Minutes-PC 1987/03/30REGULAR MEETING OF 'f11E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMTSSION
'I'}e regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Mc;BUrney at 9:UU a.m., March 30, 1987,
in tt~e Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and t}ie Commission
reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
ItECONVENL:D: 1 :30 p. m.
PRESt3NT; Chairman:
Commissioners:
ALSO PRESh~NT:
Annika Santalahti
Jo^1 Fick
Malcolm Slaughtec
.fay Titus
Paul Sinyer
Debbie Vagts
Pablo Rodriquez
Ron Evans
Dick Mayer
Mary McCl~~:ckey
Janet Habe.l
Karen Freeman
Greg Hastings
Edith Harris
'Coning Administrator
Planning Director
Deputy City Attorney
Office Fnyine~~r
Traffic Engineer
I,easiny Supervisor
Water Engineer
Assistant Fire Chief
Parks P1-inner
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Assistant Planner
Senior Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted
at 10:00 a.m., March 30, 1987, inside the foyer windows and in the display
case located in the lobby of the Council Chamber.
PUBLIC TNPUT - Chairman McBurney explained at the end of the agenda any member
of the public would be allowed to discuss any matter of interest within the
jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, or any agenda item.
MINUTES F'OR APPROVAL - Commissioner La Claire asked that the minutes of March
16, 1987, be corrected on Page 87-175, sixth paragraph to read that she stated
she did not think it was fair that the applicant had to pay all of the fee.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED that the minutes of the meeting of March 16, 1987, be approved,
as amended.
C}~airman McBurney explained the balloon displayed on the podium was sent to
the Commission by about thirty concerned citizens opposed to the development
of Weir Canyon. He presented several letters of opposition to be included in
the record.
87-180
McBurney
Bouas, Fry, Herbst,
Lawicki, La Claire, Messe
3/30/87
s
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30_,_1987 87-181
T'fEM N0. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 273 (SUPPLEMENTAL_)_~_SPECIFIC PLAN
N0. 87-1 (INCLUDING A PUkiLTC FACILITIES PhAN), 5PEC_IFIC PLAN 'ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT S'PANDARDS AND FISCAL, TMPAc:T ANALYSIS
PUEiLIC HEARING. OWNER: ~0. PAC PROPERTIES, INC., 2 North Lake Avenues, Suite
800, Pasadena, CA 91101, ATTN: JOHN JAMESON. AGENT: ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES,
INC., 1151 Uove Street, Suite 130, Newport Beach, CA 92660, ATTN: FRANK
ELFEND. ProperL•y described as approximately 816 acres located north of Canyon
Rim 12oacl, east of Serrano Avenue, bounded on L•he north by i'ast trills Planned
Community (Bauer Ranch), on the east uy Wallace Ranch and Oak Hills Ranch, and
ot; i:he soutl~ea ~t by Irvine Company property.
Request for adoption of a Speci ~c Plan including zoning and development
standards, a Public Facilities Plan and a ['iscal Impact Analysis for the
proposed Highlands at Anaheim Hills to provide for r.he development of up to
2,147 residential units, 8 acres of comitrcrcial uses, 284.7 acres of open
space, a 5-acre Dark site, and a 15.3-acre elementary school site.
Continued from the meeting of March 16, 1987.
There was no one indicting their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated there are several changes or deletions to
the conditions as follows, and that the developer has been made aware of any
substantial changes:
Condition No. 3 Section y, modifying last sentence tc r.ead; "That all
signing shall he subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Department and the City Traffic Engineer for
vehicular and pedestrian visibili~.y".
Condition No. 14 Should be modified by deleting the word "of" in the fifth
.line.
Condition No. 30 Delete.
Condition No. 38 Should be modified to read: "That prior to the approval of
the first tentative tract or parcel map the property
owner/developer shall identify the lo~~ation of the
following items and shall, prior to approval of the first
final map, provide the maintenance of:
(a) slopes adjacent to roadways which provide access to
the Highlands (and whictr roadways may be located in
the Wallace Ranch or Oak Hills Ranch).
(b) Deer Canyon open space corridor."
Condition No. 47 Now refers to Hidden Canyon Trail and that should be
changed to Anaheim Hills Trail.
3/3G/8%
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUNr MARCH 30, 1987 d7-182
Condition No. 55 Modify the lac~t uentence Co read: "'Phe developer will also
advance the tee to the City to complete the backbone
system upon bi l l.iny by ti+e City."
Condition No. 59 Modlfitying to read: "'That prior to any final parcel or
tcar.t map approval, the property owner/developer. shall
provide grading plans f:or the sewer, storm drain and
street improvement. Said plans shall be reviewed and
approved t>y the Public Utilities Ueparkment so the
Utilikius b'acillty Plana are coordinated within site
development•."
Condition No. (il Modify by adding at rrnd: "..except when provisions of the
viewshed are involved."
Condition Nu. 99 Should be amended to read; "'that prior to approval of any
final tract map the t~roperty owner/developer shall agree
to constr.uc.t bus bays, i.n accordance with the Urange
County '['r:ansit District and the City 'Craffic t:nyineeC."
Condition No. 1.15 Modify Section A to read: "Extensi.on of Serrano Avenue
into the Ciky cif Urange to provide regional access through
the City of Orange into Anahr_im"; and, H portion should be
moor fi~~~i to read: "E:xtenslon of Imperial Highway try Loma
Avenue t~ join existing Serrano Avenue in the City of
Urange."
Conuiti.on No. 119 Should ;~e deleted.
Frank Elfend, agent, stated t+e ha.~ been working with staff on this project
since tt+e middle of 1985 in preparing a Land Use Plan benefiting the
community, the .:ity, other public agencies and the developer. He presented
slides showing ttce area and surrounding land uses and the proposFd project.
He stated it was their desire to cluster development and consolidate open
space areas and there is a major ridgeline through the property in a
north/south uirection and it was their intent to preserve that ridgeline. tie
staled they understood the importance of the Weir Canyon Park and wanted to
maintain that interface, if possible, and also wanted to retain the views. tie
stated they understand the circulation and public facilities deficiencies. lie
stated they looked at the open space and recognized there was a park site to
be provided at the intersection of Canyon Rim and Serrano, as well as khe
preservation of the veer Canyon open space areas.
Mr. Elfend stated the specific plan proposes land uses for 2147 residerct•ial
units, an 8-acre commercial development, a school site, a 5-acre park and 285
acres of open space. He stated Areas 1, 5 and 9 have preserved the
single-family nature to interface with the adjacent community and Area 1 would
have 7200-sqi:ate foot lots, and Planning Areas 2, 5 and 9 would have 5000
square foot .lots, with some 3500-square foot lots on the interior portions.
He stated the apartments are to the interior portion of the areas and not
adjacent to any single-family home.
3/30/87
MINU'PES, ANAtIFIM CI_1'Y PhANNINC CUMMISSIONr MARCH 30L1987 87-183
Mr. l:lfend stated they just received a copy of. the :staff report on F'rtday
night anrJ ar.e still reviewiny it. He pointed out. one major concern is the
Fire Department issue and explained :~incc .lame ]985 when thcry Eirst startrd
workt.ng on thin project, they were told by the Fire beparL•ment that there were
several concider.ations relating to t-he development oC this site and one wa:3
that the fire protection would he provided from i'ire Station Nos. 9 and 10 and
a letter dated .lacnuary l9, 1986, from t:he Firr~ Uepartrnent indlcated that the
responrie time from troth ~;lotion. would bra within f.`ive minutes. He stated they
were told the project, would not create an additional need to tncrra:re the
department's tacilitio:r; however., they would be part of a reimbursement for
Fire Station No. 10, estimated ;, t. onr.-half million dollar.a and also they
were aware that the fire station would be relocated to the corner of Serrano
Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road. He :Mated they received a letter. i.n the middle of
March of thin year from the Fite nepar.tment: in<.iicating (1) that they desirecJ
t:o keep Fire :.ilalion No. 9 in its prerrent location acros:r the street fr. Urn the
gulf course, (1) that the project would be reyuirr:d to harticipate not only in
the reimburs~~rnenl•. Cor t•'ire Station No. 10, but for a second re:mhur.;ement for
Fire Station No. 9 which would be equal to t:he reimbursement for No. 10, and
they thought that- would probably amount to ~+900,UOU to ~1,QOO,Ut,'r ancJ (3) that
this project could not ire serviced from an extension oF. Serrano an.J Canyon Rim
because iL• would take 8 l0 1U minule:.r to reach t:he rite. He stated they feel
these are very critical i:~:ruc~s which they cio not understand anrJ which need to
hu clarified.
Mr.. t:lfend referred to the traffic imlrrovement:; required and skatF~d they
recogn(ze the need to provide improvement::; on a prorata share and recognise
there are scrmr ronsLraints in that area and the developer has worked with the
City to resolve arose problems; however, aathough this project is responsible
f.or 88 of the ackJitional traffic on imperial Highway between Santa Ana Canyon
t"toad :.rnd the freeway, they are being held responsible for the total
improvr_ment. He stated there is a condition requiring them to guarantee the
construction of Serrano Avenue anra extend Imperial Highway to Coma and there
was a re^aOlUtlOn passed by the City of Anaheim City Council. (83c<-47) requiring
the preparation of an Acs-ion Plan ancJ that plan is curren~ly being prepared in
the City of. Orange and the developer has acM.nowledged and agreed, prior to the
Issuance of the first building permit, to build Serrano Avenue '.n total into
the City of Orange to the City of Anat:~irn, taut t_he wording in the staff report
pCOVirJes for ttre guarantee of the timely construction as opposed to what the
existing resolution provi~c,, for. He stated there is a condition that deals
with cumulative impacts, t~articularly Fairmont Boulevard, and explained they
proposed a road from this project to Santa Ana Canyon RUad so that this
project will not affect Fairmont Boulevard t~ecause they understood the
constt'aints of Fairmont and the concerns of the community. He stated this i.s
essentially the only other development that is likely to use Fairmont to any
great degree; therefore, ttrey do not believe there is a cumulative need to
widen ['airmont and would request that condition be deleted. He stated they
understand ttre need to widen Santa Ana Canyon Road and want to be a part of
that, but it needs to be clear that this project generates lOB tc that problem
and they do not feel is reasonable as it relates to the cumulative need. He
stated there is a statement rr:garding a letter of credit or cash payment to
continue Serrano Avenue to the eastern boundary of the property and they would
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, MARCH 3U, 198 7 87-1D4
propose that it be bonding rather than a letter of credi ~ or cash. He stat~ad
there is a condition requiriny a traffic siyna.l at Fairmrant tloulevard and
Canyon Rim Road and based on traffic studies, there is n of a need for a
traffic :;tgnal at that intersection, oven though the wor ding in the Public
Facilities Plan providr_,; that "if deemed nere~ssary by the 'ecaEfi.c Engineer",
they do not think that is needed.
Mr. Elfend c;fated t•he next i.tan deals with the storm clra in and the maintenance
of the storm ar.ain system and they have proposed, as a part of their
development, to maintain that area in a natural state and the City's Master
plan proposes a storm drain through Deer Canyon ar;d the y have proposed to
maintain it in ic.s natural state; however, if. detailed ~ tudie:r determine that
is to remain open, they are suggesting that the fundi.-g which the c.'ity would
otherwise Utlll'l.e t.o maintain the closed sy:~tcm be matched f.or the maintenance
of the open system which would be handled by a special. a stiessment maintenance
district.
He stated after substantial discussions with the City's marks Department
staff, they have agreed to provide a `_.-acre park at the corner of Serrano and
Canyon Rim and in addition, they wi1.l %ovid~ the remainder in -li.eu Lee:, and
they believe those fees should be u~od t.o do the above-g round improvements on
the park site at an estimated c~oct of612,000, as oppo s eel to the calculations
provided by the Parks Department of approximately $8UU,0 U0. He stated there
is a condition relating to the street maintenance center and referred to the
staff report prepared for the Oak Hills Ranch wherein the Maintenance
Department has indicated that that station would be ioc a tod on the Oak Hills
property, so it would appear there has been some change of. plans since that
time. He stated they are concerned because the up-Eton t costs to develop the
project are just becoming substantial and based on the reimbursements that are
included in the conditions of approval for the Eire p~~pa rtme~~t, Police
Department and Library, in-lieu fees for the Parks Depa r tment, traffic
improvements, etc. they amount to about ~4,000,ODU and if the storm drain
system is implemented, that would be another ~4,000,UOU, resulting in
~B,000,000 up-front cost, before the first unit is built .
fie stated they have an agreement with ttre Orange UniCie d School District based
on a 1974 exchange agreement Eor proviciiny total mitigations, pursuant to
CEQA, as well as development of the property, for any f u tore requirements from
the school district and it is the intent• of the develope r, although not
included in that agreement, to also grade the property a t art estimated cost of
approximately :~5U0,000 and believe there is no need for the additional
condition.
Commissioner La Claire felt it will take a long time to go thror:gh all these
conditions and suggested instead of hearing everything `he developer has to
say first, maybe each department should respond t:o the concerns a~ he brings
them up. Mr. Elfend stated that would be acceptable.
Joel Fick responded Y.o Mr. Elfend that only the word "of " was deleted from
Condition No. 14. Mr. Elfend stated he would like to c 2arify that in
Condition No. i4, the Master Plan is for the project and nat the City's Master
Plan.
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, MAttCH 3U L 1987 87-185
Concerning Condition No. ).5, he stated they believe the wording should be
prior to occupancy of the first residential ~.rnits, the 'Cwin Peaks Reservoir
shall be operational and the Parkvlew I3oostcr pump station shal..l be under
design.
Commissioner H er.bst stated there must be water supplied for protection while
the units ace under construction. Mr. Elfend responded he believed there is
adequate fire flow protection.
Pablo Rodriquez, City of Anaheim Water Uivision, stated the condition relates
to a produ~:tion facility and pump station which are required to serve the high
elevations and the problem is that they Have extended planniny numbers and
have done studies to see how much they can develop with the existing
facilities, and have pursued the construction of an incremental pumping
station capacit y known as the Parkvlew Pump station Phase II and the numbers
clearly indicate that on that ragued edge, there is enough capacity to serve
those 4t)0 units; however, those are planniny numbers and have no reliability
and on a hot da;~ w.itt~ maximum usage, it is not known if the dem~+nd could be
met. Ile state d associated with the pump station is a reservoir which the City
assumed would be built by this time; however, it has not been built, and
therefore, the capacity of the pump station is not complimented by the
reservoir capacity in place, so the numbers tieing used for comparison are not
real. rle stated the Water Division wants that prior to approval of the first
unit of development, that- ttie reservoir should be functional. Ele explained it
is more associated with Cracling Area 19 which is located several miles to the
west of ttre proposed project. Ile stz' ~ ' the Water Uivision also tras a need to
get into the d esign of the Parkvlew Pump Station Phase II and that takes them
through the process of selecting engineering and consulting firms, doing
preliminary en gineeriny and final engineering drawings and mitigating some of
the environrnA n tal impacts associated with that and sometimes ;:hat process
takes three years and they want to have that in progress before approving any
of the development plans. He added that has nor_hing l•o do with occupancy and
will insure that on a hot day when water demand is high, there will be
capacity to meet the demands in that area. He stated it is important to have
the design process underway and that the construction of the facility is
relatively short term.
Responding to Commissioner Fry, Mr. Rodriquez stated it is the developer's
responsibility to finance the facilities and the Ut.-ilities Department would
administer th a construction by selecting tt.~ engineering consultants, etc.
Mr. Rodriquez stated it is the responsibility of the developer to finance the
design of the facility and l-he engineers would be selected by the Public
Utilities Department. Commissioner Messe clarified that from ttre beginning
through design, this could take three years to complete. Mr. Rodriquez stated
that is correct, that the reservoir and pump station are two different
facilities an d the :dater Division wants the reservoir in place before the
units are approved, and it has already been designed and the City is waiting
to finalize a n agreement with the owners of the property. He stated they
also want the design completed far the pump station and that would probably
take 1 to 1-1 /2 years to complete. !ie stated the pump station is to located
right below the Walnut Canyon Reservoir and in the agreement which they have
drafter', the City reserves the rigY.t to move the location because there is a
possibility d eveloprnent will occur above Weir Canyon Road and it might be more
prudent to build part of the capacity elsewhere.
3/30/87
~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCii3U~_1987 87-18G
Commissioner [,a Claire clarified that the location has not been determined,
but this d~vel.oper is suppose to pcovide the design. Mr.. Rodriguez stated
they want thc• reservoir constructed and in place and the design has bean
completed and it is located in the vi ri.nity of. Grading Area 19 which is
approximately one mile west of Nahl Ranch Road on Camino Grande and is not in
tl~e immediate vicinity of this project, but is associated with the same
service area and hydraulically these facilities are tied together and service
a rornmon area aL- a given elevation and they want that reservoir in place
before any units are constructed.
Cortrmissioner La Claire stated that water is not going to be needed until the
people are there. Mr. Codriquez stated when gradtn~,i occurs and the builders
start preliminary construction and any flamables are moved into the area, fire
protection has to be provided. Commissioner [,a Claire stated this one issue
is very confusing and clarified that the design and location are ready for the
reservoir, but there is no design Eor the pump station. Mr. Rodriquez stated
the site is generally established and they haves art exact location, but that is
subject to change depending on the phasing of the development in the e~evation
area. fie stated it wo~t.ld be adjacent to the existing facilities, but could be
in two locations depending on the needs.
Commissioner La Claire asked !~nw t.his developer could c)o ahead with his
development and know what he is supposed to pay. Commissioner t4cBurney
suggested that be contingent upon building permits for the units.
Malcolm Slaughter stated a tract map is nothin~l more than permission l-o
subdivide property and does not necessarily indicate that anything would ever
be built on the property; and the City has had cases where the developer who
initially subdivided the property lost the property Eor some reason or other
and another developer purchased the property and tried to get building permits
arrd was then told that he could not have permits because the conditions had
not been met; and that the new owner could then say that is •~hy he had bought
the lots; and that once the map is approved and recorded, the lots are
saleable subject to only recorded limitations on the map ~,nd the City has a
difficult time forcing the new owner to comply with the requirements of the
tract map. ie stated there is some difficulty in delaying the conditions.
Chairman Mcl3urney stated a r_ract map is sometimes the only way the developer
has of getting financing and suggested maybe a covenant could be placed on the
tract map. Malcolm Slaughter stated it would still be difficult if the lots
were sold and the developer who got them originally had gone bankrupt or was
no longer in tt~e area. Commissioner Ery Mated a covenant could be recorded
against the property to make the buyer aware of the condition.
Commissioner La Claire stated the Commission has probably been remiss in not
getting those covenants.
Pablo Rodriquez stated Twin Peaks Reservoir is associated with 300 plus acres
and is in Grading Area 9 on Rio Grande and the needs for that reservoir were
established for that area. He stated in 1980 the City entered into an
agreement with ',^exaco-Anaheim Hills to build that reservoir and with that
agreement the City approved tracts for development; however, the reservoir was
never built and the Twin Peaks Reservoir is not really for the benefit of the
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30, 1987 87-.187
Highlands, but was a requirement for Grading Area 19 ant now there is storage
defir.it and there are no covenants on the ~:racts or any way to make the
independent developers build the reservoir which someone else had ayreed to
build.
Mr. Rodriquez stated the :rite was sold by Texaco -Anaheim Hills to this
developer and they are the successor and should be absochiny all the
agreements.
Commissioner E3ouas asked if the :;ite
agreement was signed. Mr. Rodriquez
complete and the property has been d~
changed because a lot of things have
reservoir is necessary because there
developments, without any additional.
for th.: reservoir was :>ettled when the
stated t;~ey have the final desiyn
~dicated to the City and the agre~~rnent was
changed since 198U, and r.hey feel the
is not enough stor.ayc f.or existing
development.
commissioner. La Claire stated if the City had had an agreement with
Texaco-Anaheim Hills to build the reservoir before any permits of occupancy
were issued, they could Crave forced them Lo build a reservoir or not issue the
permits. Mr. Rodriquez stated the developer does not I:~ve a problem and has
cornrnitted to build the reservoir and is also yoing to provide an agreement to
provide the desiyn work and the only problem is the timing. tle stated the
City does no l• want to get involved in she occupancy issue because they Jo not
want to tell individual property owners or builders or someone else in the
future that th~ay cannot move into their houses or sell the property because of
the conditions that need to be met, which were sorneor~e else's responsibility,
and in this case the City thinks the responsible person ,hould be the initial
developer. lie stated in the future, control is gone and constraints are lout
on huilders, occupants and other individuals who are not a party to the
conditions and are being told by the Fire Department that they cannot move in
because adequate protection cannot be provided.
John Jameson, So. Pac, owners, stated they have submitted signed agreements to
Mr. Rodriquez for the construction of the Twin Peaks Reservoir and posted a
letter of credit for the Twin Peaks Reservoir and Parkview Pump Station, and
the requirement to post a surety bond will be done uy the end of this week.
He stated they are requesting that because of all the assurances and the
commitments of the financing that they would like r_o have the opportunity to
proceed with the final mapping and final engineering before the facility is
fully constructed so they can move forward, and the timing dovetails very
nicely with how they will proceed to r.he Einal and tentative map process.
Commissioner Herbst stated he sees no problem if they have submitted a
irrevocable letter of credit. Mr. Jameson stated he did not think the City
has a problem with the timing of prior to final building permits and that is
all they are requesting.
Mr. El.fend continued that• Condition No. 30 deals with the school district
requirements and they would request. that that condition be deleted based on
the 1974 Exchange Agreement with the school district and the subsequent
commitment on the part of the developer to grade the site.
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30, 1987 87-188
Commissioner Herbst stated there is a letter from the Orange Unified School
t)istricC regarding rock that has been placed on the site by this developer
which would be expensive to remove. Mr. Elfend stated since then they have
had some subsequent stuc9ies conducted by a geologist and it was agreed that
whatever. needs to be done to that site to make it suitable Ear school purposes
as it relates t~~ thaf matec.ial will he provided and that the school district
can have their owr geologist there t•.o certify the fill.
Commissioner Fry stated he has no problem with deleting that condition.
Malcolm 5.lauyhter stated there is a requirement of ttte City's Building
~epartrnent that prior to the issuance of any building permits for an,y kind of
structure, the City hay to have a certi.Eication from the affecl•ed school
district that the developer has me! all their f.ee obligations to the district
under the new bill which became et4ective January 1, 1987, and he wanted to be
sure that is not a part of this condition because that would still be required
by the City and tiro City cannot issue permits unless that requirement is met.
Commissioner ha Claire stated in the past the City has asked developers to
give a certain amount of acreage to the school district.
Joel Fick stated it is staff's under.stancling that on thi:~ particular site, tiro
school district owns the property, based upon that previously litigated
agreement, and Mr. Elfend agreed ttrat is correct. Commissioner La Claire
stated when the General Plan Arnertdment was processed on this site, eight or
nine years ago, the Orange Unified School District wanted this site graded and
asked what they want now.
Mr. Elfend stated the 1974 F:xcttange Agreement which was provided as a function
of litigation berwren the school district and developer, and the City was
named as a par`.y a•- well, was to provide fur the provision of several school
sites for. to~aJ. mitigation of future development in the Anaheim Hills area.
He stated other sites have been provided and that is the agreement the
district and clc~vc~l«per are living up to, with the ?xception that the builder
has agreed to Tirade the site to make it suitable for their purposes. He
stated they have written a letter to ttte school district to verify the
position that the agreement of 1974 includes all prior legislation as it
relates to subsequent fees and there will be no additional fees charged.
Chairman McBurney stated a^ long as the school district releases the City of
obligations, the City could release the permits.
Mr. Elfend continued that Condition No. 32 requires that prior to the
submittal of any tentative map, the property owner/developer shall provide
documentation of acquisition of easements for public facilities including but
not limited to water, electrical, sewers, drainage, etc. He added they do
not believe L-hat condition is appropriate because the tentative map is a plan
and the work is to be done between the tentative and final and they would
requesk that condition read prior to approval of the first and final tract map.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the City would accept that provided they have the
documents prior to the final map, and obviously, the City would want some
evidence at the tune of the tentative map that the Easements ar.e shown across
tits property. Mr. Elfend stated they would request the same verbage for
3/30/67
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLC", `rN.ING COMMISSION, MARCFt 3U, 1987 87-189
Condition No. 38. Joel Fick stated that was addressed at the beginning of the
meeting and it is staff's feeling that certainly the first tentative map or
parcel map is appropriate Eor the maintenance provision of that condition;
however, staff feels it is important to have staff and Planning Cornrnission
review the maps and the locations should be known when ttie tentative map is
considered. He :Mated staff would rccomrnend the location be identified when
the tentatives are considered and the mainr Dance when the Finals are
considered.
Frank Flfend stated that would be acceptable. He stated Condition tJo. 40
requires a final map rather than tentative map and Joel Fick stated the
Attorney's office indicated that would be an acceptable change.
Commissioner La Claire asked what the timing of there conditions really means
and what ditiference those changes would make. Joel Fick stated the conditions
were structured basically by the Interdepartrnenl•al Committee of staff
representative's recommendations and really reflect the desires expressed by
those representatives and were identified as being action items in a specific
plan or action items identified by tt~e environmental impact report for the
project. fie stated certainly there has been discussion ampny the departments
and in some cases there have been negotiations between the developer and the
City and new information has been presented literally on a daily basis. Eie
added since it is rea]ly not the Planning Uepartrnent information ~.n every
instance, staff is checking with each department as this hearing is
proceeding, but so far everything tras been acceptable.
Mr. Flfend stated he would like to have the discretionary approval required in
Condition too. 47 to be by tha City and not by the County of Ornage. He stated
they feel as far as the trails are concerned, they should be consistent with
L•he City's Trails Element and the City should approve that process. He stated
they have no objection to having the County review the maps, but providing
proof could take a considerable amount of time.
Mr. Fick stated that condition was structured by the Parks and Recreation
llepartment and the Commission should have knowledge of any trails wtren they
consider tentative tract maps. He stated the review and approval by the
County was something desired from tt~e Packs and Recreation Department.
Chairman Mcl3urney suggeUted final approval by the Coranty could possibly be
after the final parcel map rather than the tentative map.
Dick Mayer, Parks Planner, City of Anaheim, Parks Department, staked the final
map is fine for the approval, but they wanted to be sure the trails ace
located where they are supposed to be located.
Mr. Flfend referred to Condition No. 49 and stated right now there are some
existing agreements between the County and the Anaheim ttills Development
Corporation and their successors, So. Pac with respect to maintenance of
certain easements and the first part of that condition essentially indicates
that f~+~_t and the second portion says in the event the County does not agree
to maintain the regional trails within the Highlands, the owner shall develop
a special maintenance distri~~t and right now, most of those agreements are in
effect and they would suggest that portion of that condition be deleted.
3/30/87
MINUTES1 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMiSSIUN, MARCH 30, 1987 87-19U
Malcolm Slaughter stated iE the agreements are nlr.eady in effect, the
developer has mr_t the condition and that should not• be a problem. Joel rick
stated the comment was that most of them are in place and staff would be
really interested that all of them are in place before the condition is
deleted.
Mr. Elfend refer.ced to Condition No. 8 which requires the builder to
participate in its Eair share of construction of per.rnanent Fire Station No.
9. He explained he rece.i.ved a letter Erom Fire Chief Jeff Bowman a few weeks
ac3o indicating that since Borne land trad been previously given to the City at
the corner of Serrano and tJohl Ranch Road, and Since the Fire Department did
not plan to relocate ttre fire st:~tion to that area, that the land be given
back to the developer and the City would expect a financial contribution. He
stated they have checked with the prior owner and are nut aware of any
commitment to give the land to the City. Ifs :,fated he received a letter on
Friday from the Fire Chief suggesting that contribution was in the vicinity of
350,000 and if that condition is upheld, the developer of this project will
be responsible Eor approximately ~8(lU,000 in reimbursements to the Fire
Department. He clarified the Fire Department wrote the letter indicating they
had decided not to relocate the fire station up to Serrano and Canyon Rim and
because they were not relocating it and because it was their understanding
that the land was to he given to them by ttie Anaheim Hills Development
Corporation, that instead the rnon~y that would corns: from the pruceeds of the
sale of the land be used to participate i.n the reimbursement of Fire Station
No. 9. He stated their response, to the best of their know.ledye, is that
there has never. been any gift to the City of. that particular land.
Malcolm Slaughter stated if the City did not receive the site, he did not know
haw the fire :station could be proposed for that site.
Commissioner Herbst stated the relocation of that fire station has been
cii:;cussed for a good number of years. Malcolm Slaughter stated the applicant
indicated that Site No. 9 was going to be moved and Mr. Elfend stated there
was no question that the site was going to be moved and they never objected to
that, but there was never any agreement that ttre property was going to be
given to the City rather than being a part of the negotiations. Responding to
Malcolm Slaughter, Mr. Elfend stated there has never been a negotiation
between tha City and the owner regarding that site.
Ronald Evans, Assistant Fire Chief, stated the discussion regarding Fire
Station No. ~ and his involvement goes back just over three years when Anaheim
Hills-Texaco, represented by Horat Sctror, asked the Fire Department
representatives attend two meetings and discuss the possibility of relocating
the existing temporary Fire Station No. 9. He added it was his understanding
at that time that they were interested in obtaining the property where the
temporary fire station was located and had Crave previous meetings with the
Maintenance Director regarding any possible deals, but the Fire Department w~,s
left with the understanding, although no deal was ever made at that time, that
they 'ere donating other property, but the Fire Department was never a party
to any of those meetings. He stated they asked what location the Fire
Department would like to move to and the only two sites they were interested
in were the golf course parking lot, which was the original location, and the
other ut the top of the hill. He stated any further down Serrano Avenue
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P[,ANNING COMMISSIOIJ,_MARCH 30, 1987 87-191
would locate the site too clo^p to Fire s' ition No. 10. tie stated the extension
of Serrano to Weir Canyon is r,ritical ko the Fire Uepar.tment's protection of the
Anaheim Hills area. He stated since Fire Chief Bowman I~as braen appointed, he has
elected to permanently locate Fire Station No. 9 on the existing site primarily
because they no longer nave a problem getting equipment up the hill and that site
is geographically the best; that previously they had response time problems
getting up ttre steep grade, but since then have purchased new equipment wikh
higher horse power engines and the response time is better. tie stated, in
addition, they Dave built-.in brake retarders and other advantages in the apparatus
anr9 based on those things, the Fire Chi.eE has made the decision to locate the fire
station where it is presently located and the Maintenance Director has indicated
the development of ttrat site could take place. Fie stated regarding the letter
sent to Mr. Elfend, the statement was made almost exactly as he indicated in ttrat
based on the value of the property, they would be expected to donate a cash sum to
help rebuild Fire Station No. 9, and based on the square footage cost, that would
be in the neighborhood of 400,000.
Commissioner Messe asked if the discussions regarding Station No. 9 being up the
hill were initiated by Anaheim hills Texaco. Mr. Evans stated discussions
regarding the site the station sits on were initiated by Anaheim ti ills Texaco.
Commissioner Herbst states] it appears the site across Er.onr the school would be a
very good site for t:he fire station and since the City is going to consider
selling golf course property, it seems to be in the best interest of the City to
move the fire station l•o that site becau>;e it would be quicker to get engines down
the hill.
Mr. Evans stated that is no longer a consideration; that ttre new engines have a
500 horsepower difference and the tune saved is probably one minur.e. tie stated it
would be some time before Serrano goes through; that about 758 of the incidences
right now are not uphill, but in the other direction. He stated Fire Stations 9
and 10 are the Anaheim ttil].s protection stations and that is why tre made reference
to the Serrano extension and Fire Station No. 9 is a jingle-engine company with
paramedics.
Commissioner Herbst asked Crow the first 400 homes would be protecl-ed before the
road is developed. Mr. Evans stated that is the problem the Eire Department has
and it has been discussed with the developer; that the proposed road off Santa Ana
Canyon Road is not sufficient for Eire Department response to that area; and that
right now it takes just in excess cf five minutes for Eire Station No. 9 ~o reach
the intersection of Canyon Rim and ;,errano.
Commissioner Herbst asked if the response time would not be better to have the
Eire station site across from the school at the corner of Serrano and Nohl Ranctr
Road. Mr. Evans stated they provide protection from every direction and feel it
is better located where it is right now rather than at the top of the hill becausE
they know what is going to happen with Fire Station 10 and the extension of
Serrano and that is a critical site.
Commissioner La Claitp asked how many other developers will be participating in
the cost of Stations 9 and 10. Mr. Evans stated Fire Station 10 is for ttre Weir
Canyon area and as agreed upon with Kaufman & Broad in 1978, it was based on the
original 2255 acres, which this site is 625 acres, and that site was planned to be
first due response out of Station 10, based on the fact that Serrano Avenue and
Weir Canyon would be access points, and second due response would be from Station
9.
3/30/87
MiNU'fES, ANAlIEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSII")N MARCl1 30 19$7 87-192
Commissioner Bouas asked iE developers of the other ranchrs would participate
in the co:;t of Stal• ion l 0. Mr . Evans responded other rarrcties would
participate in the cost of Station 10 anti they have not been asked to
participate in tt~e cost of Station 9.
Mt. Evans responded t:o Commissioner l3ouas that he thought Texaco-Anaheim Hills
irad granted the property where Station 9 is rurrently located, but those
discussions stopped. C~mrnissioner Bouas stated that was to have been a trade,
so they would not get anything from that property, and to iarticipate now for
Srat.ton 9 seems unfair because they would not be getting any property. Mr.
E;rans stated they understand and havA heard th~• developer's position.
Responding to Commissioner I,a Claim , Mr. Evans stated the estimated cosk for
construction of Station 9 permanently would be i.n excessive of 500,000.
Commissioner t,a Claire stated that station would service a large area and she
thought other develoF~ers should be involved in t-he financing and asked what
happened to the participation by other develo!'ers to the area.
Joel Fick stated he cannot answer for the Fire Department, bt~t had heard the
discussions between the developer and the Fire Department and thought there is
currently unfunded .liability in that area and there are not a lot of ways to
pay for this station and it is either out of General Fund money or new
development or a surcharge on existing ,development which dons not seem
plausible because that would require a vote for a special assessment
district. Commissioner La Claire asked if the unfunded liability is the
result of other developments i.n the past in the same circumstances.
Mr. Fick stated tt~e existing Eire station is temporary and it has been there
for about 10 years and there has never been any provision made for it to
become a permanent station and it becomes an issue in the Highlands project
because if the project is approved without ~rrr off-site road through to get
service from Fire Station 10 effectively during construction of the first 400
units, they are asking far fire protection wi~ich will increase demands on Fire
Station No. 9.
Commissioner Messe stated the Fire Department is saying Station 9 cannot
service the Highlands area and the road is needed so ttrat Fire Station 10 can
service it, but that this developer teas to pay for both stations.
Chairman McBurney stated if the fire station has to be constructed and t.ia
developer has to contribute a large share of the money, then the other ranches
should reimburse this developer as they de'~elop.
Commissioner Herbst stated Anaheim Hills-Texaco developed all of Anaheim Hills
and this developer has purchased some of the contingencies. ile suggested this
developer pay for the development of Eire Station 9 and be relieved from
paying for the development of Fire Station 10 because he thought they should
only be responsible for one station.
Mr. Evans stated Weir Canyon was the first project asked to support safety
services, in addition to ttre other things, and due to economic conditions, the
whole development was not undertaken. He stated in the meantime, the fire
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30, 1987 8.7_-1y3
protection plans were developed around that development and a temporary
station was put in in 1974 and the permanent cite in 1984 and that would
affect a large portion of the fire protection plans. tie stat.•ed Fire Station 9
was put in 1976 and all expenses borne by the City of Anaheim as a temporary
site because the Fire llepartment was not sure what development would occur and
they were also concerned about the grade and originally plotted t•he sitar to be
at least half way up the hill un the golf course site. lie stated they now
find the existing site is sufficient because of the development, the work load
and the geographic location. He explained their geographic locations are
based on time and distance of five minutes. He stated this project is at the
exact limitation right now at five minutes for Fire Station 9 and if adequate
access is not provided far Fire Station 10, the response time would be in
excess of eight minutes for the first 40U units and they do not find that
acceptable. lie explained just to get to t•he corner of Serrano and Canyon Rim,
the response time from Station 9 is just over five minutes and from Station
10, to came down Santa Ana Canyon Road, up Fairmont, around Canyon Rirn to get
t•o that intersection is eight minutes.
Commissioner La Claire stated Stations 9 and 10 are both necessary and access
is needed in order to protect the entire area. Slie stated somewhere in the
report there was a reference to reimbursement to Kaufman & 9road for Fire
Station 10 and she has a rE~al problem witty reimbursing K & B because that
development cost the Ci.t.y so much money and to offset that, they were supposed
to construct a regional stropping center which was never developed. She stated
she would like for ttre City to look into the possibility of not reimbursing K
& B until their obligation is fulfilled. Stye explained she felt their
obligation is that they told the City that there would be a regional shopping
center in that area and that was ttre only reason the high density was approved.
Malcolm Slaughter stated if there was an established reimbursement district,
the City would have agreed to reimburse the developer for a proportionate
share of the cost of development and that would be a condition of the district
or contract and while tl~e developer may have indicated that they plan to build
a regional shopping center, he did not know of any contractural obligation and
did not think the City could successfully defend a refusal to pay because of
their failure to build a shopping center.
Commissioner La Claire stated she is just asking ttrat the agreement be
reviewed to see if it is possible.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Evans stated the cost to const[uct
Station 10 was 1.53 million dollars and that was a two-company station; and
that the developer also purchased a 110-foot aerial ladder, a new pumper and
other equipment.
Commissioner Herbst stated the proportionate share of what all the ranches
should pay should be reviewed by the City so the costs are equal to all
developers in that area. Commissioner Fry agreed.
3/30/87
MINU'T'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30, 1987 __ 8%-194
Chairman McBUrney stated there are 122 cr~nditions in this report and this
process could take a very long time and thal• he realises the applicant
probably has not had ample time to review them and discuss them with staff and
asked if the applicant would like to request a continuance. Mr. Elfend stated
that would be acceptable to them, but that he would just review the traffic
matters and then resolve the other matters with staff.
Commissioner Douarr stated tine concern with the Fire Department and their
response lime when the road is open to provide access was not answered and
asked when that road would be exL•encied. Mr. Elfend stated ttre way phasing is
~.~,posed, that access road rnigtrt not be im[~lemented until the second phase of
development; and that the first phase is being requested f.or approximately 400
units. He stated they have worked with the City Traffic Engineer to devise a
system to permit the 400 units, until the yraestion carne up from the Fire
Department. He stated aside from the fact they are being asked for 1,000,000
to build and rebuild a station, the problem of access to the first phase is
not resolved. He stated they have responded to what they were told in the
past and that is that fire protection would not be a problem. He stated if
they cannot get service to that area, that is a major consider:atiun to the
first phase of development.
Commissioner Lawicki asked if it was their understanding that the Fire
Department could access that area in less than five minutes. Mr. Elfend
stated the response was that it was three to five minutes. He asked if the
Commission would like to continue ttris matter. Commissioner Messe stated the
conditions have been reviewed through 81 and there are not ttrat many more grid
he would like to continue. Mr. Elfend stated they have several other
questions and comments and there are a lot of peopla present who are
interested in other items on ttre agenda and maybe he could just highlight the
traffic and circralation issues. Commissioner Fry suggested trailing this
matter until after the other items have been heard. Item No. 1 was trailed
until later in the meeting.
Commissioner La Claire left the meeting.
(THE REMAINDER OF ITEM NO. 1 SVAS f1EARD AT Tt)E ENT) OF THE AGENDA) .
Frank Elfend asked t~,r,t Condition No. 87 be deleted since they have worked out
an agreement with thF~ County of Orange regarding the dedl.cation of 129 acres.
Commissioner Messe stated that condition only requires the developer to submit
evidence that they have reached an agreement with tt~e County.
Frank Elfend asked that Condition No. 89 be deleted. Joel Fick explained that
c;ondition is the result of the response to comments made specifically by the
County of Orange to the environmental impact report and staff would request
chat the condition be left in until the developer provides the City with the
appropriate documents.
Mr. Elfend explained the property owner will be dedicating 129 acres to the
County of Orange prior to the recordation of any Einal map. He stated the
County would be taking the responsibility for maintaining the areas and this
condition requires that the owner/develloper establish a special maintenance
dir:trict or other funding mechanisms and he would suggest that is the County's
ob]igation.
3/30/87
MINU`I'E5_,__ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~~ COMMISSION, MAR(:H 30, 1987 __87-19`i
Joel [Fick stated many of Ll:~~ee c~anditions are to Lie addressed by the current
property ownrar; however, they could pass the ronditlons on to their successu r.
and the County may be the owner in the future, but the conditions that are
appropriate should be attached ,end the ones that ar.e not appropriate should be
removed. He staked Mr. Llfend indicated that they will not be the future
owners, but it woulc] be staff's i~osition that: the opr_n space needy Co be
maintained either by thr_ County or. through a special maintenan~:e district or
some owner f.inanci:rl mechanism. Commissioner Mr-_sse pointed out the condit:i:. r~
requires the fee dedication which makes t.hi~ condition null and void since tt~ie
County would be the owner.
Mr. Elfend stated anather concern is the traffi4 problems, particularly
Condition No. 91. He stated ba,ed on all their traffic studies prepared by
their traffic engineer, they f~rel Item C of that condition should be delete d
requiring a traffic signal at airmont and Canyon Etim, if determined nF~cess ary
by futurf~ ;:tu.]ies or circumstances :since it will not be impacted by this
project.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engin°~er, hc~ is not really anxiou, to add any more
traffic: signals .in this City; however, if this project, due to its nature,
should add to the traffic volume ind if a traffic signal is nececsitateri by
equipment or trucks driving construction or if added traffic and accident
frequency is increased which ,kiould require the installation of a traffic
signal, he would recc •,nd that this developer in ,tall that signal ak his
expenue.
Commissioner Fry suggested a four-way soap sign. Comrnissio^er Herbst stateca
he travels that road every day and thought a Eour-way stop sign would help,
rather than a signal.
Mr. Singer stated people will diso.,ey 3 stop sign 5 to 7~b of the ti+r.e ar~d a
traffic signal only 18 of tt~e time. Ho stated a stop sign would not reduc e
acc:idcnts and it anything, it :;ould be worse and he would not recommend a stop
sign at r_hat location.
Chairman Mc[3urney responded t~ t1r. Singer that the COmmisslJn did not
elir~inat.c~ Item C from the corciition. Commissioner 3auas asked iE there could
be a time limit placed on future st.~dies for ttrat traffic signal requirement.
Malcolm Slaughter stated there is nothing in that condition that would limit
time f.or future studies.
Concerning Condition No. 92, Mr. %ifend stated the Highlands project would be
contributing only 4B to the impact an Imperial.
Chairman McBurney suggested that Mr. Elfenca work with staff to resolve some of
these issues pertaining to the conditions and then come back to the Commission
with amore complete package. Commissioner Messe stated he thought the
Commission should '.isten to Mr. Elfend°s concerns regarding the rest of th e
conditions.
3/30 /87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY i?hANNING ~OMMIS5IUN, MARCH 30, 1987 __ 87-196
Mr. Elfend stated he would like to have Condit ion 9'J. i.ncludud in Condition
No. 116.
Joel Fick stated staff could not agree with that deletion because the
capacity of that section of Imperial from Santa Ana Canyon koad has to be
increased in order to permit additional development in the entire area, and
it is a~ capacity now during prak hours. N e stated relief o[ traffic
congestion has to take 1~l.ace and that was a ddre3sed in t•he environmental
impact report. Commissioner Fry ~ratr_d that was putting a.ll the burden on
one develot~er.
Paul Singer stated 3irni.lar condition3 will be imposed on the Wallace and Oak
Hills 12anch developers. He stated the first 401st unit cannot be con3tructed
until they have contributed their lair sha ze to this project, Commissioner
Fry stated that could hold up the Whole de veiopment.
Malcolm Slaughter staLrd some of these con ditions pror~osed by staff are
mitigation measures for environmental impact concerns and unless there is a
way to mitigate the concerns, the Commission would have a dlEf.if~ult time
approving the environmental impact retort and adopting) the mitigation
measures included in that report and that report would trove to he certified
before the project could be approved and ~tiere ha> to be eviden.•e in the
record to support the Commission's findings, Mr. [..lfend stated the staff
report provides overriding considerations that includes the findings that
must be made h}• !-he Commission.
Chairman McE3urney asked if it is t~o~sible to widr~n Imperial and sQt up a
reimbursement agreement so the other developers could pay when they come in
and not pul• the entire burden ~n this one developer. Commissioner t3ouas
agreed ti~at every developer should pay the it fair share of those
improvements. Mr. El.fencl stated a cor+dition creating a reimbursement
agreement would he acceptable.
Malcolm Slauyhter stated tie was not sure wtrat the developer is suggesting and
added he was not aware of a reimbursement agreement that could accomplish
what is being discussed. Chairman Mcliurn.~y suygestad a condition making
approval subject r_o such an agreement and subject to the City Attorney's
Office.
Malcolm Slauyhter stated the app'_icant would have to provide the agreement
since it was his suggestion and he was not aware of any Code section where he
could impose costs incurred by this parti^_ular developer on other
developers. fte added there may be a Code , bur at this time he was not- aware
of it and he would want the burden on the developer and not the City. He
explained it i.3 possible that even if a r ~imbursement agreement of some sort.
was included, it ray not be enior.ceablc~ ~:-~d after Mr. Elfend has spent
300,000 to improve +hat intersection, he would be expecting to be reimbursed
for a portion and if she other developers did not agree to pay, and the City
did not have the authority to enforce that agreement, he did not want t':e
city to be -esponsible for that reimburse rnent and have to pay this developer
that fee.
3/30/87
~,.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM (:TTY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCN 3U, 1987 87-19'1
Mr. Elfend continued that Condition No. 94 requires a guarantee for
construction on a portion of Serrano Avenue. Joel Fick stated bonding could
be added to that second portion of the condition as long as the developer
understands that the City Engineer could call for it at any time.
Mr. Elfend responded that i.s acceptable and asked what criteria determiner the
timing. Joel Fick staked the criteria would be the conditions in the area
such as tr.afEic, circulation, potential development ~E adjacent ranches, etc.
Paul Singer stated this is only a portion of Serrano within this ranch and tie
would like to retain that portion of tt~e condition until Oak Hills Linds
another way to Weir Canyon Road. J ay Titus stated the City Engineer would
determine when the bond would be called and also, the timing of. the
construction. Mr. Elfend st.~r.r!d the project engineer indicated there may need
to do ..^,ome grading on the Oak Hills property in order to accomplish that
condition.
Concerning Conditior~ No. 98, Mr. t;lfend stated the developer would not want-. to
guarantee access of right-of-way without the assurance of approval of a final
map and that condition should read prior to the approval of a final tract
map. Jr,1 'Pitus agreed that would be acceptable.
M!. F;lf~nd stated they would like to see Condition No. lU0 read that prior to
the approval of t•he first final tract map, rather than the Eirst l•entative
tract map.
Joel Fick stated the developer should know through the studies that would be
needec9 where the r_irculation anti traffic signal are required when the
tentative tract is submitted. Mr. Elfend stated he could resolve that
condition with staff. lie continued that Condition No. lUl requires t•he
preparation of a coordinated study to in~e~tiyate feasibility of potentiall
benefits of a shuttle bu_; service connecting. the ranches with each other and
with major employment ar.~J shopping centers :n Orange County and he would
rather see that be an individual study instead of a joint study. Mr. Singer
agreed that would i,e acceptable.
Mr. Elfend stated they would like to see Condition No. 111. read prior tc final
map approval. rather than tentative tract map approval and they would prefer
the wording of the ~:~nriition No. 114 to be consistent with the Public
Facilities Plan. Mr. Singer agri~ed that would be acceptable. Mr. Elfend
referred to Item F of Condition No. 114 and Jay Titus responded that was ar,
error. in the :staff report and it should refer to private streets rather than
public atreets.
Mr. Elfend stated Condition No. 150 relates to the Serrano/Imperial/Coma
connection and there is a City Council resolution which deals with that
situation and it must be complied with. He stated the developer ig working
with the City of Urange and is agreeing to build Serr~:no from the City of
Orange to the City of Anaheim concurrently with the first phase of development
prior to occupancy of the first units.
3/30/87
a
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'CY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 301987 87-198
Paul Singer stated he would want to leave the wording of that condition as
is. Joel Fick added staff is concerned that this be treated as a regional
problem and many conditions are being delayed to final tract map approval. tie
stated ~he traffic studies done for the environmental impact report were
predic<~ted on the extensions being made and staff does not feel there is any
difference between the resolution adopted by ttie City Council and the wording
of this cnndi~ion. Commissioner Mpsae asked what the interaction would be if
the County of oranyc> cle~ided not L•o bui:ld the road.
JeYe Murrahy, City of Orange, statcad there are discussions underway with
Southmark and another developer to bui.id the street and staff is concerned if
those discussion:~ and negotiation::, particularly between the two developers,
do not proceed in an effective and timely fashion, there needs to be assurance
that those connections at im[~erial an~a Serrano take place. tie stated the City
of Orange supports staff's recommendations and is basically encouraging th^
regional system to be developed in a timely manner.
Commissioner Herbst ask td what the r_ity of orange would consider a timely
,,,annex. Mr. Murphy stated if agreements had been finalized between the two
property owners sometime ago, the [,oma Street could be built within the next
year and they are anticipating development of Serrano by the early 9U's
assuming the surrounding ,~ropert•ie~ develop as indicated. Mr. Elfend stated
the difficulty they have with that condition is the wording requiring
guarantee of a timely construction oe improvement s as opposed to providing the
actual plan, but thought he co~ild work with staff to resolve that concern.
Mr. Elfend stated Condition No. 116 relates to ttre widening of Fairmont
Boulevard and based or. the :studies that have been prepared to date, and
assuming the developer does proceed with Santa Ana Canyon Road, he did not see
the need to widen Fairmont and tt~,~t i., a2,000,000 expens.: an<j this
development wil'. not produce additional traffic and would like to see that
portion deleted.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would disagree because Fairmont is one of the
most dangerous streets in the City and ttris projc ct will be adding traffic to
that road and it could be 10 years before the other road is constructed and he
felt the widening of Fairmont is necessary for the 400 units proposed in the
first phase. haul Singer stated the City Council is going to have a special
project from the Engineering Department as part of the budget hearing to widen
Fairmont Boulevard. tie noted the condition requires a financial plan for
circulation improvements and the plan will determine the responsible party and
viable funding sources and pointed gut this developer will parkicipate.
Commissioner Herbst stated he is concerned the other access road will never be
constructed and that would definitely impact Fairmont and ire did not think
this developer should be relieved of that responsibility. Mr. Elfend
suggested changing the wording to have the plan approved by the Planning
Commission ra*_her than the City Engineer. Mr. S ing~r stated that would be
agreeahle.
Commissioner Messe asked if Fairmont can handle the additional 400 units. Mr.
Singer stated it can handle the traffic by the way of volume, but he is
concerned about safety. He added it could even be worse after it is widened.
3/30/87
MINU'CES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCtE 30, 1987 87-199
Mr. Singer explained khe condition requires a Financial plan and that will
show all those factors. Mr. Elfend stated there are a lot of improvements
required and the traffic and circulation alone would cost ~1.5,000,00U. tie
added they would like L•o have Condition No. .119 deleted. Joel Pick responded
that• was one of staff's recommendations at the heyinning of the meeting. Mr.
Elfend stated they would like to have 60 days in Condition No. 1- 2l ra`her
than 30 days. ,ioel E~ick stated the purpose of that condition is so that any
possible future property owner would be aware that there will be po:;:,it~le
regional conditions imposed against each segment, and would be imposed on
tentative maps. He asked iE there is any indication that the owner will
convey any property within 6U days withln the time thca City Council approva]
may be given. Mr. E]fend responded Mr. Jamison ~s shaking his };e~+' no from
the audience. Commissioner Messe stated he woula say 6U days would not hurt
and Joel 6'ick responded tiU days woul~j be acceptable.
Mr. K~yira, George Enyinec~riny, stated the tlaster Plan of Improvements
refer r.ed to in Condition NU. 14 mu:~t be specific and not regional in nature;
that from }ri^ convFrrsations with the Water Department, they are lookin~t for a
master plan for thf~ entire service area with respect to the size and location
of facilities and the Specific Plan doe:, not show full service for all the
other developments proposed.
Ch~~irman Mceurncy asked if all three ranches are included. Joel E'ick
responded the Water Master Plan cannot be just Cor. a specific site, but must
service the wider area. Mr. Elfend stated the condition r~]uires the M. ~:er
Plan to evaluaL•r_ the eff.ect•s including the other properties and essentially,
they are requestiny that condition he satisfied prior to the final map and
staff wanted it to he prior to a tentative tract map ~~pproval. He stated a
study is currently being prepared and ~rll tt,e quc:~tions will be answ~~ed.
'f1iE PUHLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner hterbst stated }re .s concc,rned about the unit sizes and lot
sizes. Joel Fick stated this was a l~~rge staff report and the standards of
the project have not been discussed and just t•he conditions of approval were
reviewed. tie added there are mernt~ers from other Cil•y departments present
today ;;nd the Parks Department would like to make sure that Condition Nos. 44,
45 and X36 were not changed.
Conunissioner Herbst stated these conditions were not changed and now the
Commission is ]oaking al specific sits standards and various zoning
standards. Mr. Elfend stated tt~e intent of the Specific Plan as a document is
to provide E.lexibility; and that: macke;.ing studies indicated there is a demand
t:or certain types of products and they design standards, they will work with
staff and iEentify what changes need to be made and how the changes will
affect the project. Commissioner Herbs r_ stated there is a minimum standard
for SOLO squo~-e foot lots and this project E~roposes A000 square eet and
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAttE7M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCft 30, 1987 >a%-20U
minimum lot widths of ,~ feet, opposed to 45 feet for this project, etc. He
felt approval of t`:is Specific Plan will be opening a "Pandora's Box" and
allowiriy it will be allowing it all over the hill and canyon area. Mr. Elfend
stated obviously the Cis-; has the discretion of accepting the Specific Plan
and can either approve or deny any future requests. Commissioner Herbst
stated the Commission is not supposed to set precedents, but approvals like
this do set precedents.
Paul Singer stated there are other :,~..andards he would like to address and
referred to the front;-on garages re~;uiring al0-foot setback with a roll-up
door and the Nlan calls for a minimum of G feet and when it is approved,
parking Spaces will be eliminated.
Annika ntalahti stated in t•he ~fiscussions on the Specific Plan, the
develot- s ie?1 since they will be providing other amenities and on a larger
scale, certain standards woulcj tie redraced, but the average would still be the
same, and referred to the narrower lots permitted on the Bauer Ranch.
Commissioner Herbst stated the Elauer Ranch did not turn out the way the
Commission wanted to see it, and if one ~.tevel~;~er is allowed to start reducing
t.Fre minimums, the other developers will want the same re;3uctions. He stated
he recognizes there is a plan for Borne smaller lots a~ith 35-foot frontages.
Mr. Elfend statea basically, they will be making miner modifications in Areas
2, 5 and 9. He stated tine units approved on the Bauer Ranch in many areas
were consistent with the Code.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would be concerned that this developer might
:,ell some of th~5e projer_ts and if these standards have been adopted, the new
developer will come back -pith a different design. Mc. Elfend stated with the
conditions worded as they are, elevations and site plans would come back to
Commission for a~~proval and if it is not a product the Commission desires to
see, they could deny it. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought that .~ new
owner would probably saf those standards were approved in the Specific Plan
and expect to receive further reductions. Mr. Elfend stated he would not
agree and pointed rut they tried to develop a product that is desirable and
drove around tl~e City looking to a lot of different pro)ects consistent with
Codes which do not provide the quality that this will.
Commissioner Fry stated he did not think it would t~t.~ that serious to hav-~ a
45-foot lot especially because of the terrain. Commis~icr..er Bouas noted she
had a question about fencing since the project is being discussed, noting that
this is a Scenic ~orridor area and asked if fencing will be open decorative
fences.
Mr. Elfend responded tYrey had discuss~:d this with staff and did prefer to have
flexibility in providing walls where there are no views and open decorative
fencing where there is a view and where Code does require walls, they would
suggest that be decorative fencing rather than solid walls if there is a view.
3/30/A7
~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY Pi.ANNING COMMISSION, MARC~1 3`), 1987 87-2U1
Commissioner Herbst irilcated concern regarding the grading and the fact that
the ridge behind the ::..heel Site will be flattened. He stated he would 1Lke
to see more detailed plans showing the elevation and added he i.s concerned
about the wind flow with large hills being yrade~i level. Mr. Elfend pointed
ouL• that the area Commissioner Herbst is concerned about is designated on the
City's general plan for residential units so L•here would be some grading in
that area anyway. He stated a study is being prepared relating to the wind
Elow.
Commissioner Herbst stated that area does have Eorty-five to fifty mile per.
hour winds and that he had read somewhere in this infor.matinr that the
flattening of that hill could increase the: winc+ tilow by tw~:.,,.y-five percent
and that there are Santa Ana wind con,aitions in that area ~~ccaaionally and
winds at that speed could remove root tops, etc.
Commissioner Messe stated normally L•he Planning Commission rioes not con:~ider
the financial implications to the City of developments such as this and
questioned whether or not tl~~e Planning Commission can con:~ider the fiscal
impact analysis report submitted. Jnel Fick expl;:~ined that fiscal impact
report was a requirement of the City Council clue to ttreir policy that
development in the Canyon area will not be a bucdc~n to the other taxpayers.
Malcolm Slaughter stated perhaps the Commission is confusing the question ~f
fiscal impacts on the City to provide services with the normal concern as to
whether or not the developer. is making money on the project.
Commissioner Herbst stated he is concerned about the area proposed for the
park and the grading of ttre hills in that area. Mr. Elfend stated that area
was reviewed today by the Commission and is located behind t-he school site and
that the slope will hc: graded. Ire pointed out the area of tt~e park site on
the exhibit. Commissioner Herbst stated there was a letter from l-h~ Orange
County School Uistcict regarding an 9-acre school sitF~ on level ground witi~ a
forty-foot slope in one area and that they dic9 ~:ot seem to be very happy with
that site. Mr. Elfend stated that there has been some correspondence since
then which indicates that they are happy with the site and think is a usable
site.
Commissioner Herbst suggeste-i this matter be referred back to stuff for review
and further discussion of ttrese issues, and he thought a grading plan should
be reviewed by the City Engineer and ad~~ed he would like to see a more
detailed grading plan because tre thought moving rleven million yards of earth
in that area will have a real impact on the entire area. He referred to the
policy statements in the General Plan regarding the Bill and canyon area which
require that development follow the natural contours of the land and that
grading be kept to a minimum. He state.l the City spent many hours of study of.
the hill and carryon area with the Hill and Canyon Advisory Committee and the
Canyon Area Task Force a.~rd that he felt this amount of grading is not within
in the inters of the City's policy.
tor. Elfend stated it would be their feeling that tney are meeting the
objectives and are preserving significant land f~rrn features with the 129-acre
fee dedication to the county for the park. He stated the decision has been
made that the park site is wanted next to the school site and that there will
be grading.
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_ _PLANNING C~~"MISSI(?N, MARCtr 30, 1987 _ _ 87-7.0l
Commission er Herbst asked why the park site has to be next to the school
site. Mr. E1 ~~nd slated access will have to be F~rovided to the school site
and explained there was a tentative plan approved by the City which included
that area and that it was going to be graded. Commissioner Herbst stated this
is goim3 a .lot further an] that he would like to see the matter continued in
order Eor the stafL• to review the condition4 and the grading plan.
Mr. Elfend stated he would like to move forward with this project and would
like to see it approved with a condition requiring that they come back for
approval but not before a public hearing. Commissioner Herbst stated there
are too many things to be resolved and l•hat tie could not vote Eor this project
at this time. Commissioner F[y added tie wouldn't have a problem moving
forward with this request. Chairman Mc Hurney asked how far along the grading
plans are. Mr. Elfend stated they could be completed within the next few
days. ^ommissioner Herbst asked if the issues could be resolved and the
matter brought back in rwo weeks.
Joel Fick stated a major concern that needs to be resolved is t.•he Fire
Department issue because depending on the action by the Commission and City
Council, there could be a lot of changes to the plan.
Commissior^r Herbst stated the Fire Department has indicated th~r?y could not
provide the proper protection and that he would r~comrenci that the developer
of this project be responsible for the development of one Eire station, but
not two. Commissioner Masse stated he thought that was the Commission's
mutual consensus. Joel Fick stated the commitments made in t}re development of
the t3auer Ranch with regard to reimbursement: agreements :could have to be
researched, in order to determine what this developer's r,~ponsibility would
be.
Commissioner Herbst stated that the Fire Department has stated trey cannot
service the four hundred homes from Station No. 9, but he did no: know how
they could do it from Station 10. Joel Fick stated the Fire Department has
indicated that an off-site access is needed prior tt~e construction of any
residential units in order to provide adequate fire protection tc the
Highlands from Station 10 on the Wallace ranch, and the developer is proposing
another off-site access road to Santa Ana Canyon Road be construcr.ed with the
second phase of development. He stated the Fire nepartment ind:.catas ics
first due response services is from Station 10 and that Station 9 is the
paramedics station.
Mr. Elfend stated the Fire Department had indicated in the past that they
could provide service from Station 9 and when the reimbursement issue came up,
they indicated they could not. He sdded the Highlands would not be getting
protection from Station 9, but they are being asked to participate in its
construction.
Commissioner Herbst stated theses issues need to be resolved t,efore the
Planning Commission acts on this project
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offer a motion, seconded about Chairman McBurney
and MOTION CARRIED (Comm ~sioners La ~laire absent and Commissioners Fry and
Lawicki voting no) that ~nsideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of April 13, 1987.
3i 30/87
MINUTES, ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING C:c)MMIS.'iION, MARCH 30, 1987 $7-203
Commissioner Fry stated tte is really concerned about the fire station issue
and referred to their letter of August 8, which states Station 10's re3ponse
time is 3 to 4 minutes and now that response time is changed and he Eelt that
changes the whole project right in the middle and that he d.id not think this
developer strould be expected to Eye involved .in develo+~~~ertt of two Eire
stations.
Jael Fick stated he would request. the Fire Deparr,~:nt representatives to lie
present when this issue comes up again, Iie f.urt' ~r explained that the previous
General Plan Amendment approved for l•hat area +~ 1980 required that prior to
any zoning being finalized, there should be :~peci.Eic Plan including the
identification of a.l.l the fi:i:ul impacts.
Commissioner Messe stated this project means a negative impact on the City of
600,000 a year. Joel Fick explained that is the reason the de~~.-;rtrnents are
becoming frugal in looking at these rlifEerc°nt issues.
Chairman McBurney stated he would like to see the grading glans in two weeks.
THE FOLLOWING AC'I'TON WAS 'TAKEN AT 'THE BEGINNING OF THE MEE1'1`ING.
ITEM N0.l ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 281, GENF.RAI~ PLAN AMENUME;NT N0.
223, RECLASSIFICATION NU. 86-87-19 AN1) PUBLIC FACILITIES AND FISCAL IMPACT
ANALYSIS
PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: PL ENTERPRISES, L'fU., 1535 E. Orangewood, $"1.19,
Anaheim, CA 92005, ATTN: JIM DENNEHY. Appror,imately 591 acres located 1.1
miles southeast of the Weir Canyon Road and Riverside Freeway intersection and
bounded on the north by the Wailace Ranch, west by the Anaheim Hills property,
and south and east by the Irvine Company property (oak Hills Ranch).
GPA - To consider amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan with
proposals including but not limited to hillside low density residential,
hillside low medium density residential, hillside medium density residential,
general commercial and general oper. spaoe, and also including Public
Facilit~.es Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis and the Oak Hills Ranch development.
OS(SC) to PC(SC) or a less intense zone to provide for the development of. 2111
residential units (30 acres of commercial use, 6.3 acres of open space , a
1+s.6-acre park site and a 6-acre elementary school site.
Continued from the meeting of March 30, 1987.
7t was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki
and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regr;larly-scheduled meeting of April 13, 1987, at the request
of the petitioner.
3/30/87
t4INU'fES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30, 1987 - 87-204
'fHE FOLL~UWING ITEM WAS HEARD FOL[AWING I'1'f;M NO. 13. COMMISSIONER LA ChAIRE
HAD I,F,F"T THF. MEE'.I'ING.
ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIF'ICATIUN NU. 86-87-2] ANU
VARIANCE N0. 3634
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPH ANU LUIS Ct.ARK, 1234 Dale Street, Anaheim, CA
92804. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, N680, Newport Beach, CA
92660. Property descciaed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 1.12 acres, 1234 Dale Street.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-.1200 or a less intense ;:one.
Waivers of (a) maximum wall height, (b) minimum site area per dwelling unit,
(c) maximum structural height., (d) maximum site coverage and (e) minimum
structural setback to consL-ruct a 49 unit affordable apartment complex.
Continued from the meetings of February 2 and March 16, 1987.
There were approximately fifteen people indicating r.heir presence in
opposition to subject reyueat and although the staff report was not read, it
is referred to and rr,ade a part of ttie minutes.
Magdy ftann.~, agent, ,tated he met with the property owners and thought they
had worked our ~-rn acceptable agreement. He added the project has been reduced
from 49 to 40 uni+.:: and there are no affordable units and the setbacks have
been increased adjacent to the single-family homes on the south; that the pool
has been moved to the north :,ide near the apartment I,roj~~ct and the garage has
been lowered to 4-1/2 feet below grade with 4-1/2 feet above grade; that the
residents requested a 10-foot high wall instead of 8 feet to reduce the
visibility of tt~e apartment complex to the single-family homes; and that he
had shown them that a person inGide the apartmenr_s ~aould not be able to see
into their property and that all. dra:.nage grill be onto Dale. iie stated he
feels the revisions create a good compromise and the single family resident'
privacy will not be invaded.
?eter Taison stated he lives in Stanton and it has taken a long time to
resolve these is:=gyres; however, they do not feel the developer negotiated with
them in good fa~.th because ttrey did meet with him and he agreed to certain
changes and the neighbors drew ul, a list of compromises which they agreed to
and asked t~~im to sign it, but to date that has not been done. He stated the
neigi~bors do not agree with the things the developer has ju:rt said and they
are against the 29-1/2-foot high structure and do not agree with two or three
stories on the north property line. He stated he way surprised to learn that
Item tdo. 13 was basically the same as this complex and the same concerns
discuG ad apply to this project.
Mr. T,aison stated they take exception to Mr. Etanna telling tors. Wong that she
ha:' no right to co,rcest this request. Concerning the EIR Negative
D~r::laration, Mr. Talson stated he discussed that with staff and it is purely
subjective and is based on information submitted by the develofer. He stated
he discussed the school issue with the local school representative and when
they learned there may be: an apartment complex in the area they became very
concerned because they could not +-zke even one more student. Hz stated car
3/30!87
MINU'PFSI ANAH[;iM CITY Pt,ANNINC CUMMISSIUN, MARCH 30, 1987 87-2U5
insurance rates would probably go up with so many rental units in the area and
parking will become a problem and added them is a 15'A v~icancy factor in that
area right now and anc carer 40 units are not needed. He stated the staff
report for this project and the onp for the project at Ninth and WakeEiel~1
disagree on what is two or three stories and in this project there wcu1:3 be
two dwelling stories above a garage, so it will be three stories,. He added
there are a lot of. inconsistencies between t:he staff report on that project
and this project.
Mr. Talson stated it seems there are a lot of delays and diked iE that is
intended to discourage the opposition from attending tt~e meetings. He stated
a .lot of people could not come to the meeting and hoped that would not sway
the Commission. tie stated the awn~r's health was mentioned at the last
meeting but Mr. Clark wa:a at that rne~~t.ing two weeks ago, anct added he could
provide a list of at least 10 people in the neighborhood who have heart
pr~blPms car other health problems and they Nape the appeal to emotions made by
the developer did not sway tyre Commission.
He stated they are opposed t•o granting ~,r•; variances a,. this aroperty and
there is no hardship to justify granting any variances; and that when ttre
property owner of the adjoining property, ll. la Manor, requested a variance foe
three stories, Mr. Clark opposed it and it was denied.
Lowell Joslin, 8652 Lola, presented pictures of a praject appr.aved by the ~~ity
which really went. awry. He stated they did have ti meeting last Tuesday and
that Mr. Hanna agreed to put in a 10-foot high wall witty a 5-faot subterranean
garage at finished grade to the floor, but when the plan was srrbmitt.ed, it was
4-1/2 feet and it makes no reference as to whether i.t is rough grade or
finished grade. He stated the plans did not show the pool :~n<i the applicant
has said these is not enough room to put the pool on ':~~e north side and that
is because they are requesting too much coverage. l~le ,Mated Mrs. Wong wants
the pool to be included because she has a pool and feel: all the tenants will
be coming acr.~~~••r to use her pool. He added the applicant told Mrs. Wong that
she could r- object to the request because the property is already zoned
RM-1200 ar a~actments are permitted. He staled Mrs. Wong was present but had
to leave because shn was ill. He re~erred to the project shown Ln the
photographs with the first floor level with the neighbors' dock wall arrd
stated tho:~ people last ali their privacy witn that dnvelop,nent. He stated
tie ~:ought the grade should be estai.lished now such as being at sidewal'c
level; and that he feels this is just too much density. tie stated Mr. Clark
was also present today and that he oppc:red the two property ~~;rr~rs' requests
from the wesc and north and now he wants variances on his pr ~erty; and that
he did not think this project fits the area.
Mr. Hanna presented a copy of tt~e paper given to him by Mr. Talson listing the
compromises and explained he did not sign it because of the language defining
one story and trio story and that ',e nad told Mr. Talson that it is best to
have the stipulations as part of the corr~litions of approval and then they
would not need his signature on anything. tie stated he is willing to a'~ree
,.th the things as listAd.
He stated the neighbors wane one-story development on the south and the
developer is proposing one story over subterranean garages and the City Codes
3/30/87
f~IT•N'JTES, F.NAHEIM CITY i'L~ANNING COMMISS:UN, MARSH 3U, 19b7 87-106
identify that as two stories and it wo:; considcr.ed as one story until thf~
recent Code change. tie stated they agreed to raise l•he height of the wall on
the north and south from 8 to 10 Eeet and he thought by reducing the density
and laweriny the subterranean gar.aye to 4-1/2 Feet, total privacy would be
provided, and t.•hat would be from Finished gra~lc.
He stated he eliminated tr.e swimming pool altogether and that Mrs. Wong, who
awns the property on the north, wanted a pool and after taking a vote, the~i
a.ll agreed to !•.av:ny the pool on the north side of the property. He stated h~
did not tell Mrs. Wong she did not have the right to oppose the project, u
did tell her that two stories are: allowed adjacent t.o apartment complexes, t~
not near single family homes. H~~ stated he did not think there would be much
impact on the schools caused by this project. !!e stated the vacancy factor in
the city of Anaheim is between 2 and 38 and there is a demcurd for apartments.
fie added he thouyhc this is a good ,roiect.
'PHE PURi.II HEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Commissioner Bouas asked if the ']'raEfic Engineer thinks there ie adequate room
fer ramps in the unde~4round parking garage. Paul :singer, Traffic Engineer,
stated the ramps as ,shown on the plans do not meet the minimum standards Eor
undp~ground par.kiu, an~3 a longer ramp has to be installed with the proper
grade and grade crakes in order to exit the packing :structure safely. He
added he also heard Mr. Hanna refer to security gates Eor the parkiny garage
+nd that is not shown on the plans and pointed out Condition tJO. 3 pertains to
gates any as it stands now, they cannot really be installed and the structure
has to redesigned and that will result in the loss of park:~rg sl7aces and
that r •~~~ a loss of units. tie responded to Commissioner Messe thUt he had
r~c~t actually made a calculation of the number of spaces that would be lost,
but it could be as many as 8 to 10.
Mr. Hanna responded to Commissioner H^rbst that he could work with the City
Traffic Engineer to solve that problem and the size of the subterranean garage
can be increased. He stated they have walkways and open areas over thA
subterranean garage, but the City does rrot count those areas.
Commissioner Lat+'icki stated he has looked at a couple of this developer's
projects and they appear to over-impact the lots. He referred r-~ the project
on Ball Road because he did nut see any recreational areas and ~1 he saw was
cement driveways and walkways. fie stated he did not see a hardship for
approval of these variances and thought it is jrast too much on too little.
Mr. Hanna stated :tie pr~~sect on Ball Road just east of Beach is not one of his
projects.
Commissioner Fry stated he still feels this would be impacting t~,e area too
much and that he realizes the City's definition of two or three stories is not
easily understood but he was concerned about the ramping situation in the
subterranean garage and it has to he redesigned and parkiny spaces will be
lost which means units will be lost. He asked if the developer would like a
co-;rinuance in order to redesign the project.
3/30/87
MTNU'I`ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCtt 30, 1987 67-l07
Commissioner Herbst stated he feels this complex is imparting the area too
much and even though the single-Eamily homes arc in Stanton, t}[is project is
just 17 L•eet from those homes and he did not think he would likt~ to have a
10-foot high wall with a two or three-story apartment complex on t•he other
side. He states] the property is zoned RSA-43,000 and it does have a General
Plan designation for possibly RM-1J.UO but the Commission does have the
authority r.o down-zone t}re property to RM-24UU, which would allow apartments,
but not as many. He ~~ated the property is surrounded on two sides by RM-1200
but is abutting the RM-7200 Zone anal development of this property would affect
those homes.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Lawicki and MO'PIUN CARRIED (Comrni.ssioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject.
property from tine }t5-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricraltural) 'hone to the RM-1ZUU
(Residential, Multiple-Family) zone to ccrostruct a 3-story, 40-unit
(previously 49 units affordable) apartrnenr, complex with waivers of maximum
wall height, minimum site area per dwelling unit (deleted), maximum structural
height, maximum site coverage, and minimum structural setback (deleted) on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately ].12 acres
having a frontage of approximately 166 feet on tl~e east side of Dale Avenue
and further described as 1234 Dale Avenue; arrd does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
1)ecl.aration together witi~ any comments received during the public review
process and further findinr on tl~e basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution ;~o. PC87-68 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 86-87-21, as rno~ified, to RM-24U0 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) Zone, subject to Int?rdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
c)n roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, FiERBST, LAWICKI, MC 3UI2NEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-69 and moved foc its passage
and adoption that Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance
No. 3634 on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to
the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which
do not apply to r.,ther identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and
that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in L-he identical zone and
classification in the vicinity.
On roll call, tl~ foregoing resolution was passed by the fallowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, ME~ai
NOES : NO}JE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
3/30/87
MINUTE.., ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, P'.ARCE~ 30, 198'! 87-2G8
Malcolm ,,l.au;lhter, Deputy city Attorne, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 1.2 days to the City Council..
4nnika 5antalahti, Zoniny Administrator, explained thi: reclassification has
no cunditions and i.f the item is not appealed to t:tre City Council, ttre zoning
will take place in the next two tc th•ee months.
C:OMMISSION!?R LA CLAIRE RE'CURNED TO THF.: MEETING.
THE FOLLOWING ACTiOtt WAS TAKEN AT THE BF'.GiNNINC; OH THE MEETING.
ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONL WAIVER OF c~~)DE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PF.RI4I'P N0. 2891
PUBLIC HEARING. uWNERS; PARR-BONN BOWES L'I'D., 721 Santa Monica Boulevard,
Santa hlo~ica, 'A 904[11. AGENT: WEST COAST POWER, 1.324 S. Allec Street,
Anat•,cirn, ~A 92801. Property is described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of
.land ^onsistirry of at~pr.oxim..tely 0.78 acre, 1324 South Allec Streek.
To permit a fire equipment repair Facility with waiver of minimum number of
required perking spaces.
Continued Pram the meeting of March 2, 198".
It was noted that the petitionez has requ-sted a continuance in order to
submit a traffic study to substantiate tt~~• requested waiver.
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst
and MOTION ~::ARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued ~ the regularly-scheduled meeting of April 13, 1987, at the request
of the applic::ant.
T1iE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT 'fHE BEGINNING OF THE MEE'PIi7G.
ITEM NO. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2896
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMES A. SHAB, E'P AL, 2545 West Woodland Drive,
Anaheim, CA 92801. Property is described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 1 acre located at ttie northeast corner of
Stanford Court and Anaheim Boulevard, 1980 South Anaheim Boulevard (Global
Telecomrnunicationc Corporation).
To permit sales, installation and repair of cellular car phones and two-way
radios in the ML Zone.
Continued from the meeting of March 2 and March lE., 1987.
The applicant was not present. The matter was trailed to the end of the
meeting and, at the end of the meeting, the following action was taken.
Commissioner La Claire had left the meeting.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and h10TION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularl:-scheduled meeting of April
13, 1987.
MINU'PES, ANAH_i:IM CI'PY PLANNIN~,G COMMISSIUN, MARCH 30, 1987 ^„ 87-209
ITEM N0. 6 E;I12 tJF.GATIVE DECLARA'f'I()N (REAUVERTI: Ell) AND VARIANCE NO. 36A2
( F2BADVF:RTIJEU )
f'UbLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RUEHEN de LEON, 11095 Heads Ave., Orange, CA 92669.
AGi3N'P: 1{UGO VAZQUFJ'L, 2240 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92t?01. Property described
an a rectangularly-shapAd parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.62
acre, 2U7 and 21.1 N. Coffman Strr_et.
Waivers (a) minimum building Site area per dwe.llirn; unit, (b) maximum
structural height, (c) maximum site covr.rage, (d) minimum structural setback
and (e) required recreation-leisure area to c:onstrrct a 'l-story, 17 unit
"aifocdable" condominium camp.ler.,
Continued from the meeting:; of March 7. and March 16, 1947.
There were four persons indicating their presence in opposition to subjec+-
request and although the staff report was not reed, it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Huyo Vazquez, 619 Soutar Live Uak, A11atl~'im, stated he has been working on
Coffman and Cypress Streets for about 1-1,~2 years and this is the third
project to be presented and they are attempting to purcha;,e two additional
properties on the cast and west side:; of Cypress and are ready to begin
construction on a 27-unit condominium f~roject, He explained he offered in
good faith to the City Council to rezone the entire west sicie to i2M-24U~ and
the east side to 12M-12UU and that there is a motel abutting the property on
the east side and single-family homes on the west. side; that they di:i meet
with the L•'velyn Drive homeowners and explained to them that the RM-2400 •r.oning
on the west would act as a buffer and assured them that the zoning regulations
'.JCUld insure their privacy. He Mated the average size of the units is 1180
square feet and each unit will have a private double-car garage and the
Traffic Engineer lr.~ approved t•he design with yarage doors. He stated this
looks like a condoc~inium project and he realizes variances are necessary, but.
he is planning to make a strong effort to sell tare units to individuals owners
who will probably be first-time buyers and that he has signed an agreement
with tF~e housing Authority to sell the units starting at ~91,U00. He
explained he is actively seeking to purchase the last three or four remaining
parcels on the west side. Fie stated the project is 4U feet from the property
line and there are no windows that will interface with the single-family
residences.
Mr. Vazquez stated theca are a lot of things th%~t have to be accomplished in
order to construct this project, that they will Crave to install an 8-inch
sewer line and five bonds have to be posted with the City to guarantee
engineering requirements, lighting, median in Coffman and Center Streets to
close Center Street to Evelyn Drive, and a cal de sac. He stated he thought
when he met with the neighbors they were affirmative to this complex.
Ruth Motley, 203 Evelyn Drive, stated they did meet with Mr. Vazquez several
times and were impressed with the proposea building, but they are concerned
about the number of units proposed, especially on the west side of Coffman
next to Evelyn Drive because the two-story building would be right in their
back yarc9 and they have decided that they would prefer to stay with the Code
3/30/87
MINU'PE~S~ ANAttEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30L 1987 87•-210
for one-story apa~tment.s. She stated they had d~icusslons with Mr. Vazquez
and were considering not opposing this project, but wanted to see the Codes.
She stated they felt if the units are smaller, there would not be as many
people occupying them and they were concerned that; with three bedrooms, th~:re
could be a lot more people in the area.
Cruz Sandoval, 2'1.4 Evelyn Urive, stated tie is opposer! to the waivers; that r.u
the best of h.is knowledge, the neighbors had not ayrec~d to anythi~~g and that.
he wanted to explore the Codes. He stated he is opposed to t1,ti trigh density
and the view into their rear yards. rye stated his father-in-law opposes this
reyuest but is ill today and could n~~. attend th4 meeting and that they would
prefer to stay with Cade and keep the density down.
Mr. Vazquez stated he thinks the major concern was intru~~ion as far as livable
units overlooking the neighbors' homes anc' khat• problem has been eliminated
since there ar.e no windows on that side. tie stated he met with the City
Council on July 29, 1986, ~~~garding this property and made a commitment to
Councilwoman Kaywood that t'e west side would I,e designed completely in line
with ttr. =~ unit complex on Cypress. Etta stated tre really feels '.Hero is a
tremendo~^ need for owner-occupied units and it is very difficult to provide
one-story eandominiums. lle stated alt.}rough this project is two stories, it
will be owner-occupied, with pride of ownership, and the units have over 1,000
square feet of living space and esch unit will have a double--car private
garage with immediate access to the unit.
'PHE PUBLIC tiEARTNG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Fry stated the statement was made that this project would be
similar to the project on Cypress but that isn't true because the conditions
are really different and it would be difficult L•o arprove ttris 2-story
development backing up to single-family homes, only 4U feet from the property
line.
Mr. Vazquez stated there would only be two units that r_lose. He stated the
average occupancy of this type complex is two people per unit. tie asked
the Commission to seriously look at the type of project being proposed, and
pointed out he leas signed an agreement with the Housing Authority to sell the
units at 91,000.
Commissioner Herbst stated Mr. Vazquez is requesting approval for a
condominium under tt~e RM-2400 zoning requirements, Mr. Vazquez responded he
negotiated these standards with the City Council and added he thought it- would
do a lot for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Herbst stated condominiums could be developed under the RM-3000
regulations without variances. Mc. Vazquez stated then the units would have
to be priced out of the market in tt:at area.
Commissioner La Claire stated she is very upset about the density because it
is 50g over wnat is allowed and sh? thought the units would end up being
rented rather than sold and there could be a lot of people living there. She
stated Council Policy allows 258 density bonuses for 25$ affordable units, but
this is 50°,, attd she was also concerned about. the position of the pool. She
30/87
MINUTES, ANAIiEIM (:ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 3U~ 1987 87-21 .t
stated she thought the neighbor said it very well in that they really want
RM-2400 in conformance with Code which would probably protect them more than
this project and especially with so many variances required. She asked if the
developer could build a RM-2400 project within Code.
Mr. Vazquez responded he could build 10 units in conformance with Codw. Greg
Hastings, Senior Planner, stated a variance would be required for two
stories. Mr. Vazquez stated lie could build .0 units and provide adequate
parking without a variance and the two stories would be 150 feet from the
single-family homes. tie stated some of the homes on F,velyn Drive are less
than 1000 square feet in size.
Mr. Vazquez stated he would like to stay with a condominium project and felt
he could come closer to meeting the 150-Coat setback requirement by
eliminating the pool. Iie pointed out units could be 5 feet Erom the property
line with no windows on that side and that a 10-unit apartment complex
requires 200 square Eeet of recreational. area per unit and this project
proposes 353 square feet.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out that is 900 square feet less than required ley
the co~rdominium ordinance. Mr. Vazquez stated h~~ would request a continuance
to revise tl~e plans, if Commission feels they would like to see a condominium
projer_t rather than apartments.
Chairman Mc:Burney stated he would like to see conduminium~, but thought the
proposed project just impacts the area too much.
Commissioner La Claire stated she r.hought it would be nice to build a
condominiu.^.i project, but in that area she did not think they would be sold and
would provably be rented so she would he looking at it as an apartment
project. She stated if it is built under the ItM 3000 code, it would be better
than RM-2400 and if the variances are eliminated, the project would be less
dense and it should be moved further from the single-family homes. She added
she thought City Council had a policy that this area was to remain one story.
Mr. Vazquez stayed that policy was changed as part of his negotiations with
the City Council and that he was the one who proposed RM-2400 on the west side
of the street. Eie stated he has other parcels currently being negotiated on
the west side and whatever happens on this project will continue on the four
remaining parcels. He added he thought owner-occupied units would be suitahle
for t•he west side and thought eventually they will sell. He requested a
four-week continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La
Claire and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of April 13, 1987, at the request
of the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER LA CLAIRF, LEFT THE MEETING AND DID NOT RETURN.
THE FALLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
3/30/87
MINUTES L ANAHEIM CJTY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCl~ 30, 1987 ,___, 87-212
ITEM N0. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU VARIANCE N0. 3644
rUBLIC HEARING. UWNf;RS: JOHN R. TOWENSEND, 8310 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton, CA
90660. AGENT: TAB E. .IOHNSON, 302 W. 5th Street, Suite 302, San Pedro, CA
90731. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 0.34 acre located at the southeast corner or" Western Avenue
and Ball Road.
Waivers of maximum structural height and minimum landscaping of required yards
to construct a commercial centr~r.
Continueu from the meetings of March 2 and March 16, 1N87.
It was noted this matr.er should be continued in order for tl~e petitioner to
submit revised plans to accommodate a driveway relocation.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki
and MO'PION Cd,RRIEU that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of April ?."/, 1987, at the request
of the petitioner in order to submit revised plans to accommodate the driveway
relocation.
ITEi4 N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU `lARIANCE N0. 3626 (REAUVER'PISED)
FUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: E'. J. HANSHAW ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL, .1.0921.
Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92643. AGF'.NT: GREG SPONSELLER, P.O. Box
5611, Canyon Lake, CA 92380. Property described as an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.93 acres located north and east
of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street, 1112 North
Brookhurst Street.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 3750 square foot
addition to an existing commercial shopping center.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppositeion to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Greg Sponseller, agent, was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBGIC HEARING WAS CLUSED.
ACTION; Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent.) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 3750-squa:~ foot
addition to an existing commercial shopping center with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.93 acre located north and east of the northeast corner of La
Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street further described as 1112 North Brookhurst
Street; and does tiereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it
has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
3/30/87
Y
wr^~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY E?L,ANNINC COMM'LSSIONI MARCH 3U, 1987 87-213
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC81-70 rand moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 362G on the basis thaL• there are special circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the Zoning Cucle deprives the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties In the identical zone grid
classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the Eoreg~~ing resolution a~as passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, Fitt, HERBST, I.AWICKI, MC BURNI:'Y, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLATRE
Malcolr~~, Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented t•he written right to appeal
the Planning Cornmissiun's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NG. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU VARIANCE P.O. 3650
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WALTER W. AND CHRIS'T'INE M. TIMOSHUK, 7077 E.
Shorecres+: Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: aHUI,DA-McCLUSKEY ARCHITEC'.PS,
34118 Coast Highway, liana Point, CA 92629, AT'PN: ,JOHN P. McCLOSKEY. Property
is described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 1.84 acres .located at the southwest corner of Overlook Terrace
an Tuckaway Circle, 6925 East Uver.look Terrace.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a two-story, 29-foot high,
single-family residence.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is r.efer.recl to anti made a part
of the minutes.
John McCloskey, agent, was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki
and MUTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a two-story 29-foot
high single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of. approximately 1.84 acres
located at the southwest corner of Overlook Terrace and Tuckaway Circle and
further described as 6925 East Overlook Terrace; and does hereby approve the
Negati~'e Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
neclaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received that there is Rio substantial evidence that t)ie project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC87-71 and moved for its passage
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLhNNING COMMiSSIUN, MARCH 30, 1987 ___ 87-214
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3650 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives tt;e property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, ttre foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBS7', LAWICKI, MC BURNF:Y, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 'l2 days to the City Council.
Tf~E FOLI~UWING AC`PION WAS TAKEN AT TIDE BEGINIJING OF 'P[IE; ME;E'1'ING.
ITEM N0. 10 EIR NEGATIVE UFCLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE RF.QUII'2EMENT AND
COtJDITIONAi, USE PEP,MIT N0. 2899
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ERIVEST MARRUSO, P.O. Box 9758, Gicndale, CA 91206.
AGENT: FOOI)MAKF.R, INC., 9040 Telstar, F.1 Monte, CA 91731, A`PTN: IRVON
CLEAR. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 0.66 acre, 2210 South Harbor Boulevard (,Tack-in-The-Box).
To retain automobile detailing and preparation within an existing industrial
building.
It was noted ttre petitioner has requested a continuance in order for all
interested parties to attend lire meeting.
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded b,y Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned mal-ter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of June 22, 1987, in order for
all interested parties to attend the bearing.
ITEM N0. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2900
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MIRALOMA AVENUE PARTNERS, 413 S. Glassell Street,
C!-ange, CA 92666, ATTN: KIMM A. RICHARUSON. AGENT: JAMES BATES, 637 North
Main Street, Orange, CA 92668. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.86 acre, 2814 East Miraloma
Avenue.
To permit automobile detailing and preparation within an existing industrial
building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
3/30/87
MTNUT@.S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCtI 30, 1987 87-215
James Bates, agent, stated the application is for automobile detailing and to
buy and sell automobiles wholesale, and they are requesting permission to
recondition vehicles inside the existing industrial building. He explained
the automobiles are sold at the California Automobile Dealers Exchange whici~
is an <ructi.on and the exchange of ownership does not take place on subject
property.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Bates stated all work and storage takes
place inside the facility and the vehicles are taken directly to the auction
when they are ready.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissi.oner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit automobile detailing
and preparation within an existing industrial I~uilding with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces on a cectanyrilarly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 0.86 acre having a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the
south side of Miraloma Avenue and further described as 2819 East Miraloma
Avenue; and does hereby approve thce Negative Declaration upon finding that it
has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comrnerrts received
dur.i.ng the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
initial Study and any comments received that there is no substanr.ial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant waiver of code requirement on the basis that the
parking waiver will not cause an increase in trr~ffic congestion in ttie
immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting
of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any- will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, sac~oty and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-72 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2900 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal. Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days tc the City Council.
3/30/87
MINUTES L ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSIUN~MARCH 3U, 1987 87-216
ITEM N0. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA'PION~ WAIVER OF CUDE REQl1IREMENT ANU
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2903
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHRIS DAGLAS, ET AL, 15924 Aurora Crest, Whittier,
CA 90605. /:J ENT: REBECCA ZOt10RODiAN, 100 S. Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA 92804.
Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.43 acre located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Brookhurst Street (A.li Baba Food and Deli).
'!.'o permit on-sale beer and wine in an expanded restaurant with waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
There was one per;~on indicating his presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Rebecca Zomorodian, agent, explained they are expanding their restaurant and
increasing the seats and are presently selling beer and wine.
Paul Kanoch, 1751 S. E. Skyline, Santa Ana, stated lie owns property directly
east of subject property on Lincoln and they have a lot of problems with
parking in that area now and thought restaurants cause parking problems and
did not think a parking waiver should be granted for a restaurant .in that
location. Hs pointed aut the dental building leas been fenced off since
patrons were parking on their property.
t4s. Zomorodian stated l•he restaurant referred to by the opposition is across
the street. She referred to the traffic study which shows tl~e hours of
operation for their restaurant is different than the other uses in the center.
'SHE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Chairman Nc Burney, Ms. Zomorodian explained they have a license
to sell beer and wine ar+d that they are just expanding the restaurant into an
adjacent unit.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner HE~rbst
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim Cit,~
Planning Commission has reviewed ttre proposal to permit on-sale beet and wine
in an expanded restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.43 acre
located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst•. Street, 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 process and further finding on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant waiver of code requirement on the basis that the
parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the
immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting
3/30/87
I!
MINU'fE~ ANAHEIM CT.TY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30, 1987 87-21'1
of the parking waiver under the conditions imp~rsed, if. any, will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general 'eelfare of the citi•r.e~rs
of the City ref Arral~eim.
Commissioner F'ry offered Resolution No. Pc87-73 and moved far its passage arrd
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Carnrnission noes hereby r3rant
Conditional Us~~ Permit No. 2903 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sec.l.ion
18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035 and subject t~~ Interdepartmental
Ccmmittee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing r.esoluticn was pas:,e(i by the following vote:
AYE5: BUUAS, FRY, HERBST, 1,AWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSL•;
NOES: NUNS
A13SI;N'f: LA CT,AI}2E
Malcolm Slaughk.er, Deputy City Attorney, presented the writken right to appe:,:
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 13 WAS HEARD FUi,LOWING ITEM N0. 1, DUE; 'fO 'fllE LARGE NUMFIER OF P',
PRESENT IN OPPOSITION AND COMMIS5iUNEIt LA CLAIf:E HAU LEFT TfiE MEE'T'ING.
ITEM N0. 13 _EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA7.'ION, r,~ENERF,L PLAN f,MENUMI.NT tdO,12C1
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-26 ANU VA}2IANCE Nr). .i648
PUF3LIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAY BURROWS ANll fl E; r,E;"~ E3UItROWS, 194y 9th ~ r
Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4(100 MacArthur Boulevard, ~,~~~ .
Newport Beach, CA 92660. property described as a rectangularly-:>h~:; - ~T
of land consisting of approximately 1.4 acre located at the sout}~w~~ ~ _-.-r.
of Wakefield Avenue and Ninth Street, ]949 Ninth Street.
GPA - To consider an amendment. to the Land Use Element of the Gene~::~. ~,+:,
proposing a redesignation from Low Density Residential to Medium U~-,.,=_
Residential or Low-Medium Density Residential.
I2S-A-43,000 t•o ItM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waivers of (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum site cave r..~ge, ')
minimum landscape setback and (d) maximum perrnitt~d encroachment inr.~ :rout
yard area to construct a 40-unit, 2-story apartment complex.
There were approximately 90 to l0U people indicating their. presence ire
opposition to subject request and although the :;toff r.er~?rt was not read, it
is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Magdy Hanna, went, stated he did not real ze there was thrs much opposition
to this project and that he would like to :request ~ continuance in order to
he..~ from the neighbors and Commission to .gee what they would like to see
developed on that property. Ete stater] this i.s a 1.4-acne parcel in the middle
of single-family homes and it is not economically ~easible to develop single-
family homes on that site.
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CON.MISSION~ MAkCH 3U, 1987 87-218
Chairman McBurney stated a lot ~.~f people have turned out for this hearing and
he felt they should be heard. Commissloners Herbst, Ery, M~~sse and Bouas
agreed that the opposition should be heard..
Mr. Hanna continued that bated on "he price of L•he land, he cannot develop
single-family homes and one alt.erna-:i~re would be a condominium or apartment
project, and that he is williny to :ec~eaign the project and come back with a
plan that can work.
Albert Lampkins, 2008 Waverly give, stared his property is immediately
adjacent to the west of thn proposed project and that he is representiny a lot
of people who are opposed to t•.his request. He stated they had a neighborhood
meeting with over 100 peoi>le -~tterding and selected 4 or 5 people to speak.
Terry Lavoot, 2039 G3i1 [,one, stated she has resided in the area for 20 years
and that the concernsa of the neighborhood were expressed at tt~e meeting held
on March 24. She statF:j t:he neighborhood has been single- family residential
Eor 30 years and man~• of t.hr. people who are opposed have lived there f.or 30
years, and Wane much less than 10. She stated they would like to keep the
-rea single family and feel strongly that the history of this area has been
residential and should be retained.
She stated they know there c:auld be safety problern~ in thE• neighborhood for
the children and transient prot~lems and also a school problem, noting they
have been notified by the school that it is overcrowded now, and adding 40
units would certainly bring in a number of new students.
Ms. Lavoot stated changing the zoning could be catastrophic for the young and
older people who walk and jog in the neighborhood and since running and
jogging i~ popular today, there are many people out in the streets. She asked
that the history of the neighborhood be considered and that the variances not
be approved for the 40 units.
Jim Johnson, 1501 W. Wakefield stated they have lived at this address for 9
yearn. He stated they gave some major concerns with this request and putting
a 40-unit apartment complex in the middle of a single-family residential
neighbonc~~~d is .ludicrous; and that the applicant's petition states the
existing zoning deprives them of the same privileges currently being enjoyed
by the two-story development on Ninth Street; however., that is a condominium
project on they southwest corner of Ninth and Katella and there is no
comparison between that and this proposed apartment project; that. Katella is a
primary highway and Ninth is a secondary highway, and to the south there is
Sto3dard School which is separated by a 12--foot high wall. and to the west
there is i:he flood control channel, and around this proposed 40-unit apartment
project, there would only be single-family homes to the north, southr west and
east; and that: the staff report indicates the estimated daily trips are 81 to
121.5 and wit}r this proposed project that would increase to 323 to 425 daily
traffic r_rips and that is not acceptable and is dangerous. He stated
currently foot: traffic includes children and the elderly and the proposed
driveway will increase the congestion and danger. He stated the staff report
also indicatesa 6400 vehicles travel on Ninth Street per day and the plan is to
widen that street to Eour lanes and many of those vehicles already utilize
their residential streets as a short-cut to bypass the Orangewood traffic
signal and his vehicle parked on the street was hit in 1983.
3; 30/87
J ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 3U, 1987 87-219
lie stated ttre plan calls for 80 carport oark.ing spaces and 20 open spaces and
that there could be 100 vehicle~~ generated by the project and any overflow
vehicles would be parking on their streets. He stated ttie parking required
for the school and park ace not adequate and has created an overflow condikion
into their residential streets.
He stated the staff has recornrnended that an F.IR Negative Declaration be
approved and they would disagree with that recommendatlon and worald request
that the variance be denied so that single-family residential area can be
retained.
Toni Lampkin, 2008 Waverly, stated she is not only representing homeowners in
t:he area, I~ut particularly the five families directly to the west. She stated
as proposed the building will. tie 54 feet from their patios and the carports
would be less than 30 feet from their back doors and they are concerned. She
stated the carports at their fence line will be noisy, bul they could also
develop into a dangerous situation with someone coming across their fences
with t•he intent of breaking into their homes, or attat:kiny them physically.
She stated in addition to the noise and burglary potential, dirt and dust
could be considerable with those 100 cars parking that close. She stated the
trash could also be a problem and asked where it will be stored and also
there could be more than one family occupying eac;^, unit. She added there is
also the possibility of vermin coming across the fence onto their properties,
and that litter could also be a problem. Sh<~ sta~:ed absentee landlords could
be a problem because pride of ownership is at~sent, and they have had pride of
owners}~ip in this area for m,3ny years. She urged the Con+rrrission to support
their request that the neighborhood remain as single-family residential by
denying this request.
Tom Dorosky, 2053 S. Waverly, stated he tras resided in Anaheim for 21 years,
and on Waverly Drive far 14 years. He pointed out the City of Anaheim seal
on the wall behind the Commissioners and stated in yesterday's Register, there
was an article about the symbol of Orange County in Sacramento and one of the
readers suggested L•he symbol should probably be changed to show bulldozers
ripping up every living thing, with Saddleback Mountains in the background,
and two bobcats asking why? He stated his concerns are gridlock, air quality,
insurance rates, academic performance and crime. He stated there are more
people per square mile in this area than in Long 9each or Los Angeles, with
5523 people per square mile as of 1986 in the City of Anaheim. He stated he
runs every Saturday morrtirrq between 12 and 20 miles and has seen prostitutes
on Beach and Lincoln at 6 a.m. and has seen drug deals at 7 a.m. in the
Convention Center area, and this is a massive urban area. He questioned the
need for more apartments and referred to yesterday's Register with many pages
of apartments for rent offering incentives to renters and added he did not
thi-rk apartments are needed.
He stakec9 air quality is also a major concern and that insurance rates are
high in this area primarily because of burglaries; and that academic
performance is also affected and noted they have less students in the Anaheim
Union School llistrict now than 10 years ago, but because of the number of
transients, there are some problems which they are at:;empting to address. He
Holed the c9ropout rate is second highest in Orange County. He stated we can
3/30/87
MINUTES ANA}}F.IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30, 1987 87-27.U
listen on the radio to the transportation problems in the Disneyland area. He
stated he teaches Police Science and has been able to get some statistlcs from
an apartment area one mile away a: Ninth and Katella and compared t}~o,ge with
the statistics from his neighborhood and they were considerably higher. He
stated they have an investmenL• in their homes and the City teas an investment
in the Disneyland and Convention Center area and they can see that area
decaying.
Albert Lampkins stated the Commission can certainly notice that they are all
opposed to this request and referred to a petition submitL•ed prior to the
meeting containing 255 signatures of neighbors who are opposed to the
request. tie asked if the Commission would want to approve a variance to allow
an apartment behind their. homes 54 feet from their patio and asked i.E it is
the spirit and intent of the General Plan to adversely affect the quality of
life in the neighborhood to satisfy a self-created economic hardship on a
landowner or builder.
Mr. Hanna stated he is very concerned about the neighbors and would like to
withdraw this application unless the Commission wanks him to a~ork with the
owners to try anc] develop a condominium project.
PH(J PUBLIC HF,ARING WAS CLOSED.
A~~TION: Commissioner hry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request to withdraw the
petitions for General Plan "mendment No. 226, Reclassification No. 86-87-26
and Variance No. 3648.
RECESS: 3:45 P.M.
RECONVENE: 3:55 P.M.
ITEM N0. .14 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIt?ICATlv:' Nei. 86-87-27 ANU
VARIANCE N0. 3649
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DORIS A THAMES, 120G S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim,
CA 92804. AGENT: JEDISON C. CHEN, 1711 Beach Boulevard, Suite 800,
Huntington Bear';, CA 92647. Property described as an irregularly-shaped
parc~~ :, _° iar~ consisting of approximately 1.1 acre, 3416 West Orange Avenue.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waivers of (a) ma:timum structural height and (b) maxim~~m site coverage to
construct a 33-unit apartment complex.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a Dart
of the minutes.
Dale Sexton, agent, 825 S. Western Avenue, explained this is a proposal for a
33-unit apartment project, 3 s*_ories above ground, with units above the
parking and 9 units are at ground level.
3/30/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30, 1?d7 87`221
He stated they tcie~3 to provide larger recreational areas at ground .level and
there will he at,pr_..imatPly 7000 square feet of rer•,reational area with 2400
square feet of lawn area.
He stated there is ? single-family residence to the east and that he did not
talk to the property owner but the realtor did and apparently they are not
opposed to the request. fie state~j those owners understand that the area s,rill
be developed with apartments and do not object.
THE PJBLIC tIEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Messe asked about the width of the street. Jay Titus, office
Engineer, stated there is no dedication required on this project and the width
of the street transitions from 45 feet to 57 feet and thak is the ultimate
width.
Commissioner Herbst stated it is nice to see a developer propose a project
that is not to the minimum allowed.
ACTIUN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, secondec9 by Commissioner Messe
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property
from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) 'Lone to the RM•1200
(Residential, Maltiple Family) Zone to construct a 3-story, 33-unit apartment
complex with waivers o~ maximum structural Height and maximum site coverage on
an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres,
having a frontage of approximately 178 feet on the south side of Orange
Avenue, approximately 550 feet east of tt~e centerline: of Knott Street, and
further described as 3416 West Orange Avenue; and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that +t has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received that there is no substantial e'~idence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-74 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 86-87-27, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: 9OUA5, FRY, HERBST, LAb1ICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-75 and moved for it .• passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3649 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings
which do nc,~ app.ly to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY NLANNING CUMMI5S1ON MARCtI 30 1987 87-222
privilegeF enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmental Committee
recommendationR.
On roll call, the foregoing resul.ution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, I~AWTCKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Comntissi~n's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
RECESS: 5:20 P.M.
RECONVENE: 5:30 P.M.
ITEM NU 15 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLP.N AMENDMENT N0. 225
INITIATED BY 'fHE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 5. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
Tu redesignate Fairmont Boulevard between 1:,a Palma Avenue and Santa Ana Canyon
Road from a Hillside Secondary to a fiil.lside primary Arterial Highway; and to
add as a Major Arterial llighway, West Street between Manchester Avenue and
Ball Road.
There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff reporL• was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Mary McCloskey, Senior P1~+nner, presented the staff report and explained this
General :lan Amendment is to bring tl~e Circulation Element into conformity
with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways which i~ a requirement
of specific highway funding programs.
Al Lony, 846 S. Aspen, Anaheim, explained he has lived in Anaheim since 1974
and has had his business in Anaheim since 1974, and has been involved in many
civic and community service activities and has worked with the Chamber of
Commerce. He stated he feels the decision to add West Street as a major
arterial highway between Manchester and Ball needs serious review before a m~
further consideration; that his property backs up to West Street and when he
went to City staff to find out what is going on, the Planning Department did
not know the answers and he had to check with the Traffic Department where he
learned the Redevelopment Report recommended the change. He stated that
report recommende~3 widening of West Street at Disneyland, which is from
Katella I.o Ball and that West be realigned at the intersection with Ball Road,
but he could find .~o reF~rence to changing the portion behind his property.
Mr. Long stated he was told tte would have to dedicate 15 feet off. the rear of
his property to the City fir widening from 90 feet to 120 feet; and that he
thought that was unreasonable since he has been before the Planning Commission
several times for different permits or variances for permanently improving his
property. He stated he measured West Street side to side and center to each
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, tAARCH 30, 1987 87-223
aide and during that 4 or 5 minutes at 6:UO p.m. not a single car passed in
either direction, so hp did not see the need for. widening.
Mr.. Lang stated he has improved his home and did not plan to sell i.t so was
not concerned about recovering his investment in improvements, but dedicating
15 feet from the tear would make !t Impossible to use the rrar entrance for
storing his trailer and boat or the large yard they use for Family
get-togethers and play. Ite stated several neighbors ar.e in the same situation
and have structures within 15 feet of the rear property line and just this
year one neighbor coml~.leted an addition to his home which would be affected by
this c:l~ange.
I•Ie stated they believe tt~e citlzens deserve
what is planned for the area and the plans
center of their homes as if West Street was
their homes and he woulc.! request that this
until after a complete plan is pcesent~d t•.o
have approved such a plan.
ThE PUBLIC I~tEARING WAS CLOSED.
to know the complete truth .~I~r,ut
which he saw had lines through the
planned for realignment through
item be denied and not considered
the impacted homeowners and they
Paul Singer, 'Praffic Engineer, explained the long range plan is to extend West
Street northerly to Manchester and to create an interchange with the Santa Ana
Freeway and West Street. 11e explained this is a long range plan whi.ctr could
be about 20 years away and that the intent is to provide another access to the
commercial/recreation area, lie stated currently plans are underway to widen
the freeway and to have an on/off ramp at West Street. fiF stated the
realignment of West Street will required dedication.
Commissioner Fry suggested that portion of this request pertaining to West
Street be eliminated from this study area because he felt it is premature at
this rime to include West Street.
Paul Singer stated in order to be able to negotiate with CALTRANS regarding
the widening of the I-5 Freeway, the City needs to show they are serious and
plan to proceed as proposed.
Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Singer stated Manchester is currently
designated as a secondary highway. Ede stated there is a substantial offset in
:4a that street and explained if the roadway is realigned, acquisition of
properties will be necessary.
•~.
Commissioner Fry stated the opFosition has raised certain issues and he did
not think they could be answered at this time and did not think a delay would
affect the City's negotiations with CALTRANS drastically.
Ma1co].m Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Circulation Element of the
General flan is to protect the future right of way and preclu~e development in
the right of way so the City will not have to pay for those improvements in
the future.
'~ Chairman McE3urney stated he would like to see what impact this would have on
the properties in the area and where the street will be widened and asked it
3/30/87
:~
MINUTES, ANAfiEIM .:iTY PJ,ANNING COMMISSI.ON, MARCH 30, 1987 87-224
the Traffic Engineer could provide a map showing the lines of the proposed
widening and showing the properties that would be affected. Mr. Singer
responded the specific widening alignment has not been determinert, but he
could provide a map showing the general location.
Chairman McBurney suggested a continu,~nce ot~ that portion of this request.
Commissioner Herbst stated he has the same concerns about the widening of
Fairmonk Boulevard because there are properties in that area which could be
affected.
Commissioner l:ry suggested continuing L•he entire matter.
ACTION: Commissioner Fr.y offered a motion, seconde~, by Commissioner Messe and
MO~PION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-sche~:3uled meeting of April
27, 1987.
Uue to a problem with the recording equip-nent, a recess was called.
RECESS: 5:50 P.M.
RECONVENE: 5:55 P.M.
ITEM N0. 16 EIR NEGATIVE f)ECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-28
PUBLIC HEARING. REQl1ES'CEll HY: CITY OF ANANL•'IM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92605.
AREA N: RS-A-4.3,000 to C-R Zone. Property is approximately 0.9 acre on tt-e
southwest corner of Vermont Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, 901 and 909
South Harbor Boulevard.
AREA C-1: RS-A-4.3,000, CL,, CG and CH to C-R 3one. Property is approximately
5.5 acre on tt-e south side of Katella Avenue/Katella Way between
Halter Street and Mountain View Avenue, 100-220 E. Katella Avenue,
300-320 E, Katella Way and 1825-1839 S. Mountain View Avenue.
AREA C-2: RS-A-43,000, CL and ML to C-R Zone. Property is approximately B.4
acre on the south side of Katella Way between Mountain View Avenue
and Manchester Avenue, 330 E. Katella Way, 1809-1833 S. Manchester
Avenue, 1845-1901 S. Manchester Avenue and 1929-1931 S. Manchester
Avenue.
Annika Santalahti, Zor.:~g Administrator, explained this reclassification is
necessary in order to bring the entire commercial recreation area into the
proper zone by finalizing the CR Resolution of intent and it was directed by
the City Council. She stated any businesses which are existing will become
legal non-conforming uses and can continue and when and if property owners
wish to convert or redevelop to permitted uses, development would take place
in compliance with the applicable CR development standards. She stated all
property owners wer:~ notified of this hearing and that she has talked to about
three personally.
Commissioner Herbst asked if some of the uses listed as non-conforming,
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING, CUMMISSIUN, MARCH 30. 1987 __ 87-Z25
specifically barber shops, would be allowed with the approval of a conditional
use permit. Ms. Santalahti responded they would be allowed as legal
non-conforming uses and that barber shops are permitted as an accessory use to
a primary use. Commissioner. Herbst stated he felt Code should allow some of
that type of use because they do service the area.
Malcolm Slaughter., Deputy City Attorney, responded the Code could be amended,
but currently it does not permit t~ar.ber shops in that •r.one, except as an
accessory use.
AC'PIUN: Commissioner Fry offered a rnotio~, seconded by Commi~ toner Bouas and
MUTIUN CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheirn~'ity Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property (Area A)
from the t2SA•-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) none to tt~e CR (Comrnercial,
Recreation) Zone on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.9 acre located at the southwest corner of Vermont Avenue and
harbor Boulevard, and further described as 9U1 and 909 South Harbor Boulevar,
(Area C-1) from RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural), CL (Commercial,
[.united), CG (Comrnercial, General) and r_t{ (Commercial, [ieavy) to Ctt
(Commer.cial, Recreation) Zone on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 5.`, acres located on the ~+outh side of Katella
Avenue/Katella Way between [{aster Street and Mountain View, and further
described as lUU to 220 East Katella Avenue, 3U0 to 320 L•'ast Katella Way, ar.d
1825 to 1839 South Mountain View; and (Area C-2) from RS-A-43,000
(Residential, Agricultural), CL (COmrnerc.ial, Limited) and ML (Industrial,
Limited) Zones to the CR (Commercial, Recreation) zone on (i) approximately
2.9 acres located on the south side of Katella Way between Mourkain View
Avenue and Manchester Avenue, and further described as 33U East Katella, 1809
to 1833 South hanchester; (ii) approximately 4.6 acres located cn the west
side of Manchester Avenue approximately 785 feet south of the centerline of
Katella Way, 1845 to 1901 South t4anct~ester; and (iii) approximately U.9 acre
located on tt~e west side of Manchester Avenue approximately 1430 feet south of
the centerline of Katella may, 1929 to 1931 South Manchester; and does hereby
approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has .;onsidered the
Negative Declaration together with any comment:; received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-76 and moved for i.ts passage and
~.doption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 86-87-28, unconditionally.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYgS: BUUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
3/30/87
MINUTEST ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAR(:H 3U, 19d7 87-226
Commissioner Herbst stated he would like for staff to review the type of uses
permitted by right in the CR zone.
ITEM NU. 17 EIR NEG~TTVE DECLARAT:~N (PREV. APPROVN;U) AND CONDITIONAL U
pERMI`P N0. 2113 (READV_. )
PUBLIC BEARING. c'~WNERS: URANGE CUUNTY WATER uISTRIC'P, P.Q. Box 8300, Fountain
Valley, CA 92708. AGENT: UAN COPP CRUSHING CORPORA'PION, 14100 E. Firestone
Boulevard, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670. Property described bed as
approximately G acre on the east side of Richfield Road, approx. 1280 feet
south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue.
To retain a concrete and asphalt recycling operation in the itS-A-43,UOU(SC)
'Lone .
Greg Etastings, Senior Planner, explained the Code Enforcement Office has
received no complaint: on this use and that the Planning Commission can either
grant an extension of time or eliminate the condition requiring t•.ime
extensions.
Commissioner Herbst. stated tie would not wanes to grant a permanent permit.
Dan Coop, President, stater] they have been operating at this location since
1980 and have had no complaints an could like Condition ido. 7 deleted, or an
extension for a 3- to 5-year per; 1 since that have recently purchased
additional equipment.
Annika Santalahti, 7.oning Administrator, responded to Chairman McBurney that
even though the original permit was granted Eor a two-year time period, this
matter was readvertised and the conditions of approval can be changed, and the
Commission can grant the use for as long as they desire.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-77 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant ~,n extension of time for. Conditional Use Permit No. 2133 for a period of
three years on the basis that the permit is being exercised in a manner not
detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, nor to the
public peace, health, safety or general welfare.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Maicol~n Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 18 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 2160
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MR. & MRS. RALPH ALEXANDER, 1904 S. Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: HANAN STANLEY, 5UNWEST METALS, 1874 S.
3/3U/87
MINUTES. ANAFlEIM CI'T'Y PLANNING COMMISSICIN, MARCFI 30, 1987 87-227
Anaheim Boulevar:9, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as an
irregularly-shaped parcel of lar,,; consisting of approximately 1.01 acres, 1874
South Anaheim F3oulevard (Sunwest Metals).
To retain a recycling center in the MI. Zone.
Henan Stanle}~, representing the agent, stated tre had contacted the Planning
Department nn December 15, 1986, and left rnessayes an several occasions
requesting to Have the conditioc~al use permit. renewed, and that he did not
receive a response to his letter requesting the extension of time and just
received a postcard addressed tc~ Ralph Alexander regarding this public
hearing. He stated he just received the staff report and did not understand
Item No. 7, particularly Items ~r and c.
Jay Titus, c~fEice Engineer, explained item a pertains to existing improvements
along Anaheim E3c~ulevard being rE~located to the ultimate location and at thi
time there is no scheduled project to widen that street, therefore, the City
is requesting a cash payment to the City for the cost of removal of tltP
existing street improvements and rec~nstructir,y them at the ultimate location
which would relieve the property owner of any responsibility in the future
when the street is widened. He stated Item b requires that the driveway be
reconstructed with a 10-foot radius and Chat it being reyui.red on all
industrial property to provide easier and ;note rapid acres:; onto the property,
particularly for trucks. Ne stated Item c requires the installation of
sidewalks along Anaheim 6ou.levar.d and tt,at req~~ixF~^~pnt ir- bei~;~) placer] o~ all
developments alony that street because aE inureased pezesr.rian traffic in
area.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained its::.: d is neceasar, because t cite
at the present.- time does not have striped parking :paces end a parking :,:an is
required to show employee parking, etc. He ret:etced to aragraph 10 (v) which
requires that adequate access be provided at all times '..o customer parking
G~.i ::~C.7~ to prohibit traffic backing up into the street due to blockage of
parkir g spa~,.s by trucks loading/unloading in the driveway.
M.'. Stanley s:~ted heavy rains washed the stripes off the parking area, but
the: he is in the process of getting estimates to have the whole area repaved
and he rill be happy to comply with that r.eq~rirement.
Commiss?.oner Fry stated he did not see the necessity of sidewalks in that
particular location since there are no sidewalks on that side of the street,
as long as the owner knows that if he ever. sells the property, the sidewalks
will have to be installed.
Malcolm SlaugE•rter, Deputy City Attorney, stated when the original conditional
use permit was granted, the Planning Commission required the sidewalks and the
City Engineer issued a temporary waiver of that requirement.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated when this permit was
originally granted, the Commission was concerned and required certain
stipulations to be made by the petitioner, and there have been some problems
relating to this sire as indicated in the staff report. She pointed out. staff
has suggested that the Commission grant a 90-day extension enabling the
3/30/87
MINUTE'S, ANAFIE'IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSJ.ON, MARCH 30, 1987 87-228
petitioner sufficient time to accomplish ttre requirement:s and then to consider
the use again at their June 22, 1987, meeting.
Mr. Star-ley stared he personally walked around r.he property and could only see
material above the fence in one location and they have taken care of that
problem and well not store anything above the fence height and that is the
reason the fence was extended to 10 feet. Fie stated they have been complying
wir•h the stipulation not to unJ.oad off the public street and there has not
been parking in the street.
John Poole, Code Lnforcement Supervisor, stated he has seen a parking problem
himself and it is caused by large trucks and there are no designated parking
spaces for employees. He stated thece is constant congestion and access is
difficult for vehicles in and out of the property. Ile stated materials have
constantly been visible above the fence.
Catnmissioner Messe stated he was by the site and there was trash spilling out
of the container onto L•he ground. Mr. Stanley :;tared they have had a problem
with trash pick-up during the last three months, but gave just signed an
agreement with Anaheim DisE~osa.l and it should be reso:ved by now.
Commissioner Messe asked if they intend a parking plan to the Planning
Department before paving the parking lot. Mr. Stanley responded there is a
plan on file with the Planning Department which was already approved.
Commissioner tjerbst stated these issues were discussr~d three years ago and the
problems gave not been taken care of.
Commissioner Messe suggested a 6U-day continuance in order for the applicant
to accomplish the required conditions and to get the area paved and striped.
Mr. Stanley stated he would do whatever is necessary within the 90-day period.
Commissioner Herbst stated he has been by the site many times and he thought
this is a bad location for this use. Mr. Stanley stated there are a lot of
transients in that area and they are constantly leaving trash all over the
place .
Commissioner Herbst sated it is Mr. Stanley's responsibility to take care of
the property and he has not been doing that. Mr. Stanley responded he has
been having a cleaning crew clean u,~ every morning.
Commissioner Herbst stated t+naheim Boulevard is becoming a major entrance to
the commercial recreation area and in the future this use would not be an
acceptable use in that area and that the applicant is requesting an extension
of this conditional use permit, which has expired and also, the Commission's
patience has run out because the applicant has not complied ~.rith the
stipulations agreed to and suggested the applicant get the property cleaned up
before a three year extension is even requested. He pointed out this
conditional use permit could be revoked if the conditions of approval are not
met. Mr. Stanley stated they have done everything in their power to keep the
property clean, but the problem is really the nature of the use.
3/30/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIU_N, MARCH 30, 1987 87-229
AC'PION; ~ammissioner Fry offered a mol•ion, seconded by Commissioner Lawieki
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner ha Claire absent) that the Anaheim Clty
Planning Commission does hereby grant a 90-day extension of time to expire nn
4tune 22, 1987, in order to allow the applicant ample time l•o take care of the
existing problems before reyuestiny a further time extension.
ITEM NU. 19 REPORTS 4Nll RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2752 - Request from Robert Locke (owner Tyre
Shack) for a one year retroactive extension of time, property located at
2860 E. Lincoln Avenue..
ACTION: Commissioner Flerbst offered a motion, seconde~3 Icy Commissioner
Fry and MO'PION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) th4t the Anaheim
City Planniny Commission does hereby grant a retroactive extension of
time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2752, to expire January 6, 1088.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 851 - Iteyuest from Brent R. Ogden (Harbor
Anaheim Associates) for a termination of Conditional Use Permit No 851,
property located at the southeast corner of Romncya Drive and Harbor.
Boulevard.
AC'PION; Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-79 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Ana)~eim City Planniny Commission does
hereby terminate the proceedinys in connection with Conditional Use
Permit No. 851.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passec9 by tl~e following vote:
AYES: GOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2786 - Request from Erich ,1. Cernich for
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2786, property located at 45G
W. Wilken Way.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-80 and moved For
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use
Permit No. 2786.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, ~~Y, HEkBST, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIR;~,
D. VARIANCE N0. 337i -Request from Craig M. Clausen, for termination of
Variance No. 33'11, property .located at 2784 W. Lincoln Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-81 and moved for
its r+aGsage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
her•:F•~• prminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. 3371.
3/30/87
t~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 30, 1987 _ 87-230
On roll call, the foregoing re,olution was passed by the following vote:
AYES; BOUAS, FRY, NERBST, LAWICKI, MC ElURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
AHSENT: LA CLAIRE.
E. CODE AMENDMENT - Request from Floyd Farano, Steiner Corporation, to amend
Zoning Code Section 18.48.050 to allow commercial laundries andjor dry
cleaning establishments in the C-R 'Lone.
Floyd Farano, Attorney, was present to answer any questions.
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City
Council approve the request for a Code amendment to allow commercial
laundries and/or dry cleaning establishments in the C-R Zone,
ADJOURNMENT:
ACTION: Commissioner Houas offered a motion, seconded Uy Commi.ssi.oner Lawicki
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Clair. e) that the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:4U p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
a / y~; i l
Ed~~""ith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
#0247m
3/30; R7