Minutes-PC 1988/01/18MINIITES
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 18, 1988
The adjourned meeting from January 4, 1.988, of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission was cail.ed to order at 9:30 a.m., January 18, 1988, by the Chairman in
the Council Chambers, a quorum being present, and the Commission revi•awed plans
of the items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENED: 1:40 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Messe
Bouasr Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst,
Mc:Burney
COMMISSIONERS ASSENT: NONE
ALSO PRESENT: Juei F1 C1C
Annika Santalahti
Malcolm Slaughter
Arthur L. Daw
Paul Singer
Debbie Vagts
Greg Hastings
Mary Mc Cioskey
Leonard McGhee
Linda Rios
Dick Mayer
]ten Stone
Edith i~arris
YlGlllli it C~ DirCVtvr
Zoning Administrator
Deputy City Attorney
Deputy City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Housing Operations Coordinator
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Associate Planner
Park Flanner
Program Development ~ Audit
Planning Commission Secretary
AGENDA POSTING - A complete ccpy of the Panning Commission agenda was posted at
8:25 a.m. January 15, 1989, inuide the display case located in the foyex of the
Council Chambers, and also in the .~tside display kiosk.
Published: Anaheim Bulletin - January B, 1988.
Chairman Messe pointed out today is "Martin Luther King Pay" and suggested the
last six words of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag be reflected on a little
more deeply today - "with liberty and justice for all."
PUBLIC INPUT: Chairman Messe explained at the end of the scheduled hearings,
members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are
within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL:
Commissioner Boydstun indicated she thought a +=weaker in opposition to GPA 235,
Reclassification No. 87-88-32 and Variance No. 3?38, on East North Street was
omitted in the December 7, 1987, minutes and asked the Secretary to check the
tapes or notes and add that presentation to the minutes. (Secretary determined
that presentation was made at the January 4, 1988 meeting.)
-88-64- 1/18/88
,:: _:~.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO":, January 18, 1^^>od 88-65
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, s2r_onded by Commi=_sioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED that the minut;2s of the meeting ~f Der ember 7, 1987, be approved
as submit;Led, or with the ad:iiticn if required.
ITEM ;;n, 1. CEQA NEGATIVE DECL?.ATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMLiVT NO.._24
READVERTISED) y
PUBLIC HEARING. IiuITIATED BY TyE CITY OF A.NP.HEIM. To consider ar: a:~endt:=nt to
t-he Genera]. Plan propo=_in; t;he 5es~.gaaf.ion •~f police station in t:h? vicinity of
[4eir Canyor. Road and MantE Vista Zc~d.
There was no one indicating their prese~:~e in opposition t•o subject reau~st; and
although the staff report was not read at tiie public hearing, it• is ,referred to
and made a pars: of Ll~e minutes.
Joel. Ficlc, Plannin; Jir.ector, presented the stdif report.
THE PUBLIC HEARING [VAS CLOSED.
ACTIOA': Chairman Messe offered a mot;icn, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commis=ion has reviewed the
proposal. to amend the Land C'se F,ierenC of the General. Plan proposing the
designation of a police substation in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and hfont;e
Vista Road; end does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it
has considered the proposeo Negative Declaration together with any comments
received :wring the public review process and furt•lier finding on the basis of t:he
Initial Stud} and any comments received that i.iler~ is no substantial evidence
that t;he project will have a significant effect on Lhe environment.
Chairman Messy cii'ered Resolution No. PC88-2] ar.d moved for it.s passage and
adoption that the An?nei:, C.i.4•v Planning Commission does hereby recommend to tl:e
City Council adaptio: of General Plar: l:mer,.9ment No. 229, desie[natin:- c:bject area
For a police substation facility as recommended b}' the City Chief ~.t Police.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by t:he t'ollo!:irg vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDS:'U', C?[RtJSFLLO, YELDHAUS, HERBST, ~IF.SSE
MC liURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEPS: NONE
ITEM N0. 2. ENVIRON1dENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 283, SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 88-Olr
SPECIFIC PLAN ZONIN^v AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND REQUES'C F_OR CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
Request- :cr adoption of a Specific Plan including zoning and development
sL•andsrds, and a Public Facilities Plan and Co consider a Fiscal Impact Analyr;is
for the Sycamore Canyon Development to provide for t'na develupme'.,L of up to 1,11.9
residential units, 20 acres of commercial. uses, 133 acres of general open space
(including 2 parks) any a junior high school. Stbjec~, location is approximately
325 acres located soul;heast• of the southerly terminus of Yieir Canyon Road and
southwest of Santa Ana Canyon Road. (Sycamore ('an}~on lfor-erly rRalla,:e Ranch)).
I/18/88
MINUTES, JINAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM}?i:iSION, January 18, 14,88 88-66
There were three Fersons indicating their presF^eP i,. ~~r.•~..hiti.on .c subject
xaq~es9:; and althc•rgh the c}aff report was not rea:' a.t the pubti.c hez_ing, it is
ref?reed to and made r p•.art of the minutes.
Fran7e Elfend, Elfend a•nd Associates, ]151 Dove Street, explained Ron Gilles,
lresi.dent, James nigh land, Execu*_iv~a Vice President and Joe Dallaire, Vice Presi-
dent, Johm Michler, Pr~~ject Engineer of Woodcret:t; F,omes; Weston Pringle, Traffic
Com3ultant and Jim Hur;t:e'c, Project Manager, Elfend b. Associate~~ are r`eser,t to
anrswer any questions.
Tor. Elfend stated they have been at•le to work out a.il t-he conditions ~:ith staff
and thanked Joel Fick and Mary Mc Clos'~rey of the Planning Department, ~s well as
the City Manager and al.i departmento in the pity. He stated they are presenting
a comprehensive land use plan which will benefit the City, other public agencies
and the community, as well as the developer. He stated they chose the scecifi.c
plan ~zr:_eas, similar 'w the Highlands %.t 3naheim Hills, because they feel i~.
does an •~xcellent job implementing the goals and policie:~ of the Gen=~ra1 Pla n;
that it provides detail~:d development standards which axe respons. to the si:.e
characteristics and adjacent land uses. He adoad re~e~t difficul.t:rs the City
has experienced with val'.s blocking viewz, rrtc. wil.~ b.? resolved through this
specific plan procee,s because there i~ cant.ral wh?ch he felt is a critical
et.ement; and that it prc.;_des development design guidelines to insure quality
;,casing .
Mr. Elfend stated the developer of this project will also be the builder; and
that the specific plan process ale>o i.dentifies public service needs axed
facilities, and because they are thF developer/builder, they wi:l be a*~t<_ to
provide a tentative tract map at tlrz setae time the? aru processing this specific
plan, which will reduce processing time.
Mr. Elfend explained there era over i)Fi conditions of approval on the Highlands
and Oak Hills projecas and the Sycamore Canyor. project developer particio~tad in
that process and marry of the _onditio:rs for the Sycamore Canyon project are
similar, if not t:re same.
m,~ He presented slides of the area of :nF• projec` and a ao the Anaheim General. Plan
~e and stated they took into accoant s^veral of the k2.. environmental and communi.iy
far,.tors which affect this sibs and it was their intent to a;inimize grading,
preserve open space, provide cir^_ui~tion enhancemcnts, build quality housing,
maintain co>munity views, provide public facility needs, provide quality housing,
and provide n compatible land use plan with the surrounding comma+^,ity. Sie stated
a General Plan Amendment vas grar.'ced on this property in 1984, an,? 13u
single-family detached residences were pr~oosed, w!:th the rema3.:,9er to be
' condca'iniums:, townhouses and apartments; novever, they are proposing 435
~ single-t:mily detached residences because they feel that is more copatible with
the community.
He pointed nut the proposed police substation site on a slide and added they were
able to locate it in the location preferred by the Pol.icc. Department. He also
pointr:d out the church site proposed and a typical exaxaple of what the church
site ;ili look like. He explained the church is not a part of this specific plan
process, but is part of the project and will be processed subsequently•
ills/ss
MINUTES ANAHEiId CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, ]989 88-67
He stated tl?ey are proposing 435 single-famil.}~ detacltad units, 234 single-famil}~
attached and 950 multiple-fami.l.y units; 1.32.9 acres of open space, (41.~ of tl?e
project), police sul,station site, 6.6 acres of part;land and 20 acrES of
commercial and stated the commercial area is 1:he same as shown on the City's
current General Plan.
He explained Development Area I is a single-family attached product (townhomes)
and si?owed a slide of a similar project in Laguna Niguel.; Development Areas 2 and
5, two commercial. areas totaling 20 acres, DEVel.opment Area 3, with 450
multiple-family attached units; Development Areas 4, 6 and 7 where they are
currently proposing minimum 4,000 sc. ft. Iota s;iL•h the average lot being 5900
sq. ft•. and only t;wo lots at: 4000 sq. ft. He shower a slide of a similar uniC
and stated there is sufficient room in tl,e rear yard for pcols and other uses.
He showed Development Area 9 for ninety 5,000 sq. ft. lots minimum, with an
average of 7561 sq. ft; Deaal.opmenl: Area 9 with 4,000 sq.ft. and 5,000 sq. ft.
lots, averaging 6337 se,. .t. and showed a slide of a L•ypical elevation of that
prcduc:t.
Regarding parks, he pointed out; the location of one park site adjacent; t~ the
East Hi]ls proje<:t: which is adjacent to Development Area 1; any the second park
site adjacent tc the Oalc Hills project. He stated +:hey planned t:he second part;
site consistent: with what was presented Co f:he Planning Commission in June ;ast
year vhen the Oak Itii.ls applicant presented a conceptual park site. He explained
they l~rr.sent:ed a nark plan which did provide grades, as well as access. He
rc_ferred t;o a letter from tf?e Baldwin Company, deve]oper of Che Oak Hills
projec:t, indicating t?ey should noP. be penalized i,y the provision for a read
wi?ich is to connect: t;he earl; site Co the Sycamore Canyon project. He stsated that
exi?ii:it, a.^, well as the approved public facilities plan for Ci?e Oak Hills Ranch,
si.oued an across road which was sup7;osed to be L•etween the two projects and that
:s exactly where 1:h:~y are tying into the road.
He stated the most: critical. factor in planning this site and adjacenC
develo~,ments i?as been t:he conaideraticn and provision for acequate local and
aria-wic?e inirast:r,:cture and presented an exhil;it L•o communicate t•he type of
infrasCructur~: being propose; for this pruject: and other developments in the area
which incl.uce: a) t.olic~ subsLat',,n sat;e, b) 6.6 acres of public parkland, c) a
public ,ark also on both Oak H:Jls and Highlands, d) a 4,000,000 gallon eater
reservoir, ~! fair share costs for alb three ranches for Fire Stal:ion No. 9,
locatr_d cif ,kohl. Ranch Road right by Canyon Rim, even Chough it: does not: provide
first response Cc this I:roject, f) fair Share cost for streeC sweeping
mainten..nce cenl:er un the Oal: Hills property, g) reimbursement: for Fire Station
No. ]0, h) [arCi.cil;aCicn in widening u` Santa Ana Canyon ROatl to iL•s ultimate six
lanes bctwec:r. Ir.,rerie.] anu t:he isauer Ranch proper.Cy; i) restriking of the
easelsound off-ramp from thr= 91 Freeway ac Weir Canyon Road; j) Higl?lands also has
res,:onsii~i]iCy for wi~anir.g Imper?al aC Santa Ana Canyon road; lc) fair share cost
co construct a 1'ibrary, 1) construction of Serrano and Weir Canyon on t:he
property; m) payment of else Bridge an. Thoroughfare Fees for tl?e Eastcarn
Transport:akien ::orridor, and n} ,r,artic:ipaCion in preparaL•ion and implement:aLion
of the rrar.sportaCion Management; System Program to reduce tl?e nurnher of trip enZs
resulting from t?.es~ project,, and o) the extension of storm drains.
Mr. E]fend referred to she ccndit•icna of approval proposed and part:icularl.y the
un«; regarding street wicCh~ and sL'aCed it is not; their ir.tcnt to provide
substandard stzeets, and agree to comply with t:he City standards, and have
]/18/88
88-68
MINt;Ti3, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 18 1986
discusse3 that wit]? tilts City Traffic Engineer and understood there was a
resolution on that issue. He stated the second concern is the condition
regarding parking recuiremenLS and essentia].1}+, ;tire City's code is based on
square footage and not: t}te number of l:edrooms attd t}tey feel some inL•erpretation
has to be made so that; adequate l:art:ing is provided; however, he has been told
that itas also been resolved.
H~~ staked t;ltey acl:notrledge there is a condition in the staff report reyar~ing the
provision for a 100-year storm drain for fire Weir Can}+on Flood Control System.
Mr.F.l.fead ;fated Llte}+ have agreed to furt;iter discuss the conditions rel.at;iny to
timing :rich recard to the approval of a parcel map; and L•he attorneys have been
working out those conditions and they believe 1;hat issue will be resolved and
those references with rest,cC t;o the parcel. map can be removed, and they will
work with staff or. that prior Lo the a~option of Lite ordinance for. Llte Specific
Plan. He stated another issue is the aiming for creation of assessment districts
and the}+ think those should l:e created aL• the time of need, and they have
also been working Wlti] Joe Fl etcher of the Ci:;y Attorney's Office on that and
feel it can be resolved prior Lo adoption of ':ire ordinance for Lhe Specific PY.an.
He stated they provided staff with several amended conditions of approval this
morning and thouy'ht Litey have been distributed Co the Commissioners. He referred
to Condition Nu. ]S1 and explained they would like Lo add verL•age Lo Lhe end as
follows: "except as provided by Specific Plan No. 88-0]"; and that he understood
L•ltey could also resolve t;ltat issue will: Mr.Singer prior Lo preparation of the
ordinance.
Mr. Elfend referred to the letter from the 8alduin Company in •+rhich they
note three items, and cue re'_aL•es to the question about the Serrano/Weir Canyon
Read connection. He explainer; the Proposed amend:.d conditions provide similar
control as provided in the other two ranches, and they have agreed and lhougl:L•
t1:aL• is r.o longer a consideration and the Serrano/l4eir Canyon Road connection i.as
now been provided for in an equitable manner'.
He staked L•he second item involves the Sycamore Canyon access and circulaL•ion
for the park site adjacent to Oal: Hills and explained he showed that exhihiL• to
Lhe Commission to indicate that they have moved forward c;ith that part: site,
consistent with Late presentation and information provided by Oai: Hills during the
approval of their Planned Community and t;he access shown is the access which Lhe}+
have been provided with and nn which they have been moving fort:ard and they do
not i~t;end Lo change 4: heir plans.
He stated the third item dca]L t;iL•h Lhe storm drain systems compatibility and 1;he
engineers are working t:ogetiter and ire understood ghat issue will t:e resolved as
well.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked Mr. Elfend to clarify the park access l:etween Lots l
and ? and will? Oak Hills. Mr. Elfend sL•ated last: }+ear wi?en ttte Oak Hills and
Highlands projects Isere heard before Lhe Plannin7 Commission, the Oal: Hills
applicant: pzesented a pazl: plan ar.~ as cart of t;he pars: plan, they provided a
conceptual e:chibit, as well as information, whirl? they included in tits approved
Public Facilities Pl.ar., t:hich shorted accei;s to their park site beL•ween L•he L•wo
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Jznuary 18 1988 86-69
ranches; and that their plans for the Sycamore Can}•on project has a road that
would ti c• into that access and the}• are Bolding to those commitments; and that
the letter from Lhe Baldwin Company suggeso~ that is no longer the case and
tilerefore, the Sycamore Can}•on project plans should be changed 2recause apparently
the Baldwin Company is planning to change their plans. He added their response to
that would be that• tt'+~~ have been working on these plans for 1-I/2 years eritii the
information t;hat• was prcvide•: by the Oak Hills developer, whether or not t;hat was
1;he Baldwin Compan}~, and have been consistent with abet vas provided and with
what was negotiated with the Parta Department.
Joel Fick stated aal?c -^ are extra copies Gf the amended Condit;ions available if
anyone would like a cbyy.
19ende1l Crou• 1^3 Avenida Cordoba, Anaheim Hills, read comments from Dob 7.eme1,
Chairman of t;he Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition indicating they do not oppose
fire project and feel it• reflects t•he goals and policies of the General Plan, but
feel one concern regarding traffic must be addressed; that they don't believe
even the most competent environmental. impact stud}• done in the 1.970s could have
predict;ed tite population explosion in t;he inland empire; and that residents from
Corona, Riverside and other ciCies to the easL• would use our st•zeets as an
alternate route Co the 91 Freewa}• and Santa Ana Canyon Road has become another 91.
Freeway an9 Lire study could not have -:onsidered the possibil.if;y of a proposed
6000-bed jail facility with 8500 daily trips.
Thy comments included i;hat; they are not opposed Co development but mould like to
l;e assured o; °cuate emergency services any Lime, any day on t;he roads proposed
ane' iu view cf the present; excessive usage of Santa Ana Carryon Road, questioned
whether widening t;o 6 lanes can handle rite increased traffic which this project
and two cthe~ already approved projects will. create; and also need assurance that
t:he recent massive growth of neighboring counties and their usage of the st;reefs
as an a1L•ernative to the freeway has been fully considered; and that this
increase can be managed adequately on the roadways proposed.
Sonja Croual, 400 .'". Canyon Ridge Drive, Anaheim, stated she is net particularly
opposed Lo the project and asked if there is a ,>roposed road across the Anaheim
Hills Community Church property easL of Eucalyptus Drive connecting Lo Santa Ana
Can}•on Road chreugh the Fii,itlands pronerl;y.
Joel Fick answered there is no prcposal for a street: with this project, but there
was discussion :riL•h the Highlands prcjecC ahcuC an alternate st;reet providing
acct-ss t:u Santa Ar.a Can}~on Aoad.
Ms. Grewal asked if there is a way Lo insure ghat the open space they have
proposed will remain open spice or if it could ire built on at; some time in L•he
future. Chairman Messe responded t;he}• would all agree that the open spare is
needed, but if someone uar,ted to change it: in the future, it wculd have to come
before Lire Planning Commission and Cit;}• Council. Lo change, so iL• could not be
done unilaterally by the developer. He responded L•o Ms. Gre:ral. that there is no
uay to get ar. irrevocable offer from Lhe developer and LhaL• if this Specific Plan
is appzoved, t:he open space would he so designated, but Ire would not say LhaL• iL•
would never be changed.
1/]8/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_ COMMISSION, Januar}' 18, 1988 88-70
Diana Hoard, Vice President;, Haldwin Company, 16881 Hale, T:vir.e, landowners cf
Oak Hills Ranch, stated they are not: o~:posed to the project, but; would l.ilce
clarification on t}:ree issues: ]) L•i1e Serrano/{4eir Can}~on connection and l:encr.
access t:o their property, and generally is in agreement; with Condition No. 126
but was confl:sed wiL•h the additions or changes crhich just came out as to the
construction of {9eir Can}ion Road south of Serrano within tine Sycamore Can}~on
project;. Slie stated :ritlt Highlands proceeding and with Baldwin in L•he process of
sulxnitting their firs L• tract: map on Oal: Hills, the Serrano/Wei.r Can}~on connection
on t;hrougli their propert}' oril.l provide the quality fire access and protection
i;hat; the area needs; and ti~at Weir Canyon souti~ of Serrano and Sycamore de~sn't
hook into anything which they are pl.anniny in their firs L• phase of developmenL•,
which is about 900 units; so it will be quiL•e some time l:efore they can get there
and provide 1;tie entire link L•liat is needed for fire safet•}'.
Ms. Hoard stated their second concern is L•he earl: access through L•heir community
park. She stated she has copies from their Facilities Plan which shows t;he park
sit;e as it: was adopt;ed in their plan and that it is whaC the} !lave atL•empted to
grade to in that area and is keeping consistent: with 1;he plan. She explained her
concern is Ciiey show access from Sycamere Canyon on ui:at appears i;o be a
residential. street through the park; and thaC Oal: Hills has park access off Weir
Canyon but• co r.ot have a residential street t;irough the park leaving cl.osc t:o an
acre betc:een the sL•ree1; ::hick is essentially ,tnusable to I;he park site. She
stated Mr. Dennehy Gid not remember any agreement that had reciprocal residential.
access.
She stated tl~~e third concern is t•he storm drains and was glad that is being
vorl:ed cut and the master planned facilities can connect.
She responded tc Commissioner Carusillo ghat they would ]il:e t;o be able to siL•
down and wort: o::t sometl:ino with t:l:e Parl:s Department representatives, the
F;oodcrest representaL•ives and ti:emseldes and thought there are areas where
everyone can give and tai:e a little and get a cualit;y parl: as desired. She
responded L•o Ct;.airman Messe that she has provided t•he Parks Department :rich their
concept and tiu:y are revieuin~ it and they have gone as close as possible tc the
grades that were shown in the Facilities Plan.
Tro}~ De i,ent, 127 Avenida Cordoba, Anaheim Hills, stated his main concern, and
t;lie major concern of pearl}' every resident in Anaheim Hills, is traffic and the
scc:ondary road t:o the 91 Freeway vhich is SanL•a Ana Canyon Road; that tie lives
1.7 miles from Imperial and it uil.l. take him almost 30 minutes t•o travel 1.7
miles on Friday afternoon about 5:30 p.m. He skated the continued construction,
the ne:r jail site and the al~i].ity to provide a secondary road L•o L•liose living in
Corona, Riverside and points east has to st;cp and tie felt widening Santa Ana
Can}'on Road will. just provide more lanes for those people to use and suggested
closing I;hat; road from 3:00 l:0 6:00 p.m. and let L•lie State c: California figure
out; hou to transport: t;hose people.
Mr. Elfend stated concerning L•he question about• Lhe open space, that this project
is proposed to be within a specific clan area which provides for that open space
in perpetuity and if someone wants to change it in the future, when they come
before I;he Planning Commission or City Council, they will have a document in
front of them which says the open space is there as a L•radeoff to a greater
project, and he thought that open space will alarays be 1;here.
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM ~' TY PLANNING COMN.ISSION, January ]8, _ 188 88-71
Mr. Elfend stated :ie lead just; received a cop} of the staff's revised Condit:ions
and t•houghC Ch=: st;il.l neods Lo be revisions to Condition No. 11-o i1; would
provide for a !~ aalc even number and wlter. C•lta1: number is reached for L•iro
consecut;ive years, the assessment: district; would no longer be required. Fle
explained t;he developers have agreed 1:hese projects wit.]. not; cost: the citizens of
Anaheim any money and have agreed ;:o provide assessmenC• disl;rict•s for Chat
purpose, and this condition '.could ::eep those disL•ricL•s in posit;ion until. t!~at
break even number is achieved for two years.
Joel Fick; Planning Director, slated Chat; condition could be modified Lo read the
same as the revised condition, ~cil:li i;lze portion shown 1;o be el.iminat;ed being left
in and the last sentence r,f thaC porl;icn readin „ "I'he costs for forming said
district associated uil;h determining the most appropriai;e financial. mechanism(s)
shall. be borne by t;he owner/dove Leper by means of reimbursement: Co t:he City prier
to the first fina]. tract; or parcel. map approval.."
Mr. Elfend read into the record what: he Chought their agreemenC was: "Prior t;o
the approva]. of the first; final. CracC map for L•he Sycamore Canyon Project, I:he
ocrner/developer will enter into an aareemenC with t;he City Co form an assessment
dist;ricC•, Co assure the project; generates revenues to meet: the assigned casts of
City services on a year by }'ear basis. Such assessment district shall L-;. formed
prior t;o the issuance of file first rert:ifical;e of occupancy for Sycamore Canyon.
The Cif:}~ shall. have Che right to monitor. said cosCS and revenues. Annual.
assessment revenues shall noC exceed an amount: necessary t;o offset: the yearly
cifference between cost;s associated wiCh said project; and the revenues generated
Cherefrom. And when revenues reach equaliL•rium (defined in this case h}~ annual
tax sales revenue Co the Cit;}~ from sources within the Sycamore Canyon Project
reach $182,677 in ]986-87 dal.}.acs, tirith allocated costs and recovery cf any prior
uncol.lecC•ed fund costs for tiro consecut:~,e years, such mechanism shall T;e
terminated b}~ the CiCy." He stated furChcr this is cne condition Chat: will be
resclved prior to 1:he adoption of t;he ordinance for t:he Specific Plan vital the
City ACtorney's Offico because t;hey would like the 1:iming changed Lo read ghat;
"suci~ assessment district: shall tre formed prier occupancy."
Ken Sl;one, Frogram Devr_1.opmenC and Audi C, staged Mr. Elfend stated their
understandinc fairl}~ well., but the lanouage dtange that; would be slightly
c:ifferent: concerns the Liming and City st;aff proposed wording as follows:"Such
assessmenC districC shall be formed prior Cc t:hc approval. of First; final. t;racC•
map or parcel map and the initial assessmr-_n L• implemented prior to issuance to the
first certificate of oc:cupancy."
Mr. Elfend stated they acl:noi:l.edge that., with the undersL•anding that: it is one f
Che items l;haC needs t:o be resolved with i:h r: Cif;}~ ACCornep's Office, buL• that it;
is acceptable.
Mr. Elfend stated Condition No. 24 provides for cerL•ain reimbursements, Fire
Station No. 10 part;ic:ularly, and they are uorl:ing wiCi~ Y,aufman b Droad and Clio
CiCy and t•iraL• the provision xould t:e 1'.o bond by Che first final map and that. Che
payment would be made at: cerCificat•e of accupancy for the first unit. He added
the}' would like Lo have 1;haC same wording in al.l conditions as Chey apply Co any
other reimbursemenC required on L•he Kaufman and Droad project. He stated C•he
wording as presented by staff is not; quiCe 1;he tray he had presented iC t•c them,
but; Chat it i.s a resolvable issue. He explained Che amended Condition No, 24
still indicates Chat "prior Co thr: approval of the first final. tract; or parcel
1/la/aa
88-72
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar 18, ].988
map or such other Lime as called for in a Fire Protection Facility Plan adopted
by the City Council", and his concern is that there caul.d be another method in
Che Fire Protection Facilities Plan which would only cover the reimbursement for
the Fire Department and he wants the same wording for all. reimbursemenor parcel.
Kaufman and Broad, and they will not be paid wizen the final. Cract map
map is recorded, but at some later date and bonded for at• that Lime and the
wording should be clarified.
Joel Fick agreed that; is acceptable to staff.
Mr. Elfend referred t:o Diana Hoard's romments regarding the const•rucC•ion of Weir
Canyon Road south of Serrano and staged 1;hey agree that construction on Weir
Canyon Road sout:li of Serrano would orcur when the Baldwin Company was working on
Weir Canyon Road on t;lieir projects.
Joel. Ficlc stated t•liere was a sentence omitted in the draft submittal. given to
staff h}' Mr.Elfend on Page 5 of the amended conditions and is something they
agree on and the first paragraph at the top of the page should not be deleted
and should read "prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the
601st dwelling unit, and then continue "concurrently with construction of weir
Canyon Road." He stated the amended language should read, "wliicliever occurs
first between either the certificate of occupancy for the 601st: dwelling unit, or
concurrently with the construction of Weir Canyon Road on the Oak Hills Ranch."
Mr. Elfend passed out a map which is in the Public Facilities Plan which is the
most rerenC plan that has been submitted Co the City which shows where the park
access is going Co lie and pointed out where Clio Sycamore Pco,ert• rasditlrelates to any
tie in and stated it really doesn't affect Che Oak Hills p p Y
loss of acreage. He stated they leave talked to t;lte City Traffic Engineer ahout•
providing signalization of Chat access to the part: siCe on the Sycamore Canyon
project, as well as having an access further souCi~ and if those two accesses are
provided and are signalized and are withineai=e buts,19E 6f adoesnsttlttheytare going
provides, Ilien t}taC access may well disaPP
Lo expect that access to be implemented in the manner in which it is shown on the
exhil:it.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he did noC think lie leas ever agreed Chat
there should be a traffic signal L•etween Serrano and Oak Hil.l.s Drive on Weir
Canyon Road; and thaC he did say that t•he location of Che intersections should be
maintained at: approximately 1300 feet; apart so that in the fast`roel'ef the
necessity arises, signals could he installed in suciz a way
inCerconnectable, but there will be no left• turns in or out: of either street: on
the Oaic Hills Plan or Clte S}~camore Canyon projecC. He added Ilse park access
should no t• be signalized and there will be a solid median between Oalc Hills Drive
and Serrano.
Mr.Singer stated Llie access road LitaL goes between the school and park from Weir
Canyon Road on the southern portion of t:lie Sycamore project Co tide south propert}~
line would be a concern if t;hat: large parcel. is developed as a school. and that
parcel. could become a parking lot for the school. and would be divided by a street
and pose a hazard to pedesL•rians.
1/18/88
88-73
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar 18, 1988
Mr. Elfend referred L•o Tract 12992 on the southern boundary wliicl~ shows a road
for conceptual purposes and depending on what the Orange Unified School. District
does with tliaC propert•}~ and wltetlier it is developed as a school site or no L• will
determine how the land uses will u1L•imately be implemented. He added he
understands Mr. Singer's concern and will. accept 1:IiaL• Condit:ion as well. He
stated the final configuration of tliat• tentative map will be subject t;o the
Traffic Engineer's review and approval. which slioul.d satisfy L•ltat; concern.
Diclc Mayer, Anaheim Parks and Recreation Department, stated he received L•lie plan
from the Baldwin Company on Wednesday and that lie is working with them to
determine what file access should be %o their portion of L•he park. Ile stated the
plan Mr. Elfend presented is relatively accurate as far as a::cess is concerned
and that; is xhat lead been agreed to between file City and Mr. Dennehy and file
conditions of approval. for Oak Hills included that there would be a residential
street fronting on that park properL•}~ of al;out: 200 feet. He stated from Llie plan
he has seen, there is really no provision for t:he residential street. He added
everything Mr. Elfend has done is consistent with L•he prior discussions and the
access plan still needs Lo be resolved and also grading plans need Lo be resolved
between the two parks. He stated he thought that could be resolved without:
]lolding up Lhis project, and he thought it could be resolved without splitting
L•he park and, in fact, any property that is between Clie park and road would not
Ue accepted as park property
Joel. Fick suggested wording on Condition No. 24 be modified tc read: "That prior
L•o the approval of tine firsC final tract or parcel. map or such ot]Zer time as
might be approved by the CiCy Council, and any other relevant Benefit Area
Plans,...." Mr• Elfend agreed that would be acceptaule and it does generalize it
more.
Kevin Kirk, Vice President of Kaufman S Broad, 5500 Santa Ana Canyon Road,
Anaheim, st~•ated lie did discuss the reimbursement for the fire station with Mr.
Elfend and the discussion was bending for Lhe Fees prior t:o a parcel map or final
map recording, and aL tl~e occupancy of the first unit, Lhe entire fee would be
paid L•o Kaufman S ffi~oad. He added, hcwever, there are a l.ot of other
reimbursemenL• agreements that are contingent: upon L•he Hauwate~°flacalitiesmand the
they include drainage, el.ectrica]. underground utilities,
fire station. He stated previous approvals in file Canyon area consistently have
required that prior to t.lie first tract map or parcel map approval, L•lie final
reimbursemenL agreements or metlsods of payment be worked out with Kaufman and
Broad prior to recordation, and in order not to separate all Lhe issues and
negotiate diem one by one in public hearings, he felt if the condition is worded
in thaL• manner, iL• will help diem resolve L•i~e entire reimbursemenL issue instead
of tr}'ing to separate diem as was sL•art•ed here today. ile stated L•iiey look
forward L•o dealing in good faith with Llie adjacent developments and if they don't
develop, Kaufman and Broad will not he reimbursed and the funds they have already
advanced are substantial. He staged his recommendation would be that- Condition
No. 24 be consistent with the conditions placed on the Highlands and Oak Hills
Ranch and that• is, that prior Lo the recordation of the firsC parcel. map or
tract map, that L•liey resolve those issues of reimbursements or come to a payment
schedule on those reimbursements to Kaufman and Broad."
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMb1ISSI0N, January 18 1988 _88-74
Mr.Elfend stated the language as ment:toned by Mr. Fick really provides for the
resolut;ion of that through flee provisions of flee Specific Plan which are mandated
by Cil:y ordinances and tiiaL• would be t•Ite appropriate wa}' L•o resolve the
reimbursement issue and when those plans are approved by the City Council., the
meL•Itod of payment will. tie determined and that's the wa}~ L•he conditions are
worded.
Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer, referred to the letter from the Baldwin Compan}~
and their question about t:lie storm drain shown on t;lle Oalc Hills Public Facilities
Plan being conL•ained within Serrano Avenue, wliicli is not consistent with the
Sycamore Specific Plan. He stated lie had been advised that has been resolved
between }lie two ranches, but it leas not been discussed today.
Jim Highland, 47oodcrest Development: Company, stated thaC matter has been
discussed between Cite two ranches, and is being discussed by their engineers but:
they cannot; agree L•o put it in Serrano, lout that if Baldwin leas not started
grading, they ti:ill still have to have a temporary line to pick up the
drainage in that: open area but: would leave no prol~l.em putting a storm drain in
Serrano.
Diana Hoard asked for further clarificaCion on Condition No. 126; that as she
understands it, the construct:ion of Che Weir Canyon/Serrano connecCion will be
completed prior t:o Che issuance of t:lie certificate of occupancy on tine 601st unit
or when grading commences on Oaic Hills Rancl~• (Joel Ficlc stated flee amended
condition at file top of Page 5 should leave tl~e st:ruclc-tlirougli portion left in. )
Ms. Hoard asked if that means Serrano wliicli connects Highlands and Oak Hills is
not; a requirement; until. the 601st uniC is constructed. Mr. Fick stated the
dedication will be made with the firs t• tract map and bonding would also be
required aC flea:: +.ime for flee construction to occur at flee 601st; dwelling unit.
Ms. Hoard asked if 1: hat means Serrano Avenue which connects the Highlands and the
Wallace Ranch is not: a requirement until flee 601st: unit.
C}iairman Messe stated it says iL• shall be completed concurrently with
construction of flee Weir Canyon Road on Oalc Iiills. Ms. Hoard staL•ed tier concern
is not; so much when Weir Canyon is }looked up to their property, but when Serrano
is hooked up to their properL•}~ because that: will provide fire access to flee area
in file manner that meets the response times that have been requested by the Fire
DeparCment;. Slie stated Weir Canyon is in the second 1/2 of their project uliic}:
is far down flee road and Serrano provides Cite quickest access t:u all ranches and
then links the whole Serrano system from Canyon Rim.
Commissioner Mc Burner asked if flee original conditions for Oalc Hills required
both roadways systems to be provided at the same Lime or if they could be phased.
Joel. Fick responded he thought Oak Hills had to bond concurrently or with L•he
first tract map for construction or in fact t;hey actually had to demonstrate thaL•
riyhL• of way could be made available which is an even earlier event.
Mr. Fick clarified an earlier st;aCement also L•hat dedication and bonding for the
construction occurs with flee first final. tract or parcel map for the consLrucL•ion
L•o occur wiL•h the 601st; dwelling unit.
1/]8/88
88-75
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar 18, 1988
Ms. Hoard stated they were required to construct the connection Lliat: would
provide access to the two fire stations which would be the Serrano/Weir Canyon
connectio~i, not the link of Weir Canyon souL•h of Serrano, but the one t1iaL•
provides the Weir Canyon link through to Serrano and then tying in again to
Serrano.
Mr.Sin?er stated the orhole intent of the condition is t1iaL• Sycamore Canyon builds
^p ±~ c~On unila and bonds for the construction of both Weir Canyon and Serrano at
th? °i-st trac•1; map, and they construct t11e road as they go; and should Oak Hills
a ae} ~~nstru~Cion or grading, then Serrano to Weir Canyon and Yieir Canyon to L•he
.?a'w: Ruci~d; vil.l be constructed by Sycamore. He clarified he is talking about
t:iie portion of Weir Can}~on from the Hauer Ranch t:o Serranc and then Serrano from
ldeir can}~on Co the southern property line of Sycamore and that will then connect
to Serrano within Llie Oalc Hills ranch propert}•.
Dis. Hoard stated L•]iat is correct, taut that is not ]taw the condition reads and
Chairman Messe agreed.
Dlr. Elfer.d scaled the Highlands and Sycamore properties have been treated in a
different manner than the Oak Hills ranch because they both have existing access
and Lhey leave a condition that sa}~s the} must make certain improvements at 401
dwelling units and prior to that Lime, they do not leave Lo Lake Serrano to their
easterly boundary; and CliaL S}~camore leas a similar condition at 601 units, and
!:linsc r••imbers were based on traffic impacts. He stated Oak Hills has no access
:ro-• r;;,e.;-• and they are currently landlocked and that is why when their
pr.oj:^°'~+{:s approved, Lhey agreed the} would provide whatever Lhey needed on site
and off site to make those connections. He added this developer has agreed to
provide the right: of way and bonding and all L}ce other slope easements that are
necessary with their first map, and t;tiat is absolutel}• consistent with what was
negotiated previously and obviously a landlocked property has different
constraints.
Chairman Messe asked if what the Traffic Engineer leas just stated is acceptable
and Ms. Hoard responded that iL• is very acceptable.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Carusillo sL•ated ]pis main concern is traffic and he did not think the
widening of Santa Ana Can}~on Road will alleviate gridlock. He stated he does not
understand when Santa Ana Canyon Road will be widened or when Serrano will be tied
into Weir Canyon or flee Eastern Transportation Corridor will. become a reality, but
tliougliL• there will be about 1000 Homes built before any roads are constructed L•o
add to flee existing traffic congestion.
Paul Singer stated at certain times Santa Ana Canyon Road is used to bypass flee
Riverside Freeway between Lakeview and Weir Canyon Road and sometimes all tl~e way
to Gypsum Can}~on Road; and that is a natural outfall of transportation and dial
same condition is repeated all over. He stated freeways during peak hours are
overly congested and providing an additional lane on Santa Anal/18/gg Road
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January IB, 1988 88-76
is not: intended to alleviate that traffic which parallels the 91 Freeway, but L•o
provide circulation within the Anaheim Hills area. i?e stated Lilo freeway sysL•em is
the responsibilit;y of the State of California and it is carrying regional traffic
and regional traffic problems have to be solved at a level beyond CL-e scope of the
r'it}~ of Anaheim; and adding lanes to Santa Ana Canyon Road will leave no effect on
t.:.e freeway traffic and the only way to alleviate the problem is with reduced
trips.
.ir. Singer explained the CiL}- of Ar,alteim leas approved a new position in the Traffic
Engineering Department, a Transportation Systems Specialist, and that; person's
duties would t;e to undertalre the "reduced Crips scenario", and that is accomplished
through ride-sharing, van-pooling, etc. and also by encouraging reducCion of the
number of "home to work" and "work to home" trips which are the ones that real.l.y
impact Santa Ana Can}'oii °oad. He slated normall}' streets in that area are not
congested, and Santa Ana Canyon Road is only cungested when the 91. Freewa}' is
operating in excess of c:zpacit}'. He stated Leto Air Quality Management District }Las
also adopted new standards for ride-sharing and trip reductions in order to reduce
emissions and al.l of these Transportation System Management measures are going to
have an effect; on reducing the number of trips and providing higher occupancy of
vehicles.
Mr. Singer stated the developer of this project has two condiCions, one addresses
itself to a financial study which will address ways Lo provide file means and will
also obligate this developer t:o parl:icipaCe in Lite cost: of widening Santa Ana
Canyon Road; and the second condition deals with Cransportation systems management
for this development: in Lrip reduction, vehicle reduction and ltiglter occupancy
vehicle Cransportation.
Commissioner Carusil.lo aslc~d if file Cit}+ will have adequate funds available to
cover their portion of the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road, once this developer
Itas funded his portion.
Mr. Singer responded the City has most of the richt of way for the widening of
Santa Ana Can}~on Rcad and once t}te funds are available, Clte widening will be done.
He added L•he study will determine what the funding mechanism is going to be and ltow
much the Sycamore Canyon developer is going to be assessed.
Mr. Singer explained the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road will probably not happen
with the commencement of this development because a study submitted by Weston
Pringle regarding the capacity of that intersection of Weir Canyon and Santa Ana
Canyon Road indicates there will be adequate capacity at that intersection to
accommodate this development.
Mr. Singer responded Lo Commissioner Carusillo that traffic bypassing the freeway
is regional traffic, and the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road will probabl}'
increase the number of people using it to bypass the freeway. He also responded
the construction of the Eastern Transportation Corridor is currently in th~a process
and will be done within the next 10 to 15 years, or sooner.
1/lA/88
D1INUTF.S, -At.AHF 1!! ~' •- ~ ~ - z• ••~ t''' ~~"yI5SI0N January 18 1988 88-~~
' •~ ~,rl:ing requirements and Mr. Singer explained the
•~^' -
_
Chairman Mcsrr+ aF~
t. "
~
~ t an8ards N11iCil are not: acceptable, but: the
, ~
;
+
Spe(:ifir. Plan t~~ is -
'
' .
.
Plan would be identical to City Cores as
''('iC1r
~
•'
"~
developer hat: •~:r°°
" ~ ~„ .
;:
~rti~~n that instead of square foctage, 3.5 spaces
presently st.at~d. wi
t r• i~dreoms and noted f:hose references occur on pages
would l:c rc~uir~: ;•r
14 and 15 of thy- ;~a r~ r•
Commissioner N•-rt=t •
/ '~•r.a;ht Lhi:: project should be reviewed very
~
carefully an~ a';':• :' °••~"1^r with a tract map to look at. Dlr. ElEend
responder. a nai '• ~ ,t• i+t~~f t.o the City staff.
• av.•rage size of the lots was determined and how
'
e - -
Commissioner H~-t:
' •••
ti'' rt.ated he has no problem triL•h the to L• sizes in
much slof.c an a :. -
•'
' Lut I:c did have a concern with reducing the lot
"'n
• s
the RM-3000 ~r••a
"
'" .
lnimum lot width requirement: is 50 feet but•
!:r r
t
-
~
wilt;h in t.h^ Pc; ..
.
•~..
Ii.• ar.::ed how many 35-foot: wide lots are planned.
this indices:.; • •
' :' ~ ~~ »~r~ net included and that in Areas 4, 6 and 7,
Mr.Elfer,d r•`{:1 ~~~
'
(
c c t. h.• average pad size is ever 5, 000 sa. ft. , arc
.
•
which arc f ~~r
'
~
' :~': average par size is over 5,900 sc. ft. He
t
..
'
in Arca 8, fur ~
- r•.lchly due to a cul de sac situation where the lot•
r•xplairrd ttu• ~ ~. ,
narroac aL t.l.: f t • '
~ •"'~" « at 26 feet, rather than 25, Mr. Elfend
r' `
Concernin; t!:~• r •~; r * .
~ have devnloped plans which they feel trill wor)c
explained Lacy are ~ ~ ~'.
and they did not L•hinlc one foot is a
26 feet
well and ir. r. c,~,• ~r ,
.:•.e :••~-
s had some recent problems wiL•h height
!
major ~iEferr•r.c•~ r •-••. :a
• Ltty
variances.
c•ral i'lan shc•,rs a mix of housing and part of this
:• r
Commissioner I{• t:
.
' .
density and titers is none proposed, and
:' r c•::t.ctr•
; : t
-
area vas on^i:~:t
' .
4 t~~• felt this is Doing to create a density
'
r
there is no R~•ic,.: " a
.
;•r is clustering which is gcod. He adder he
tl
protarm, even :! ~.,, :
..
,t u! apartments and L•hat was not- the intent for
felt thin will ••r,: ~ -''^'-~ t•he mixed housing intenL• of the General.
• c
that area ano t.l;• : +' ~
Plan.
E]tend elate +•,<t•
Dir - •:rr.~ ;~ro;.osed where the estate densil:}• was
•
.
` '~~•ru•fit.. He staged when the original plan was
-
. ,r' : -
original]y planr•• •~
.
there vera only 135 single-family
in 1984
'
brought before ti.• ,.: ,
,r~1t7::ton
attached unit, ar.d multi-family
in
l b
units proposed an'' '•: ~ g
r
: .^•nt vil
units and he U:o,:;,'•~ a f tr 1;cLtcr nix.
' ~':,nr•ral Plan is meant t•o t;e "general" and he doesn't
e•
*=
Commissioner H~•tt~c =+-
' .,
in are proposing what is shown on the General
c t
..•, t •-,
like to hear L,:vr•
» c;,.,
.
o live in Anaheim Hills are getting :•rhat•
i
Plan, and iu• ata r,~c ('.'~• :
ct.,~ ;;•,=Plc w
they expec:ire.
,
. tiu• fiscal impact: analysis and the proposed
t
r,
Commissioner H~ r1.::t (• :- ..
. d to maY.e the project pencil cut fcr the
•
cevelcpm~nt cf t. h•. ~ ~~_' r. L :. uc
•1 :.tt•
l;rim Hills and most of the commercial. sites which
Jtr
'
City, and st.ateG h~ 11:• , : ,a
•
cceeded and referred to the
were devclcped ~;; ::i;`•• r :i
r , l'. ('anyGn have noC su
ra~•reicl at 1.1eir Canycn Road which has not been
~ ~
.
100-acre iirv c+c.t:r.:c, ~ ,t
.
1/18/88
88-78
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY' PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 1988
developed yet, and added lie did not think this is good planning because he did not
tltinlc it will ever be developed and the developer will be back before the
Commission wanting to construct apartments.
Mr. Elfend stated he leas spent a lot of t:ime with the Program Development andl1Aeudit
Department and if there is never any commercial developed on that prop y.
City will be adequately protected with an assessment district.
Commissioner Herbst explained he is considering the land use issues and felt it is
just "poor land planning", and that lte feels sorr}~ for the people wlto purchase
homes there and will leave to pay into an assessment district from now on.
Commissioner Carusillo stated there didn't seem to be a solution to the traffic
problem and asked if fife representatives from Oak Hills, Highlands or Sycamore
Canyon nave any solutions as t;o liow t•o overcome the gridlock we leave rig3tt now. He
added he felt this is a fine project and Ite wouldn't want to discourage it, but
this is going to be 1000 to 6000 homes in the near future.
Mr. Elfend stated the development community leas looked at: an overview on how to
improve circulation on a local level. and obvio'~sly the extension of Serrano and ti:e
extension of Weir Canyon all work to improve the local circulation system; and
there are also other benefits such as the fire stations, police substation, rar;cs
and libraries.
He stated there is an unfinished study but there are also some conditions which
they have t:o comply uiClt for tl~e widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road and chat
widening will occur at the 901st unit. He stated, ]iowever, the projects are all
conditioned so that: no development is going Lo occur until those studies are
completed and the timing is established for the widening, etc. He stsated he
realizes there is a real problem with that freeway and at one time tl~e Traffic
Engineer was looking at alternatives such as modifying some signals or some
manipulation of the street system to discourage. that.
Mr. Elfend stated he understands it is possible the construction of flee Eastern
TransportaL•ion Corridor could start as early as 1991. He added he thought there
are some solutions and understands the frustrations, but there are some benefits
that are going to be created l:y this development in terms of circulation and other
infrastructure impccvement:s, and they are continually working wiL-]1 t-he City on
these studies to make sure the improvements are provided.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he did not Lliinlc those benefits offset fife quality of
life flee citizens there are entitled to, and getting off flee 91 Freeua}~ at• Lakeview
and getting home in Anaheim Hills no« takes 30 minutes, compared to five minutes
several years ago.
Mr. Elfend stated again that is a re3ional traffic problem and all the areas east
such as Corona are constructing more Homes and adding more traffic to that freeway
and Chairman Messe added if these three ranches were not developed, that problem
would still. be there and would be getting worse each day.
Commissioner Bolas added, in fact, some of these people now traveling on tliaL•
freeway, might purchase i:omes in L•liis area rather than commuting from Corona and
Riverside.
1/18/88
86-79
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar 18, 1988
Chairman Messe asked about access to tl?e ci?urcl? property mentioned. Brian Crow,
113 Orange Hill Lane, stated there is an exestedgifct]?eiropiannforAti?eCcl?urci?Rdoes
and there is an existing easement. He saglgin lot rig]?t on Santa Ana Canyon Road
develop, tl?at there uill be the cl?urcl? p 9 ~~ ark and ride"
which is only used about four 1?ours a week, and could be used as a p
facility and tl?ey would be 1?appy to work wi1:1? staff in LI?at regard.
Responding L•o Commissioner Herbst regarding t}?e recreation/Leisure area, Jim
Highland stated tl?e area for tl?e ai;tacl?ed units is a tigl?t site because of a
I?il.lside, and to offset. tl?at tl?e}~ are providing patio areas and decks on eacl? lot.
He added tl?e}~ are providing pad areas and decY. areas to a muci? larger extent t:l?an
tl?e minimums required and tl?at site is located adjacent to one of tl?e taro parks and
tl?ey will leave direct access to a pedestrian and bicycle trail,so there is a lot of
leisure facilities nearb}~ and tl?ey wilt also be providing two sepsomeesmalleareasal
facilities with pools. He stated he realizes t;hey are proposing
but feel that has been offset.
Commissioner Carusillo stated lie is still not convinced t}?ey 1?ave done al.l t-1?ey
could to mitigate t]?e traffic problemandnsultestedsma}~beasomct'construct;iontslould
ignore it and maybe it will go awa}~, 99
be delayed until. some tl?ings are corrected.
Commissioner Feldl?aus referred to Condition No. 116 requiring tl?e developer to pay
for L•1?e financial study to determine LI?e financial plan for C}?e circulation
improvements, and t•1?en furtl?er it says the findings of the study showing tl.e
proportionate si?are of cost distribution si?al.l become binda.ng upon the
developer and shall be paid at the Lime of issuance of building permits. He asked
if t]?at money or commitment is guaranteed t;o be used for tl?e widening of Santa Ana
Canyon Road.
Paul Singer responded tl?at t;l?at money will be earmarked in a separate fund for ti?at-
purpose and pointed out the City will also tie pa}~ing the preponderate portion of
t;l?at cost. Commissioner Feldl?aus stated ittl?eiposro?ortilonate sl areo oMrf oSinger
without the City 1?aving ample funds ossibility because that project has a to L- of
responded he did not see that as a p
support.
Commissioner Fel.dl?aus indicated 1?is concern was because previouslyarate fundafor a
did not: 1?ave t•1?at assurance t]?at tl?e money would be put into a sep
specific street.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if t]?ere is anything tl?at can be done to discourage
people from getting off tl?e freeway at Lakeview.
Commissioner Herbst referred t•o tl?e 19-acre scl?ool site and tl?e possibiliL•y tl?at
the scl?ool district may not want all of it, and asked rrl?at: would be tl?e proposal.
for the remaining area. Mr. Elfend stated they have provided documentation that
if that. aas the case, the developer would then have to come back to the City and
consider alternative uses for t1?at area, wl?icl? may be residential, and t]?ere is
document:ar,ion in tl?e file tl?at tl?at would be an entirely subsequent process and
would come bacY. to tl?e Planning Commission and City Council and tl?ere would 1?ave to
1/18/88
" ea-so f
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~anuar 18, 1968
be an amendment to the General Plan and the Specific Plan. He explained they have
been working wit•1: tl:e Orange Unified School District in generating some numbers and t
helping them will: their projections and t•]:en tl:e}~ will be able to determine whet:her
and what type of school is needed in the area.
There was no response to Chairman Messe's question wl:etl:er or not there was a
representative present from tl:e Orange Unified School District.
Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Joel Fick staled based on the comments from the
developer and based on tl:e conditions recommenced to t:7:e Commission, staff is in
agreement with all of the precise wording.
Commissioner Herbst stated tl:e exact timing as to when Serrano is going to go
tl:rougl: is i:ind of vague and asked when Serrano ::ill connect with Weir Canyon Road.
Paul Singer slat;ed ti:e wa}~ 1:e understands it, Highlands can build 400 units and
they also have to provide a fire road to connect wit:]: Fire Station No. 10 througl:
Highlands and Sycamore; and thai; Sycamore can build 600 units and bond for the
construction of i4eir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue, and construct as they go; and
sl:oul.d Oaic Hills start construction, they then would Have to construct Serrano
Avenue through their property; that if Oah Hills should be the first; to build, they
are responsible for constructing Serrano Avenue between Canycn Rim Road and Weir
Canyon Road and to construct: Weir Canyon Road l:etween Serrano Avenue and the
southern portion of tl:e Bauer Ranch.
Joel Ficl: explained both other ranches are ustdone ranchnistdevelopedrorlwhetl:er
three-way options, depending upon whether j
there are combinations.
Commissioner Herbst stated it bothers i:im because when ti~ose properties are sold,
they will no longer be ranches, but will be the CiCy of Anal:eisn; andtGlt~ellieves
concerned about Serrano because it is a main arterial that is going
congestion between this ranch and Anaheim Hills and there can be over 1000 homes
constructed whicl: could mean 3000 additional people, will: no road except that fire
road.
Pau]. Singer stated i;i:ere will be 400 units that will affect Canyon Rim Road, and
600 units that will 1>e affecting Weir Canyon and once everything is constructed, iL
will all come together but during those stages, L•here has to be stomLhsantegfitable
down and he felt they have worked with t:he developers to come up
process Co get tl:e infrastructure constructed in a timel}~ manner and obviously
getting all of Weir Canyon Road, all of Serrano Avenue and all. of the interior
streets constructed ahead of time is really not even practical because wiL•l:out: use,
pavement deL•eriorztes.
Mr. Singer explained tl:e specific number of units that: can be construecificenumber
the sl:reeL•s is based on the fact that• residential units generate a sp
of vehicle trips. Commissioner Herbst staged depending on Lhe marlcet•, a certain
number of homes could be constructed and i:l:e rest never developed, and traffic
congestion would just: get worse without tl:at• connection with Serrano.
Paul Singer stated the marketplace '.:as a way of solving some of tl:e problems by
itself, but I:e did not Uel.ieve that those units would not built and felt that
entire area is going to be built up.
1/18/88
88-B1
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar 78, 1988
Commissioner Herbst stated there is no question about that, but• be is concerned
about 1000 homes going in without Serrano going through. Commissioner Carusillo
asked why Serrano couldresentetimeeonpSerranoandCommissioner Carusillloeresponded he
traffic demand at: tiie p resent traffic and that people might find
thought it mould alleviate some of the p
anot:lier alternate route L}~ going up Nohl Rancli Road and down Serrano to Weir Canyon
Road and 'alleviate some of t:lie congestion on Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Mr. Singer replied no matter liow much traffic is taken off Santa Ana Canyon road,
the 91 Freeway congestion can add to it, and widening San;asAto offern RHedstated
just mean it: is able l:o al;sorb the suppi} the 91 Freewa}
}you cannot; locall.}~ solve a regional problem and the freetrays are really congested
during commuter Hours.
Commissioner Carusillo stated one regional solution is the Easlevel.Ttonexpediteon
Corridor and asked if theree1sresponded ourcMayoor a.s olnetlat}Commission and is
L•hat possibility. Mr. Sing
doing everything he can in his pcwer to expedite that construction.
Commissioner Herbst stated the wa}~ he understood it, if Oalc Hills sL•art•5
construction, they will have 1;o const•r~haseersonthatnshoa}d solveothaL problem some
tract maps right away for their firs t• ~
immediately, and asked what impact that would have on Fairmont and Canyon Rim since
they have no other access.
Mr. Singer responded there should be a negative impact on Fairmont. He sL•ated if
Oalc HiJ.lsonoRoad1nandrWeirtCanylonvRoad fromtSerranortonL•IievsouthfsideCof}Bauerm Lo
Weir Cany
Ranch.
Joel Fick stated thehlandstioojecttlor ohe WallacerRancl postsselcurity for Lhent
that neither l:ire Hig p rior to commencing grading on
roadway connections, Oalc Hills Ranch is responsible p
their ranch to post securit}~ to guarantee construction of Serrano from the existing
terminus at Canyon Rim, to the existing terminus of WlacemenLoofRcombustibl.e
southerly boundary of t•he Bauer Ranch, prior t•o the p
material on tl~e Oal: Hills Ranch.
Paul Singer stated Higlil.ands can build 400 units on their property and l;alce access
to Canyon iiim subject to Oak HiJ.ls doing nothing; and they also have to consi:ruct a
fire road to Fire S1:aL•ion No. 10: that S}~camore can build 600 units subject to Oalc
Hills doing nothing and dedicar:e and bond for both SerraaoinndfWoritrheaconstrucaion
He added all three ranches arefgooilge1o portionlofdtlie r ad s}~stem.
and each ranch will. be paying
Joel Ficlc stated there are condit.:ons on all ranches to provide that theoretically,
in the event tliat• all 3 ranches are moving forward, L•hey would all be bonding and
building the road; and in the evenC one of them moves fo=oaed~1elsere are provisions
for them to receive reimbursements from tl~e benefiting p p
Joel Fick stated Ise thought: the PlaneciallomasJthey pertadingto trafficccirculation;
issues staff had concerns about, esp }'
and also they have discussed the development standards as presenY.ed in the staff
1/18/88
88-82
MINU'1`iS, P.Ivi••FIEI14 CI4'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18= 1986
renort and as they relate to the Specific Plan; and the developer has given a
presentation on the housing types they envision and he thought the major planning
related issues have been addressed.
Chairman Messe asked if there has been an agreement on tiie 100-}.ear storm drain.
and it eras noted that has teen resolved.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission after considering Draft
Environmental Impact Report No. 283 for the proposed Specific Plan No. 88-01 for
the Sycamore Canl•on project. and revietiring evidence, bctii written and oral,
presented t:o supplement Draft EIR No. 283, does hereby find that:
a. EIR No. 283 is in compliance wiL•h the California Environmental Quality Act
and the State and City guidelines.
b. EIR No. 283 identifies the following impacts which are considered to Ue both
unavoidable and adverse in nal;ure and not fully mitigated to a level of
insignificance:
- 1.andform and Grading: Development will result in the alteration of
hillside and canyon topograpli}• within the western and central areas of
the property.
- Biolo3'~cal Resources: Development will result in L•11e removal of
veyet:a!.ion, including oak woodland, and wildlife liabit•at associated with
the c~:rstruction of underground storm drain systems and site grading.
- Air Qual.ity:In the short-l;ezm, air duality will be impacted due Lo
cor.strucl:ion dust emissions; long-term air emissions associated with the
project are consistent with AQMD projections.
and further, the Planning Commission does hereby determine that the benefits of the
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and recommends L•hat
the follouing Statement of Overriding Considerations be adopted:
c. That the benefits of Cite project have b°en weighed against L•he unavoidable
environmental impacts and pursuant to section 15093 of the SL•ate CEQA
Guidelines, file occurrence of the significant. 2nvironment:al. effects
identified in EIR No. 283 as set forth above, may be permitted without
further mitigation due to tl~e following overriding considerations:
1. Economic, social and pli}•sical considerations make it
infeasible to eliminate all of the significant environment;al
impacts 51171C17 slave been identified in the final EIR.
2. Such environmental impacts will be reduced b~? compliance with City
codes, policies and procedures.
3. The project will bring subsl:antial benefits to the citizens
of Anaheim by providing employment and permitting the development
of a variet}• of high-quality residential densities and unit types
to assist in meeting demands for housing.
q. Tl,i2 project establishes a land use plan that is consistent with
the number of dwelling units aut•Itorizeci by the City's General Plan
for the site.
5. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into L•he project to
roduce the majority of environmental impacts to an accepL•able level.
and, therefore, the Anaheim City Planning Commission recommends tliat• the City
Council cerL•ify EIR No. 263 for t;he Sycamore Canyon project and adoPtl/18/8tatement
of Overriding Considerations.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18 1988 88-83
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-22 and moved for its passage and
adoption L•ltat l:lte Anal;eim City Planninc Commission does hereby recommend that fire
City Councii adopt Specific Plan No. BS-O1, including the Public Facilities Plan,
as ame:zued.
un ro77 ~a.il Che foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMDII:iS]ONERb': BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST
DIESSE, P1C BURNEY
NOE~e COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: C(•MDfISSIONERS: NONE:
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-23 and moved for its passage and
adoption that fire Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend the City
Council adopt an ordinance approving Zoning and Development Standards for Specific
Plan No. 88-01.
Commissioner Herbst; explained lte xould vote no on this resolution because ire
disagreed anG felt they should meet; L•lte standard zoning requirements for building
setbacks, sizes, and parking, and did not agree with reducing the minimum lot width
in rite RS-5000 zone to 35 feet. He stated ire also felt there should lre some RS
1.0,000 development.
Chairman I•fesse added lte did not tltinlc tlte}~ have really increased Llte number of ]ors
from L•lte original General Plan approval and are just clustering them closer
L•oyetl:er. He stated once fire L•entative tracts are before the Commission, they will
have a much bctL•er handle and will know trhat the overall lots tri]1 loot: like and
there will be cut de sac lots wlticlt are narrower in front because of L•lte slopes.
Commissioner Herbst stated he realizes waivers have been granted for narrower lots
on cut de sacs, buL• approval of this gives them a whole tract at 35 feet.
On roll. call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MESSE
MC BURNEY
NOES: COMbiISSI014ERS: HERDST
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Commissioner Houas offered a mol;ion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION
CARRIED that tl:e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend City
Council review of Specific Plan No. 88-01, including the Public Facilities Plan,
and Environmental Impact Report; No. 283 in conjunction wiL•lt t•lte recommendation L1taL•
an ordinance be adopted approving rite Specific Plan Zoning and Development
Standards.
1/18/38
88-84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar 18, 1988
MAPMOFOTRACT NO`'yR01600N(REVISIONTN0~2)RANDOSPECIMENRTREEUREMOVALRNOED87 07NTATIVE
PUBLIC Y.EARING. Oh'P~ERS: WALT TAMULINAS, 18431 YORBA LINDA BLVD., YORBA LINDA, CA
92686. AGENT: NORRIS-REPKE INC., 507 E. FIRST STREET, TUSTIN CA. 92680, ATTN:
JACK NORRIS. Propert}' described as an irregularly-shaped parc~oximately 590 fee L•
consisting of approximate l}' 8.3 acres 17aving a frontage of app
on the east side of Henning IJa}~, approximately 1,100 feet south of the centerline
of Arboretum Road.
Request: To re-establish a 12-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) subdivision (Revision No. 2)
and approval for removal. of 11 specimen Crees.
It was noted the petitioner izas requested a continuance to al.l.ow for adjustmenL•s
to the engineering plans.
ACTION: Commissioner Douas offered a motion, seconded b}' Commissioner Mc Burney
and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to
the regularl}' scliedul.ed meeting of Februar}' 1, 1988, at the request of the
petitioner.
RECESS: 4:00 p.ri.
RECONVENE: 4:15 p.m.
ITEM N0. 4 - CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 23i
(READVERTISED), RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-24 (READVERTISED), CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 2970, AND VARIANCE 1d0. 3746.
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: ANGELO BRUTOCAO, ET AL, 2240 W. LINCOLN AVENUE, ANAHEIM,
CA 92801. AGENT: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ, 2240 [V. LINCOLN AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CA 92801.
Property described as a rectangularly'-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 5.7 acres located at Ll~e northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Muller SL•reet.
GPA request:: To change the current designation of General Commercial to Medium
Density Residential land uses.
Reclassiiicat•ion: CL to RM-1200
Variance: Waivers of maximum fence lteiglit, minimum building site area per
dwelling unit, maximum structural lieigl~t and minimum distance between buildings to
construct a 220-unit, 58-foot High (as measured from natural grade level to roof
peak), 3 Lo 5 (previously 4 to 6) story' "affordable" apartment complex.
Continued from tll: meeting of December 7, 1.987.
Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2970 was suL•mitted originally for a
restaurant and retail porL•ion in conjunction with a 220-unit, 58-foot High, 4 to 6
story "affordable" apartment complex. Revised plans eliminated tl:e restaurant and
retail area, thereby requiring a Variance ratifier than a Conditional Use Permit• and
tine petitioner requested that Conditicnal. Use Permit No. 2970 be withdrawn.
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1988 88-85
There were approximately 25 persona indicating their presence in opposition to
subject request; and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing,
it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Hugo Vazquez, agent, explained they have zedesigned these plans based on the
complaints and concerns of the neighbors to the west and that they did meet with
the neighbors and to mitigate the privacy issues to the single-family residences,
they are proposing dense landscaping, etc. He stated the unite to the west are
faced to the north and south and on the west, the units are two story, no higher
than 18 feet. He explained the retail proposal has been eliminated reducing the
parking requirements and 3/4 of the parking is all one story, except the portion
on Muller. He stated the entrance is off Muller and they are designating 10% as
affordable units, or 19 units; that the recreation leisure area has been increased
to 592 sq. ft. per unit; and that density was reduced from 243 units to 220 units
and that also impacts the site coverage from 55% L•o 43%.
Mr. Vazquez stated they would like to stand strong on the issue of increased
recreation-leisure area and this is the first projecL• in tl~~- city to offer such a
large leisure area. He stated the height of the building has been calculated to
the roof peak on the west side and is only 18 feet high and the units facing
Muller are well over 225 feet away.
Mr.Vazquez stated he plans L•o go before the City Council on February 8, regardless
of the Commission's vote.
He explained he is proposing CCERS because of the concerns of the neighborhood,
noting seven individuals showed up at the neighborhood meeting and thaL• they did
like the plans, but were concerned how it would be maintained.
Ernie Vasquez, 695 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, CA. stated they met. with the
neighbors and showed them a scenario of a office building adjacent to their
single-family homes, and subsequent to that meeting came up with this concept,
moving the project from the west over ~o Muller. He showed slides of the project.
A shadow study taken on December 22 ~.as shown to give some idea how shades and
shadows would appear to the single-family homes and he noted this building will
not prevent any sunlight to the homes.
Robert D. Iiolland, 939 E.Chapman, Orange, stated CCGRs have rarely been heard of
for apartments, but are us:ally done for condominiums or townhomes. He stated
they are proposing CC6Rs for this project to mitigate the neighbors concerns
regarding the maintenance and whaL• could be done if the owners do not properly
maintain the complex; and that document will set forth specified standards of
repair, maintenance and cleanliness which the owners must maintain. He added
significant elements which lie felt are important is that the City Attorney would
have final approval; and enforcement is also a significant element; and also
modifications or amendments would be subject to the approval of the City Council;
that the declaration will contain provisions enabling the City Manager or his
delegated representative to enforce the standards; that this a new concept for an
apartment project. He stated he has submitted a copy of an excerpt of an document
recorded in January this year in Riverside County ?ertaining to a project in
Corona, Sierra Del Oro, in conjunction with a duplex project xithin that Planned
r Community to John Poole of Code Enforcement and the Deputy City Attorney.
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEII4 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 18 1988 88-86
He referred to rights of the city in file document and explained it allows tite City
Manager of leis representative to give written notice to L•ite project owner of any
alleged deficiency of the maintenance, repair or cleanliness standards, and in
that: noL•ice an estimated cost of repair is set forth and the owner of t;lie project
would have 30 days to respond, or 5 days if there is a Hazardous condition; and if
the owner determined the Cit}~ Manager or leis representative was being
unreasonable, there would be a rigltC L•o appeal to the City Council, and fife Cit}~
Council decision would be binding, but the owner could st•il.l appeal to L-he courts.
He stated if the owner did no t• dispute tl~e directive from L•lie City Manager, or lead
an unsuccessful. appeal, and did nothing, then the Cit•}~ would perform tine work and
have the right to sue t}ie owner for the costs or place a lien against L•lte
propert}~.
He stated Jolin Poole of the Code Enforcement Office t:old them the Cit•}' leas
ordinances wlticli have some similar provisions, taut tite}~ feel a document such as
this on this parti.:ular project would be more significant, and is a specific means
they propose t;o see L•lte standards are enforced and feel. it uoul.d meet some of the
concerns of surrounding neiol~bors.
OPPOSITION
Steve Brown, 206 Dahlia, Anaheim, stated }te presented petitions in opposit;ion at
the last meeting and tie was at the meeting with 1:lie developer, lout was not happy
with t;he plans presente~3; t:itat lie did not; see very' muc}t change over Cire previous
proposa'_ and L•ltat there is still a 5-story building. He stated he saw the shadow
study buL• there might be shadows across his backyard; and that there are walY.ways
and people would be ualking bacY, and forth a]1 the time. He added the school.
concerns were not addressed and also Lite water issue. He asked if there is going
L•o be enough water, pointing out there are no studies provided to answer those
ce;:carns. He stated they have an easement now across into the parking lot of
bowl,ng alley and asked if there will be another easement. He stated his concerns
are the same as they were t:e Last time and that is that he will be l.oolcing at a
5-story building and an 8-foci Irigli wall whit parking next t•o Itis t~acic yard.
James Halbroolc, 106 Carol Drive. stated Che petitioner did mention that seven
concerned homeowners did attend a meeting with the developer, and there are more
ccncerned people titan that but they do not want this project and saw no reason to
keep going to meetings where he was going t.o tr}~ and convince them that t:he
project is something good for them. He stated L•Iteir residences a:e al.l Lied up on
the dike system and L•he pipes are smal.l.er, and when t•l~e City installed sprinklers
in the median, the pressure blew out the valves and leis bathroom was flooded and
lie was concerned what would happen when 220 units go in. He asked if 1;he sewer
system can handle that many more units. lle stated it is to lie a security building
and indicated concern about the lighting on the building shining into their homes
and yards. He stated the entrance on Muller will be directly' across from the
Target entrance and thought that; would create conflicting traffic and added there
is not enough room on Muller to put in another lane to allow i'or the traffic flow.
Mr. Halbroolc referred to all. the requests for waivers on today's agenda and stated
if Che developers are allowed t;o keep building Chese larger projects with more
density, lie did not know where it will strop and that• lie did not thins: this project
is needed aL• this location.
Chairman htesse stated if Cite developer comes in with an affordable housing project,
fife City must, by state mandate, grant an increase in density.
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1988 88-87
Mr. Halbrook stated their concern about the upkeep of the building was not, "can
it be done", buL• "will it be done?" He stated they have a fairly nice quiet
neighborhood and the developer mentioned the rents would be $1,200 to $1,300 per
month and they did not think people who would pay that much rent would be looking
to live in this neighborhood. He stated it is a beautiful building but should be
located somewhere else.
PETITIONER'S REBUTTAL
Hugo Vazquez stated they worked Bard to satisfy Mr. Brown's concerns regarding
privacy and pointed out there are no units facing west and east, except those
facing Muller. He stated rents will be $1,200 to $1,300 per month and they are
providing a housing need, pointing out there is a lot of development proposed in
Anaheim in the Stadium area and the people who will work there, will be looking
for a quality unit. He stated the bowling alley has been there for over 25 years
and the owners are present to answer any questions. He pointed out the schools
are addressed on page 10 of the staff report, and the school district indicated
the neighborhood school is enrolled to capacity, however, any new students would
be bused Lo another school and no student in the existing single-family residences
would be transferred to another school.
Concerning the question regarding water, Mr. Vazquez stated they are working with
all departments in the City and there are conditions they will have to meet and if
in the future an 8" water line is required, they will have t•o install it; and
pointed out they will install curbs and gutters; and that they will make a
32-foot dedication along Muller and that there is an electrical easement on the
property. He added they will provide in the CC6Rs that there will be two full
time security guards on L•he premises, 24 hours a day. He stated according to City
Codes, no lighting can be higher than 12 feet and must face downward.
Concerning upkeep of the project, he stated he did discuss the CCSRs concept which
is very innovative with Jolin Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, and he said he
was not aware of this concept ever having been tried in Anaheim. He added he
feels this concept is something that will help to improve the quality of housing
in Anaheim.
Ernie Vasquez stated basically the changes were to delete the 10,000 sq. ft. of
reL•ail space and reduce the heighL• of the building, change L•he four stories on the
west side to a two-story townhome, reduce the number of units, increase the
landscaped perimeter, increase open space between buildings, change the corridor
layouts so effectively the units are oriented north and south to minimize views to
the west, and reduce the number of cars.
Chairman Messe asked about tl~e sewer and water capacity in this area. Art Dax,
Deputy City Engineer, responded he could not answer regarding water capacity, but
that he has not been advised that there would be any problem with water or sewers.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL05ED.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if a commercial project could be higher than five
stories and xhether the privacy to the west would be more intense. Greg Hastings,
Senior Planner, staL•ed the maximum height would be 1 foot for each 2 feet of
building setback from the property line, up to 75 feet.
Commissioner Carusillo stated if the property remained zoned for commercial uses,
it could be developed with a more intense project and impact the properties to the
west more, and he thought this developer has done evFrything he can to mitigate
the concerns and he thought it would be a fine project.
1/18/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 18 1988 88-88
Commissioner Bouas asked t:he neighbors what Chey would wanC the property to be
used for if this apartment project was not developed. Mr. Brown stated il: was
pointed ouC a 6-story office hui].ding could be developed on this property if it:
was set bac)c 2 feet for ever}+ 1 fooC; and Greg Hasl:ings explained a building 35
feet from the property line could be 18 feet: high, and Clte maximum height of 75
feet: would have Co be ].50 Feet from the properl:y+ line.
Mr. Brown stated this 5-story projeci; is pretty close and he would almost: ratifier
L•alce a chance with a commercial building, because Chis is a large building and
most of the projects being developed are just• two stories. He stated he is
opposed to five stories overlooking his back yard. He added he is concerned
ai:out: 1;he corridors going north and south and people wal}cing back and forth and
added noise would also be a concern.
Commissioner Mc Burney scatted all. access is from t;he court:}+a rd and Commissioner
Bo}+d stun pointed out t:he two stories arc townhowses on t:he other side of t;he
property. Mr. Drown asked if they have to be five stories because it is a massive
building, not;ing he realizes t;he mass was reduced.
Commissioner McDurne}+ stated a commercial tuilding could yo on t:his property and
the neighbors would no!: yeL• a chance t:o oppose.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked about: the feasibility study requested at: t;he last;
meeting on a new zoning bo RM-2900 and it was ncted a study of combined commercial
and residential was discussed, but: L•hat is no longer necessary since they
eliminated the commercial portion of t:he project.
Ernie Vasquez staged he develops commercial office buildings and from floor to
floor, the height is 13-1/2 feet and a residence is 9 to 10 feet.
Commissioner Ilerbst stated this is probably one of the mosC ambiCious apartment
projects he has seen in Anaheim and he has been on the Planning Commission Eor 22
years; that it is a beautiful projer.C and the revised plans show a lot of
improvements, but that; he still thought iC is in I:he wrong place. He stated he
has a problem with the densiCy in that area; and ChaC gridlock is also a concern.
He stat:r_d he realizes some commercial. projects would create more traffic than
apartments, buC he did not; think this parCicular property would supporC a
development such as a 6-story office building due Co I:he local;ion and proximit:}~ to
downtown. He stated t:I1is is a large project wit;It 5 stories al>utl:ing residential
and he could not vote for it; and Chat• these people own their homes there and he
Chouryht an 6-foot wall. behind them will. be a monster. He stated also this
property could be rezoned an6 there is a possibility this projeci will never be
built and there could be an RM-1200 project developed in conformance with Code
which could be much worse. He stated he thought 1;his t:}+pe development belongs in
the downtown area, and he felt in this location, L•his project will. create problems
on Muller and Lincoln and 220 apartments on that: corner across from the Target•
Store could create a situation that is not; l.ivalrl.e.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated this project will generate 1930 vehicle
trips and 6-story commercial. building uoul.d create a significant increase in
t;raffle. lie r_xplained a reL•ail commercial development would create a greater
traffic impact and the difference is peals hour and commercial does not generate
heavy peak hour traffic, whereas, residential. does by at:out 3 t:o 1.
1/l8/88
i
4
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January l8 1988 88-89
Commissioner Mc Burney stated he has reviewed this and would disagree with
Commissioner Herbs t• and L•hougl~t: this is a softer impact L•lian any commercial
development and tliat• the neighbors are no t• really looking at the potential of what
could be developed on this site. He noted units along the west leave been reduced
and lie did not tliinlc the property owners would want truc)c traffic along that
westerly side.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated Mr.. Brown staL•ed lie would rather take that ci~ance.
Chairman Messe stated riyllt now flee Anaheim Howl sits on that property and
Commissioner Mc Burne}~ stated flee existing lwildings in flee rear are even closer
to flee properly line, compared to this.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated at fete last meeting a petition with 440 signatures
was presented and a feasibility study rezoning t:o RM-2400 was discussed. Chairman
Messe stated the feasibility study discussed was with a combined use of commercial
and residential.. Commissioner Feldhaus stated ire still agrees that L•ltis probat>l.}'
is the wrong place; and that he does not want t:o see this commercial. area rezoned,
particularly since it has industrial and commercial. al.l around it and single
family homes to t•he west.
ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McHurne}~, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst; voting no) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend the Land Use Element of t•he
General Plan to chance tiie current Genera]. Commercial designation to Medium
Densit}' Residential and to reclassify subject property from the CL (Commercial,
Limited) 7.one t:o t;he Rtd-1200 (Residential, hfultiple-Family) Zone to permit a
220-unit, 58-foot high, 3 to 5-sCOry (previously 4 Co 6-story) "affordable"
apartment• complex. on a rectangularly-shaped parcel. of ].and consisting of
approximately 5.7 acres located aC the northwest; corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Mul.l.er Street, further described as 1925 W. Lincoln; and does Hereby approve flee
Negative Declaration on Che basis that it has considered the proposed Negative
Declarat;ion together with any comments received during the public review process
and further finding on flee basis of tl~e Initial Study and any comments received
Chat there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significanL•
effect on the environment.
Chairman Messe staCed he has some concerns and if this property is rezoned and
Cris projecC is not bui.].t, we could end up with some l~arracl:s type project:.
Commissioner McBurne}~ added t1taC is true of every general plan amendment.
Commissioner Feldhaus staCed across the street; one block east: a large commercial
project rras just; approved.
Responding 1;o Chairman Messe, h1r. Slaughter st:at;ed t;ilere is no wa}' to L•ie C•liis
project t:o flee General Plan AmendmenL• or reclassification.
Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC BB-24 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby adopt and
recommend adoption to the City Council of General. Plan Amendment No. 237, ErliibiC
A.
On roll call Lhe foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, MESSE, MC BURNEY
NOES: COMh1ISSI0NER5: FELDHAUS, HERHST
ABSENT: COhihf[55IONERS: PONE
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
Commissioner Carusillo offerec
and adoption that the Anaheim ~
Reclassification No. 87-88-29,
Recommendations.
i-~nuary 18 1968 88-90
PC 88-25 and moved for its passage
Cummission does hereby grant
Jn~:rdepartmental Committee
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, MESSE, MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHADS, HERBS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC 88-26 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance
No. 3746 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not
apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict
application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLI' MESSE, MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHAUS, HERBST
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that tl:e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
accept the petitioner's request to withdraw Conditional Use Permit No. 2970.
Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request City
Council review of Reclassification No. 87-88-24 and Variance No. 3746 in
conjunction wiL-h General Plan Amendment No. 237.
ITEM N0. 5. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-37.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: AUGUSTIN V. LOPEZ AND ZELFA D. LOPEZ, 905 S. Euclid,
Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: T.A.S.B. INC., 15935 San Miguel., La Mirada, CA
90638. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.17 acre having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the
south side of Center Street, approximately 330 feet west of the centerline of
West Street, and further described as 1124-117.6 West Center Street.
CG to RM-1200 to construct a 5-unit apartment complex.
There were five persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request; and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
The agent for T.A.S.B, Inc. explained there are existing apartments on the
property and they are only requesting reclassification frog CG to RM-1200 and
that the neighborhood is all multiple-family uses.
1/18/88
88-91
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY pLANN1Nd rOMHISBTON January 18 1988 _-
Jim Atry stated he lives nett dour and this petitioner wants to remove an
older house and build apartments And t1,a' viii affect three houses. He stated
they have all restored thaSr r~uAe~ and 'a put apartments in the area will
just destroy their neighbothced cr oldat homes which were built between 1906
and 1922. He stated the halght of thr caeplex viii block their sunlight and
traffic.diHenreferred tcaAccatStt.yt~parhi:h isrintthatlareanand noteddtley do
a lot of work in the ettrat.
Ruby Edmondston, 1130 ltrbt Contrt. PtAtr'~yhr purchased her home in 1974 and
there have been many chanpaa in li•r arcs. same good and some not so good; that
Ace Fixtures took the property at.•tr•F4 tlrr utreet for storage and they are not
using all their facilitSrs, a'~d olt~otSanutcontinually havedtrucksrparked
storage and are still ueir7 t•
there blocking the trattle.
She stated this is anolCrt r.ri:t.t~rt•~,c.d. Lur that is changing because of the
lack of support they arc rocct.+:r••, tt~r+ tl:r City officials. She stated there
are people who like this c:~:ot ssa:1 r.~S;hborhood and want to keep it that
way. She referred to o+hrt atact!`'•t S.ro;ects vhich have been allowed in the
area which have noL born ;cc~ trr tt.r :.r!ghborhoods. She statZivaclswilllbeut
her house in shadow and !! tt:F :rao3.~6ent is allowed, her p Y
negated. Slacesvherehpeoplriy:::.rar,trtc.Ycome6 rSheestated shepunderstands
Anaheim a p
growth and development, tut actrG at~•ut the quality of life.
Harry Knisely stated he urna~ ttrt`r':°' at 1104 and 1114 W. Center Street
because he likes "old Anahal¢": t1 a! t:~~• house at 1104 was built in 1906 and
he has spent ;25,000 rcetctin :t ar•'= t.^.+t the one at 1114 was built in 1921
and is probably one of lira OuuP~rpt =ttu^tures around. He asked the
Commission to consider wlwt tt,ls sl:: do tc thr character of that street and
added he felt it viii totalSy r~:} ~ •••i;Ta ~rhood. He added it will
:.:d that he felt that this would be
discourage and demozalixa tt•~ cr.~t•
'pure spot zoning", and aakcd ~t~~.' •Fquirement for a 150-foot setback to
single-family residences.
CrysL•al Atry stated her ccncerr. :- ,•1vac~ because their bedrooms are 10
structure would block air
feet from that side of tha trr-p~ttT "'0 t.~ sunlight. She added traffic and
circulation to their rcaieanrra ar- ~ '•
the alley are also concrrna, an e! r'' ' units would add at least 10 cars
which would be parking on thr ott~Ft. -_•• ~.~at tc already a problem.
The applicant stated tha a?atatSns3 • u! rho property is multi-family
residential and there !e na •lf~:~''=l+i-Y home on the property and it is a
rental of two units and thH o~3~tSt at•ring in ttre whole area is commercial.
He explained the 150-loot ertGACK 1 at111 ~ •equlrement on the books, but
does not apply to this property t~+••~~ '-hc «at~ing is commercial. He added
90% of the use on that rtrabt S= It~:ttF•lr family or apartments and the north
side is commercial and thry have t~••c"+91i traffic. He explained he is
complying with all zoning teGuir~s~•t~ ,,i~u ~~~, waivers are requested.
1/18/8B
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 1988 88-92
THE PUBLIC BEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissionez Herbst stated he would look at this as "spot zoning": that there
are areas in the city where the General Plan needs to be re-evaluated; that
this propert}~ has been zoned commercially for many years, but never developed
commercially and if the General Plan is going to be changed, it should noL• be
done on one 50-foot wide lot. He stated L•11ere should be a general plan amendment
done on that »hole block so the propert}~ owners can decide what• they
xant. He added he realizes the property ocross the street is commercial and
leas traffic; but that there }ias been a recent movement in Anaheim to preserve
older Houses and he tltouglit allowing something like this on a spot zone would
discourage an}~one fzom resL•oring the older houses. He stated this is one of
the older streets in Anaheim.
Commissioner Hezbst added he tltouglit when that: pzopert}~ was zoned
commercially, no one opposed it because tlie}~ titougl~t it might be expanded and
developed commercially, but that hasn't happened.
Commissioner Bouas asked low many of the properties on that street Dave more
than one unit. Ruby Edmondston responded t!te existing duplex does co-exist
with the Domes on either side and it appears to be a single-famil}~ Home. She
stated Lltere leas not been an}~ construction in the last 4 years on that block
and there ]gas been no consL•ruct;ion on West Street and tite commercial is
t:etween Lincoln and Center.
Commissioner Bouas asked if the people could be encouraged to improve their
properties and asked ltow many people o»n properL•}~ on that street and how many
people rent. Ms.Edmondston stated one older home has been converted to
apartments at Lhe corner of Walnut and Center and it has been that, way for
many years. She stated slie leas been in that immediate area since 1954 and is
familiar with the area, and the changes have been within L•he last five years
with apartments which have been allowed.
idr. Knisely stated if the Commissioners drive along that street, they will see
the lawns are mowed and tl~e houses are painted and that is a well-maintained
street. He stated one home is owned by a young couple and they are in the
processing of improving their property and he has talked to them about it.
Mr. Knisely stated at 1104 W.Center, there is t}te structure built in 1904 and
in the rear there ere 3 bachelor units which are rented to one person.
He stated this structure would be 11 feet back and it- is going to be too liiglt.
Commissioner Herbst stated i1e though the property should be rezoned to
RM-2400 and pointed out it is zoned commercially and allowing this RM-1200
means the whole area could go that way and if it was zoned RM-2400, the
density would be less. Mr. Knisely stated he would rather see an insurance
office go in because they would only be there until 5:00 p.m. He stated with
the widening of Lincoln and the freeway, this could be tr• ideal commercial
location.
Commissioner Carusill.o agreed this would be "spot zoning" and stated he felt
sorry for the neighbors wlto would be looking at a 30-foot high building, 5 to 10
feet away from their property and was also concerned about blocking of the sun.
He stated tie would not be in favor of this request.
1/18/88
88-93
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januar}• in, 198E
Chairman Messe agreed and pointed out, However, the Genera] Plan calls for
medium densit}~ and he thought C•lie whole area should (Save a genera]. plan
amendmenL• study, and added lie did not Y.now what it should be.
Commissioner Feldliaus stated in 1937 when that properC•}~ was zoned for commercial.
uses, it was probably a through street: Co downtown and it needs L•o be changed.
Commissioner Herbst stated tl~e General Plan designates t:l~is property for
medium density and that is why Cite Commission is getting these request, for
RM-1200 and L•he area should be re-evaluated and stated the General Flan is
getting obsolete. He added people want to restore t;he ulder homes and keep
some of tiie l~istor}' of Anaheim.
ACTION: Commissioner Houas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim CiL•y Planning Commission has
reviewed Che proposal to reclassify subject; property from t:he CG (Commercial,
General) to the RM-1200 (Multiple-Family, ResidenL•ial) Zone on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel. cf Land consisting of approximately 0.17 acre
having a frontage of approximately 50 Eeet on tine south side of Cunt;er SL•reet,
approximately 330 feet; west of C•he centerline of hest Street and further
described as 172-1126 1Qest Center Street; end does hereby approve the
Negat;ive Declaration on t;he basis that: it has considered the proposed Negative
Declaration together xitii any comment;s received during t;he public review
process and further finding on the basis of the IniL•ial Study and any commenC•s
received that there is nu substantial. evidence t;hat the project wi].1 have a
significant effect; on the environment.
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-27 and moved for iL•s l.ussage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission goes hereby deny
Reclassification No. 87-88-37 on the basis Chat it would be spot; zc:ing and
noC consist;er~ w,"' t;he current trend 1;o restore older homes and retain C•he
history of Anaheim and further thaC a General Plan AmendmenC shall. be
initiated to consider changing the current; designation in this area and this
change could be inconsistent with the cesired designation.
On roll call the foregoing resolution ti;as passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE
MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: NONE:
Malcolm Slaughter, Depui:y Cityy Attorney, presented Cite writC•en righC• to appeal
tl~e Planning Commission's decision to the City Council within 22 days.
1/18/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1988 88-99
ITEM N0. 6. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION , RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-34 and
VARIANCE N0. 3741.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: VIVIAN IDA PAULSON 6 MILDRED M. MOORE, 2517 Hiway
35, Valley Park Manasquan, New Jersey 08736. AGENTS: JEROME DRUKIN, 1425 E.
Lincoln Avenue, Suite Q, Anaheim, Ca 92805. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre
having a frontage of approximately 98 feet on the west side of Harding Drive,
approximately 160 feet souL-h of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and further
described as 111 and 115 S. Harding Avenue.
Request: Reclassification from RS-7200 to RM-1200 to construct a 2-story,
10-unit apartment complex xith waiver of maximum structural height.
There were two people indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request; and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred L•o and made a part of the minutes.
Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157, adopting a Conflict of
Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et
seq., in that she leas business associations with the petitioner, and pursuant
to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that she was
withdrawing from the hearing in connection xith Reclassification No. 87-88-39
and Variance No. 3741, and would not take part in either the discussion or the
voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the
Planning Commission. Thereupon, Commissioner BoydsL•un left the Council
Chambers.
Jerry Drukin, agent, explained the General Plan designation for this property
is medium density and the current zoning is RS-7200. He stated to the south
there is a vacant lot and the owner also owns the house next door to the
vacant lot and the owner has indicated he is interesi.ed in developing that
property at• RM-1200. He stated the parking is at grade level and takes access
from the alley. He stated their goal is to Lake a property in need of repa`_c
and make a nice project. He stated there is a 2-story multiple-family project
on Topanga and a variety of uses on Harding and other two-story
multiple-family projects in the area. He explained the setback to the south
is only five feet but that is next to a vacant lot and the owner of that
property had indicated a desire to develop multiple-family units on that
property; and that there are no windows to the south or east. HE stated
justification for the waiver is that this is a unique situation and exists
nowhere else on Harding.
Pat Paulk, 7602 Talbert, Huntington Beach, CA, stated she is the listing agent
for this property and it was listed for quite awhile before they had an offer;
and that is because that property is adjacent to a commercial area and it
would be hard to sell for z.ny oL•her use; and also that the property is all
boarded up and there have been a lot of problems. She stated the property has
been bad for the neighborhood and it is not desirable as it is.
1/18/88
_ } 88-95
~_ .'
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLPNNING COMMISSION, Januar 18, lgnd
Ilene Druiff, owner of duplexes at• 124 S. Harding and on Grand where slie
resides stated she is speaking for herself and some neighbors aoles~udenselat
the proposed rezoning of this property be reduced to RM-2400,
zone. She stated there are only five multiple-famil}~ complexes on Harding,
counL•ing the duplexes and they are all single story. She stated in the
immediate area there are some elderly residents who have lived there as long
as 50 years and i:leis area basically is not read} for the high density, traffic
and parking that would result. Slie referred to tiie requirement•rovide two-foot
setback and stated iL• would be impossible on this property to p
stories. She stated the area would not be a safe poundsFOr plari-srin tb;lieaarea;
it is too close to Lincoln, and there are no playg safet, that they get
L•hat 111E access orliich is the al.l.ey is not conducive L-o }%
water from a well and that taell would not be adequate to service a 10-unit
apartment project; and tizat the builder lSas indicated lie will. build and sell,
so does no t• leave the interest of the neighborhood at heart:. She sandealie1eare
resides in one of lter duplexes and is there to watch the propert~ould be y
not against: progress and a 4 or 5 unit: complex on this property
acceptable. Slie stated within the last year an 8-unit complex aeLitionl1eith
street was denied because it was two stories. She presented a p
25 signatures in opposition.
DINNER RECESS: 6:10 p•m-
RECONVENED: 7:05 p.m.
CONTINUED WITI1 OPPOSITION ON ITEM N0. 6.
Fversole, 121 S. Harding, stat•od he also owns property at 117 S.
Lawrence .
Harding ' „ chat he would eventually .like to construct duplexes or triplexes
on his property and would not be opposed to a lower density. He stated that
area leas beer. a terrible problem and lze felt• the alley should be eliminated.
He stated he is opposed to 10 units and that the to L• is 100ul.ate3tlieaarelae
felt the traffic coming in off L•lie alley will. just over-pop
Wa1L•er Thomas, 11.6 and 118 S. Topanga, stated on the west side of his property
next to L•he commercial property, they have put up a 30-foot wall, which has
restricted the sun and air flow and if another building is developed on t•17e
east, i1: will further restrict• the sun and air flow. He stated this Vias been
a very quieL• residential area and they feel more population will create
problems; that there could be 20 vehicles in these 1.0 units and they would
also leave visitors tirlticli would add to the traffic congestion.
Ms. Druiff asked to correct an earlier comment, and explained she had said
there were five duplexes on Harding but there are only four and all the rest
are single-famil}~ residences.
Jerry Drukin thanked L•he neighbors for their input and staL•ed he wished they
lead come to his meetings before tizis hearing. He stated tl:e Planning
Commission reviews projects on an individual basis on t;lteir own lainedltllese
concerning the heighL• compared to surrounding properties, he exp
properties are unique in L•hat L•he property to the south is vacant and L•he
owner int;ends to develop that property with mu11:i-Family units, and there is
multi-family zoning to the uest and that same condition does not occur on any
oilier properties in that area; and that L•he houses on Grand are over 200 feet
away and there are multi-famil}~, two-stozy uniL•s in the area and this
particular development will noL• have an impacL• on the area.
1/18/88
?t,FidNI~C COt•SPtISSION January 18, 1988 P8-96
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIT: __ "' '
Concerning the wait: :_.--, lie stated ite is aware there is a private water
to extend an B" •aater line for city service 1:0
system =:^d thaL• he has agreed r ~ so there will.
the scutherl.y adge of his property and install. a fire hyc~-~.n .
be no adit•ional demand IOI' 1rr te: for the private wut.cc syste:-.
Mr. Drukin stated direcily across Lite street, t:liose projects aL•ut
single-famil}' homes any' they arc very nicely maintained and Ite understood
their concern al:out two-story apartments backing up t•o thr a property; and
that cn Hardinc, there arc some ver}' nice homes and several very ol.d lu,u:::;.
Concerning parking, he stated they are providing 25 parking spaces and each
unit has two assigned parking and there are five guest; parking spaces. He
stated most of the properties which are not already multi-family zoned are in
excess of 150 feet awa}' from this project.
THE PUBLIC HEARIIJG kAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Carusill.o asked t:hr height: of the L•ui.ldings to the crest and
soutL•. Mr. Drukin stated t;he buildings to the west are probabl}~ 16 feet; high
and there is a two-stor}~ apa.rtment at 122 S. Harding. He stated the property
to t:he immediate scuth is vacant. He clarified to Commissioner Carusiilo that
the parcel. L•o L•he south is Mr. Eversol.e'~ prcperty and he does intend to
develop it with multi-family unit,.
Commissioner Carusiilo asked if Mr. Druhir. would have a problem developing L•o
R*1-2400 require;nenf:s. Mr. Drulcin responded this site would not warrant
P.M-2400 development because of the unicue circu.nstances; and that he did not
thinl; it will. severely impact Harding, Topanga o: Grand and this approval
could not be used as a precedent: because iC is adjacent to an al.l.ey to L•he
north, multi-family to the west and a vacant 1oC to the south.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if the developer had tried unsuccessfully t:o meeL•
with the neighbors. Mr. Drukin stated he mai.]ed the property owners ti:ithi„
300 feet a letCer ar.d held a meeting on Monday evening txc weela ago, and only
Mr. and Mrs. Eversole attended.
Chairman Messe stated he is concerned abut the tandem open space parking
space right in front cf the earage and did not knov how it will. work.
Mr. Drui;in responded he felt that corks better than txo tandem open spaces;
that it gives the tenant an end osed garage and an open carport and is very
similar to the arrangement in a single-family home, with a txo-car garage and
the drivexay. He added they are proposing roll up garage r.':oors xitli automat;ic
openers and it xill work quite efficiently and c:il.l 1:e very desirable because
of the enclosed garage.
Commissioner Herbst stated that, make a good storage area; that L•his property
is zoned for RS-7200 like the rest• of the properties in the area. He staL•ed
even thouch the Planning Ccmmission actions are no L• supposed to set precedent,
it wculd be hard to turn down the owner next door when he wants to develop his
property. lie suggested from looking at: the property an6 ti:hat is exi=_tirg on
it now and also in looking at rrltat is existing in that area, the existing use
of the property is more compatible with t;lie RS-7200, and the duplexes are more
in keeping with that area. He adde^: a project- i:as just denied doti:n the street
fer eight units and he felt if the property is rezoned, it should Le to
RM-2400 and that 11e could not vote for RM-1200. 1/18/88
MINUTES,_ANAHEiM CITY PLANI':i'y:% GO1•II~SISGION, January 18, i9ba ,. 68-97
He asktu ii Hr. Lrukin would tike a continuance it, order to consider a RM-2400
r~~ieet.
Mr. Urultin stated he diu not hear anything from !.~'~r ?i:l:er Commissioners and he
felt i;he property across the a'.:r!°= ie ~sJfizr.ent in relationship to tacking up
L•o thr. r;esidee:cea on (s*ar.d t:!d t:%ia pro:er:.Y has no similarities to the
request on thy- ~:~cl;n;t."r arrrt,; tt:e street. He added he thought this would
~nuS:.. ,. good buffer.
Conaeissioner Feidhaus stated he agreed with Commissioner Herbst and".::ought
RM-1200 is tot, much.
Mr. Drukin asked for a 4-week continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the meeting of February 17, 1988, at the request of the
petitioner.
Maicalm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated this matter xill not be
readvertised unless there is a new plan submitted with different or new
waivers.
Commissioner Bouas sugggested Mr. Drukin meet with the neighbors.
Commissioner Boydstun returned to the meeting.
ITEM N0. 7. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 238,
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-35 AND VARIANCE N0. 3792
PIIBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EDWARD ~ MARGARET M. SAUBAN, 106 N. Teri Circle,
WALTER J. S DARLENE F. PETERS, 207 N. Teri Circle, RALPH L. ~ KATHRYN L.
BRADEN, 110 N. Teri Circle, AOMER D. ~ PATRICIA GIFFIS, 111 N. Teri Circle,
JOHN & GEORGENE HARDAWAY, 112 N. Teri Circle,JIM b. VIRGINA LEE SAUB, 113 N.
Teri Circle, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Blvd.,
#680, Newport. Beach, CA 92660. Property is 1.8 acres located approximately
650 feet west of tl:e intersection of Dale and Lincoln Avenues, described as
106-113 N. Teri Circle. (There ar.e currently six lots on Teri Circle which
will be abandoned if this project is approved.)
GPA request: Low density residential. t:o medium density residential.
Reclassification: RS 7200 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone
Waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural
height, maximum site coverage and structural setbacks to construct a 2 to 4
story, 75-unit "affordable" apartment complex.
There were approximately 16 people indicating their presence in opposition and
10 people indicating their presence in favor of subject petition; and although
the staff report was not read at the pubiic hearing, it is referred to and
made a part of the minutes.
Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
1/18/88
M1Ni]TE3, nNAHGIhi :i:TY PLANYING COMMISSION January 18 1998 1.3-98
Al Marshall., agent;, 225 S.SOlomon Drive, Anaheim, staL-ed there is commercial.
davelopment• on eit:her side of this property and aparl:menCS across tae street and most
of Lin~aln ir! i:l;:at: .:~ a is develcpr•:d with commerr:nl uses; and t;hat: Lliere are five
single-Tamil.}~ Homes directl}~ adjacent in t;lie rear and t1:aL• is wl:er~e their greaLesL•
concern lies. He sf~L~t~ Ll',ey have asseml:led the lots in total. and that is
significant because t;he complete street, Teri Circle, would be abandoned; and L•hat
Llrese prop°rties are front.i.ng on Lincoln Avenue sn3 are no l.onyer ~uiLai:l.e for
sin:~le-family homes.
Mr. Marshall slat;ed they proi?ose 75 a;:artment: units which will. require ].88 parking
spaces and they are proposing 1.92; that ta:ey need a waiver of site coverage because
they are attempting tc provide betL•er open areas :rit:hin the courtyard. He staff;ed
they sta}~ed 20 feeL• tram t:he single-family homes in t:he rear and ~:rovided the 20-fooL•
landscaped buffer area and t:he units across t:Re rear are kept ho one story L•o protect
L•heir neighbors' privacy; and Chat: Lice roof bloc!cs any views from within the projecL•
1;o the single-family homes and the zooE viLh the' B-fooC high :ra]], will ccmpl.etely
protect; their privacy. He sL•aL•ed dun t:c t:he design of the projecL•, parking on file
residenCial streets should not; b4 a problem. He pointed o~': that by abandoning Teri
Circle, the short: sectior, of street which •,~arallels Lincoln will. be abandoned,
tlrereby eliminating a traffic hazard.
h;r. Marshall stated Cite} sent: ouC a leti:er on December 22 to t:he 5 homeowners
directly adjac:enl: t:o the rear inviLino i:i:em Lo a meeting and there was no response.
He st;aged Chey have discovr_re~ that: t:he service for se:rage is not adequate and Chat;
there is an 8" sewer line in Dale which fSL'rV1CL•3 Dale SCreet: and ;>iclcs up tthree
addiCional. streets and channels :rest: int;o this ] ine and i:rar.c:hes al; trite intersection
and goes wesC rather titan easC. He explained a temporary junction t.as installed
between two manitoles which needs to be repaired and after ChaC repair, the sewage
rroul.d run east: on Lincoln, and taxer. test: should have adecuate rapaciL•y to service
t:hi.s project. He explained L•heir enciner:rs wil] do a s1:ud}~ and <:ome up t,iL•h the
aPl:rupriaL•e calculations.
hfaydy lianrra, acrnt:, stated ri^1tL noi; the zoning is fee single:-famil.}~ residences and
Che ulCimate use i~ for mulCiple family cr commercial and t;he property is surrounded
by multiple family or commercial. uses. He staled if Life ;>roperL•y was developed for
cemmer.ci.al uses, it: could be 5 or 6 stories high and would generate more L•raffic. He
sL•aCed Lincoln Avenue is noC suitable for single-family homes. He staf:ed the sever
capacity would Le part of the condiCions and t~•orlced cut cell:h City staff.
John Hardaway, ]12 N. Teri. Circle, sCated this area is no longer suitable for singl.e-
family residences and they, as a group, decided L•o abandon t;he area and rel.ocaL•e L•o
beCCer themselves.
OPPOSITION
Charles Carey, 2849 1.7. Polk, si;aced his property is directly behind the homes on Teri
Circa.e and presented a petit;ion signed by more Chan 1.00 residents in t;he neighl:orhood
immediat;el.y behind Teri Circle. He also presented a map showinr, 1;he location cf late
residences of the people who signed 1:he petition and explained they also dr-livered
1.eLters of opposition t:o the staff this morning. He e:tated L•lte}~ did not; receive an}'
let•L•ers L•o meet; and discuss L•his project: :eit;h anyone and the development; is proposed
directl}~ i~ehind his property. He added they fe.l.t the notice of this meeting from the
City was short. He stated they are opposed because Che homes in L•heir neighborhood
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIDI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, .1988 88-99
are well.-maina•ained, single-family residences and 1:hey do not: believe it is to their
advanL•age L•o remove single-family homes and replace them aria;h 75 mul.Ciple-family
apartmenL• units. He staaed 1;!?? 1?om~s do not: front; on Lincoln, lrut on a cul de sac
a•1?at ends at Lincoln and L•1?ey believe removing these Homes a:i].]. seL• a dan;erous
precedenL• for L•he desaruction of of;her neigl?berhoods consistin; of single-family
homes. He stated Lhey already have apartment;s facing Dale and Lincoln and some of
them have not: even keen completed and there are vacancy sicns a7.1. over; and only a
small portion of i;he property on Linc:o].n bet;a;een Belair and Beach has leer. developed
and there is noL• really a demand for multiple-family uniL•s in f;hat; area, so they
would sucoest the developers «1?o have already goCten approval Finish their projector
before approving additional devel.orments.
He added Lhey believe ti?e adjacent; houses would l;e affect:ed Y.y t•he lack of privacy
and potential. higher crime and vandalism. He staled there has been an increase in
traffic or. B~l.air and there was a 3eat:h on t:he Buena Parl: side of the line due t:o
traffic: movin; t,?rough the area or. Belair; that traffic on Lincoln is already
excessive and this development: woui.d certair.Iy increase traffic, and development to
t]?t west; will probably require the addiCi-:na1 expense of signals and other
improvements on Lincoln; and ghat; another apartment complex wcui.d increase school.
enrollment, and they have a letter from the principal. cf t:he Schwitzer School., John
Allison, ghat they are already full and cannot acccmmodat;e more students and he
a;antod to have a represenCaCive from tl?e school districC speak today, bat; due to I;he
i?oli.days «as not; able Co conL•act L•he proper c:ficial of the school district• but; iE
this is ccnCinued, would ].il:e 1:o ha•re _,omcone from the Maoncl.ia School. District t;o
speak on t;he impact of another apartment rnmpiex on that school district. He sCaCed
perhaps there c:oul.d be another 150 chil3rrn living in these units.
Mr. Care}~ stated the cuesCion whether or not; there is adecuaCe seater capacity also
has t;o be ansiered.
He addec they feel. 1;he introduction of crowded, sul:st;andard aparl;mentor in t;his
neighhorhood mould have an unfavorabi.e effecC or. t;he value c,f t;heir property. He
seabed many cf ahe o:rners purchased their homes 25 to 30 }ears ago and i?oped 1;o Live
there i.ndePiniCel}~ and t;he i~uilding and zoning recuiremenCs are there i;o proCecC the
heal.i:h and. welfare of a•he luui;le who live i.n bl?e adjacent areas and owners and buyers
musL• have confidence that; fut.are r:nnst:rucaion in their neighborhoods will. not: have
lcwcr standards.
47ard Kinsman, 285 4!. Coolidge, stated ma..~~ c,f their concerns were staked by the
previous speaker; what crime and TrosCiCul;ion is Hoar showing up alcn Li.nccln and
vandalism is ;eating a,•orse every mor.!:l? 'and ~ man «as treaten and another one lci].1e6;
and every wee]; L•i?ero arc numerous rolrberies and l:real:-ins of cars parked on Linccln
and also the homes; and t•haC traffic is really getting l;ac and malting a left turn
from Belai.r is almcsa impossible. He seated parking is getting terrible and ahat•
most; people do not; park ir. t•i?eir assigned :~:rea and he felt aenants from these
apartments would le earl:ing on t•h^ir s!;reets.
He staged the chilCren have Co wall: to schools or ride their bicycles and he would be
concerned shout their safety anG could hositat:a 1e1;1;ing them go alone. He added he
thought Lhe density wcul.d he Coo high with 75 c'~nits, and L•he hetghl; of she building
is a concern lecau:.•a the st:rucaures in t:he rear of la?is project uoul.d all. l:e cne
story.
1/18/88
se-loo
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMD!ISSION, Januar l8, 1.988
Doro!:hy Egert, 2871. Polk, stated she has resided there for 30 years and considered i1;
a very desirable neighborhood; and that• L•hey are consl;anCl.y besieged by real. estate
;,^ople :rhaL• t;hem 1:o sE_" their houses because it is a desirable area and that Teri
Circle is a part of t;ha.. LracL•. She staged one family on Teri Circle has lived t;here
as long as she has and t:he residents have continued to make imprLl[`minhouses,.ljeShr.
homes and she did not think they uoul.d have any trouble selling
sL•abed no one on Pollc received notices from t;he developer and hneu noL•hing about: this
until. Choy received L•he CiCy's notice cn SaCurday; and t;hat about 1.0 of L•l:em
c:ubmitt:ed leL•t;crs of opposition. She read her leCCer into thr: record and a copy of
ehe 1.etCer is in the Planning DepartmenC files; and one concern is Chat she Felt Che
number of waivers recuest;ed would indicaCe Cl:e properCy is jusC Coe .mall. and iC
would not; be financially feasible to build 25 units. She sCat;ed one of L;:e reasons
i;he applicant gave for requesting the waivers uas eronomic and i.f i:e doesn't gel; Che
uaivers, t;he prcjecC is not Einancially feasible. She added the uaivers being
request;ed are Cor the financial. beneEiC of Che apartment owner and not fcr the
welfare of current; residents or poCenLia] 1:enanCs.
1•!rs. L•yerC scaled Che applicant: said in his a^l:licaCion Chai: I:hesc units o;ould
conform :rich the neighborhood, but they ::ould net: conform bee:au^,e t:her.e are no
sLrucl:ures over t.wo stories in Chis area and file commercial. st;rucCUre.=. Co t;he rear of
Tier proper,;y are ene story and have caused r,c nroblrms.
She st;aced one of Li:cir main ohject;ions is Cc F.hc rich density and there is nc reason
for incrr.asiry Che density. She referred Lo a leCter from the principal. of 1;he
school. and ceded she learnew Ch< Tta,nolia Schoo] DisCrict; l:as requested Chai: no mere
aparLmenCS l:e allowed because Choy cannot: handle t:he st:udcnts, and she thought the
govr?rnmenCal a;cncies should eC CoreLi:er. Shr added Ci[ere is nc ].and left: fcr
developmenC of schools. She referred also Co t;he sewage capar.it;y which is furnished
t;y Buena Parts and suggesCCd t:haC be carefully considered. She sCaCed a project like
this would have children and pct Ctierr_ is no place pro;:cse9 fcr Chem to p'_ay.
PaC PoCCer, 2857 Polk, scaled he did not: l:nou anybocy on Teri Circle wanted Ito sell.
Choir home and he dim not: see any for sale signs on Cheir properties. He staged he
is also conrcrned about: crime t;iti: a 75-unit: apartment project: behind his propcrL•y
and late City of Anaheim has t:o provide police profsection fcr ChaC area. He stated
his children yo to Ci:at sci:ool anc' ite t:alkr-d Co the principal. any he said there is no
uay Che additional. children can co Co this school. He asi:ed why tiu^_y arc requesting
Co build apartmcnCs in an area where six well-mainCained homes c;tisb.
APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL
Mr. Hanna stated he did not; Icnow vhy the neighbors did not receive a ].eater because
he did give instructions 1;o hi.=, office ct;aff Ci~aC they be mailed and he ari.l.l chr:cl:
into 1;hat situal;ion. He added iC seems most: of the concerns relaL•e to removinc,. 1;he
single-Family homes and sCat;ed t;hesc homes arc different; because they face Lincoln
Avenue and t:he rest: face Belair.; and Chat Che u1L•imate use of this properCy is
commercia]. or mulCiple-family and Che currenC use of Lir.celn is commercial. or
mu l.t;iple-Camily. He scaled I:he property to L•he eresC approved for aparL•ments is 20
acres viu~re there was a darns site and the developer dial noi; get; the prcl:er permit;s.
Mr. Hanna slated Chey are very sensiCive abouL• enr.roaching on the single-family homes
and he :ri.l.l never invade L•h:: neighbor'- privacy and Chis is only a single-sL•ory on
top of Che subterranean garage. lie added 1;his project: will. definitely not; increase
crime on Lincoln or in Che neiehborhood because the tenants whe would renL• these
units must be malting bet:;een $2500 and $3000 per monl;h and I;hey will not aCCract:
criminals.
]/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1988 _ 88-101
Mr. Hanna stated because Lincoln is a heavily-traveled street, the ultimate use o
this property is multiple-family residential because commercial use would generate 3
times as much traffic as residential. Concerning schools, he stated they will have to
pay the school district X250,000 and with that money, they can reopen schools which
have been closed or open new schools.
Mr. Hanna stated they are offering seven units as affordable which are badly needed in
Anaheim because there is a six-year waiting list for that type of unit and they would
rent for approximately ;966.00 per month. He added the sewer connection issue will be
taken care of whether it is witl~ the City of Buena Par Y, or P.naheim.
Concerning the crime rate, he stated he was not aware of the prostitution problem, but
they will be providing protection with this project and did not see that there would
be a problem. He stated concerning traffic turning left from Belair, if a traffic
light is warranted, he was sure the Traffic Engineer would see that one is provided,
but this project will not be adding that much traffic. He stated he did not think any
tenants would park on the street because they are providing 2-1/2 spaces per unit
which exceeds Code requirements. He stated a commercial building on that property
could be about 50 feet high, using the same formula. He stated Teri Circle is
different from the rest of the neighborhood because it is open L•o Lincoln.
Mr. Marshall stated the height waiver is because of the 35-foot setback on Lincoln in
this area and is necessary because of the number of stories and not the number of feet
and the height is within tits maximum 35 feet. He stated the project is flat on one
level and then a townhouse style on the other and it is not like 3 stories of flats;
and they were able to set back from Lincoln 43 feet and to have one story in the rear
adjacent to the single-family homes, so not to invade their privacy.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Marshall stated on the north side, the project is 20
feet to the deck from the property line with landscaping and that whole section is one
story over the garage and with an eight-foot high wall, there is nc line of sight from
any of the units.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the sewer issue. Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer,
stated the information given tonight by the petitioner is contrary to what he was told
and if that information is verified, the concern could probably be alleviated.
Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, stated he had also talked with Bruce Bowman and the
information given to the Commission that there is no capacity on the south aide of
Lincoln which is serviced by Anaheim is correct and sewer service on the north side is
from the City of Buena Park and he was not able to get any information from them
today.
Mr. Hanna responded to Commissioner Feldhaus that he has not contacted the City of
Buena Park but if they cannot get approval for the sewer, the project cannot be built.
He added this came as a surprise because they are building 111 units across the street
and had no problem getting approval. He stated they will study that issue with either
the City of Anaheim or Buena Park and will do whatever is necessary to come up with
the best solution.
1/18/88
MINOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1988 88-102
Chairman Messe stated the plans show three stories above a subterranean garage and
asked if there is a elevator. Mr. EEanna stated these units are townhouses and have
stairs inside the units.
Commissioner Herbst stated he is concerned about the density and also the 10-foot high
wall along the property line for 300 feet and thought that would look like a long
buiidiny; and that he did not agree with removing six single-family homes and
constructing 75 apartment units because is just too dense. He asked how this area can
be suitable for 75 homes, when it is not suitable for 6 homes facing on Lincoln. He
stated he thought 75 units added to Lincoln would increase the traffic considerably.
He added this property has more reason to change than any property he has seen because
it fronts on Lincoln, but he would not agree with using a commercial sate as a
alternative because this area would not support a commercial development such as that.
He stated he realizes that area is probably not suitable for single family homes and
xould provide a buffer to the homes to the rear but 75 units is just too massive.
Chairman Messe stated bringing the project to one story next to the homes on Polk was
a good consideration, but on the other hand, there is to be a 10-foot high block wall
next to them and without reviewing the plans with them, he felt it is premature to
determine whether or not they would go along with a project like this.
Mr. Hanna suggested a continuance to talk with adjacent owners. Chairman Messe
suggested one month and Mr. Hanna asked for a two-week continuance because he did not
think the discussion will take very long. He explained he will get an answer about
the sewers tomorrow. He responded he could eliminate the affordable units, if that is
the City's desire. He stated he is pressed for time because there are several
homeowners involved who want to move, etc.
Responding to Commissioner Carusillo, Mr. Hanna stated they try to keep most the
projects they build and also if the slow growth initiative passes, it will become very
valuable because they will not be able to get them approved.
ACTION: Commissioner Souas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the
meeting of February 1, 1988, at the request of the petitioner.
Malcolm Slaughter stated there wilt be no new notices of the continued hearing and
Chairman Messe stated this will be the last• item on that agenda.
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1988 88-103
ITEM N0. 8. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-36 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3743
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DENNIS W. STANDROD, ET AL. GRACEM. BUSH, 6 VIRGINIA BUSYH,
1537 W. Tedmar, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: JEROME R. DRUKIN, 1425 E. Lincoln Avenue,
Suite Q, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property is approximately 0.54 acre, having a frontage of
approximately 114 feet on the norL•h side of Cypress Street, approximately 120 feet
east of the centerline of Evelyn Drive, and further described as 1811 and 1817 Cypress
Street.
Reclassification: RS-7200 to RM-2400
Waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, minimum building site width
and maximum site coverage to construct a 10-unit, 1-story apartment complex.
There were seven persons indicating their presence in apposition to subject request;
and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to
and made a part of the minutes.
Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157, adopting a Conflict of Interest Ccde for
L•he Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that she has
business associations with the developer, and pursuant to the provisions of the above
Codes, declared to the Chairman that she was withdrawing from the hearing in
connection with Reclassification No. 87-88-36 and Variance N0. 3743, and would not
take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this
matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon, Commissioner Boydstun
left the Council Chambers.
Jerry Drukin, agent, stated t)~e 2tibiR~L is in the Cypress and Coffman area and this is
to be one of the least contro~~rrt~a prv;or•`.~s ever presented in that area and is a
project that meets many of thz nsa-ca ~,i,P. he has heard over the years from the
neighbors on Evelyn Drive; th~l. thi,c ~rez~ is designated for low-medium density
residential land uses and the aT~:a L4? the east and south is designated for low density
and the zoning is RS-7200. He stated over the years in discussions regarding this
area, the neighbors have always wanted one story structures and that vas his primary
concern and 'tie wanted to maintain that low profile.
Mr. Drukin stated the second issue has always been the closure of Cypress Street at
Evelyn Drive and they are also proposing to 9o that. He stated he did talk to the
neighbors and most of the neighbors in close proximity are in concurrence with the
scheme of this project. He explained there is no subterranean parking and the units
are, 2-bedrooms, single level, txo baths of 830 sq. ft. He stated the building leas
offsets to provide private patio areas for each unit and a common greenbelt area and a
very short eave overhang to keep the mass of the building to a minimum. He stated
there will be a 6-foot high masonry wall all around the project.
Mr.Drukin stated they are requesting reclassification to RM-2400 which will conform
with the General Plan and generally upgrade that end of Cypress and achieve closing of
Cypress Street at Evelyn Drive. He stated the single stories and closing the street
have always been major issues.
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar 18, 1988 88-104
Concerning waivers, he stated the density per gross acre is 18.5 units which is in
substantial confarmance with the General Plan, and the second waiver for minimum side
yard relates to the closing of Cypress Street and abandoning that street created a lot
frontage width less than the 70 feet required and they feel that is a minor waiver.
Evelyn Clark, 221 Evelyn Drive, stated they, the homeowners, are against all waivers
and feel the density is too high and the units are too close to their single-family
dwellings. She presented a petition signed by '.nose closest to the development. She
stated some of them have had one meeting with the detelopers and almost all the
neighbors would prefer to have the property zoned i_o RM 3000 for condominiums. She
added they feel another meeting would allow the•:- to come to an understanding with the
developer and the homeowners bordering the development would like to have an 8-foot
high fence instead of the proposed 6-foot high fence; and they would like to see the
remaining property on both the north and south sides of Cypress and east and west
sides of Coffman changed to RM-3000 and feel both Cypress and Cu€fman are landlocked
and cannot handle the traffic of more high density apartments.
She stated they would like to have another meeting or whatever is necessary to have
the zoning changed to RM-3000 and presented a copy of her talk for staff review.
Ron Cleny, 193 Evelyn Drive, stated he shares the property line on the southwest side
of the property and could concur with the proposed project only if an 8-foot high wall
is provided to further isolate the multiple-family units and also because he has a
large pool in his yard and that wail would protect any children who might move there.
He added the same height wall should be constructed across the closure of Cypress, and
explained they have already lead a number of things stolen during the past several
years and felt the wall would help deter those activities. He added he and his wife
would not concur with any two-story structures that might be proposed within 90 feet
of their property lines, and felt that would protect their privacy and reduce noise
from the units.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if Mr. Cleny was in favor of the project, and Mr. Drukin
responded that he is in favor based on the design presented.
Concerning the RM-3000 zone, Mr. Drukin stated his clients have not really considered
that and added in that zone, two-story units would be permitted within 50 feet of the
single-family homes, and he did not think Mr. Cleny would want that type development.
He added they did not request the 8-foot high wall, but would accept that as
condition of approval and felt the density of an R14 3000 project would be far more
massive than this proposed project.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Drukin stated the conditions are acceptable
and added they realize Mr. Vazquez is developing the major portion of Coffman and they
are willing to pay their share of the costs for upgrading the utilities and street
improvements.
Responding to Chairman Mesae regarding net and gross density at 18 units per acre,
Greg Hastings stated Code requires driveways be subtracted if they are longer than 120
feet in length. Chairman Messe stated the staff report says the project is at 21
units per net acre and the layout is far an RM-1200 configuration. Mr. Hastings
stated that should be corrected in the staff report to RM-2400.
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt4t1Sh1^~_ ?,_-~+j 1F_1988 88-105
Commissioner Bouas asked if thry am ftc;•=+~ atfE•t9ablt• units. Mr. Drukin stated
they are not requesting affordably urfto t<,~.,cz tha n~lghbore would not want them and
because they do not feel the dennlty pt,,f•,ccr fc that hlght however, they are
requesting a slightly higher numbai c,f .+++' '+> could olgn an affordable agreement
and, in fact, have already done that. 4ta: =a•"f+~,• stated without affordable units,
the Commission would have Co makr tt:r ~ _ + r 'a;c to grant a waiver.
Commissioner Carusillo suggested lnrt~+=f~. ~'~ ~lce ~! tt•e units and reducing the
number of units. Commissioner Douot r,ta~<•_ + < pt•°act lee close to the rear property
and asked where the greenbelt is lorat<• wt =t••-:n nteted they have 24 feet between
buildings all landscaped and each ur.ft ~~_ 1•;~>~~ f.atlo. !ie stated there is 5-foot
wide landscaped area along the drtva•~f•
Responding to Commissioner Feidhautt. Mt. ;t ~-* =cat«~ hr vas aware of the 20-foot
wide buffer to single-family homr.e. rt. '._•=' =!at<•~J quite often that 20-foot wide
buffer is associated with two-story tt~;<<'< •-c`:` :oaa than 150 feet and he felt
that was well mitigated by mainLalnSr.;; t,< =. -. ='~•cy across Lhe entire property
line and he felt it will not be an atic~rf•s=±;•: =,t.atfcn and the plate line of the
units xill be lower than Lhe 8-foot t•f;t~ •~:; +'< =t atoll there are only two areas
where the building will encroach rit!•ir, t'= '~+° `<=t i~cauce the lot tapers, and he
did not believe this would be ac muct• a;. ~te:~~' == a t•o-story project.
Commissioner Herbst asked about the atar.,~••a•=++. Mt. S':ukin stated the abandonment
has been processed and all the slgnatt.t== `- _ <` ~ttafneC and Real Froperty
Section will process it for Qublfc roaf<• ;=••r•<+'< Cfty Council. He stated one of
the con~~tions of approval requizt•n tt.r .t~ "•'t<*c ar~`. that Lhey have met with the
Fire Department and with the an-ells flt~ `)'t:+t a+; thr cul de sac less L•han 150
feet from Coffman, they no longer trgLfr= .r~ .+=_' a!r• cr through access from
Cypress to Evelyn.
Commissioner Herbst asked iC they haves r<=<yr='.' tr.c t~cords to see who would get the
property that would be abandoned. Mr. Ct~•;~ tta4c4 tt:r abandonment proceedings are
conducted by the Real Property Srcticn aa: +~_; '<tst~ofno all the characteristics;
that the tract is quite old and it fv: ttFft •.. _'+• t~•at the abandonment can be
completed successfully. He added that' ar< +=' '•-lra far the entire section of
Cypress to become thei_ property anC tr<#~ r~+;=•-+: tr.o title reports, neither
property owner on either side o[ EvclTn ot.~• •+~ ==•<tt.rnt tzorc• than to the centerline
of the street and he did not think that. f• at =s=~~ tt,p Cu:aission needs to be
concerned about.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney. otac<C +~-~ t'tty door not concern itself with
to whom the property converts should tht f~tl:~ tf;T~t to crosn the property be
abandoned. He added the City determinaa •r.~tr=t ~r r.e,t tt !s in the public's best
interest Lo stop the right to cross that atc~• a~•a •4L1C have no way of knowing what
conflicting claims there might bt to thr vn•;~tl;;t.j ter title to the abandonment area.
He stated the City does not assign Lhe rf)t.to +. se.!<.r:e, and simply abandons or
quitclaims the City's rights to be on that atsa smr dexp not convey them to anyone in
particular.
Mr. Drukin stated they will be obLeirrltr+) a t":-+) ;•f titles insurance in order to
obtain financing. He added the issuer of ttse •!,:•F.+.a•~r:t tress already been resolved and
no one has a claim on that property. fin at•t~c ecictal avnnra are present tonight.
1/18/88
86-10'6
MIbIUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1988
Chairman Messe asked if Reclassification No. 80-81-39 restricts development to 15
units per gross acre. Greg Hastings responded that was in conjunction with a general
plan amendment and they both had the same restriction; however, the general plan has
been amended to allow 18 units per acre, but the reclassification was not changed and
each property has been coming in with a new reclassification.
Regarding the 8-fooL• high fence, Mr. Hastings stated technically that requires a
waiver which would be readvertised if this is continued.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the Code prohibits a xall higher than 6 feet without a waiver
having been granted.
Commissioner Bouas asked about an RM-3000 project. Mr. Drukin stated he did not feel
that would be the best utilization for that side of Coffman because it would permit
two stories closer to the single family. Commissioner Bouas asked about development
of eight units and he responded if that was a significant issue, he could consider it
but the neighbors do not want that because they do not want two stories. Mr. Drukin
stated they are at a fairly low density. Commissioner Bouas stated her concern is the
project is only 5 feet to the property line.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Drukin stated they have agreed to provide one
unit as affordable and the neighbors would be more satisfied with less units
designated as affordable. Debbie Vagts, Housiny Coordinator, stated at the very low
income level, they vould be required to provide one unit as affordable and that is the
option they have selected. She stated the developer had a choice of 10% at the very
lox income level or 25% at the low income level. She responded to Chairman Messe,
that she does have a signed agreement.
Commissioner Herbst stated he feels this single-story project probably meets the
criteria of what has been done in that area but that it has Lo be readvertised for the
waiver of the 8-foot high wall, and that the abandonment of Cypress has be resolved.
Mr. Drukin stated if he had known that was the case, the wall would have been included
in the plans and asked for a two-week continuance since the only issue is a technical
question.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the
regularly-scheduled aeeting of February 17, 1988, in order to readvertise an
additional waiver.
ITEM N0. 9. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3744.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SAVI RANCH ASSOCIATES, 450 NewporL• Center Drive, x304,
Nexport Beach, CA 92660. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximatel}~ 44.7 acres located at the southwest corner of Old Canal Road and A'eir
Canyon Road.
Request to establish a five-lot commercial/industrial. subdivision with waiver of
required lot frontage.
It was noted the petitioner leas requested a continuance to February 1, 1988.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
D10TION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the
regularly-scheduled meeting of February 1, 1988, at tl~e request of the petitioner.
1/18/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January I6, 1988 88-107
ITEM N0. ]0. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-38 AND VARIANCE
N0. 3745.
PUBLIC HEARING. 0{JNERS: RONALD T. BOSWELL AND TESTA ALMA EMh1A BOS{4ELL, 2033 Parit
Ridge, Norco, CA 91763, ATTN: MARY LOUISE PI,ICET, 1.981.1 Hurleigli Street, Yorba Linda,
CA 92686. AGENTS SAMAN CONSTRUCTIOtd, 1240 N. Van Buren, Ste. 101, Anaheim, CA
92807. ATTN: RAFAT SAMAN. Property is a rectangularl.}'-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.78 acre having a frontage of approximatel}~ 217 feet on
tl~e north side of Hall Road, approximately 700 feet west of the cent•erl.ine of Nutwood
Street, and further described as 2011 and 2017 West Pal] Road.
P.eclassify from RS-A-<3,000 I;o P.M-1200.
{4aiver of maximum st;ruct:ural lieiglit• to construct a 3-story, 28-unit apartment• complex.
There were eight people indicating their presence in opposition t;o subject request;
and al.thouyl~ the staff report was not read at the public bearing, ii; is referred L•o
and made a part of the minutes.
Rafat Samar, agent, explained this is a request; for reclassification t•o RM-7200 and
waiver of code t•o construct: a 28-unit apart:menC complex with a partially subterranean
pariting garage locai;ed 53 feet from Llie single-famil}' residences. He explained a
similar project was approved by the Planning Commission but denied by the City Council.
because of opposition from tiie neiglil:ors to the lieigiit; and that this is less units
with only one waiver and the reason for the waiver is the size of the property.
hfr. Saman stated lie tried to eliminate most of the problems for the neighbors ley
relocating the trash away from the residences and rr_lorating the pool to the west side
of the property; and that no windows or doors would be located on the casL• or north
sides to maintain fire neighbors' privac}•.
He presented information obtained from the City Traffic Engineer regarding parting and
stated a traffic study had been presented on t;he previous project which was for more
units. He stated they have maintained the 20-foot greenbelt; area between the
structures and the single-family Homes. He stated the traffic generated by this
28-unit project would be 6.1 trips per day per unit and would be insignificant.
Don Hailter, 939 S. Agate, presented a petition containing ]1t signaL•ures and
explained only one person lie talked to did not sign the petition. He stated lie
previously La l.ited about Section 18.34.010 of the Code which describes the descripL•ion
and purpose of the RM-1200 Code as the orderly development of medium density
residential areas and to further enhance the living environment consistent with
established community values. He stated this is an RS-7200 single-famil.}' (tome
neigliborliood basically, and there is Rhi-1200 property on Juno and adjacent to this
site, but t•I~ey are all single-story fourplexes, eightplexes and one triplex and L•he}'
do not look like apartments. He st;at•ed the neighbors woui.d be very liapp}' if Mr.Saman
wanted to develop this property in a lilte manner.
He stated if their property was zoned for ~partment•s, their property values would
increase, but tliep are zoned for single-family Homes so would decrease with apartments
adjacenL• Lo their baclt yards. He asl;ed where the trash rril.l be relocated.
Mr. Haiker stated traffic was no t• a concern of the Homeowners, but the}' do not want is
a 3-story apartment• complex next t•o their property lines. He stated the developer is
requesting a variance to build two stories, but lie does not have to go two stories,
and added their homes were there first and should he considered.
i/18/88
_~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1988 88-]08
Mr. Hailcer explained Councilman Erlrle stated at: fire Cit:}' Council. meeting that this
developer should consider a development more in harmony wil;lr the single-family
residences and L•here are no apartments in the area and he did not believe 1;his is an
appropriate use for L•]re site and that ii; does not fit: in with this single-family
neiglrborlrood. He stated Councilman Hunter slaL•ed he tlrougirt if this is approved, the
three lots t;hat abut Agate and the properties to Nut-wood mould be developed with
apartments, and t;lris would be opening L•lre flood gate to that: whole area.
Mr. Hailcer stated the neighbors ai.l. agree with both Councilmen, and added there are
propert;ies on Juno and Minerva Street which are already RM-1200.
Tamm}~ Tran, 951 S. Agate Street:, stated t;lie}' reall}~ do no L• want t•]re t•irree sf;or}'
complex irehind their house; and added they can get more signaL•ures from people who are
opposed to the projecL•.
Ario Casimiro, 947 S. Agate, stated his is the third house from the corner on the east;
side of t•he proposed project; that ite is opposed t;o fire project because they will. lose
their privacy; t;hat the project is 53 feet from their propert•}' line and the Code
requires 1.50 feet, and that Code was established Co protect their privacy. He stated
28 units on that property will increase the density of that area and create more
problems.
Hea Worenst•ein, 944 Agate Street, across file street, stated sire is against this
because wiCh two-bedrooms units, L•here wi].1. be children and t;hey have already reopened
the school. across the street and there are two other schools in the area and she
L•hought Clre traffic will. be L•oo much for that area. She added she also tlrought• the
subterranean parking garage will flood.
Afr. Saman stated this recuesL• is in line with the Cii;y's General P]an and he did not
i;hinL the location is proper for single-family homes. He stated the Crash enclosure
was previousl}~ located five feet from the east; side of the property and now is located
on the wesL• side nexL• Co the garage entrance, over 150 feet from L•lre property line.
Fie stated traffic problems acre brought up before the CiCy Council. because of t;he
schools, and infcrmation from the CiL•y indicat;es Chere will. be no traffic problems
created by Llris project-. He sL•ated this is not actuall}~ three stories, but Cwo
stories above a parl;ialiy subterranean garage and the overall height: is less than the
Code permits, at 25.E and 30 feet is permitter. Concerninc the privacy t•o L•he
singi.e-family' Domes, lie =_t•ated they are 53 fee L• away and Clrere are no doors or windows
on the north and east to guarantee their privacy.
THE PUBLIC 1:EARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissiou~r Boydstun asked if L•Ire neighbors (rave seen fire revised plans with the
trash container and pool relocated, and pointed cuL• none of tlr~se things are adjacent:
L•o the homes and those are pluses.
Commissioner Mc Burney staked Clris area is really an island in L•]ra1, iL• should be
developed uitlr a residential use, 1ruL• he tras not sure it should be this dense. He
stated the highest• and best use is probably RM-7200, but: t;his project seems to be just
a little L•oo dense; however, the plan is well designed with very fer; waivers.
Mr. Saman responded to Chairman Messe L•lrat Clrere will be no doors or raindows on Llre
norL•h or east sides. Chairman Messe stsated the developer has done a better job in
trying L•o protect• Lhe single-family residences Co Che east, but that ]re would like t•o
see a less dense projec:l;, even t;Irouglr 1;leis ronforms t•o RM-1200 standards.
]/18/88
~. ,S
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1988 88-109
Commissioner Herbst stated the major problem is that• the project is three stories,
even ti~ougl~ it; is only 25 feet liiglt, and a 30-foot liigii single-family home could be 5
feet from the property line, and another problem is the mass, with the project
abutting 2-1/2 lots with a solid building 48 to 53 feet• from flee propert}~ line. He
added lie did vot:e for L•liis project previously, but with L•he Council comments L•liat they
would like to see a project more in conformance with the existing residences, he
tliouglit iL- could be tiered back furL•lier from t•he Homes with single sL•or}~ and then leave
two stories at 75 feet; and t:liat lie realizes tl~e density will probably leave I:o be
reduced, but lie leas to give more consideration t•o the three Homes directly behind the
project.
Mr. Saman stated t•lieir privacy leas been maintained with no doors, windows or balconies
and flee project is 53 fee t• away and pointed out there will be no traffic problems. He
sL•ated the Council wanted less units with more open space and that is wliat• lie leas
provided.
Commissioner Carusillo stated the developer leas tried Bard to mitigate the concerns of
the surrounding neighborhood and L•lie privac}~ was a factor and lie has removed windows,
doors and decks. He asked if Clie option of moving it 100 feet and leaving two stories
is more acceptable.
Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission can gran t• the reclassification to RM-2400
rather than RM-1200. Greg Hastings, Senior P]anner, sL•ated 14 units maximum would be
permitted in the RM-2400 Zone.
Chairman Messe asked if the Commission would like to reclassify the property to
RM-2400 as a buffer to the single-family area. He explained RM-2400 would permit• half
the number of uniL•s, but they would be larger units.
Commissioner McBurney pointed out: the c}iurcli property is zoned RM-1200 and if tizat
property was ever converted to any use oilier than a church, Liie neighbors would be
faced wit-li a worse problem.
Commissioner Carusillo stated the developer I1as tried t:o answer the neighbors'
concerns regarding privacy within tiie limits of that particular property and asked
what would be acceptable Lo the neighbors and whether they would like L•o see the
property rezoned to RM-[400.
Mr. Fiaiker stated RM-2400 would be acceptable to I~im, but that lie did not know if that
would be tl~e opinion of tl~e oilier neighbors. He asked what the setback requirements
would be and added their concern xas noL• only privacy, lout that this would be a big
box along their back yards.
Commissioner Carusillo stated the developer leas a right L•o build and t1iaL• zoning does
conform to the General Plan, except for t•ite seL•back. Mr. Haiker stated if the
150-foot setback was maintained, L•]tis project could not Yee built.
Chairman Messe stated flee Planning Commission and City Council leave granted projects
at• less than 150 feet, :,t 50 L•o 75 feet, and that tl~e developer brought: Y,he project to
53 feet and mitigated tlio~e concerns.
1/18/88
5
1
MINUTFS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar}• ]8, 1988 88-I10
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the church is there with a conditional use permit and the
zoning is RM-1200 and he felt tltaL• is a good point to consider because if somei;Bing
did Happen to t:list cliurcli property, the neighbors would t>e facing a larcer number of
units. Commissioner Boydsl:un stated with t;}lat zoning, 1;liey could build a projecL•
wlticli conformed to Code tritltout Planning Commission approval
Mr. Hailcer stated the} are afraid of l;eing swallowed up by apartments and do not want
to set: a precedent. Chairman Messe stated tite cliurclt is already zoned for RM-1200.
Mr. Hailcer stated t•Ite}' are not opposing RM-12G0 and a single-story project could be
developed.
Commissioner McBurnel' st;sled lie t:ould lre in favor of RM-2900 because it: would reduce
the densit;y and lie more compat;ibl.e roritlt the surrounding neigltborltocd.
Mr. Saman slat;ed it doesn't seem fair to change the zoning of property when all t•ite
requirements have been fulfil.l.ed just because somebody doesn't: want; to see iL
developed. He staged he is just asking for a waiver and is requesting whaL• the City
leas designated on that propert}' and it: •,ras pointed out a recl.assificat;ion is being
requesl;ed.
D7alcolm Slaughter asked what• density the developer thought he could develop on the
property if it were zoned RM-1200 wit:it no variances. Mr. Saman responded lte reduced
the number of units and is only requesting one waiver. He responded 1:haL• he had net
considered a project uitit no waivers.
N,al.colm Slaur.hCer suggested the reclassification be granted at RM-1200 and the
variance denied, and alien it would up t;o the developer t;o maximize leis projecL• under.
that: zone.
Commissioner Bouas stated the neighbors do not: want: that 1.ony, straight, massive
building across the rear of Cheir property. N,r. Slaughter staged if the properly is
rezoned to Rt•1-1200, t:i;e developer could not build two stories wit•ltin 150 fee t• of file
rroperty line and that; 4oul.d reduce the bulls.
Mr. Saman stated the intent of the 150-foot requirement• is to maintain privac}~ and he
has done that: by lccat•ing the project 53 feet from the property line. Chairman Messe
stated tl:e privac}~ has been protected, buC t;he problem is the massiveness of the
project. Mr. Saman responded that has been approved by the City many Limes all. over
the city.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if the project could be redesigned to L•wo stories so ghat
it would not be so high behind their property.
Commissioner Herbst: stai:ed the church property is RM-1200 and with t:he possibility of
Chis property going to RM-1200, he would liYe L•o see a reclassification done on thaL-
whole corner, including the church property. He explained L•hat •:oul.d preclude the
church property being developed ab RM-1200 without any variances and increasing the
deiis:ty in that area where i1. is not really needed.
Malcolm Slauq'.<.c,r stated that would rcrquire approving L•his reclassification and
holding a public hearing 1;o rezone L•hat property. Chairman Messe stated the
Commission could approve this project as proposed, or approve the reclassification and
deny the variance or approve a recl.assificaCion t•o RM-2A00.
1/18/88
i i
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar}' 18 1988 88-111
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offerer a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bo}'dsL•un, and
MOTION CARRIED that• flee Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed flee proposal. to
reclassif}~ subject property from flee RS-A-93,000 (Residential, AgriculL•ural) zone to
the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone and t.o construct a 3-story, 26-unit
apartment complex with waiver of maximum structural.lieiglit on a rectangularly-shaped
parcel. of land consisting of approximatel}~ 0.78 acre having a frontage of
approxin~atel}~ 217 feet on L•]ie nort•It side of Ball Road, approximaL•ely 700 feet west of
flee centerline of Nu;:wood Street, and furl:lier described as 2011 and 2017 WesL• Ba].1.
Road; and does lierel~y approve flee NegaL•ive Declaration on the basis t1iaL• it has
considered the proposed NegaL•ive Declaration together with any comments received
during 1;lie public review process and further finding on t; lie basis of the Initial Study
and any comment;s received that there is no subs tanL•ial evidence that t•he project: will
leave a significant effect: on tl~e environmenL•.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolut•,ion No. PC88-28 and moved for its passage and
adoption that flee Anaheim Cit}~ Planning Commission does liereb}~ grant Reclassification
No. 87-88-3B, as modified, t;o RAf-2400 Zoning rather than RM-1200 as requested, and
subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
On roll. call flee foregoing resolution was passed l:}~ t:lie following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, AfESSE, MCBURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHAUS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Commissioner Herbs t• offered Resolui:ion No. PC 88-39 and moved Lor its passage and
adoption that: L•he Anaheim Cit}' Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3745
on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such
as size, shape, topograpli}', location or surroundings, wlticli do not apply to other
identical.l}~ zoned properties in Elie vicinity; and that: strict application of the
Zoning Code does not deprive t•he property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
identical zoning classification in L•he vicinity.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by t;he following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLC, FELDHAUS, HERBST
MESSE, MC AURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: ^_OMMISSIONERS: PIONE
Malcolm Slaughter, DepuL•y CiL}~ AL•torne}~, presenL•ed the written right t:o apNeal. the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days.
Commissioner Herbst stated if tl~e City Council upholds flee Commission's decision 1:0
rezone flee property to RM-2400, lie would like to instruct staff to initiate a
reclassification on t•lie area from Juno to Ball Road and to Empire L•o RM-2400.
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 7anuar}~ 18 1988 88-112
ITEM N0. 11. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SJAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT N0. 2976
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: PAUL REYiJOLDS, ET AL, P. 0. BOX 10539, Newport Beach, CA
92658. AGENT: ELBERT ASHLAND, 1319] Gilbert Street, Garden Grove, CA 92649.
Froperty is a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.19 acres
having a frontage of approximately 139 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue,
approximately 950 feet easL• of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard and furL•lter
described as 421 East Cerritos Avenue.
Request: To permit repair of rental automobiles with waiver of minimum landscaped
setback, minimum number and L•}ape of parking spaces and minimum cimension of parallel
parking spaces.
There was no one indicating t:lieir presence in opposition to subject reeuest; and
a l.t;hough the staff report was not read at t;he public hearing, it is referred to and
made a part of t;ire minutes.
Bert Ashland, representing Dollar RenL• A Car, agent, explained this facility will be
used to repair the renL•al cars for the agency and will not; be open to the public.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Pir. Ashland st;at•ed he did not; believe the waiver of minimum landscaped setback is
necessary and they are willing to remove a parY.ing space to provide iL•.
Chairman Messe responded t;c Malcol. Slaughter that L•liat is not a rorit•hdrawal of the
waiver because Commission would rather have the parking space available.
Concerning the conditions, Mr. Ashland stated tlie}~ will make tine offer of dedication
as required in Condit;ion No. 1; lioi:ever, t:lroucht iL• is excessive to have to pay for
L•he improvements aL• this time.
Art Daw, Deputy City Enrineer, stated wiL•h the stipulation that there are no additions
being made t;o the exisL•ing l:uilding, that would come under the allo~;abl.e exceptions
of L•he Code and can be eliminated.
tdr. Ashland referred to Condition No. 7, and stated tl~e}~ feel tlie}~ are being forced to
commit to something L•hat under sL•aL•e statue is to be granted by choice and L•houyht•
assessment districts require 60+% approval and the City is conditioning them to commit
t;o something vhich the State intended for L•hem L•o have a choice in. He responded he
is not L•he owner of the proper L•}~, but that the owner is present. He st;aY.ed they will.
comply, but feel the}~ are being forced into L•his commitment.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, sea~nded by Commissioner Boydstun, and
MOTION CARRIED Lhat the Anaheim CiL•y Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal. to
permit repair of rental automobiles with waivers of minimum landscaped setback,
minimum number of parking spaces and minimum dimension of parallel. parking spaces on
an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximaL•el}~ 1.19 acres, having a
frontage of approximately 139 feet on tiie norL•li side of Cerritos Avenue, approximately
950 feet easC of the centerline of Aralieim Boulevard, and further described as 421
East Cerritos Avenue; and does herelr}~ approve the Negative Declaration on L•lre basis
that it• lias considered the proposed Negative Declaration t;ogeL•Irer wiL-li any comments
received during t;lie public review process and Further finding on Ll~e basis of the
Initial Study and an}~ comments received that t;liere is no substanL•ial evidence that L•lie
project will have a significant effect on L•he environment.
1/18/88
BB-113
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar 18, 1.988
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydsl;un and MOTION
CARRIED L•liat t:he Anaheim City Planning Commission does lierelry grant waiver (a) an
the basis thaC there are special. circumstances applicable to the prlpetoyothelr as
size, shape, tcpography, location or surroundings, wliicli do not app y
identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that; strict application of the
Zoning Code deprives tl,e property of privileges enjoyed by oilier properties in
identica] zoning classificat;ion in t:he vicinit;y; and ;ranting waivers (b) and (c)
on the t;asis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in L•raffic
congest:ion in L•he immediate vicinity nor adversel}~ affect any adjoining land uses;
and grantin; of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed: if any, will. not:
be detrimental to t:he peace, heal.t;h, safety and genera]. welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Bo~~as cffered Resolution No. PC 88-30 and moved for its passage and
adoption ghat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant; Conditional
Use Permit No. 2976, pursuant Co Anaheim Municipal Code S~cCions 18.03.030.030
tltrougti 18.03.030.035, and subject Co Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations,
deleting Conditic.i No. 2.
On roll call. the foregoing resolution was passed by t.l:e following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, l1ERBST, MESSE
MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ADSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Al;torney, presented the right to appeal. the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 da}~s to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 1.2. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL US F, PERMIT N0. 2977
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: Sr'ORLD OIL COMPANY, 9302 S. Garfield, South Gate, CA
90280. AGENTS: THOASAS J. S1IEPOS, 9302 S. Garfield, Soutlt Gat;e, CA 90280.
Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximaL•el}~ 0.68
acre, 1ocaL•ed at the northwest corner of Romneya Drive and Harbor Boulevard, and
further described as 1201 N. harbor Boulevard.
RecuesC: To permit a convenience mari:et with gasoline sales and off sale of Meer
and nine in conjunction with a 4,000-sauace foot commercial center «it;h waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
It was noted t•he petitioner has requested that subject petition be continued L•o the
meeting of February 1, 1.988.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a mot;ion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED that consideraCion of Elie aforementioned matter be continued to the
regularly-scheduled meeting of February 1, 1988, at the recuest; of the petitioner.
RECESS: 9:50 p.m.
RECONVENE: 9:55 p.m.
1/18/88
j~
Tie-114
MINU'T'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAIJNING COMMISSION, Januar 18, 1988
ITEM N0. i3. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PEP.MiT N0. 2979•
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CANYON ACRES RESIDENTIAL CENTER INC., 233 S. QUINTANAr
ANAHEIM, CA. 92806. A'iTN: DANIEL MC QUAID. Property is an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.6 acres local;ed approximately 300
Feet southerly of file intersection of Arboretum Road and Quint;ana Drive, having a
frontage of approximately 185 feet on the west side of a private access road, and
Eurtlter described as 233 South Quintana Drive (Canyon Acres Residential. Cent:er).
Request: To expand an existing boarding and lodging home for 30 depender.C
children, including Clte construction of 2 additional. Len-bedroom residences, a
garage storage building dnd conversion of an existing rar,clt house into an office
and multiiurpose administrative building.
There erere approximately seven persons indicating their presence in opposition t:o
subject request; and although the st;off report was not read at the public hearing,
it is referred Co and made a part of the minutes.
Bert E1.1ioCt, Elliott Associates, 4911 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, architect,
stated this is a proposal t:o increase the number of children permitted at Canyon
Acres which is a dependent care center for abused children between 5 and 11 years
old. He star;ed t;ltey want to increase tl~e number to 30 children and to accommodate
the increased number of children, Lhey will be concorthaCniCtcannbe usedafor the
l0 children and vacating the existing ranch House
adtinistrative and multipurpose building; ghat: they will construct parking
facilities and a storage and stable luilding. He stated they ]rave had too
meetings with t:he community, as Weil as direct contact with several adjacent
property owners, and they !lave presented several concerns regarding security
lighting, lighting of the parY.in^, lot, landscaping, easement road, density, noise,
scenic atmosphere and property values.
He stated they have revised their plans Co address those concerns; that originally
tlie}~ ceauesCed 40 clti]dren, but leave reduced that number t:o 30 and eliminated one
of Clie coCC•ages to reduce Clie density and Ciiis is a request: for ]0 additional
children over the current: occupancy; that they have agreed to not put lights on
top of the buildings ana install pathway lights andwill begdirectedldownwardesoeas
lines of adjacent properties and that the lighting
not to shine into adjacent properties. He added they leave worked with the
landscaping and their neighbors and are willing to plant materials consistent with
the requiremenCS of the City cf Anaheim, as well. as Che choices of the neighbors.
Concerning Che easement road, he explained the Fire UepartmenC has requesCed that
tl:e road he increased from 12 feet t:o 20 feet and Cleat road goes t:ltrouglt a 30-foot•
easement area t:lirouglt Clieir property and in that 30-foot easement area they have
agreed wiCit Lite neighbors to puC in a guard curb and are considering using utility
poles and a regular 6-inch high curb Co proCect: the adjacent property owners. He
stated Lhey have also agreed to Eully landscape the easement and Co maintain it: at
their own expense.
He stated they leave put passive uses adjacent t:o t:lte neigltl~ors so that thr. active
uses would be away from the neighbors. He stated one main concern of the
neighbors was Che parking lot and Chey have moved it from t•he 15 feet allowed t•o
65 feet from the adjacent property owner and they (Save located the closest
building 80 feeC Erom adjacent neighbors. He added they are proposing landscaping
of all t:he buildings and open areas.
1/18/88
.. 88-115
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 1t3, 1988
Eob DurCner, Aroad President:, Canyon Acres, 609 Sltast:a Lane, Costa Mesa, stated
Canyon Acres is a private, non-profit organization, founded in 1.900, and is a
residential t•reatmenC center. for cltild]ren, 5 to 12 years old; that they currenl;ly
can accommodate 20 children and have been .astced Co provide additional. facilities so
children wit.}. not: have to he sent out of the County. He stated this is the only
facility in Orange Country to handle these type children. He et;ated ti1c;~ get most of
their support from the community. Fle explained the children stay from one to one and
one-half years at this facility and they get complete psychological treatment.
Dan McQuaid, Executive Director, Canyon Acres, pointed out: tlte}• tried Co keep
passive uses adjacent• t:o the neighbors; and ghat there is the horse corral for
four horses which are used as part of the therapy program, and a large
acCivity play area adjacent to Bayberry Court, and there is a corral, parking
facil.it}~ and a utility garage/Horse area ner.t to Aonnie Jean tc the north. He
added Chere was a concern about the prorimiCy of the rarage tact: room to the
homes on Eayberry and originally Chere tras a proposal for 40 beds, but after
meeting with the neighbors on Bonnir. Jean, they agreed to eliminaCe one
cottage, 10 beds, in order to accommodate their concerns and thought; that
shows their good faith in trying to accommodate their desires and have the
yreatesC distance between their property line and Chis facilit;y. Fie stated
the garage had been right nexC t:c propert:y ]ine and in order net; to have the
same visual. impact, they will plant trees 1:o soften and shield the area.
He staged the garage structure reeds t:o be accessible to Che parking area and
also adjacent to file horses Co provide shelter; ghat the multi-purpose
building would sL•cre donaCions, and ha•de a workshop and a clothing area and a
track room for Che horses. Hc• staged that: is as far away from the property
line as possible adjacent: to t1~e corral.
He stated there is a primary conr_crn regarding t:he parking area; that
originally iC was for 32 vehicles, but the neighbors o:ere concerned about the
size and the fact that it came within 15 feeC of the property ]ine: and
originally it: was parallel. to the wall, l:ut was charged to he parallel ::ith
the easement road, and 10 spaces ur_re eliminated so they acre able to increase
the distance Co 65 feet. He st:aCed t:he curve Chat: sCarts Cie parking area is
65 feeC away from the neigltt~or's t~acl: }•a rd.
hlr. Mc Quaid stated they will provide plantings t:haC will soften Chat area,
and a row of Crew will shield the parking area; and that Choy have agreed the
neighbors will be able Co select t;he lighting and they are agreeable to
pathway lighting. He stated Che approach uriveway was also roC•ated. He
stated they need parking because of Che professional staff which :.•orks oath
the }~ouncsters; thaC they have three people in each ca't.age, plus two people
for Lhe shift before for a Cosal. of 5 per cottage that. changes shifCS, or a
toCal of 15, and also a program director and himself; and thaC each cottage
has 3 social workers, and an office manager. He sCat:ed the neighbors have
suggested locating the parking some other place on the property, l:ut: in order
to provide safeL•y and security of t:he children, he would like t;o restri<:1; Che
traffic coming onto Che ranch in front of t:he cottages. He stated iE these
children came oaf: of Che coCtages, Chr.y would be right; in the fiot: of traffic
for t:he ranch. IIe stated he would earl: Lhe vans used by the ranch for the
youngsters on top cf Che hill and the child care staff and vicit:ors would he
below.
i/IB/13II
1 -~
88-716
MINU:'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar i8, 19u"8
Mr. Mc Quaid sL•aL•ed another reascn for this location is to provide a field of
supervision and it is import•ant• t;o be able L•o see what. is going on on the stated anti
one rule is, "if you can't see them, they are doing something wrong."
they would like to be able to see in L•he space between the cottages and the parking.
}le stated also cars parked t:here would be safe and also t•Itey would be able Lo see
any visitors coming to the ranch. He explained three reasons for thisroovideltlteis
t•o limit through traffic on Lhe ranch for the children's safei:y, and p
best visual supervision and also provide security for the cars parked on the ranch.
Mr. Die Quaid stated Canyon Acres leas an obiigat:ion t•o serve Clie community; that trey
draw their support from t]Ze community as well as AFDC funding and are only tallting
about expanding Canyon Acres by 10 children. taatch ed ?4 hours o1 day1,1~111a-a l the boy
risk management: program and she needs to be
wlio is afraid to be alone and stated the ranch house leas t;ltreeJlacelandlllivingrroom
bedrooms upstairs and one bedroom downstairs, .~itchen, office p
and it is not adequate to fulti.il. the needs of the children and the cottages will
provide a more adequate field of vision. He stated the}' try to provide a home-Like
set:Cing.
He explained they need to act quickly in getting this approved in order to take
advantage of the ardiit:ect's donated time and a neat project that is scheduled for
Canyon Acres if t:lley can accomplish it: by May and t:liat: is tiie "combined corporate
volunteer" project.
}le stated these changes will allow them to help more children and have a centralized
service. to provide the degree of professional help reouired. He stated if they can
co forward :•:iCh the 30-bed proposal, recognizing they have eliminated 10, Chey ~:ill.
be able t:o improve t:l:e quality of the care l:y employlro ramubl addingocomponenlts.
sharing resources, they can strengthen t:he existing p g Y
Mr. Burtner stated they have reviewed the conditions proposed and have no problem
compl}~ing with them, but would like L•o ask Ll.at the condiL•io3s alnat6l,ai'e deflerred
completed prior t:o issuance of a l;uilding permit (Nos. 1, 2,
until. prior Co occupancy so they can have a lot of this donated by the volunteer
efforts.
OPPOSITION
Debbie Stran, 185 Bonnie Jean, stated they purchased their Home because of the quiet
rural at•mospliere wlticli provides a welcome alternative t:o ciL•y trectscL•oltlgiletproposed
noise and staked she cares about this communlaudatleserpeople for chat they are
growth of Canyon Acres. She stated Chey app
doing and believe it is providing a valuable service, but must object to the
unrestricted growth and the impact Chis growth uil] have on their residential
environment. She staged the ranch style boarding house as it• is curr_nL-ly situated
is unintrusive and sits well within their. planned community; however, the proposed
multiple dormitories, fl.c^!lliglit:s, parlting loC and road a:tpansion uit:li increased
Craffic flow arc not cuiCable tc and will plaee an institutional li1:e faci].it•y into
their residential neighborhood. She slatted all Chese it;ems point to a major
environment;al impact and in order t•o qualify for negative declaration, the burden is
upon the developer Co show C1taC there is not a possibility of environmental impart.
1/18/88
~. 1
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 18, 1988 88-117
Slie added a negative declaration is not suitable in this case in light of flee
following: 1) the large amount of open space involved and possible eff-ecL•s
developing this land could leave on flee environment; 2) traffic concerns including
traffic safety and too much L•raffic for a rural and residential area; that increased
traffic is a likely result of constructing and operating a larger facility and the
road has t;o be doubled in size; 3) light pollution from the parking lot which is
unprecedented in this residential neighborhood; 4) noise and air pol.lut•ion resulting
from hoth the construction and operation of the large facility road and parking lot
including automobile emissions, noise and dust; S) arclieolo^yical, siL•es in the area ;
g) geological concerns; 7) cumulative effects of this development and other
devel.opment•s in t-he area have not been analyzed; 8) specimen tree removal permit
should be required since it is probable that specimen L•rees will have to he removed;
9) since it is probal~l.y in Clie scenic overlay zone, t11e developer must comply uitli
oll the requirements; and 10) the project; violate= the General Plan of Anaheim
Hills. She stated it is clear the developer is net in compliance with CUP
requirements and they desire that their community he preserved as a pristine
environmental oasis and strongly feel L•liat this development should lie designed and
constructed in an environmental.l}' sensitive manner. She stated alternatives to
placing the parking lot and lights directly behind their home should be explored.
She stated Llie developer should not be permitted to rush ahead Stifle construction
wiL•hout first determining the effects this construction could have on their
environment and on their community and at a minimum, the developer should be
reouired to provide an environmental impact report so their questions can be
answered before it is I;oo late.
Slie stated t;liis project directly impacts their Home and lifestyle and they are
undersL•andably concerned clith the nest;het;ics of this institutional like facilit}~,
the impact: on their property values and Lh~ noise created by increased traffic and
around the clock shifts and Che noise creal;ed by 30 children on t•he playground.
She stated they have r.~ assurance from the center that this number uon't increase
and in fact, they have already talY.ed abouC a plan for a maximum number of 40
children.
She t;hanl:ed the Planning Commission for listening to their concerns and stated they
Hope L•lreir concerns will be talten into consideration and insure L•ltat the zoning of
Anaheim Hills as a residential community remains intact.
Thomas Rovacich, 195 Bonnie Jean, stated leis ]tome is right on the access into Canyon
Acres; and that the 30-foot ~:ide easement is actually their property and is between
his House and file property across the road. He sL•at:ed lie knew there was a
conditional use permit in effect; for Can}'on Acres when he purchased his Douse and
that bras acceptable because he believed they were trying to accommodate their
institution with the residential concerns ar,d then they planned t•o convert an
existing ranch house into a administrative and boarding mouse and did not puL• in any
new structures or a parking lot, but between 1974 and 1985, they leave increased the
number of children from 15 to 20, l,ut there were no additional buildings or parking
l.ot. He stated ire believes Canyon Acres is successful and is a much-needed
facility, but tltought• a large part of iL•s success is based on its rural environment
for children, l:ut this proposal is a drastic change and will double their livable
space, orit•ii Cuo dormitories and a 22-space lighted pariring lot, an 1.100 sq. ft.
storage building. He stated t;hey saw flee plans on January 5 and after the}' met wit;li
file neighbors have presented what the}' call a compromise and it is exacL•ly what they
want, two buildings now and in one or L•wo }ears they will. come bacl: and ask for the
1/].8/88
DIINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMPIZSSION Januar}~ 78 1988 88-118
third building. He stated he did not Chinl: the Commission can make a rational
decision unless further st;udy is made suci: as Ll:e effect of Ll:e commercial traffic.
He explained they leave linen service, food services, trash collecL•ion, acrd the
effect of dust and noise and added C•i:ey reall}~ don't I:ave tl:e answers.
Mr. Kovacich stated tl:e parking l.ot is a l~ig concern, and Section 18.06.050 of tl:e
Anaheim Municipal Code provides that there should t:e at least .9 parking spaces for
per employee on t•he largest wort: shift; and that l:e did not: think there are 22
employees on the largest: shift and until. tonighC, they have been happy with vehicles
traveling through the nort;l:east portion of Ll:e compound, but now t:l:ey are concerned
about safety which probably means increased ttraffic.
He sL•aCed on a personal level, tl:e access road is going i:o go right behind his house
and there are existing overhead utilities which have to be relocated if Lhe
Commission approves this reouest, and at• a minimum, tl:e uL•ili.ties must be placed
underground and noC• relocated closer L•o his property line. He stated they have
agreed t:o puL• ir. a utility wall. and curb on Che access road and he has no problem
with that.
Pam IIerry, 6191 Cello Vista, direcC•ly above and behind the property, stated they
act:not~rledge fete good Can}'on Acres is doing and recognize rite need t;l:at is t;l~ere, i~uC
1;he question tonight is land use and t:he Commission has to answer that. She stated
t:l:e presenC• structure and t:l:e 20 children they I:ave now is fine. Sl:e added sl:e l:as
:ratched this fac].ity grow and received notices of other expansions such as when Chey
converted stables inl;o bunkhouses, etc., and ghat sire has never opposed their
recuests because the children never bother her and as it: is right nox, it: doesn't
offend her and she has never complained although the noise from 20 children is more
than it would be with a family living there, but the Good outweighs that, buC• that
she is concerned about the adCit;ions and the growth. She stated they are saying
only 10 more children, but they have four acres and it is just: below her property
and the addition of 1;he structures will change the look of the area and it: will. not:
longer loot: litre a ranch house. She sL•ated the}' are asking for 10 now, but: 3 weeta
ago they t:ere requesting 90 and they ccul~ add more structures and add more children
and explained she had asked the pct;itioner if he could guarantee the neighbors that
they uil.l never aslc for more than 30 children, but: he could not do it. She stated
sl:e would l.il;e to know xhen iL• is going to stop. She added she is concerned about
Che impacts on the value of her property, and the ability to sell her home. She
sL•ated this will look like an institution when the street is ui.dcned and t:here is
more pavement, and uit:h Che parl:iuq 1o t• and lights, and with t:he full. time staff and
the changing of Che shifts, and she fel.L• it will affect file al:ility to sell. her
property. She stated she will make a donabion to Che facility and her son works for
them, but she car,noC afford t•o have her property value impacted.
Fran Ol.dridge, 150 Bayberry Court., stated her property backs up t;o subject property
and she has lived there for six years and enjo}'s her property and has no objecL-ion
to what they are planning.
Pl:il Trash, 160 Bayberry CourC, ast:ed if Cl:e neigl:t:ors would li.Y.e for Canyon Acres
to move out and have a developer build sir. houses on L•haC property. He stated the
people Canyon Acres are ~h~'!t Che best neighbors anyone could ever have. He stated
traffir_ is no L• much of a problem in thaC area, and they are wonderful neighbors.
1/l8/88
MINU9'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO"1`fI':'~:c~______,. „_
.',rlt 88-179
f LI ro ert}~ shat:ed
i "
1 ~ ~
Steve lJahlitrink, 145 Bonnie Jean banr:f ~•,r Ana ., tc P P
` a;) , •,nu a, the plan, has
r
-•
he represent, a couple of pro,.crty
" ,,,rt: to t vl t t~ ti,em and they
_
-'
L•een developed, Canyon Acres has cor.r' 'f ' . f ~n l:•+ ! , , n the parking
acre still :rorkiny^ :;ith them Conirht.• ~ {
and ~'~:• tnpin•t a 22-space
lot because this is a residcnt.ial arr•t•
~
=t"'1 t'~' - ire some
ust doesn't "'.
parking lot: Brit;h lights j ,. - ,,, ,;,,t;, „it.h Mr. Mc Quaid
neighbors along t:he bacly wall uho ti•'ucl'
' -• .,,,.r, c,, 'e t.uni7bC. He
-
about L•hat parking 1oC, and notes ton' t~, ` f .+,, ,r, r• r„•rr:: has been a
stated he bought his house nru al•out. +•,r ,n t.hc ~ would like Co
good neighl:or, but; t;here is a conc•r•rn • ,
consider further negotiations with t!~'•r•
Pai: Crandall, President of FOCAL (E'r!~ t •
Che local guild which represents C:,n',' •t~ ~' `°
which helps t:o beautify the ranch ru,:: '~' '
and Chey have a lot; of local ::u1••;;urt >"•
more children is that; much more to {.r'.:, %'
I•:rs. Henricks stated shr. is a volunt, • ' •
t:houghC al.l cammunit:icy neec tc help t,.~
.;ell kept and supervised and 10 nur• -
the audience i~dicat:ed she had want.: t'
take fire Commission's Cime.)
Susanne Ester, 2637 Jessie, state: '`~•' r •
roject :rhich is an effort in Or~n:~~ ''' •" •
community volunteers from variou. Lu:.:a•-
help a ccmmunit:y a;ency meet a ;oai vt.,- '
t:al:e longer without: vcl.ur.t:cer rcc;uurr '
years. She stated the plannin:, coan,t'~• '
a number of non-profiC urranizat.ion:. :t "
applications and select one tc :;hic•1, t' '
they recognize the critical neeb to ;:r<'-
community. Site st:aCed anoChr-r :Dint. ..f
and timing is critical once they >~'1rc't
She added that; pi.aces some imnedir:t.r• +.:'
;!.. -
quiclcly Co utilize Chose resources. -
uorlc faith t;haC large group of people tc.
Cite l:osif:ive results of the joint c!f<.r' "_
sY.ills anc fate donations fro^r t.hc~ cont..:.! ,
Steve Charpie, 155 Bonnie Jean, st.atr•: ~•' -=
proposing :rit:h the nex amendments, rrx<'.'. r t
stated f:hey ::are Loll thaC perhaps: t1.+• ~ :r •'
sort of hard soil. or somet•hin; t:c l:ar:: c•~r
and less impacC on Che area. Hr. ;t.atct i. • -
iC would be with less pavement are;, t.l;.,r. '
Dan McQuaid presented a picture of t.hr• at•~ '
before L•he parking area and corral. 1!• -t-t~
t;he parking area and that he wool Lr• 3~+-*.s+:
story hedrocm cn the end of t:he cal dr ~-•
of the parking area. He added they vt7! ;: -
objecting Co it because Chey are on t1:• +'•r'~~ -
would be looking over Che partying arc-o ir~.= _ -~-
presented pictures shcwin~ the vfo?:s, ar. ~-
is quite a distance up Che hill, anG :+•r '••- --
:;itlt an "x" •
,,,,:lct.y), st:at:ed Ia:cy ire
- ,: ~• t h:~ sui.port: grcup
..••1;~ these children gro:a;
.. r.bo sic noC feel 10
• ;ur:CG for this center and
,n:: thr.se children arc
•'t'••:1:1~. (Anon?er lacy in
. t;,ln^~. but would not•
r~•,rotc Combined VclunCeer
~r approximaCel.y 400
. -. ,r:: the effort is Co
:,,e ;c attainable or would
,,:. taken place for three
• -,•rv,,: applications from
• :r.virw those
r ~,r ,,::;istance. She slat;ed
- al:u:'ec chi]dren in the
t.,•;es al:o~C nine months
= ceccrrr.d in November.
•:,~~ cr;anizaCion to wort:
rc;l,;r:t is selected, they
• • ~ r t ~ to i:e able Co come to
volunteers' Cime and
- ytth anything they are
1~ .. ar.d ] i;hting. He
t•• 11 paved spaces and seine
• , : r.:;t. be so much pavemrnC
r: rrrc Lo a, prove of thi.°,
- ., .,., ed which is 65 feet
,.rr v~r, with Che view of
•::+nq area from his second
00 fr.eh from Che start
•• ,• ;lt.h Lrees; Lhat• Russ is
r,. ;•anrcrned because t:he}~
____ ...{.» nm window. He
w.r=•. Hcrry's proprrL•y which
•.n t.op of Che hil] marked
1/18/88
88-120
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANtdING CONCUSSION, January 18, 1988
He stated Lhe combined corporate volunteer project will allow them to put the
utilities underground. Concerning the parl:ing loL• lighting, he stated they are
willing to eliminate the lighting i;o mitigat•e those concerns. He stated they L•ried
to make this an attractive development and that they will maintain the ranch
atmosphere by retaining L•he corrals and fences and there will be shudders on the
windo~:s and the garage wiL•li the tact: room and overhang with stalls for the horses is
consistent i:ith Lhe rands motif. He stated there will be large open spaces and
better maintained and manicured open spaces; and that: property values will. no t•
decrease, but shoul~ increase because their property will. be significantly improved.
THE PUBLIC HEARItdG l9AS CLOSED.
Chairman Messe asked what: type of trees and how large the trees will be which they
will be planting on the other side of the parking lot. Mr. Eurbner stated because
of the corporate volunteer effort, they leave an opportunity to leave all. of this
donated and were planning to nave 29-inch lox t;rocs initially, and some ground cover
in oilier local;ions.
Mr. McQuaid stated one noighbor even wanted fruit trees and he would be willing to
plant fruit trees.
Commissioner Carusillo asked the maximum number of staff on any given shift. A1r.Mc
Quaid responded at it:s ]iighest P.1.1. shift (2 p.m. i;o 10 p.m. ) ti~ere are 3 staff
members in each residence and they are relieving two staff members f.rem the A.M.
shift, so l:hat; t:ould be five far ea c'' unit, for a Cotal of 15, and professional
staff includes a child psychiatrist, a^ D1. D., licansed clinical social. worl:or for
each cottage,(3), a program dircct:or, liimsel.f and an office manager, a clerical
worker anc a full time cook. He added they also lave visitors or social workers
from the County and also four ranch vehicles. He stated for staff purposes, t•he:e
are 22, counting the change of shift. He stated Chey have sL•aff meetings and he
needs t;o accommodate everyo,te at the ranch; and Lhe}~ do 90 hours training per year
per employee and t;hop also have auxiliary who come onto the ranch. He stated the
road is i3 feet wide now and will be expanded to 20 feet.
Chairman tfesse stated ti:o earl:inc lot does not need Lo t:e completely flooded uiL•h
lighting and Mr. Mc Quaid stated they uil]. provide whatever will provide ti:e least
visual contact for the neigitt:ors. iie stated ti:e}~ ::ill 1;2 eliminatinc, fl.oodligitts
currently on L•op of the building and arc putting in pathway lights and he would not
see a prola.em doing L•hat• in the parking l.ot. He respond..=.d L•o Commissioner Carusillo
that people are currently parkin; all over the grass. He pointed out the areas on
the exhibit displayed.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if the aspitalC could be tinted or. whether or nof; the
r of spaces could be reduced. Mr. Buttner stated if it is acceptable L•o the
C. ; of Anaheim, ti;ey could use something like "L•urf block" wlticit lets the grass
gro:r through it and the cars would still be seen, but ulten I:hey are not• there, the
parking lot would still loot: like grass.
Commissioner Carusillo stated tl:e ligltt•ing concerns have been addressed and ti:e
suggestion for "turf blocks" sounds acceptable and he did nof• l:nou ]1ou much
additional traffic would be generated by adding 10 children, and t;bought all the
concerns have been addressed.
1/18/88
88-121
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar' 18, 1988
Mr. McQuaid stated Canyon Acres does not: desire Y.o Have a large institution and ].0
additional children seems to be a reasonable expansion. Chairman Dlesse staL•ed t;he
propert}~ is only large enough to accommodate a certain number of children and
thought the pei;itioner is hearing from the neighborhood that; they may be approaching
that: limit.
Commissioner Herbst stated for as long as he has been on t•he Planning Commission, hp
has not: Beard one complaint about that propert;}~, and that lie leas no prol;lem with
L•his request.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deput;}~ City Attorne}', stai:ed Condition No. 16 perL•ains to the
standard 12-foot• high maximum downlighting and the applicant has said they can
eliminate the lighting and the Commission should change that condition. He staled
also there was discussion about turf bl.ocic and thought the Cit}~ would have no
objeci;ion unless it would be in a place where file Fire Department migltt• be going,
and that that should be added as a condiL•ion. Ho staked there was a ruesl:ion
regarding underground uL•ilities and tlir_ way the conditions are presently drafted,
underground utilities would only he reouired for the new construction.
Chairman Messe asi:ed if staff has any ohject•ion t;o modifying t;he i;iming specified in
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6, L•o prior to occupanc}~. Greg Hastings, Senior Pl.naner,
responded staff would have no problem with l;haL• change.
ACTIOtQ: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst,
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Conunission has reviewed Che
proposal. t;o expand an e:isting boarding and lodging home for 30 dependent children,
(formerly proposed for 40 dependenC children), including the construction of two
additional. ten l:edroom residences, a garage storace building and conversion of an
existing ranch house into an office and multipurpose administrative building on an
irregul.arl}'-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.6 acres located
apprcximately 300 fee t• soul;herly of the intersection of Arboretum Road and Quintana
Drive, and further described as 233 Quintana Drive (Canyon Acres Residential
Center); and does hereby approve the Negative Decl.arat•ion on the basis L•hat it has
considered t•he proposed Negative Decl.aratior. together with any comments received
during the public revie:: process and further finding on L•lie basis of the Initial
Study and any comment;s received that there is no substantial evidence that• the
project; ::ill. have a significant effecL• on the environment.
Commissioner Hoydstun offered Resolution No. PC 88-3] and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Analicim City Planning Commission does hereb}~ grant Conditional. Use
Permit iQo. 2978, pursuant to Ar~atieiro Municipal. Code Sections 18.03.030.030 tl~rou;h
18.03.030.035, for a maximum of Cliirt•y (30) clii].dren, and subject to
Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations and including modifications to Condition
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 t;o lie required "prior t;o occupancy", and a condition recuiring
that t:he parking lot: lighting shall be low pathway lights no higher than 3 feet, and
that "turf bl.oclc" lre used for paving of file parking l.ot and that Lhe trees to be
p1anL•ed adjacent to L•he par)cing l.ot area small be a minimum size of 24-inch box
trees.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMPIISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBS'I', MESSE
MC BURNEI'
NOES: COMPIISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOtiERS: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City ALL•orney, present;ed the righL• Y.o appeal the Planning
Commission's decision within 22 days to the CiL•y Council. 1/]8/88
88-122
MINUTES, ANAHEII4 CITY PLANNING COMPfISSION, January 18, 1.968
ITEM N0. 14. CEQA_NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2979•
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMES W. DENNEiiY ACID CYNTHIA L. DENNEHY, 1915 Orangewood
Avenue, Orange, CA 92668. AGENTS: ONSHORE INVESTMENT LAi:D INC., 110 W. Ocean
Boulevard, x354, Long Beac:~, CA 90802. Propert;y descril:ed as a recL•angularl.y-
shaped parcel of land consisL•ing of approximately 1.2 acres located approximat;ely
260 fee t• north of t•hc centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and 630 feet west of the
centerline of State College Boulevard and further described as 2060 S. Santa Cruz
Avenue.
RrquesL• t-o permit; a child care nursery for a maximum of 154 children.
There xas no cne indicaCinq their presence in opposition Co subjects request; and
although t;he staff report; was net, read at t:he public hearing, it: is referred to and
made a part of t:he minutes.
Karen Barker, 2875 1Q. Avalon Drive, Anai:eim, agent:, stated 1:ite}~ ace request•.ing to
establish a child care center in the Orany~~:ood Metro Business Center in property
which is note vacant; Chat Chere could be 169 children, of which 36 could be infants;
and that they :ranC to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a wee L- v.ith the intent: of
acccmmedat•ing the UCT aedical Center staff.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Comnissioner BoydsCun asked about; the 24-hour operation. Ffs. Barker responded a
c:iiild :yould onl}~ l:e permitted t;c stay 16 hours at one time as regulated by the
Social. Services Department of the State of California. She explained they will aslc
i:arents to only leave them for 1.0 hours, but they can stay ]5 hours in an emergency,
l:ut must be picked up ir. the 161;h hour.
ACTION: Commissioner Mc Burney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydst•un,
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission itas reviewed the
proposal to permit. a child rare nursery for a maximum of 164 children on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land ronsisCing of approximately 1.2 acres, located
approximately 260 feet north of the cent;erl.ine of Orangewood Avenue and 630 feet
west of the cent•erl.ine of State College Boulevard and further described as 2060 S.
Santa Czuz Avenue; and does hereby aprrove the Negative Declaraticn on the basis
that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaraticn to ^, ether t:it•h any comments
received during file public review pror-2ss and further finding on the basis of the
Initial. Study and any comments received that there is no ~ul;sP.antiai evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on Cite environmenC.
Commissioner ;9c Burney offered Resol.uCien tdo. PC 88-32 and moved for its passage and
adopCion that t:he Anaheim City Plannine, Commission does here b}+ grant; Conditional Use
Permit No. 2979, l:ursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 tlircugll
18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental. Committee Recommendations.
On roll ca ]. 1. the foregoing resolution was passed by t;he following vcte:
AYES: COAfMISSIOidERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUiJ, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE
MC BURNEY
PIOES: COMMISSIO;:cRS: NONE
ABSE27T: COi•1MISSIONERS: t10NE
Malcolm Slaugiit;er, Depul:y City ACtorney, presented the right to appeal the Planning
Commissicn's decision within 22 days L•o ti]c City Council. 1/18/88
4
88-123
MINU4'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar 18, 1.988
ITEPt N0. 15. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT td0. 2980.
PUBLIC HEAPING. OWNERS: ROBERT F. LOTT, JR. AND PATRICIA J. LOTT, 2830 E. Mira]oma
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property is a recL•angularl}~-shaped parcel of land
cor.sisL•ing of approximat:cly 0.86 acre, located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue
approximately 500 feet easL• of Lhe centerline cf Blue Gum Street and further
described as 2830 EasL• Miral.oma Avenue.
Request to permit accessory retail. sales in conjunct;ion t;it:li an exisL•ing
contractor's suppl}, Lusiness.
The-re was no one indicating heir presence in opposiCion to subject- request; and
although the staff report was not; read aL• t;he public hearing, iC is referred t;o and
made a part of. t;lie minutes-
Robert LcLt, agent, explained he has been at this. location for 7-1/2 years and wants
to expand file i:uainess t;o extent a service to the customers on open accounts by
being able t;o make a sai.c of small. type building materials. He staged he would not;
be doing an}~ advertising to t;he general puhl.ic; however, 1;hey do have customers on
an open account trizo start wort: at 5:30 a.m. and occasionally need to purchase
someL•hing Bice nails to do t;heir worn. He responded t;o Commissiener Fel::hus that
the} do charge sales tax.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTIOi;: Commissioner Bouas offered a mot;ion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and
MOTION CARRIED tl~aC t;he Anaheim Cif;}~ Planning Commission iias reviei:ed the prcpcsal
to permit accessory retail gales in conjunction «ith an existing contractor's supply
business on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.86
acre, located on the south side of tdiraloma Avenue, approximat<ly 400 feet east of
the centerline of Blue Gum Street and further described as 2830 East; Miral.cma
Avenue; and does lrerel;y approve file Neyat.ive Declaration o.^. the basis L•haL• it has
considered Lhe proposed Negative Declaration together with any comment;s received
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of L•he Init;ia].
St;udy and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence L•hat the
project will have a significant- effect on the environment.
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution ~:o. PC 88-33 and moved for its passage an3
adoption LhaL the Anaheim City Planning Commissior. does iierelry gran L• Conditional llse
Permit No. 2980, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal. Code Secticns 18.03.030.030 through
16.0.030.035, subject Lo Interde7artment;al Committee Recommendations.
On roll call. L•he foregoing resoluL•ion was passed by the followin- te:
AYES: COM*SISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE
MC BURNEY
NOES: C0:4MI~ iIONERS: NOi4E
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOtIE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City AtCOrney, presentee the right to appeal the Piar.ning
Commission's derision within 22 days L•o the City Council.
1/18/88
~''` 88-124
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jariuar 18, 1988
ITEM N0. 16. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-58-18
AND VARIANCE N0. 3710.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SPIROS GIANNOUTSOS, 1969 ALABAMA LANE, PHG 15216,
PENNSYLVANIA, WILLIAM T. AND MELANIE C. BEAND, 10712 HASTINGS DRIVE, VILLA~NAHEIM,
CA 92667, AND RAYMOND JAMES ANDELSA PARADA LINEHAN, 791 N. EAST STREE'%;
CA 92805. AGENTS: NARAYAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 12611 NES4PORT AVENUE,
SU;TE 204, TUSTIN, CA 92680. AR'TN: BANJIT NARAYAN. Property described as an
irregaalarl -siaaped parcel of land cotasisting of approximately 223 feet on tlae
wes` side ,f East Street, approximately 100 feet souL•la of t:lae centerline of Nortla
Street and further described as 741, 737, and 755 Nortla East Street.
Reclassification: RS-7200 to P.I•f-1200
Request: tdaiver of maximum structural laeigi~t to construct a 3-story, 25-unit
apart;ment; complex.
It was noted the petiL•ioner lass requested to withdraw subject petition.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst cffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney
and MOTI011 CARRIED that Chu Anaheim Cif;y Planning Commission does hereby accept
the peL•itioner~- equest to withdraw subject petitions.
ZTEM N0. 17. L' '• NEGATIVE DECLARATION, 1'..ECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-31 AND
VARIANCE N0. 375
PUBLIC HEARIC7G. OWNERS: 13222 CHAFMAN, 420I ld. Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA
92668. AGENT: ?fIKE NAWL:., ANDREW HOMES, 4000 MacArthur Blvd, TM68G, Newport
Beach, CA 92660. Property described as ~n irregularly-shaped parcel cf land
consisL•ing of approximatel}~ 3.62 acres located at tla~ southeast corner of
Orangewood and Lewis S~~reet, ar:d further described as 2100 South Leoris Street.
Reclassification: P.5-A-43,•000 to RM-1200
Waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural
iaeiglat, maximum site coverage and minimum side yard setback (deleted) to
construcL• a 162-unit.. 3 and 4 story "affordable" apartment complex.
Continued from flue meeting of January 4, 1988.
There were approximately 43 persons indicating their presence in opposition to
subject request and altlaougla t:lae staff report was not read at flue public hearing
it is referred Lo and made a part of flue minutes.
PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION:
A). Marshall, agent, explained they did meet uitla flue neighbors and 47 families
were represented in one meeting, and as a result the plans have been redesigned
to provide a 150-foot setback from flue adjacent property .line across Lewis
Street•.; that• the side yarn srYi+icS: waiver was eliminated by providing the 5-foot
setback; : at. ta:< height :,as l.uwered from 43 feer; to 35 feet by recessing the
parking; that ttae units were redesigned and all corridors eliminated from alas
interior and flue 3-story flats on Lop of tlae decl: were eliminated; and tiaere are
no balconies on the third f'.oor; and that more open area a.as provided, and L•he
deck structure was redesigned eliminating any decking tha: would }nave '.0 5e
removed in tla~ future when they have to make the dedication to CALTRANS.
1/18/88
,~
BB-1?` l
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 1988 ..
He stated some ot•])er compromises were made to make file project more acceptal,ln to
the neighbors and they gave the building a st;gipped effect l:y relocating units^to
the deck area and also one wall wi1.7. ire raised to sire feet for one neighbor ',
provide more privacy; that "no parking" signs would be requested for the sire°t; ~.
and to soften t:he blanl: walls, they agreed to put a vine-L•ype plant; on L•he walls;
that the driveway was realigned directly across from Anchor Stree::; and th a Che
color was changed to earthtones with reddish bile roofs. He staged at t;he cr~l
the meeting c;ith the homeowners, the neighbors were generally ir. favor °efelrenc:c
revisions; but that they have since been notified that the neighbors' p
is "no apartments."
OPPOSITION
Ann Raney, 2121 Anclrur St;reef, stated she o:ill ]~n the representative of the Paul
Revere Elementary Sd:ool nn t;he Citizens Blue Ribbon Committee that was formed by
ti:e school. district to loo}: into school. facilities and boundaries and long-range
needs of the school 9istrict with emphasis on construction projects,
redevelopment projects and changes in the demographics of the city. She sL•ated
after the lasL• meeting, she contacted Dr. Mel Lopez, Superintendent of Schools,
and informed him of this project and he had not been notified officiall}~ or
unofficially of this project. She stated he was so concerned that he picked up
Dir. Perez, Principal of the Paul Revere School, and visited t;he site and called
her back and asked her to relay the following information t;o the Planning
Commission: "Ti,is is presently the most overcror;ded of all the Anaheim school
areas; and brat the onl}~ area avai]alrle for children now is in t}:e fringe areas of
Anaheim, and only a few of those schools h'jve room for affordLba~ boi}ding°W tfoeYe
brought onto t;he playground areas to be used for classrooms; 9
are businc over 600 st:udenCs out: of this area to Madison ar.d Keye Schools and
they have no more room and they rill have t;o be bused even further; that all
schools arc open and there are nc closed schools that can be reopened ant there
is no Land available Co built ~-' nc:k schools; that: it costs $560 per year per
student to bus them out of~tlris .:ei jhhorl:oost.emdatoaeyoarl.yr coeCSCfr$181t,g9p ne
could generate 329 new stu..ent~ info the y
Chat of fire money a builder mr:t pay in advance of a project to the school.
district, it is sp].iC 50/50 ..th Che L-igh school district and elementar}~ school
district and lry regulation, C'.at ,~onoy cannoC be used for transportation of
students and can only be us:.; to 1?uilc new schools and refurbish older ones. She
scat;ed she could like the F':nning Commission to give serious consideration to
hoc this project would im?~~~ tae schools.
Mrs.Raney sl:ate~ she cont:~:l;ed the people who manage the crematorium, 'fom {9eber,
who is a dOCtOr of irioch~m'::t:ry, ~ toxol.ogist• and bio-chemist and is well-knocrn
as a consultant on creme, riums and established limits of contaminants for NASA
in Che space programs; that ae identified some major problems ar.~_ one is
pollution of air resulting from incineration of bodies wiricl: are very hazardous
such as carbon monoxcide, ashes or acid rains, and mercury. She e;:plained Che}~
measured tonight and it is 329 feet from the crematorium to this project. She
stated i.t i=_ noC a good health situation to build an apartment project this close
t;o the crematorium.
Commissioner Mc Borne, •i ..~:ed I:e finds it very unusual Chat t;he pollutants are nob
taken care of before L-eing released into t;he atmosphere, and Lhat is an impact
that should lre investiy~:ad.
]/18/88
~' t4RR 88-126 I
Ml~a:i1-„ ANA:iEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOt7, Jar,uar 18,
_. ~
Ms.Raney stated Cho u.:macorium is regulated by the air pollution board and the
Dcpart:ment of Health and they do stacl: checks very fr~ruent:ly and I;hey are cell. ~t
within the guidelin^~, but this is normal; and that the state regulations say
crematoriums can be located in cemeteries wil.h some exceptions into fua=ea1 She
homes, but: Che only other exception has been in a heavy manufacL•uring
aUULU Ur. 19eher s:onld he :;'-o:: L~ til:eal: Ln the Commission and that he was note
.,mare of the project being proposed.
Commissioner Boydstun asked hosr far the crematorium is located from the eris:.ing
residences. Gary Raney responded when they found out about this coroeerL ]land it
measured the distance from the crematorium to the edge of subject p p )'
was 348 feet to the property line and 358 t:c the first building and it is about:
900 to 1000 feet to their homes.
Ann Raney presented phot:ographt of the site and the crematorium anweehe vSheing
from the smoke stacks which is done about: 3 limes a day, 6 days
stated she also l;as two letters from neighbors who could not aLt:end who are
opposed t:o the project.
Bryan Roe, 2108 S. Anchor, rob locrn`dirnclLl.yltilntottl a uindoz:srofathisuprojectls He
project: with t:he smoke being
stai:ed Llie developer is asking for 13 units as a bonus for affordable housing an
thaL• would overcrowd t:L•eir area for 13 affordable units and ilnedir~cr'Cly acroos
"for rent" signs in that area and there arc 240 unity going
the street. lle stated he feels Chis would he everbuil.ding Lhe area acctdas aoL
think Cite araa could not; sustain the project, and looking aL the proj
prospective tenant, he could not find one quality ghat would dray: him i:o that
complex.. However, there are many things Chat: would drive him ointinsuoaLatheyP
crematorium, Lhe bus terminal which is adjacent Co Che rear, p 9
start Llieir buses at: 6:30 a.m. and run Ll:e engines for a couple of hours and the
diesel fumes would come over that wall and into the back units. He added he fe1L•
l:ecause of the negative aspect, of Chew units, that the developer could not fill
the unit,, and t,•ould start lowering L•hc rents and that would attract lower income
families and in t:he long run fe1C Che building will become rundown and will.
become a tenement project undesirable t:o the neighborhood.
Stewart Catch, 2149 Anchor, thanked Lhe developers for meeting wit:h L•he neighbors
and Januar}~ 6 and added they received the new plaarkin Jsnaces anda286karedt:andem
Lhe following observations: that: there are 408 p 9 P
spaces vhi.ch means a car behind a car and they feel. t:he people will. find it is
easier Lo part: on the st;reeL• than Co shuffle cars; that the} are ruesLSedthat
provide 405 and they are proposing 408 which leaves 3 spaces for g area, buC the
t;llere is a 6-foot: liigl~ wall along Lhe cemetery, and the bus staging ,rage is
staff report does not; even mention t:he bus terminal.; that Lhe parking g
r;ubL•erranean, 6 feet l;elo:r ground and 6 feet; above ground, which mai:es trite roof
line level vith Lhe top of the wall; tPcat they have a 46-unit building on the
souL•h next ~.o L•he cemetery and 23 of those units face south so tenant's view
would be of the cemetery; and t;hab they will also he able i;o see the smoke Erom
Cite crematorium; that on t;lte east: there is a 36-unit building and 18 units face
east and will. loot: at the 16G0 to 2000 tourists standing in line t;o ;et: on the
buses 7 days a week, with up to 25 tour buses coming into that staL•ion and 6
permanently sit there, some start;ing their engines at 6:30 a.m. for at least: two
hours creating diesel. fumes and he thought t;he tenants will complain, and L•he
alternate view will. be of t~.he Santa Ana Freeiray. He stated there are no freeway
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMPfISSION, January 18, 1988 88-127
sound barriers in this area and also that the plans ara to widen the Santa Ana
freewa}' which would increase the noise to these apartments; that; there is a
40-uniL• building on the north and 20 of those units face north, and will look at
the industrial. are, on Orangewood, be L• there is 1:he future overpass on Orangewood
which will become a major artery to the Plal:inum Triangle. He stated they wil.i
lose 35 parking spaces and 3-1/2 double trash enclosures which is noted in C•he
staff report as two double trash enclosures; that they will also lose two
stairways to the sub-p3rlcing garage and an entrance and exit from Orangewood inCc
the complex, put;bing more traffic onto Lewis St;Let. He st;abed they would
question hoer the people wlto live in those 61 uniC:., are going to feel about those
adversities, and was sure they will. complain. He added mosC apartment• complex
arc designed t:o loolr ir.t;ard at their own rourt}'ards, etc. and do not; deal. with
surrounding elements or changes. He stated iC appears this project was not
designed with t:he fuL•ure changes proposed in t;his area Gerken into consideration
and with it;s occupants and neighbors in mind.
Mr. Couch stated it Chis project is approved they would recommend "no parking at
an}~time" on both sides of Lewis Street, from Orangewood to Simmons and on the
south side of Orangewood from Spinnai:er Co trite corner of Lewis; ghat there is no
parking currently from Soinnalcer west: for abouC 1.10 feet; however, Lhey would
request this project be denied, boL•h the reclassification and variance.
Linda Iiilton, 2136 Anchor Street, staL•ed tlte}~ did l;ry Co wort: xitlt the developer.
She stated her home backs up Co Lewis Street and on Wednesday, January 6 from 7
a.m. t•o 8 a.m. s}te counted 579 cars going north and south; from 3:38 t•o 5:17 p.m,
1,024 cars going north and south; Thursday, January 7, 4:00 to 5:30 p.m., 1,102;
and durine this time there is construction on Orangewood and Che street is
closed. Slte continued on Januar}' ]2, 7 a.m. to 8:05 0 681, 11:30 to 72:30 - 149;
4 p.m. t;o 5:30 p.m. 964, tot: a .l of 1893. She stated adding approximately 915
vehicles from this complex and the: one presently being built aczoss the street
will have a big impact on the intersection; thaC presenter y during the evening
peals hour, you cannot safely exit Anchor due to traffic beinc backed up 500 feet
down Lewis due Co the stop sign aC the T-intersection, noL•ing it is not a 4-;:ay
stop, but a t-intersection aC Orangewood and Lewis; that during that: time o day,
both entrances will be blocked and approximately 75% of this traffic turns lef~:.
Mars. Hilton stated even with a 1.eE1;-turn lane, traffic will st;ill. be backed up
because t•Itere is stall a flow of traffic on Orangewood; that traffic entering
from the temporary entrance on Orangewood Graveling west will. have similar
problems due to the 3-way slop aC Manchester and Orangewood. She stated as the
freeways turn into more gridlock, people arc seeking alternate routes which means
surface streets; Chat• t•he exit off Che freewa}~ south for Manchester and Hasler,
commuters exit using Manchester and Hasher Co exit: Co hewis or Raster I;o Cite 22
freeway west and bypass the interchange. She stated traveling east on Chapman,
you cannot get on the 5 freeway north t:hich means using Hasler, Lewis or
Manchester to get; to the Katella on ramp and as development; around Che Cit;y
Center and Orange increases, Che 1;raffi.c on these Anaheim streets will continue
to increase; C•ItaC Lewis and t;lte residential streets of Spinnaker and Simmuns are
also alternate routes for people to miss the traffic banked up at Chapman and
Hasler and t•he intersection of Lewis and Chapman; Chat vehicle traffic is not the
onl.}' ttraffic to increase in C•lteir single-family neigltborltood, so ttas ttte foot
traffic and as apartments come farther down Orange to L•Ite easL•, fooL• traffic itas
increased down L•lteir residential sL•reet•s witicit causes a loss of sens.^^. of security
and they can no longer just leave t•he garage door open and their front doors
~::loci:ed and Che crime r.!•.e has increased and people are scared because when Chey
leave and return, they don't Y.now what Lhey will find.
1/18/88
88-128
MINUTE_ S`ANAH CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGN, Januar 18, 1988
Mrs. Hilton stated they would also like permit parking down their cesidential
streets because they are losing their guest parking from t•he overflow from tl:e
apartments already on Oranglnnaldcer becausetedepapartmelntsghavieenoifacilities fors
in front of the homes on Sp'
people to work on their own vehicles and she thought an underground garage would
be a fire hazard for people to wort. on vehicles.
Sl:e stated their single-family neighborhood is being invaded by vehicle traffic
and foot• traffic and is tieing enclosed by apartments on three sides and if this
reclassification is granted, t:lie Commission leaves them at tl:e mercy of tl:e City
of Orange to the south, and pointed out the developer has made an offer to
purd:ase the homes located from Manchester to Lewis and they bolder Chapman in
Orange and that would add more traffic with one owner who owns six I:omes decides
to sell.
Sl:e stated sl:e feels as tt:ougl: i:er single-family neigl:bo-i:ood is being squeezed
out of Anaheim and turned over to developers and asked thaC this request be
denied.
She stated Mr. Heber of Greyline Bus Tours was present at 1:30 today, but could
not return tonigl:L ana tie did not know if Lhe Commission realized that during the
summer months, 1000 to 1800 people go through that Greyline Germinal and they
pick up people from the major hot:ell in Buena Park and Anaheim and they start the
l:us engines at 6:30 a.m. a,:d continue to run 25 Muses a day. Sl:e stated tl:e
residents do have problems with the buses and not being able to open their
xindows because of the fumes, but they work with Greyline and they have the
drivers move the buses, and they do work with them to solve that problem. She
added Mr. weber did express concern about security for iris buses.
Gary Raney, 2121 Anchor, presented a sheet and copy of a drawing displayed. He
;fated page 2 of the staft report refers to the net buildable roved tl:atatlese
rl:ey feel this area is too dense now with plans currently apP
clan^y es that are goiny^ to take place will drive what tl:e people from the park
into their area to play; that: the net buildable area is not a6dacresdwilltbehlost
developer's plan calls out 3.62 acres and of that basically Melrose
due to right of ways and that: area leas already he deeded to the Cit}~ by
Abbey; that one are will be lost due to the Lut:ure overpass planned; and the
project is not being developed on 3.62 acres; and tt:at leaves 3.U2 acres or a
loss of 26,600 square feet; and that drops the area buildable to 8l2 sa. fC. and
Codr requires 1200 sq. ft. and Code requires net density is 44.7% and this goes
up t;o 53.4%, and that Lewis is going to be widened and parking spaces will be
lost and using tl:e additional land as a buffer before tl:e loss, I:ut it will
actually be 8~% covered with buildings and parking spaces will he reduced to from
408 to 373 wi:ich is below Code. He stated I:e based l:is study on tl:e revision and
reducing tl:e area to 3 acres means tl:e maximum number of apartments that: could be
built is 109 and xiti: the 21% densit}' t:cnus, there could he 1.36 units. tie added
ti:ey are fed up with apartments in that area and they would like to see i1:
rezoned Co RM-2400 or RS 5000, low medium density, and added tl:r_y are not againsC
the growth and would like to see maybe some RM-2400, RM-3000 or RS 5000 and some
light manufacturing.
He stated they had considered a school., but because of the crematorium felt a
school could noC be appropriate.
11]8/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 1988 88-129
He stated they would like the Commission t:o take a serious look at the numbers
that are used to calculate the density and there is not 3.b2 acres and this is
Loo dense.
Mr. Hanna thanked the homeowners even though they had a change ?.n heart; that.
regarding the elementary school, they have na control over the school district
and the more developments provided means they will Dave t:o provide more schools
and they do participate by payiny Cite fees and in this case, $250,000.
Concerning polluCicn and smoke from t:he crematorium, he stated the EPA regulates
tl;at and if Chey are not in conformance with the laws, they should L•e closed and
he will invest;iyate that and make sure the groper action is Caken; that it will
not only affect the health of t:he people living in these unites, taut will. affect:
the heal ti: o° the people living in the homes.
Mr. Hanna stated they arc offering ]: affordable Units and are using the slat;e
mandates for Chat. Concerning C!:e bus terminal, he did not think that will have
any impact: on their project.
He stated Chet' are providing 400 parkin^, spaces and Code requires 405; that the}
are also providing 84 guests spaces. He stated the views the tenants will have
Cc look at: is not really a concern and is someChing their management; will have to
deal with.
Concerning t:he traffic on Lewis SCreet, Paul Singer, Traftic Enrineer, stated as
revealed at: the lasC meeting, tl:e following da}~ ite insCructred iris staff to
investigate Chat intersecCion t:o provide a separate left:-turn lane on northbound
Lewis StreeC at Orangewood, and also the possibility of a 3-way strop sign at
Orangewood and Lewis to alleviaCe that traffic and he i~ auaitiny results of Cl:at
study.
Mr. Hanna stated this project: will force t:lie proper study of t:he traffic and
whatever is required will be provided and Chat. will be an im,,rovemenC Co the
area. He stated he wculd agree to the "no parking" on Lewis and L•hat could be a
restriction in their central agreements. He stated he did not think crime would
be increased because of Chis projecC l:ecause they .gill have qualify tenants. He
stated everybody mentioned the concern t:haC CALTkP.NS is going to Cake about: 1/2
an acre from Chis site; and that is a 10-year plan and Ctieir siCe is 3.91 acres
now and after they take their 1/2 acre, the} will have al:out 3.3 aces and
CALTRANS will rot Cake this property wiChouC payiny for it; and when Lhey do that,
there will be a public ,~>~ring, and if rhey lose 35 parking spaces, they will
have Co reduce the number of units and he did not see thaC as a problem, and
noted Citere is no definite plan l;y CALTRANS.
Mr. Hanna state6 this was a very difficult property to design and they strayed 1.50
feet aw,:, from the single family homes to provide Choir privacy and worked with
them to provide everything they aces looking for.
THE PUALIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mr.F3urney asked if Mr. Hanna plans Co puC a retaining wall along Cho
future right of way and Cry to maintain Cho parking spaces or it he waiCiny Co
see what CALTRANS is going Co do in thaC slope area.
1/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIT)' PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 1988 88-130
Mr. Singer staged this is not a CALTRANS project; ti:at t:he bridge will be
constructed by Anatreim and Anaheim will (rave to purchase the right: of way and
build Che bridge.
Concerning the slope, Mr. Marshall stated righC now they could like to wor{c with
the slope, buC will do ~lratevcr is appropriate. He stated !re understands this is
a 10-year program and it could be underpass or an overpass or they ma}~ geC to
keep the property or lease it.
Responding Co Chairtaan N,essc, Mr. Singer stated he did not see any problem Witt:
eliminat;ing parking on Lewis Street and it is being done all the time. He stated
he will. just have Co process an ordinance Co Cif:y Council.
Commissicner Mcl]urney stated sound attenuation along the free::ay is a City
requirement and they put in double-pane uindous, etc. Mr. Hanna stated the staff
reporC indicates they xili have t:o comply with appropriate sound attenuation
measures, ar.d they will have Co hire a consultant and comnly wiCl: the
recommendations.
rr.airman Messe asked if the notices are sent Co Cho school districts or the
schools involved. Greg Hastings responded Ire Clrougl:t notices are sent t;o t:lre
school districts. Ctrairman Messe st:aCed ire is very disappointed xhen the school
district, do not: respond ar.d the citizens contact them and they respond in Cl:is
fashion ar.d he felt: the School districts have Co geC involved.
Greg fiasbing~ stated staf[ did yet a general comment Erom the school district on
a previous projecC. Commissicner Hertat staged the schools used to provide a lot
of information; however, now they arc geCting t:he Eees for every development.
Commissioner HerL•sC stated this property is designated for RM-1200 developmenC
and that he would say the developer has done everything he could on this project
try providing fire 150-Foot setbac;; and Ciris prc;.ert}• is isolated and tt:at he would
in favor of this development. He asked if Mr. Hanna would make an irrevocable
offer o[ dedication of the right: of way on Orargewood since that: is a City of
Anaheim project, pointing out he is talking about the slope area.
Mr. Hanna responded he would be willing to mal;e Chat irrevocahle offer-
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a moCion, seconded by Commissioner 8ouas,
and MOTION CARRIED Clrat the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed Cl:e
proposal Lo r~classiiy subject propert}' from the RS-A•-43,000 (Residential,
Agricultural) 7.cne t:o the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone and t;o
construct a 162-unit, 3 and 4-story "affordable" aparC•ment complex with waivers
of minimum buildinc siCe area per dxellir.g unit, maximum structural height,
maximum site coverage and minimum side yard set;-:ack on an irrecularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.62 acres located at the southeast
corner of Orangewood Avenue and Lewis Street, and further described as 2100 South
Lewis StreeC; and does hercUy approve the Negative Derlaratior. on the basis that
iC has considered CL•e pr ~r'e~: NegaCive Declaration together with any comments
received during thr_ public rrview procoss and further finding on the basis of t;he
7niCial Study and any comments received thaC there is no substanCia] evidence
that the 1:rojecC will have a significanC effect: on the environment.
1/18/80
~-
88-]31
MINLfES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 1988 ___~_
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-34 and moved Eor its passage and
adoption thaC the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe:. hereby Reclassification
No. 87- 88-31, sul~jecL• to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, including
a condition requiring an irrevocat~le offer of dedication for the slope area on
Orangewood for street widening purposes.
Commissioner Carusillo asked about• parki^g being eliminated on Lewis SL•reet and
Paul. Singer explained thaL• does not need to be a condition of this action because
he will handle it adminisCratively and request an ordinance be prepared and
processed and the whole process Lakes about tthree months.
On roll ca71, Che foregoing resolution r:as passed by the following voL•e:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST
MESSE, MC BURNF.Y
NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Mr. Hanna asked if the number of units will be reduced based on the irrevocable
offer of dedical;ion. Commissioner iierbst explained flee irrevocable offer of
dedication is a condition of approval. and Che City may not ever take it, but the
offer is there.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-35 and moved for is passage and
adoption that the Anaheim CiL•y Planning Commission does hereby grant ~laciance No.
3735 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the prope'L~y
such as size, shape, topography, loraCion or surroundings, wliicli do not apply
other identically zoned properties in tl~e vie-iniCy; and that strict: application
of the ?.oning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in identical zoning classification in t)te vicinity, and subject to
Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
On roll call flee foregoing resolution was passed by Cite following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GOUAS, BOYDS7'UN, CARUSlLLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MESSE, MC HURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CODfMISSi0NER5: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written righC to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to t;he City Council.
A yentleman from flee audience asked if flee developer will. leave Lo reduce the
number of units after Ile ]oses flee property. Commissioner Hoydst;un staged if he
puts in the retaining wall, he wou]d not have to lose Che spaces.
-1 2
MI E ANAHEIM ITY PLAt7NIN MMI I N n r 1 1
ITEM NO 18 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. VARIANCE N0. 3265 - Request from Dennis Dutt for retroactive extension
of time to comply with conditions of approval for Variance No. 3265,
property is located at 1005 North Whittier Street.
ACTION: Commissioner Mc Burney offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby approve a one-year extension of time
(retroactive to April 19, 1983, for Variance 3625.
g, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RECI.AS_SIFICATION AMENDED STUDY AREA.
Planning Commission consideration of an amended study area generally
bounded by Anaheim Boulevard, Cypress Street, the Union Pacific
F.ailway and La Palma Avenue, (excluding the area bounded by Wilhelmina
Street, Sabina Street, Sycamore Street and the Union Pacific Railway).
Linda Rios, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and
explained the study area boundaries should further be amended
excluding the frontage properties on the east side of Anaheim
Boulevard and the south side of La Palma Avenue.
Commissioner Hoydstun asked if there is a way to leave the parking
designation on Anaheim Boulevard for the commercial businesses,
explaining currently the parking designation is a part of the RM-1200
code, but not the RM-2400. Linda kios responded she thought the
RM-2900 code would have to be amended. Commissioner Hoydstun stated
that portion of Anaheim Boulevard is already developed with commercial
uses and the owners of the property fronting on Anaheim Boulevard can
use the portion across the alley for RM-1200 or parking. She stated
she thought this should be made a part of the RM-2400 zone.
Commissioner Herbst asked if the building would have to be moved if
Anaheim Boulevard is widened and if there would be enough property
left for commercial development. Commissioner Boydstun stated she has
already dedicated property and moved her building and that she
dedicated the alley, but the City of Anaheim did not accept the
dedication.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, explained the Code says that
the PDC Zone may be used for the parking of automobiles or for RM-1200
and added the Code could be amended.
Greg Kastings stated staff can review the RM-2900 zone and tie the PDC
zone to that zone, in addition to the RM-1200, and would basisally be
a separate zone. Malcolm Slaughter explained PDC stands foL Parking
District/Commercial.
1/18/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COtR~II$$ISii~. ~t1l~tj--i~~--•~~~ g98-1
A TI N: Commissioner Herbst otdet-d a an.+tiyr.. seconded by
Commissioner Bouas and M02IOM CARk3~ ±k.+! R3.e I-nnheim City Planning
Commission does hereby deta~rwiee th!t e~ a~+sdsaat to the Land Use
Element of the General Pleo to te~!si~~+!! the s~seaded study area
generally bounded on the north by L•s 3*M! Avenue, on the south by
Cypress Street, on the vest by pa,~.;« Po:e:evard and on the east by
the Union Pacific. Railway (e:cltrdisrJ ~.~*~ s~aa bounded on the north by
Wilhelmiaa Street, on the w st @y bt=~3~++ ~!r!et. oa the south by
Sycamore Street. and oa the east try t-.• '~~irA- Vacitic Railway) and all
frontage on the east aide of Anst-!ii a~,rl~°t~f4d~rtlea arehalrea Y side
of La Palma Avenue on t?se basil the. €~ ~
developed with commercial and Mkdi~ ~ntaty Residential land uses;
and further that the Planning CenrTiesi^~~ ~~erssinea that a
reclassification be initiated to toa~i~~ ~r=`00ityportion pA;tions
of the amended study area trove !tM=lip=' e3xve Street to the east,
consists of an area generally bove+s-~ M'
tdills Drive to the south, the w st atr~ ~t Claudine Street and
properties southerly of La Pe3au Av!t-v+o to Stf north, and Portion (B)
consists of an area generally bosA+S+'• t'7 Ml i-,.3miaa Street to the
north, both sides of Claudias Stt.~t t4 ttae vest, Cypress Street to
the south and Sabina Street (bet+~•a w;3tsiwlae Street and Sycamore
Street) and the Union Pacific Rs13re~ ti~ve.wea Sycamore Street and
Cypress Street) to the esat.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, t M ~•t1+~ vss +~tjouraed at 12:35 a.m.
Raspectta33y s~,~sltted,
EAith L. q~~t*e• ~+cretary
luseheip Ci~y t:+-aeisq Commission
a98-133
,mrg ANAHEIM CIT`~ yr ari7ING COhRdI$&~N -Tanuarv 18 1x88
A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CAF:RIED that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby determine l-hat an amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to redesignate the ~eIIOndtheusoutheby
generally bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue,
Cypress Street, on the west by Anaheim Boulevard and on the east by
the Union Pacific Railway (excluding the area bounded on the north by
Wilhelmina Street, on the west by Sabina Street, on the south by
Sycamore Street and on the east by the Union Pacific Railway) and all
frontage on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard; and on the south side
of La Palma Aven,ie on the basis that said properties are already
developed with commercial and Medium Density Residential land uses;
and further that the Planning Commission determines that a
reclassification be initiated to consider reclassifying two portions
of the amended study area from RM-1200 to RM-2400: Portion (A)
consists of an area generally bounded by Olive Street to the east,
Mills Drive to the south, the west side of Claudina StandtPortion (B)
properties southerly of La Palma Avenue to the north,
consists of an area generally bounded by Wilhelmina SresstStreeteto
north, both sides of Claudina Street to the west, Cyp
the south an~S Sabina Street (between Wilhelmina Street and Sycamore
Street) and the Union Pacific Railway (between Sycamore Street and
Cypress Street) to the east.
nn.1pURNMENT
Theze being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission