dispose of
some af their excesE land and asked i.f that property has been considered
for a park.
7/23/84
MINUTES. ANAHE;M CITY PLANNING ~UMMx~SION, JULY 23, 1984 84-483
Mr. Jarvi skated the Parks Department wae involved in a f.easibility study
of thaC land. He atated pArks are largely a locational problem and the
neighborhood park has to be within walking distance of the group it serves
and a park in the area oF the go'.L uourae is not qoing t~ help the Bauer
Ranch. Mr. Jarvi added i£ thie ie going to bo voted ayainst, he wauld
like t~ have some cpecific recommenda~ions or comments.
C~mmiesioner Bushore stated this revision is probably necessary.
Chairwoman Pro TemFoce La C1~ire stated ~:ltim~tely the decision is up to
the CiCy Council, but she is utill concerned because she thinks the City's
phlloROphy is wrong when it comes to develaping in the hillside area a-~d
she did not think anyone has evec eto~ped and considered tha~ is~ue.
Commissionet Bouas added she felt site locationc are up ~o Mr. Jarvi's
judgement and they are looking f.or sites that mbke thP bcse parks ~nd
people want the flatlands but it doea not take lU acres for a s~ccec field
and they are going to have to have hills with some flat land areas for
their baseball diamonds, etc. ~he stated shP did not think the
Commisaion can just ~ay khey cannot have regular flat p~rks hecause it haF
to be up to the Park Departme~t's judgement as to where ~he parks are
needed.
Commissioner Bu~hore stat~d ~ealistically he did not see the City actually
acquiring one acre in that area and any park land will be acquired through
kradet and that the Commi3^ion ahould really look at the fees to develop
the parks.
Responding to Chaicwoman Pr~ ':empore La Claire, Mr. Jarvi stated the Dauer
Ranch developers lost the ability to develop the lan~ whi~h they dedicated
for parks and the actual gzading costs were in che neighborhoud of 575,000
and the City is reimbursing them for tfat.
Chairwoman ?co Tempore La Claire clarifi~~ that the Bauer Ranch developers
d~djcated the five acres and graded it. Mr. Jarvi stated they also paid
$900,000 to $500,000 in park fees.
C~mmissioner eouas clarified that with the rpvised ordinance, they would
have dedicated the land, plua the development costs of $50,000 per acre,
so they would have saved money with this revised ordinance. Mr. Jarvi
explained the Council made a firm policy that ae all new development will
offset the cost of the infrastructure and he felt a little more secure
with this revised ordinance because it is only carr,ying out what they said
they wanted to do in the first place.
Bob Linn, 507 Meadowbro~k Place, Anaheim, asked how many schools are
planned for that a:Aa and it was noted that information is not knawn. Mr.
Linn su~gested expanding those elementary schoal sites f.or the Park
facilities because they have ta be located in the density.
Commi~sionec Bushore stated the City is trying to improve their
relationship u~ith the Orange Unified ~chool Distcict, so those types of
things can be developed. Mr. Linn stated he agreed that no more parks
will be purchased tn the future and that people do~ntown are not going to
vote for tonds to build parks tn the Canyon.
7/23/84
MINU':ES, ANA_ HEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMI~SION, JULY 23, 1984 H4-484
Mr. J~rvi ataked we do h~ve a problem rlght now with the Otange Un:Eied
Schaol District because they are starting to charg~ feox Ear almoot
everything they cans r~nd also the schools are in use yQar round, ao ~hose
sites are not availablc~ All the time. He at~ted the Ci*v is wor.king with
them and w.ith all schaol districts iii Ahaheim and that is one of the
rer,sonx ouc standarda for park development is 2 acrea per .1,00U when other
cities require 4 acres per 1,000 or greater. He stated given the emaller
amount of park acreage, he telt foc this aize City, we atill adequately
aerve the population because they hnve effectively uaed the schools along
with the pack development.
Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire stated t-~e Commission cnuld approve hhe
request and state their concerne to the City Council.
Commissfoner Fry suggested denying the request and a~king the City Council
to re-evaluate the parks And recreational secvices to see if we wiah to
cont~nue with the current philosophy.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Directar for Zoning, stated the General Plan
has ~ Park and Itecreation Element ancl hasic statiatics do come out oE the
General Plan and if a policy change is made like that, it would be made in
the General Plan as well, and if a r~ecision is ever made, it wili comP
be:Eare the Planning Commission again.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry uffered a mot~an that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend denial of the Park Dedication Ordinance
cevisions to the City Council and request that the City'a current
philosophy bP re-evaluated pert•aining to parks and recreation acquisition
and development.
Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire atated when the Canyon Area G~neral Plan
was develcped, the Task Force saw that area as utilizing open space and
the trail system as parks and they did no~ ~Ee the area deveYoped as a
regular park because it was hilly and she thought most of the cost oE
developing these packs is due to the fact tha~ maeses of people will be
coming for other kinds of re~reation. She atated she would second
Commzssioner FrY's motion because she would like to see Council take a
look at that aspect because flat parks cost so much more to develnp.
Mr. Jacvi stated the $300,000 figure did not come out of the Canyon ar~:a,
but from land costs all over the City.
Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire stated she thoughL• the developec should
dedicate the land and make the raw improvements, but she felt the ~400,000
figure must be for developing flatland parks rather than an open space
park. She stated she wauld like t~ ask the Council to really take a lock
at this since it is their decision in the end.
'PHE FOREGOING MOTIUN CARRIED, (Commissioner Herbst absent and Commissioner
Bushore abstaining).
Commi~sianer Hushore stated he had abstained because this action w.Ill be
construed by the Council as the Commission saying no more parks shoill,d be
developed. Annika Santalahti stated the denial is actually saying that
7/23/84
MINUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION~ JULY 23~ 1984 ,~~ 84-4~5
the foas shau~d remain et thR 1976 level. Commidsioner Bouaa atate~ ehe
did nok think the Commi~sio~ ie voting thet it stAys the edme ~s the 1976
leval, but is queationing whether or not ~hey ahould go to the pco~used
level.
Mr. Jarvi d3kld it they are atill ~upporting the ;28,000 C~er ecre fee.
Chairwoman Pro Tetnpore La Claire atated she ia voting for what they have
had in the pASt, but elsn thet the City Council look at the park sites in
the Canyon ~rea. Mr. Jarvi asked if Che Commisaion wants the ~ark site
selection criterie reviewed.
Commissioner Pry stated he is oppos~d to the fee etructure, but even more
imporkant, he is cequesting the City Council to take a good look at wha~
our existiny pack site acyui.Bition is to see whether or no~ we should
eliminate further acquisition and take care of what we have or proceed on
the baais of what is being proposed here. He added the bond iasu~ is
another alternative.
G. RECLASSIFICATIUN NU. d0-81-18 and C~NDITTONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2144 -
Request fcom Michael ~. Welch for an extenaian oE time. Pro~erty located
at the northweat corner of groadway and Philadelphia Streets.
ACTION: Commissioner ~ing offecPd a motion, secanded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRlED (Commisaioner tierbat absent and Commissioner
8ushore abstaining), that the Anaheim ~ity Planning Commission does hereby
grant a one-year extension of time for Reclassification No. 80-81-18 and
Conditional Use PermiC No. 2144 to expire No~ember 17, 1985.
Commissioner Bi~shoce explained he had abstainEd becau~e the prcperL•y is in
the ~edevelopment area and is property he formecly awned,
OTHER DISCUSSSO~:
(1) Communitywide Communit,y Cevelopment Block Grant.
it was noted Commissioner Bushore served an that committee l.ast y~ars
however, he indicated an interest in serving again this year.
ACTION: commissioiier McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARHIED (COmmissioncr Herbst absent), that Commissioner
Bushore serve on the Communitywide Community Development Block Grant
Committec~.
(2) Commissioner Du~hore explained he had received a lettec regarding the drug
rehabilita~ian center on Broadway and the other Cam.missioners can review
it. It was pointed out tnat mattec has beNn appealed and a public hearing
wfll be heard.
7/23/d4
MINUTBS. ANAH~IM CI~Y PWINNING CONMI~SION. JULY 23, 1984 84-486
(3) The Planning Commiaeion me~tinq of ~uguet 6th wea diecuseed with it being
nated et laeat three Cammiseionara Will not be pzeee~t et thie meeting.
It wes determined that ~he four rena~niny Con-mi8aidnere plen to be preaent
and it wa~ th~ genocal canaensua thak a meeting will be acheduled and rhen
if there is na quorum cn thet date, the m~eting con be cancell~d.
ADJAURNMENT: Thero being no Further buainesa, Commiasioner Ktng off 8~ed d
motiu~, eeconded by Cammiseionec L~ Cl~ire and MOTION C~RRIED
thdti ~he meeting be adjourneo.
'Phe meeting wau ~djourned et 5:02 p.m.
Respoctfully submftted,
~ ~ .
Edith L. Hacris, Senc~tary
Anaheim City Planning Commiaeion
ELH:lm
0056m
7/23/'6~