Minutes-PC 1988/11/21_ ... ... ~....-~ ... _,..~_..r.a~ ~.
t
A
MINUTES
REGULAR HEETING OP THE ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COl4lISSION
Date: November 21, 1988
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order at 10:00 a.m., November 21, 1988, by the Chairwoman in the Council
Chamber, a quorum being present and the Commission reviewed plans of the items
on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:45 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:30 a.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Bouas
Boydstun, Caruail,lo, Feldhaus, Herbst, McBurney,
Meese
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick
Arthur L. Daw
Paul Singer
Greg Hastings
Mary HcCloskey
Carol Flynn
Leonard McGhee
Helanie Adams
Alfred Yalda
Linda Rios
Edith Harris
Planning Director
Deputy City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Zoning Division Manager
Planning Division Manager
Deputy City Attorney
Senior Planner
Associate Civil Engineer
Associate Traffic Engineer
Assistant Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
AGENDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted
at 10: 00 a.m. on November 18, 1988, inside the display case located in the
foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk.
Published: Anaheim Bulletin - November 11, 1988
PUBLIC INPUT: Chairwoman Souse 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 offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Hesee and MOTION CARRIED, that the minutes of the meeting of
June 20, 1988 be approved as corrected.
MN112188 -1- 11/21/88
~.._
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 2
CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREHENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERHI_T NO. 3076 lREADVERTISEDI
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: EXXON CORPORATION, 1200 Smith Street,
Houston, Texas 77210-4415; AGENT: TAIT AND ASSOCIATES, 800 N. Eckhoff,
Orange, CA 92613; LOCATION: 27 1 East Lincoln Avenue.
To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales, fast food sales and
off-sale beer and wine with waiver of minimum enclosed retail sales area.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and
although the staff report waa not read, it is referred to and made a part of
the minutes.
Commissioner McBurney 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 this project would affect his livelyhood and pursuant to the
provisions of. the above Codes, declared to the Chairwoman that he waa
withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No.
3070, 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 McBurney left the Council Chamber.
Commissioner Hesse 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 he is a client of the operator/applicant and pursuant to the provisions of
the above Codes, declared to the Chairwoman that he was withdrawing from the
hearing in connection with Conditional Uae Permit No. 3076, 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
McBurney left tae Council Chamber.
Robert Fiscus, Tate and Associates, 800 N. Eckhoff, Orange, CA. He stated in
reviewing the staff ~,eport, Exxon concurs with all of the conditions with the
exception of the easterly a~oet driveway closure on Lincoln Avenue. He
explained they feel that the shape of the parcel and the arrangement laid out
would not be conducive to good on-site and off-site circulation and, therefore,
they request that this driveway be left open.
He stated he knows that the Commission has received some good input from
Mr. Paul Singer, City Traffic Engineer, but on this one item they are taking
exception.
11/21/88
A
1.
~.
MINUTES._ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Pace 3
He stated other than the above they have no real problems with the other
conditions. He explained additional bathrooms are going to be incorporated in
the convenience store. He added additionally, this will also increase the
square-footage of the bui.ldinq and, therefore, will no longer require a waiver
of the request for concurrence for the sale of alcohol. He stated based on the
approval or denial, it will be submitted during the building permit process.
He clarified Exxon will provide both men and women's reatrooms on this facility
as well as the last one they submitted.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if he said adding the bathrooms was going to
increase the square-footage so the waiver ie not required and Hr. Fiscus
indicated that was correct and explained by adding the additional bathroom they
will end up adding about 2 feet 8 inches to the sales area which will bring it
up to about to approximately 1,2:0 square feet.
Commissioner Carusillo asked about the criteria of the sales area and
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained the way the Code ie worded, it is
minimum retail sales area and that would be subject to interpretation.
Mr. Fiscus stated that was his question also, i.e., is it interpreted ae a
sales area or is it overall store area and indicated that was never clarified
by staff. He stated if you look at the staff report, it says they are
complying with 95i of the requirements.
Mr. Hastings stated it ie his understanding that the retail sales area would be
that area actually displaying items fur sale.
Commissioner Carusillo stated then it dose not conform in that aspect as far se
size and Mr. Hastings stated it ie staff's opinion that it will not add
square-footage to the retail salsa area.
Commissioner Bouas asked if the 1,144 square-foot of retail sales ie on the
plane and Mr. Hastings stated he would have to check the plane.
Mr. Fiscus stated the total square-footage of the building ie 1,063 as it sits
now and that includes the storage area, restrooma and the utility area.
Commissioner Bouas stated the service area is much lower than 1,144 square feet
and Hr. Hastings stated it appears that the reatroom and the service quarters
were counted as that.
Commissioner Bouas stated they need to know how they are measuring things.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought the intent waa for the retail sales
area to be a certain size and it does not alleviate the problem by adding more
square-footage to the back of the building.
Commissioner Bouas stated she did not think they measured right to start with.
11/21/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 4
Cormniesioner Feldhaus asked what they were going to sell out of the bathrooms
and Hr. Fiscus replied nothing and once again that was not clarified. He added
if this in fact is the interpretation, then obviously the additional 2.8 feet
will not allow them to comply so the waiver will be required.
Mr. Hastings stated it may be appropriate for the Commission to direct staff as
to which way the Planning Commission would like to interpr.:t this for future
uses.
Chairwoman House stated she thought it was retail sales and Commissioner Herbst
stated he thought that is the way Council meant it to be.
Chairwoman House stated then this report is not right and Mr. Hastings stated
that is correct, i.e., the 1,144 square feet indicated in the staff report
would include areas that are not retail salsa area.
Chairwoman Houas stated then it is really much lower and Mr. Hastings stated
that is correct.
Commissioner Herbst stated the applicant is asking for too much on such a
little piece of property. He stated he would not even consider a driveway on
the corner like fie shows it on his drawings and ae far ae the layout on the
parking, in order to meet the parking Code, is ridiculous. He eluded to the
parallel parking and stated people have a difficult time parking in those kinds
of places. He added there are only 3 stalls that they can drive into and the
rest of it is all parallel parking.
Mr. Fiscus stated he noticed there are several 6-foot areas between the actual
parallel parking spaces which will alleviate any additional requirements as far
as the parallel parking.
Commissioner Herbst stated for this type of use where people are pulling in a
convenience market for quick service, it ie a lousy development. He stated he
will not vote for beer and wine because he is opposed to it and it does not
belong in a service station.
He stated as far as the design is concerned, the project needs to be
redesigned, i.e., move the building back to the corner where they can close off
that driveway. He stated it has been done and it works. He stated the way he
currently has it, he could not vote for his project because it is a dangerous
project.
Mr. Fiscus stated he understood, however, Exxon has been building these types
of service stations with this exact layout for quite sometime.
Commissioner Herbst stated they are asking for a convenience market and wine
and beer and they will have to change it.
Mr. Fiscus stated this is the exact layout they have built in the past and have
had little to no problems whatecever in other communities. He stated if this
was something that had not been done before he would agree with him, but it has
been done and has proven to be successful.
11/21/88
i
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Pa4e 5
Paul Singer, City Traffic Engineer, stated he would be happy to work with the
applicant to redesign the project to conform to the Commission's direction.
He stated they could eliminate the driveway to provide good circulation and
access to service trucks in the area, especially gasoline trucks. He stated it
has been done in Anaheim very successfully and he believed he could help with
the design of this sitaa.
Mr. Fiscus stated he appreciates Mr. Singer's offer, however, once again this
site is an irregularly-:~si:a:ped parcel and it does have some problems that are
peculiar only to this site. He added they request the Commission to rule on
this as presented.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaionera Hesse and HcBurney absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a
convenience market with gasoline sales, fast food sales an~9 off-sale of beer
and wine with waiver of minimum enclosed retail sales area on an
irregularly-shaped parcel o_' land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre located
at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio vista Street, having
approximate frontages of 118 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 123
feet on the west side of Rio vista Street and further described as 2791 East
Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding
that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of
the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydetun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Hesse and HcBurney absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby DENY waiver of Code requirement on the basis
that there are no special circumstances applicable to the pzoperty such as
size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other
identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of
the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of priviioges enjoyed by other
properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-314 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY
Conditional Use Permit No. 3076.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SOUAS, BOYDSTUN CARUSZLLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HC BURNEY, HESSE
Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorne,V, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Chairwoman Bouaa stated basically most of the gas stations have been
150' X 150' that have had something other than a gas station on the property.
il/21/88
fit.:'
HINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COl4lISSION November 21 1988 Pa4e 6
ITEH NO 2 - CEQA NEGATIVE AECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-16 AND
VARIANCE NO. 3874
P~SBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD L. PIERCE, 14771 Plaza Drive, Suite "G",
Tustin, CA 92680. PROPERTY LOCATION: 322 South Buah Street. Property ie
approximately 7,500 square feet located approximately 50 feet on the east side
of Buah Street approximately 275 feet south of the centerline of Broadway.
Petitioner requests withdrawal of Reclassification No. 88-89-16
(Reclassification from RM-2400 to RH-1200).
Waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and maximum site
coverage to construct a 2-story, 4 unit apartment project.
Reclassification from RH-2400 to RH-1200.
Continued from the October 24, 1988, Planning Commission meeting.
There were 9 persona indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Chairwoman Bouae stated Items 2 and 3 can be heard together since they are
identical plane and built at the same time, however, they will be voted on
separately. She also indicated that the same people will be speaking on both
issues, so they will not have to be heard again.
Richard Pierce, 14771 Plaza Drive, Tustin, CA. He stated he was before the
Commission last month and during that time the Commission suggested that he
redraw the plane eo that the access of the driveway came off of the street
rather than the alley. He stated he has done this and resubmitted the plane.
He stated also the Commission seemed to be leaning against rezoning to allow
6-units on these lots. He indicated he had a written letter and has withdrawn
hie rezoning application.
He stated he has resubmitted asking fir 2 waivers leaving the rezone as it is
now, i.e., RH-2400 and allowing him to build two 4-plexes, one on each lot.
He stated he got the staff's letter this morning and he sees that there was a
minor mistake in the addition. He stated the lots are 50' X 155' each or 7,750
usable square-footage. He stated if you divide that by 4 it ie 1,937 square
feet per unit instead of the 1,E25 that staff has figured.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Hanager, stated he believed the difference was
the eubatraction of the driveway area which comes out with a net of 1,525 feet.
Hr. Pierce asked for clarification if they deduct driveways from that and
Mr. Hastings explained any driveway over a 120 feet in length is deducted.
Hr. Pierce indicated he did not know that and he was taking the gross area.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated these are some of the things that should be
addressed with staff and Mr. Pierce stated he just received the staff report in
the mail today and he did not know.
;,:
MINUTES ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COHMISSZON November 21. 1988 Paoe 7
OPPOSITION•
Victoria Gonzales, 422 South Vine. She stated she did not receive a notice for
this hearing and Commissioner Bouas stated she was here last time and they
continued it from that hearing.
Ms. Gonzales stated she ie here on behalf of her mother and also herself. She
explained if they were to change the zoning, it would affect her because she
lives on the alley way. She stated they want to stay with the RM-2400 zoning.
Chairwanan Bouas clarified that the applicant has withdrawn the request.
Me. Gonzales asked for clarification as to how many unite he will have and
Chairwoman Bouas stated 4-unite.
Ms. Gonzales asked for clarification as to how many bedrooms and Mr. Hastings
stated there is a combination of 3-bedrooms and 2-bedrooms, i.e., there will be
one 3-bedroom unit and three 2-bedroom unite.
Ma. Gonzales asked for clarification on the number of parking spaces and
Commissioner Feldhaua stated he meets Code on the parking.
Chairwoman Bouas stated she believed her concern last time was access off of
the alley and she clarified he has changed that.
Patricia Meza, 325 and 325-1/2 South Buah, located across the street from the
site in question. She stated her main concerns are the same concerns she had
last time. She stated he was going to rewrite something but was confused as to
what he was going to rewrite. She stated it is still 4-unite and he has the
entrance from the street and from the alley.
Commissioner Boydetun clarified only from the alley.
Ha. Meza stated Commissioner Caruaillo stated if they change the zoning and let
him in, then how is that going to stop others from doing the same?
Chairwoman Souas again clarified that he is not opplying for a change in the
zoning.
Ms. Meza asked if he was building 4-units on each piece of property for a total
of 8-units?
Commissioner Boydetun stated before he was building 6-unite on each lot, now he
has cut it down to 4-unite on each lot.
Hs. Meza asked since he was building these separately, then can he sell one
piece of property and not the other and Commissioner Boydetun indicated that
was correct.
Mr. Hastings stated just for clarification, there is no reduction in the number
of units, however, there ie a reduction in the possible number of units that
could have been ~rmitted under the RM-1200 zoning. He further clarified that
the plans have not changed other than the access off of Bueh Street rather than
off of the alley.
11/21/88
~~i
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 8
Ms. Meza asked for clarification as to how many families that would be and
Chairwoman Bouas stated four.
Ha. Meza stated he is still building the apartments and does not see the
difference and Chairwoman Bouas stated that ie what it is zoned for.
Ms. Meza stated he is going to a higher density than what has been there
before. She further clarified he is bringing in four families on onQ lot
rather than one family per lot.
Hs. Meza voiced her concerns regarding the traffic on her street. She stated
she has five children and referenced an accident that occurred in front of her
home and stated she understands that progress has to be made but at whose
expense?
Ruth Requejo. She stated she resides with her mother at 404 South Buah. She
stated her concern is where is the City of Anaheim going to atop? She wanted
to know if any of the small residential streets were sacred anymore, and the
she emphasized that the residents le should rise up and complain and get this
down to whore there is one family living in a house or apartment. She added
they have a right to be concerned.
Commissioner eoydatun stated it ie her underata~ding that anything new that is
built has a limit as to how many people can live on the property. She stated
they cannot go back to homes that were built 30 years ago and enforce this.
She clarified it is 2 persons per bedroom and the only thing that does not
count is a child under 2 years of age.
Chairwoman Bouas reiterated that they need to call Code Enforcement so
something can be done.
Commissioner Caruaillo stated the neighbors are concerned with overcrowding
which creates parking problems and traffic. He stated the solution agpeare to
be to call Cade Enforcement tc enforce that no more than 2 adults occupy any
one given bedroom. He stated he would like to hear from Code Enforcement to
see how that might be implemented because he thought it was an impossible
situation. He stated they certainly could not require more parking in specific
areas.
Commissioner Mesas suggested that the developer come back with a total of
6-units. He stated hie justification gives thEm no ammunition to grant a
variance as requested. Hie justification is economic and the Commission does
not consider economic justifications.
Mr. Pierce stated he could not build 3-units because it would not work for
him. He explained he owns both houses, but he will probably have to sell
them. He thanked the Commission anyway.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked what if one unit was affordable?
Mr. Hastings stated the affordable Council Policy limits the affordable
complexes to five or more unite. He added if these aze considered to be one
project they would have to come in ae an affordable project with the 258
density bonus.
11/21/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21. 1988 Paae 9
Ms. Requejo stated there is a school approximately 1-1/2 blocks from the
proposed site and all of the kids zre going to school and people are leaving
for work. She stated there are already enough apartments in the area and the
new apartments would generate more traffic.
Carmen Cancino. She stated she is speaking for her aunt who resides at 407
South Bush Street. She stated she just had 2 unite go up in her area and she
lives in Weat Anaheim. She stated there is suppose to be 2 cars for every
residence. She stated she knows there are two families in each unit and that
means there are four vehicles and they are constantly parking behind her house
and in front of her house.
She stated they are very fortunate because they do not have crime in her area
and the neighbors seem to take care of their property. She stated her aunt's
neighborhood is veryy different. She stated she has her cousins walk her out to
her car and indicated she has to park on the grass when she goes to visit her
and make sure she is o.k. She added this is why they do not want anymore
apartments in that area.
Mary Ariaz, 411 South Bush. She stated she has lived there since 1945 and moat
of her life she has lived in Anaheim, but now it seems that they are
constructing so many apartments She stated you cannot even go outside because
you do not know if you are going to be tripped.
She stated 3 and 4 families live in one apartment and she does not know how
they get in there, but they have children and they go to school. She stated
the street use to be a good street, but now they are piled up one on top of the
other.
She stated the developers who buy up the property to build these units do not
live in this neighborhood, they live in others areas. She stated she does not
blame them for wanting to make money, but this is not the way. She added she
did not know what they were going to do. She asked the Commission to consider
not putting so many apartments on their street.
REBUTTAL•
Mr. Pierce stated their homes are built on apartment lots, i.e., all of Bush
Street is zoned RM-2400 and the master plan .ia zoned RM-1200 so there are homes
in apartment areas.
He stated the driveway will not go to the alley, it will only go to the
street. He clarified there are four plexee being built in the area. He
explained there are 2 in the framing stages right now on the 300 block of
Melrose plus other apartments being built. He asked the Commission to consider
his proposal.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Feldhaue stated he would like to make an observation for the
benefit of the people who are concerned about traffic. He stated traffic is a
problem not only in Anaheim, but throughout orange county in many other places
in the country ae well.
11/21/88
MINUTES- ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Page 10
He stated from what he could see any new development in that area would help
improve the area. He stated there was some implication that because some
apartments were built down the street from this one woman's place, that her
mother's place has been robbed 3 times since. He stated that would imply that
perhaps the thieves were in the apartment complex and he indicated he could not
accept that.
He stated within reason a person has a right to develop his property and also
to take a chance for whatever he may want to charge for his apartments. He
stated this is the chance that he ae a developer takes in building hie
property.
He stated for those who have knowledge of more than one family or more than 2
persons per bedroom living in an apartment, then he would suggest that they
call Code Enforcement and report that because the City of Anaheim does have an
ordinance that says you cannot have anymore than 2 adults per bedroom.
Commissioner Hesse stated the General Plan still says RM-1200 and we have
zoning that says RH-2400. He stated we have subtracted the driveway from the
lot coverage so that it really creates the variance and we are now suggesting
to the City Council that we eliminate that and wanted to know if that was true?
Mr. Hastings stated at the last workshop that was one of the items recommended.
Commissioner Mesas stated if that ordinance gets changed do they eliminate that
variance?
Mr. Hastings stated actually there is an error on page 2 of the staff report.
He explained there are only 2-units permitted per site (or 2.5 unite rounded
down to 2-units). He stated even if they put the driveway area back into this,
the net area would still require that waiver.
Commissioner Mease asked how many units would the RM-2400 zone allow and
Mr. Hastings stated it would allow 3-unite if we did not subtract the driveway
area and if the driveway area was subtracted it would only allow 2-unite.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the petitioner did not know anything about this
driveway being subtracted until this morning and if the Commission ie so
disposed, he would like to give him the opportunity to take that into
consideration and redesign this.
Chairwoman Bouas stated the landscape plans are not adequate and she could not
approve the landscaping. She stated this ie the type of landscaping that has
caused them to want a landscape plan. She stated putting in 6 bushes and a
tree and the rest ground cover it is not landscaping.
She stated the way the neighborhood feels is that they are being impacted too
much, so you will probably have to go to 3-units and that is probably still too
dense.
11/21/88
,~°
.y
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Pave 11
Mr. Hastings stated if that is the case, then there may not be any waivers
involved at all and the application would no longer be necessary.
Chairwoman Bouae stated in these kinds of areas, thai is ~~hat it should be.
She stated she understands that the people are co;~cerned about apartments and
the number of people living in all of these units. She stated there are houses
that have more than one family as well and the people should rise up and
complain and get this down to where there is one family living in a house or
apartment. She added they have a right to be concerned.
Commissioner Boydstun stated it is her understanding that anything new that is
built has a limit as to how many people can li.e on the property. She stated
they cannot go back to homes that were built 30 years ago and enforce this.
She clarified it is 2 persona per bedroom and the only thing that does not
count is a child under ~ years of age.
Chairwoman Souas reiterated that they need to call Code Enforcement eo
something can be done.
Commissioner Carusillo stated the neighbors are concerned with overcrowding
which creates parking problems and traffic. He stated the solution appears to
be to call Code Enforcement to enforce that no more than 2 adults occupy any
one given bedroom. He stated he would like to hear from Code Enforcement to
see how that might be implemented because he thought it was an impossible
situation. He stated they certainly could not require more parking in specific
areas.
Commissioner Hesse suggested that the developer come back with a total of
6-unite. He stated his justification gives them no ammunition to grant a
variance as requested. Hie justification is economic and the Commission does
not consider economic justifications.
Mr. Pierce stated he could not build 3-unite because it would not work for
him. He explained he owns both houses, but he will probably have to sell
them. He thanked the Commission anyway.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked what if one unit was affordable?
Mr. Hastings stated the affordable Council Policy limits the affordable
complexes to five or more units.
Commissioner Meese stated if you put both of these together then you have eight
units.
Mr. Hastings stated if these are considered to be one project they would just
have to come in as an affordable project with the 25e density bonus.
11/21!88
P
~y~
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Page 12
Commissioner Messe asked if the developer would be interested in that se a
solution to the problem?
2Sr. Hastings stated then the project would have to be tied together.
Chairwoman Bouas stated at this paint he could sell one or the other off.
Mr. Pierce stated he has considered that and he would be willing to go
affordable. He stated the public, in general, leans very heavily towards four
plexes. He stated they like them because if they retire they can live in the
3-bedroom in the front and rent out the 3-units in the back. He stated the
four plexes are very desirable and the B plexes are not ae desirable. He
stated he would rather keep the 2 four plexes if he could.
Commissioner Caruaillo asked if he intended to sell the project and Mr. Pierce
indicated eventually he would.
Commissioner Messe stated if they tied the affordability, one-unit per project,
then that affordable unit goes with the project whether or not he decides to
sell it, therefore, he did not see a problem doing that.
Hr. Pierce stated he would go for the affordable and Commissioner Hesse
clarified he would have one affordable with each of the four plexes and that
would give them the right to give a 33~ density bonus.
Commissioner Bouas stated it is an alternative, but it would have to be
continued. She stated she was not going for the landscaping and asked if he
was willing to do something else with the landscaping?
Mr. Pierce stated he would submit a complete colored landscaping plan. He
stated if you recall, we had to redraw those plane and they did a hurry up job
when they redid the driveway to come out onto the front. He explained it took
all of the front out of, i.e., there ie practically no front yard now.
Commissioner Caruaillo asked if there was a gate allowing pedestrians to
ingress and egress from the alley?
Mr. Pierce asked for clarification as to what Commissioner Caruaillo just
stated and Commissioner Caruaillo clarified the question and asked if
pedestrians can get from the complex to the alley through a gate?
Mr. Pierce explained they can through a walking agate, but not through a driving
gate because they still plan to have trash pick-up in the back.
Mr. Hastings stated he was not sure if Housing would agree to the situation
where they have two separate complexes where they have to choose the unite.
Commissioner Meese stated there would be one affordable ir. each of the four
plexes giving them two affordables out of eight unite.
11/21/88
.~
IpuTgg AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 13
Mr. Hastings asked if they wanted the projects tied together under one
ownership, otherwise it would not qualify under the Council Policy?
Commissioner Feldhaus ata*_ed he could submit a letter stating that they would
not be sold individually and Chairwoman Bouas stated he said he did not want
that and wants to be able to Bell them individually.
Mr. Hastings stated if that is the case then it would not fall under Council
Policy allowing affordable.
Commissioner Messe stated they could move to waive the Council Policy and felt
this was a worthy enough project to do that.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not understand the problem and wanted to know
what was wrong with having one affordable unit out of the four?
Commissioner Herbst asked the applicant if he would like to have a continuance
have tokhave ahletterrfromethedHousingnAuthorityaregardingnthetaffordableld
before they could vote on it.
theyHneednto haveeHousing involvedeinrthisoandwMrk Pierceustated heywascmore
than happy to cooperate.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of December 19, 1988 in order to
submit revised plane.
For the benefit of the public, Chairwoman Bouas stated that the public would
not be notified again regarding the continuance.
Commissioner Carusillo explained to JoYin Poole, Code Enforcement, that it has
been suggested that part of the concern of the neighbors relative to parking
and traffic is overcrowding of the unite and violation of the Code of 2 adults
per bedroom. He stated it has beenleuoutsand makehthemaniceodeHBnetatedehe,
they will run out and kick the peop
suggested this was not so aasily done an3 they wanted to hear from him to see
how they could enforce the Code.
John Poole, Cede Enforcement Manager, stated one of the more difficult tasks
they have to enforce is overcrowding. He explained a lot of times when they go
to complaints of overcrowding, the people will merely state that the people are
visiting.
He stated they usually have rc h=~e sonvolvedhandLhelpithemedocumentnwho islex,
or adjoining single-family p Pe Y~
coming and going. He stated if they give them permission to inspect they will
find out how many people are there by the bedding. He stated it is a very
difficult thing to enforce.
11/21/88
L. Z
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 21, 19B8 Paae 14
He stated one of the things they have done in the past few years ie to try to
control the parking because in some of the older apartment buildings they were
parking in the public alleys, etc., and Code Enforcement has sited them for
parking in the alleys.
He stated he could not give them an answer that it is easy, because it is very
difficult unless Code Enforcement gets involved with the people who are
complaining.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if he has studied the possibility of making it
financially hard on the owner in order to get compliance? He added there dose
not seem to be an answer.
Mr. Poole stated there is no easy arawer. He explained the units that are well
managed hardly ever get a complaint. He stated it all goes back to management,
i.e., if they are not properly managed, they will have continual problems and
not just with overcrowding, but general maintenance of the unite as well.
Chairwoman Bouas stated it is really up to the neiohbore to substantiate the
situation and to help Code Enforcement then.
Mr. Poole indicated that was correct. He explained there have been a number of
situations where the neighbors were willing to get involved and substantiate
the overcrowding and they were able to relieve the situation. He further.
explained that he knew it was an imposition, but the neighbors needed to get
involved; they need to complain and be willing to testify in court because they
cannot be there all of the time. He added they need their help and if they
will help them then they will be successful in alleviating the overcrowding and
if they do not, it is very hard to prove.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if he has considered some way to find out to whom
mail is being mailed to in a suspect property?
Mr. Poole stated they have not done that, but the one thing they do is if there
ie an on-site manager, which in some of the smaller unite there is not, the
first thing they do ie contact the on-site manager and find out how many people
are leasing and renting the property and a lot of times that will take care of
the problem because there is usually a lease agreement that states how many
people there are and if there is not an on-site manager, it ie a little more
difficult.
Chairwoman Bouas stated this just applies to apartments and wanted to know
about single-family houses.
Mr. Poole stated moat of the overcrowding in the past few years have been
involving multiple-family apartments, however, they do get complaints on
single-family homes and it works the same way, but they still need neighborhood
involvement to prove who is living there.
11/21/88
~~
TES, ANA~i IH CITY PLANNING COF4lISSION November 21 1988 Pave 1
Chairwoman Bouae stated for clarification, then they can call you and complain,
and then they must be willing to help you substantiate as to how many families
are living in a house?
Hr. Pa~~le indicated that was correct and there are several things in the
parking area that helps them enforce that because there is usually not enough
parking if there are 15 to 20 people living in a single-family home like it
sometimes occurs. He explained you cannot park on the lawn or in the alley eo
they use parking restrictions to help cost.ol the overcrowding.
Commissioner Carueillo asked when they write a park±nq citation ie it
generally given to the person whose name is on the rental agreement or the
owner?
Mr. Poole explained generally they send out a notice of violation to the owner
because the owner of the property is ultimately responsible; they also have a
provision in the City Code that the tenant is responsible for certain things,
but usually with the overcrowding it is harder to prove who is responsible, so
they usually go to the owner who is ultimately responsible.
Commissioner Carueillo asked if they have any suggestions that might be brought
up for a change in the Code or something that would put a little morb teeth
into the enforcement?
Hr. Poole stated he thought the Code was adequate now. He explained they use
the Uniform Housing Code for the square-footage; the Zoning Code has the
parking requirements, etc. He reiterated it takes involvement and if people
are not willing to get involved they can only have limited success at
controlling the problem, eo if they are willing to help them they can do a
whole lot with the laws they have and ae they go along, if they need to change
something, they can go through the Commission and ultimately the Council and
change any ordinances that need to be changed.
Commissioner Boydetun asked if there were any age bracket on apartments? She
stated with the new developments they sign agreements io only rent to so many
and wanted to know what if it is an old apartment complex, i.e., can they still
enforce it?
Hr. Poole stated that is correct. He explained the Uniform Housing Code
addressee new or minimum square-footage. He stated they do seem to have more
problems with some of the older unite. He stated the parking and
square-footage was smaller than what ie being developed now.
Commissioner Carueillo asked Hs. Heza to come forward to represent the group
and answer more direct questions.
Hs. Meza stated more apartments are going ug and wanted to know if that means
there is more law enforcement? She asked if they have more police patrolling
the streets and are taxes going to go up?
11/21/88
~" ;
HINUTES ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COHMISSION, November 21, 1988 Pave 16
She asked where dcea the law enforcement and the planning zone come in? She
stated a problem already exits with enforcement and now we are talking about
more apartments. Is there an extra patrol car that will go down their street
and will they have to pay for it?
Hr. Poole stated he did not know of any requirement that you add an extra
patrol car as a condition of apartment development. He explained certainly,
as a City develops and they have more influx of people, they will have more
complex problems.
Ms. Hera stated when the City ie planning to allow more apartments to be built,
where does the City and law enforcement come together in saying that they need
an extra patrol car per a square-foot area and do they get it or do they just
have to wait their turn because they are somewhere else. She stated we already
do not have enough law enforcement, but if we are building more apartments and
adding more families then where does the twain meet?
He. Meza stated you are saying we have to come together as a neighborhood to
keep crime down and that ie impossible. She stated they no longer know their
neighbt~re. She stated the people in apartments cane and go. She stated she
tries to know their neighbors.
Mr. Poole stated he thinks there are two separate issues. He stated he is
talking about Code Enforcement and the enforcement of housing and Zoning laws
and not police patrol. He stated what he would ask for in a form of
involvement would be in identifying apartments where there is overcrowding and
if you are living next door to that, then you wrould keep track of the coming
and going and, therefore, it helps them identify that there are too many people
residing in a certain apartment.
He stated if they qo out and there ie no one in there other than one or two
then they do not know there is a violation, however, if you document it that 15
people reside there, then they can use that to prosecute the people that are
allowing that to go on.
He stated police patrol is a whole separate issue and the Police Department is
constantly reviewing their levels of service and certainly if more service is
needed and funding is available, they try to provide the beet service they
can. He reiterated these are two complete separate issues.
He stated what they need their help with is enforcement of the Housing and
Zoning Codee and the police issue would have to be addressed by the Police
Department.
Chairwoman Bouas stated what they are trying to do ie show the public a way to
help your neighborhood.
Ha. Meza stated he dcea not know anything about patrol care and police and
Chairwoman Bouas explained he has nothing to do with that.
11/21/88
~~,
~,.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Pace 17
Ms. Meza stated she wanted the PlanniLng Commission to understand that all of
these other people are being stacked one on top of the other and this is what
she was wondering about. She expressed her fears that if they say something
they may get their throats cut at night and this is a big issue to them.
Commissioner Carueillo asked how much ie a fine for a violation of
overcrowding?
Mr. Poole explained it is a misdemeanor offensive and it can be up to six
months in jail and or a 51,000 fine.
He stated the one other point that Ma. Meza referred to ie that the neighbor
would know who complained. He clarified certainly if the situation gets
involved, then they would talk to the person and see if they would be willing
to testify in court, but in 990 of the cases they never have to get a citizen
involved that has made a complaint and they are able to take care of the
problem themselves. He stated their name is held in confidentiality so they
have no fear of retaliation.
Cortuniasioner Carueillo stated then in the complaint process they would have no
concern with retaliation because that would be kept private, however, you
mentioned earlier about testifying in court.
Hr. Poole stated before they got to that point, or when they initially made the
complaint, their name would be held in confidence. He explained if it got to
the point that they could not substantiate the complaint without their
assistance, then they would go to them and tell them they do need to go to
court and thc+y do need to testify and they would make a choice at that time if
they would be willing to go to court.
Commissioner Carueillo stated if he was an owner of a four plex and was given a
51,000 fine for overcrowding, it would not happen again. But the dilemma is
unless the neighborhoods participate with Code Enforcement to get a conviction,
then it will not happen.
ACTION CONTINUED:
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTIO!7 CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby withdraw
Reclassification No. 88-89-16 (reclassification from RM-2400 to RM-1200).
(This speaker did not reidentify herself). She stated Hr. Poole said that
people will testify in court. She explained people like her are old and cannot
run fast enough or walk fast enough because they are afraid. She stated people
who rent those apartments are not going to take care of them and they are going
to trip them or they are going to do something like burn their houses so they
can get even with them.
She stated in their nationality they do this and eo do other nationalities.
She stated no one will be taking care of her, so no one is going to go and
testify. She stated you have everything you need.
11/21/88
f ~.
v
t~INIITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21. 1988 Paae 18
She stated the lots are zoned for two houses and she has lived in the general
area since 1933 and in Anaheim since 1945. She stated sh3 is afraid for
herself and not only just for herself but for her elderly neighbors. She
explained they cannot even go outside to put out the trash in the back yard.
She expressed her concerns about the increase fn drugs and stated there have
been two killings.
ITEM NO 3 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO 88-89-17 AND
VARIANCE NO. 3875
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: RICHARD L. PIERCE, 14771 Plaza Drive, Suite "G",
Tustin, CA 92680: PROPERTY LOCATION: 318 S. Bush Street. Property is
approximately 7,500 square feet located approximately 50 feet on the east side
of Bueh Street, approximately 225 feet south of the centerline of Broadway.
To construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment project with waivers of minimum
building site area per dwelling unit and maximum site coverage.
Petitioner requests withdrawal of Reclassification No. 88-89-17
(Reclassification from RM-2400 to RM-1200).
There were 9 persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Please note that the dialogue for items no. 2 and 3 are the same and will not
be repeated here.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McSurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of December 19, 1988, in order to
submit revised plans.
ITEM NO 4 - CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WAIVER OF CODE REOUZREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3084
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CrLISTZNO ARRABACA AND MELISSA ARRABACA,
P.O. Box 280, Orange, CA 92666. PROPERTY LOCATION:
1314 South iris Street. Property ie approximately 0.25 acre located on the
northeast corner of Iris Street and Hill Place.
To convert an existing 4-unit apartment complex to an 11-room (previously 13
room) 20-bed senior citizen board and carp facility with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of
the minutes.
11f21/88
..
HINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COHMZSSIOt7 November 21 1988 Paoe 19
Earl Mallot, (name not spelled for the record) representing the applicant,
Helisea Arz•abaca. He stated they have added 2 parking spaces as requested and
they have reduced the count on their own from 24 to 20 people.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McBurney stated the developer is acquiescent to their request in
adding the parking spaces and reducing the number to a more reaso::able figure.
He stated the only thing he was upset about was the reetroom facility. He
stated, however, after speaking with someone thin morning at their meeting, he
felt a little more comfortable with the way the arrangement of the restrooms
were and the accommodations so he could go along with the groject as presented.
~ommiaeioner Hesse asked if he has read and agrees to all of the conditions and
Hr. Mallot indicated he did.
Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to convert an existing 4-unit apartment complex to an 11-room, 20-bed
senior citizen board and care facility with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.25
acre located at the northeast corner of Iris Street and Hill Place having
approximate frontages of 155 feet on the east aide of Iris street and 49 feet
on the north aide of Hill Place and further described ae 1314 South Iris
Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it
has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
initial study and any roaments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the groject will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commisai~~er McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Meese and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a
waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause
an increase in traffic congea'tion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely
affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-315 and moved for its passage
and adoption (Commissioner Boydatun voting no and Commissioner Caruaillo
absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional
Use Permit No. 3084 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030
through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was gassed by the following vote:
AYES: COp(r(ISSIONERS: SOURS, FELDHAUS, HERBST
HESSE, HC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CARUSILLO
Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Co~.sncil.
11/21/88
f ';
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 _ Paae 20
O 5 EtiVYRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 280 AND ADDENDUM REDEVELOPMENT
nrAx AMENDMENT NO 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 243. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88 3
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO 88 04 (To be considered at a later date).
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: SANTA FE LAND 1liPROVEMENT COMPANY.
3230 E. Imperial Highway, Suite 100, Brea, CA 92621. AGENT: PHILLIPS BRANDY
REDDIC, 18012 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA 92714. PROPERTY LOCATION: grooerty
is aoproximately 26 3 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue
and Tustin Avenue.
Petitioner requests approval of a Tentative Tract Hap to establish a 13-lot,
RS-HS-22,000(SC) (Residential Single-Family Hillside, Scenic Corridor)
subdivision; and
Petitioner requests approval for the removal of 50 specimen trees (49
eucalyptus trees and 1 pepper tree).
The speaker did not identify himself for the record. He stated on behalf of
the applicant and based on some information that they received this morning on
a computer run and discussions with staff, they would respectively request that
item no. 5, Tustin and La Palma with Sante Fe, be continued for a two week
period.
Commissioner McBurney 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 Co~nission and Government Code Section 3625, et
seq., in that he has a financial interest in the environment and pursuant to
the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairwoman, that he was
withdrawing from the hearing in connection with the Environmental Impact Report
No. 280 and Addendum, Redevelopment Plan Amsndment No. 4, General Plan
Amendment No. 243, Specific Plan No. 88-3 and Development Agreement No. 88-04
(to be heard at a later date) 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 HcBurney left the Council Chamber.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Meese
and NOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
December 5, 1988.
ITEM NO. 6 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISLDI,. SP~FC~MEN TREE REMOVAL
NO. 88-11 AND TENTATIVp TRACT NO. 13716
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: HARZE CHRISTENSEN AND ELBERT F. CHRISTENSEN, 100 S.
Fairmont Bl.vd., Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: HILL WILLZAMS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
ATTN: GARY SCHUTHLES, 5500 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road., X251,
Anaheim, CA 92807• PROPERTY LOCATION: Prooerty is approximately 7 acres-
located on the east side of Fairmont Boulevard a roximatel 1 120 feet
southeast of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Petitioner requests approval of Tentative Tract No. 13716 to establish a
13-lot, RS-HS-22,000)(SC) (Residential, Single-Family, Hillside, Scenic
Corridor) and approval for the removal of 50 specimen trees (49 eucalyptus
trees and 1 pepper tree).
t ,~~
a.
IH NUTgS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Page 21
There was no one .indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of
the minutes.
James Tillman, agent, explained this is a design for thirteen, 1/2-acre lots
which they feel is appropriate for the area. He stated that they attempted to
resolve all issues which they feel are relevant and are providing only one
access to Fairmont Boulevard to minimize traffic. In addition that they are
providing a 45-inch storm drain along Fairmont, and they will be providing a
masonry wall on the north side of the property.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Caruaillo stated hie concerns are the removal of 50 grown specimen
trees which are being replaced with small trees. He stated he would like the
developer to provide some type of landscaping for the 6-foot high wall that
abuts Fairmont. He added it was suggested that a berm and 3-foot high wall be
provided which would make the street more attractive, but the costa would be
prohibitive.
Mr. Tillman stated one of the conditions requires an equestrian trail with a
wood rail fence and they felt that would provide an attractive frontage along
Fairmont.
Commissioner Caruaillo stated he was talking about the starkness of the 6-foot
high wall that would be seen from fairmont and Hr. Tillman responded he could
present a landscape plan to show the block wall in more detail and that
pilasters and landscaping will break up the monotony of the wall. He told
Commissioner Herbst that they intend to replace the trees removed along
Fairmont and the area to the south of the project with 5-gallon trees, on a 1:1
ratio.
Commissioner Feldhaua stated he would have a problem with that and would like
to see. at least 24~ box trees on a 5:1 ratio and Commissioner Boydetun stated
that would be replacing a full grown tree with a twig; and Commissioner Herbst
stated ho thought they should plant 15-gallon trees along Fairmont eo they
would be visible in 3 or 4 years.
Commissioner Mesas stated he did not think the plan submitted showed the trees
to be removed or where they would be replanted.
Commissioner Caruaillo stated if the lan;iecapinq issue can be resolved and the
wall can be made more pleasing on Fairmont, he thought the request could be
approved. He suggested 24-inch box trees at least along Fairmont.
Commissioner Herbst stated he recognizes they have to remove the trees to make
the project feasible for housing, but that moat of the trees which have been
approved for removal have been replaced on a 5:1 ratio and he would like to see
Bigger trees along Fairmont.
Chairwoman Bouas stated it does not appear from the plan that they will be
removing very many trees from Fairmont and asked if they could provide bigger
trees. 2ir. Tillman responded they could modify the plan and provide more trees
along Fairmont. 11/21/88
i
T~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 22
Commissioner Carusillo stated he would want a more specific commitment and that
he would like to see at least 15 gallon trees along Fairmont.
Commissioner McBurney stated he would offer a motion for a two-week continuance
so the developer could submit a revised plan showing the trees and a treatment
along fairmont with berm and wall rather than just a block wall.
Commissioner Feldhaua suggested the revised plan be made a part of the
conditions of approval.
Commissioner Herbst stated a berm and wall would be good for that area,
especially with lots below the street and suggested revised plans be submitted
for approval ae a report and recommendation.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Hanager, stated the revised landscape plan would
be approved by the Commission prior to final tract map approval.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Meaee
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim Cit}~ Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to establish a 13-lot, RS-HS-22,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family,
Hillside, Scenic Corridor overlay) zone subdivision and to remove fifty (50)
specimen trees (49 eucalyptus trees and 1 pepper tree) on an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately (7) acres, having a frontage of
approximately 843 feet on the east side of Fairmont Boulevard, and being
located approximately 1,120 feet southeast of the centerline of Santa Ana
Canyon Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that
it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
during the public review process and further finding un the basis of the
initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydatun a.nd MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and
improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to
Government Code Suction 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of
Tract No. 13716 for a 13-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) single-family residential
subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. That prior to issuance of each building permit, the appropriate major
thoroughfare and bridge fee shall be paid to the city of Anaheim in an
amount as specified in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for
the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor, as approved by City Council
Resolution No. 85R-423.
2. That prior to issuance of each building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount ae
determined by City Counc°_1 resolution.
3. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation
in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
11/21/88
.' :~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Pace 23
4. That prior to final tract map approval, drainage assessment and sewer
assessment fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Engineer.
5. That the legal owner of subject property shall irrevocably offer to
dedicate to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 46 feet in width from the
centerline of the street along Fairmont Boulevard for street widening
purposes.
6. That the vehicular access rights to Fairnont boulevard except at street
and openings shall be dedicated to the Citf of Anaheim.
7. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the
Engineering Division's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets,
including installation of street name signs. Plana for the private street
lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted to the
Building Division for approval and included with the building plans prior
to the issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which
provide primary access andJor circulation within the project).
8. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be submitted to
and approved by the Zoning Division.
4. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name aigna shall be
installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
10. That no public or private street grades shall exceed ten percent (l0a)
except by prior approval of the City Fire Department and the Engineering
Division.
11. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
12. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
13'. That the legal property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an
agreement in a forn to be approved by the City Attcrney agreeing to
complete the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the
legal property owner.'s expense. Said agreement shall be recorded
concurrently with the final tract and ie not to be subordinate to any
recorded encumbrance against the property.
14. That prior to final tract approval, the original documents of the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be
submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City
Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division.
Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the
Office of the Orange County Recorder.
11/21/88
_.._ .... ............_ ..,~......~..w...,.,,
~~ _ ,E
HINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 21, 1988 Paae 24
15. That the sanitary sewers shall be maintained by the homeowners association
are included within the covenants, conditions and restrictions.
16. That the developer shall obtain a fifteen foot wide easement for the
off-site sanitary sewer, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. That vehicular access for maintenance shall be provided to all storm drain
manholes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
18. That the developer shall request and obtain abandonment of the elope
easements for Fairmont Boulevard.
19. That grading shall be in conformance to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title
17.
20. That gates shall not be installed across the private street in a manner
which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public
street. installation of any gates shall conform to the Engineering
Divisi•~n's standard Plan No. 402 and shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
21. That prior to rendering of water service, the appropriate fees due for
primary mains, shall be paid to the Water Utility Division in accordance
with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations.
22. That prior to rendering of water service, a special assessment fee in the
amount of $652.00 per acre, for upgrading the former walnut Canyon Water
System, shall be paid to the Water Engineering Division.
23. That the water main plans for subject property shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Water Engineering Division.
24. That street lighting facilities along Fairmont Boulevard shall be
installed ae required by the Utilities General Hanager in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Hanager; or that
security in the form of a bond, cificate of deposit, letter of credit,
or cash, in an amount and form aatiafactory to the City of Anaheim, shall
be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the
above-mentioned improvements. Said sec'c,rity shall be posted with the City
of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required
improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy.
25. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
26. That a 10-foot wide public utilities easement shall be provided to the
satisfaction or the Electrical Engineering Division adjacent to the City
of Anaheim Substation.
11/21/88
~~` ;.
,.
4
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COHHISSION, November 21, 1988 Page 25
27. That prior to final tract map approval, residential underground electrical
fees sl-all be paid to the City of Anaheim, and a faithful performance bond
shall be posted with the City of Anaheim in an amount approved by the
Public Utilities General Manager.
28. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and approved by the City Fire
Department.
29. That a fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim for tree planting along
Fairmont Boulevard in an amount as established by City Council resolution.
30. That prior to issuance of a building permit, evidence shall u~ presented
satisfactory ro the Building Division that the proposed project ie in
conformance with Council. Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in
Residential Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards specified in
the California Administrative Code, Title 25.
31. :'t?at as required by Zoning Code Section 18.23.068, a solid decorative type
masonry wall, landscaped earthern berm, or any combination thereof,
totaling not less than six (6) feet in height shall be provided along and
immediately adjacent to the site boundary line of subject property
adjacent to Fairmont Boulevard, provided the City traffic Engineer shall
have the authority to reduce the height of the screening to protect visual
.".ins-of-sight where pedestrian/vehicular circulation intersects; provided,
i~owever, that landscaping and pilasters shall be added to soften the stark
look of the 6-fort high wail.
32. That sny specimen tree removal shall be subject to the tree preservation
regulations in Chapter 18.H4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the "SC"
Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone; provided, however, that minimum 15-gallon
trees shall replace the trAae along Fairmont Boulevard on a 1:1 ratio.
33. That a landscape plan shall be submitted to anC approved by the Planning
Commission, as a report and recommendation; and said plan shall include
minimum 15-gallon trees to replace the specimen trees removed along
Fairmont boulevard on a ratio of 1:1. Said landscape plan shall also
include enhancement such as landscaping and pilasters to soften the stark
look of the six-foot high block wall as viewed from Fairmont Boulevard.
34. That in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.OA7 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the
City of Anaheim Planning Area "8", each buyer shall be provided with
written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing
zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject tract.
35. That, as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.$4.042.012, no
roof-mounted equipment, whataover, shall be permitted.
11/21/88
,~_
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21. 1988 Paoe 26
36. That the legal owner of subject property shsll dedicate and improve a ten
(10) foot wide riding and hiking trail easement adjacen~ to Fairmont
Boulevard as shown on the Riding and Hiking Trail Component of the General
Plan and as approved by the Parke and Recreation Department. Furthermore,
that the owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant
obligating the Homeowners Association of subject tract to maintain and
repair the trail. The form of said covenant shall be approved by the City
Attorney's Office and shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract
map. The legal owner/developer of the subject tract shall improve and
maintain the trail as required by the Parka and Recreation Department,
until such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated
therefore as hereinabove provided. In addition, a band shall be posted in
an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee
performance of the legal owner/developer's obligations herein described.
Evidence of the required bond shall be submitted to and approved by the
City Attorney's Office prior to approval of the final tract map.
37. That grior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 36, above mentioned, shall
be complied with.
38. That prior to final map approval, the requirements set forth in Condition
Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, and 35,
above mentioned, shall be set forth on the face of the final map in a form
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
39. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed
request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal
2oninq Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval dose not
include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Meese and MOTION
CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dose hereby grant Specimen
Tree Removal No. 88-i1 on the basis that reasonable and practical development
of the property on which the trees are located require removal and that the
character of the immediate neighborhood in respect of forestation will not be
materially affected by the proposed removal; and subject to the stipulation
that the specimen trees removed along Fairm:::~~ Boulevard shall be replaced with
15-gallon trees, rather than 5-gallon se proposed, from the City of Anaheim's
list of replacement trees.
Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
11/21/88
~i
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 21, 1988 Pa4e 27
ITEM NO. 7 - CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3094
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: STEPHEN K. CHEUHG, 4179 Pepper Avenue,
Yorba Linda, CA 92686. PROPERTY LOCATION: 2130 W. Alameda Avenue.
Property ie approximately 3.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Alameda
Avenue and Valley Street.
To convert an existing recreation building to a security guard residence.
The speaker did not identify himself for the record. He stated he would like
to paec around a photograph album to document why they need to convert the
clubhouse into a security guard area.
He stated the staff report recommends that the conditional use permit be
approved so they can do the conversion, however it is under 12 conditions.
He stated he would like to convince them to approve the permit and they concur
and agree to comply with 9 of the 12 conditions. He stated he would like to
convince the Commission to waive the other 3 conditions and also to approve the
project. He added those 3 items may be so expense that it will kill the
project.
He stated he was sure that the owners and tenants of the neighborhood want to
make Anaheim a clean, safe and pleasant place to live. He stated they heard
this afternoon about apartment complexes not being taken care of, and in
addition, they have crime problems. He stated today they hope to offer the
Commission a win, win situation where the Commission says go ahead and do it.
He stated they are willing to spend the money and effort to improve the
conditions, however, they do need the Commission's help. He asked first that
the Commission look at the album that waa submitted to see what the owners and
tenants are up against. He stated they have trucks and gangs that are starting
to take over the neighborhood and they desperately need a 24 hour security
guard.
He stated the building they need to convert is an empty building and explained
i.t was built about 22 years ago ae a recreation center. He stated lately there
has been so much vandalism that they keep it empty and also boarded it up. He
added they still have been vandalized several times.
He explained last summer there were people jumping on the roofs and, therefore,
there are holes in the roof. He further explained if they board up the windows
and doors they kick it in and sleep in there and take things. He stated he
hoped with the Commission's approval they can change this building from a
source of vandalism to a place where they can prevent further vandalism.
He stated there are problems with drugs also. He explained lately they see
drugs are being sold on the street corners. He stated there are 18 apartments
and four-plexea around the edges. He explained that moat of the owr.,ere are
absentee owners who are not in the City and cannot be there to take care of the
places.
11/21/88
s
":.'
HINI7TES AHEIM CITY PLANNING CONHISSION November 21 1988 Pa a 28
He further explained they do rent to a lot of tenants that do like to take care
of their places. He states in yureto standard rentnanditheyawould likeito~
even though they are not p y 9 P
improve the neighborhood.
He stated the Police recommend that he gets a 24 hour security guard. He
stated if you look at the photographs you see graffiti on all of the walls. He
explained the gangs gather at night time and have parties and fire guns. He
stated there have been gun shots into his tenants quarters and his tenants will
atv3:00a.mf andytellnhimitheyvneedehelp atHenexplainedtthettenantsndareanoth~
call the Police because sometimes they know who called.
He stated there are several people who go to the bathroom out on the lawn at
night. He stated the cleaning lady they pay to clean up, threw up everytime
she cleaned up and added it is not fair to her or to anyone in. the neighborhood
to leave it in such a condition.
He stated they have a laundromat for the tenants. He explained the gang
members come in and actually took the coin box away by takifag it apart. He
stated the tenants then cannot use it and he lost hie more.
He stated he has tried to take care of the ews.mming pool and people throw
mattresses and sofas on it or ride a tricycle into it. He explained there were
times when the outside people come into the complex and were rough housing and
some kids nearly got drowned. He added it was recommended that they put a
security guard there also.
He stated they are opposed to conditions i, 2 and 4 simply because they cannot
afford it. He sL•ated the other complexes that were approved at;rose the street
do not have those requirements.
Hs stated the first condition asks that they fix all the sidewalks and gutters
around the complex. He stated they agree to spend all the money they can to
improve the inside of the complex and also any of the sidewalks along the
complex that are damaged by their trees, however, there are trees on the
sidewalk that were planted by the City and maintained by the City. He stated
the roots got too big and raised the sidewalk a little bit and now the City is
asking him to fix all of those and he simply cannot afford that.
He stated they also asked them to put in handicapped access ramps on all
corners and that costa about $3,000 to $4,000 that they simply do not have. He
added he agrees it is a good thing but it is discrimination because the other 2
complexes do not need it.
He stated they also asked them to put gates an all on-site trash storages areas
and that costa about $4,tiC0 •3nd they break. He stated they talked to the trash
men and they "say some places put them up and they take it down.
He explained if they had enough money they would like to comply, but they a'~
small owners trying to maintain a place where the tenants do not have to p;
exorbitant rents.
11/21/88
:s
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 21. 1988 Paae 29
He stated the advantages for the Commission approving the permit is that they
have to call the Police less times and they are able to spend money improving
instead of fixing the property. He stated if they fix something they break it
again; if they put up a fence they break it down.
He stated 5 years ago the Commission approved the other complexes to convert to
a security guard place and the next year they got the Anaheim Beautiful award
and they hoped they cou,1~3 turn things around and do the same thing.
He stated if all of the items requested are required, they may not be able to
do it and it may be 3, 4 or 5 years before they can afford to do those things.
He stated they have tenants moving out and they have to rent to worse people
and they do not want to do that either.
He stated next year they hype to come back and say they want to share the
Anaheim Beautiful award with the Commission and all you need to do ie approve
them.
He stated they are not changing the building, and all they will do is change
one of the two bathrooms into a kitchen. He added they need the Commission's
permission to say it is o.k. to get a security guard and he hoped they could
resolve this problem.
IN FAVOR•
August Gunnerson, (name not spelled for the record) President of Oak Gardena
Association. He stated the variance that is being discussed is for Walnut
Gardens, the block adjacent to them. He stated they appeared before this group
5 years ago and obtained a zoning variance. He stated they converted thin
identical building intc a security apartment and put in a security couple. He
stated they have virtually eliminated vandalism and all kinds of graffiti
around their block and their block had 18 buildings identical with Walnut's
block.
He stated, as a reeult, in 1978, they upgraded their common area to the point
that they were given the Anaheim Beautiful citation. He stated they can do the
same thing if they have a security couple living on the property so that they
can watch the common area and patrol at night, so he urged the Commission to
approve the petition.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS C.OS£D.
Commissioner Feldhaua asked Hr. Gunnerson how the security couple were able to
virtually eliminate the vandalism, etc.
Mr. Gunnereo~t stated if you look at the map, item no. 7, the building they are
talking about ie located at the west end of the common area; it has sliding
glass doors, it overlooks the pool, the green area and the playground at the
east end. He stated the layout in Oak Gardens is identical with the layout of
Walnut Gardens.
He explained during the day the wife can watch the entire common area and
control whatever is going on and in the evening the husband patrols. He stated
they happen to have a husband and wife who have a CB and she sits by the CB in
the apartment while he is out patrolling the buildings. He added if he runs
into any trouble, then the wife knows exactly where he is at and can call the
,,..
~L
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 21. 1988 Paae 29
He stated the advantages for the Commission approving the permit ie that they
have to call the Police less times and they are able to spend money improving
instead of fixing the property. He stated if they fix something they break it
again; if they put up a fence they break it down.
He stated 5 years ago the Commission approved the other complexes to convert to
a security guard place and the next year they got the Anaheim Beautiful award
and they hoped they could turn things around and do the same thing.
He stated if all of the items requested are required, they may not be able to
do it and it may be 3, 4 or 5 years before they can afford T.o do those things.
He stated they have tenants moving out and they have to rent to worse people
and they do not want to do that either.
He stated next year they hope to come back and say they want to share the
Anaheim Beautiful award with the Commission and all you need to da is approve
them.
He stated they are not changing the building, and all they will do ie change
one of the two bathrooms into a kitchen. He added they need the Commission's
permission to say it is o.k. to get a security guard and he hoped they could
resolve this problem.
IN FRVOR•
August Gunnereon, (name not spelled for the record) President of Oak Gardena
Association. He stated the variance that is being discussed is for Walnut
Gardena, the block adjacent to them. He stated they appeared before this group
5 yearn ago and obtained a zoning variance. He stated they converted this
identical building into a security apartment and put in a security couple. He
stated they have virtually eliminated vandalism and all kinds of graffiti
around their block and their block had 16 buildings identical with Walnut't~
block.
He stated, ae a result, in 1978, they upgraded their common area to the point
that they were given the Anaheim Beautiful citation. He stated they can do the
same thing if they have a security couple living on the property so that they
can watch the common area and gatrol at night, so he urged the Commission to
approve the petition.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked Hr. Gunnereon how the security couple were able to
virtually eliminate the vandalism, etc.
Mr. Gunnereon stated if you look at the map, item no. 7, the building they are
talking about is located at the west end of the common area; it has sliding
glass doors, it overlooks the pool, the green area and the playground at the
east end. He stated the layout in Oak Gardens is identical with the layout of
Walnut Gardena.
He explained during the day the -. fs can watch the entire common area and
control whatever is going on and in the evening the husband patrols. He stated
they happen to have a husband and wife who have a CB and she sits by the CB in
*_he apartment while he is out patrolling the buildings. He added if he runs
into any trouble, then the wife knows exactly where he is at and can call the
~~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 21. 1988 Page 30
Commissioner Feldhaus asked what authority do these security people have and
asked if they carry firearms?
Mr. Gunnereon stated they did ,,-,ct carry firearms.
He stated people congregate on 3 corners of the intersection of Valley and
Srownwood in the evenings, but they do not congregate on Oak Garden's block
because they know that they have a patrol that comes around periodically and
not on a regular schedule.
Commissioner Feldhaus askad if it is posted that they have a security guard and
Mr. Gunnerson indicated they do not and added all 4 blocks are aware that Oak
Gardena does have security.
Chairwoman Bouas indicated this was marvelous.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the trees on the sidewalk that has caused the
sidewalk to raise and asked if it was the City's responsibility if they
belonged to the City?
Chairwoman Bouas stated he has indicated that he was willing to take care of
the cnee that are their trees.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineering, stated as he understands it, the property
owner ie responsible for repairing the sidewalks even if it the City's trees.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated they can take the trees out if they so desire and
they can replant.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked haw many security families are they talking about
and Chairwoman Bouas stated one.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated they still have the problem of the 3 conditions.
Commissioner HcBurney asked if they are set by ordinance and Commissioner
Feldhaus stated they can delete them.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he could only answer to item no.
4. He explained the on-site trash storage areas were recommended by the
Sanitation Division and apparently these areas are in a state of disrepair on
the property. He further explained that it is not a Code requirement, but a
specific request by the Sanitation Division.
ks; stated the other 2 they would have to ask Art Daw, Public Works-Engineering.
Ccnnniseioner Feldhaus asked if the handicapped access ramp was a State Code
thr?,; requires this and Mr. Singer stated it is l:is understanding that it is a
State Code.
Commissioner Boydstun asked when they are not doing any building in this area,
how can they enforce that? She added it cost $ASD.OD per corner or $1,800 per
intersection.
11/21/88
~.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paoe 31
Mr. Singer stated they are being asked to approve a CUP and ae a condition of
the CUP you have the right to add that condition. He stated he would also like
the Commission to be aware that there is a real parking problem. He stated
they may remember that this particular site has come before the Commission
before to be converted into a dwelling unit.
Commissioner Feld'naua stated this one family is not going to create that much
of a problem.
Commissioner Meese stated the entire area has a parking problem.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated condition no. 4 should stay in and condition no. 2
may be mandated by the State.
Chairwoman Bouae asked if they had a manager and the applicant stated they did
not sad they are owned by different owners.
Chairwoman Bouas asked who would the security guard be hired by and the
applicant stated the association.
Commissioner Meese asked who owns the property that the recreational facility
is sitting on and the applicant explained that it is shared by all of the 18
owners, i.e., they all own a portion of the property.
Commissioner Meese asked about the couple they were going to hire to live on
the property. He asked if they got their rent free plus some type of salary?
The applicant stated possibly, i.e., there is going to be some type of
agreement between the association and the security guard.
Commissioner Meese asked if the husband and wife have other work that they do
or is this their full time occupation?
The applicant stated they could be part time. He explained the wife could be
watching the kids at the pool in the say time because it is rough at night and
hopefully the husband will come home from work and be able to watch at night.
Commissioner Hesse stated that you indicated a 24 hour security guard when the
.applicant gave his talk.
The applicant stated he will be on-site all of the time. He stated they are
ideal l looking for a retired couple who will stay on-site.
Chairwoman Bouas asked Mr. Gunnerson if the security guard they have on-site
has another job and Mr. Gunnerson replied that he works for a security company
during the day supervising various patrolmen at various locations around the
area and he gets his rent and utilities free.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if he is available to patrol at night and Mr. Gunnerson
stated he expects him to patrol up until the block is quiet, i.e., if there are
no parties going on and everybody seems to have gone to bed then fine. He
addeb if he feels it is secure then that is it.
He explained if there is something going on in the streets or on one of the
other blocks, then he would expect him to stay out until such time he feels
everything settles down.
( ~ ,E
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Pace 32
Commissioner Boydstun asked if the tenants have his number so iE they have a
problem they can call him and Mr. Gunnereon stated no, they do not.
He explained his tenants know where the security couple lives and he was sure
that everyone else in the block does also.
Chairwoman Bouas stated then they could qo there to get them if they needed to
and Mr. Gunnereon stated they could and do but they do not have their telephone
number.
Chairwoman Bouas asked Art Daw about sidewalks and the trees that are planted
by the City.
Mr. Daw explained the maintenance policy at this time is even if L•he City's
trees cause the damage, it is the responsibility of the property owners to
repair the sidewalks.
Chairwoman Bouas asked for clarification if the City will take the trees out
and Mr. Daw stated they would at the property owner's request.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if they have to replant and Mr. Daw stated in some cases
they have and in some cases they have not.
Chairwoman Bouas stated up on Pine they took those out and then replanted and
redid the sidewalk and that was just within the last year.
Mr. Daw stated the condition that is imposed agairst the conditional use permit
is a standard requirement that Engineering has been making in all cases and the
extent of damage is determined by a field review by their Field inspectors.
Chairwoman Bouas asked about the handicapped access ramps and wanted to know if
that was a standard condition and Mr. faaw stated normally they have sot made
that before and if the Commission wishes to delete that then Engineering would
not have a serious obj~action.
Commissioner Herbst stated hie concern fa that they are asking for a security
guard and they have. showed them pictures that they have a serious problem to
protect their property and here we are putting on conditions that if they do
not live up to these conditions and do not have the money to do it, then they
are not going to get the security guard.
He stated this is scmathing they are going io have to take a darn good look at
because if they are going to make them spend several thousand dollars to
upgrade their property eo they can have a security guard, then we have a
problem. He stated they need the security guard from what he sees in the
pictures that were taken. He added they need to come up with some kind of
relief so these people can have a security guard immediately.
Commissioner Caruaillo stated the City does this as a matter of course and it
ie up to the Commission to decide whether it is pertinent or realistic. He
stated he agrees with Commissioner Herbst that it is evident that they need a
security guard on the premises and he ie inclined to waive the conditions that
are not that important. He adde3 we need to get rid of the problem, so maybe
they can upgrade the area and perhaps cater to a better class of people.
11/21/88
~~
HINUTES. ANAHEIM CYTY PLFN~!'NG COMHISSYON. November 21 1988 Paae 33
Commissioner Meese asked what conditions they would remove and Commissioner
B~ydstun stated conditions 1 and 2.
Chairwoman Bouae asked if they would be willing to refurbish the trash
enclosure area and Commissioner Hesse stated he would insist that they do
iaaething like that.
The applicant stated he would have to ask the owners of they could afford
more. He stated they are spending a lot ~:f money trying to upgrade the
buildings and the landscaping.
Chairwoman Bouas stated this will help to upgrade because there is nothing
worse then looking r.'t trash.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated they could not afford not to because they will get
cited if they do not have it.
Commissioner Carueillo stated he thought he was asking for some kind of time
period where it might be feasible such as 6 months and they could impose a time
limit on the CUP to see that it ;:as done.
Commissioner Meese stated they are asking for condition no. 4 to be finalized
before final building inspection and he thought that was fair enough.
The applicant stated it was not required for the other unite and Cortaniaeioner
Melee stated he did not think there was that much involved in fixing up the
trash areas.
The applicant stated they have 10 dumpstere and it would cost approximately
53,000 to 54,000.
Chairwoman Bouas stated and you do not have doors on any of them and the
applicant stated that is correct.
Commissioner Boydetun asked if they were in block enclosures and the applicant
stated that is correct.
Commissioner Boydetun stated ::he cost is S850 each if you go metal or use chain
link with elate.
Commissioner Carueillo stated the slats just break off.
The applicant stated the dumpstere are already on slabs and are surrounded by 3
block walls and they want them to put a gate on the front.
Commissioner Meese stated the applicant will be saving so much money by
alleviating his graffiti problem and alleviating all of the other vandalism
problems that he thought item no. 4 could be left in.
Chairwoman Bouae stated he has 10 enclosures and the applicant stated that ie a
lot of money.
11/21/88
~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21. 1988 Paae 34
The applicant asked if they could put a time limit on when they need to fix it
up. He asked that they waive the other 3 items.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated they will not waive all 3 items, but they will
waive those 2.
Chairwoman Bouaa asked if they could do the trash enclosures within one-year
and Mr. Hastings indicated stated they could and they would have to send
someone out to check.
Commissioner McSurney asked when the building permit would be issued and
Mr. Hastings stated it would be issued whenever certain conditions have been
met such ae payment of fees, so technically they could go into Plan Check and
be out within a month.
Commissioner McSurney stated the pentit could be ready to pull within a month.
He stated esthetically and because of sanitary conditions, it should be there.
He added he did not feel that the Ccmmission was imposing that much of a
financial burden on the 18 owners to resolve 10 trash enclosures and he would
stand with having them done when the building permit ie pulled within a month.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McSurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to convert an existing recreation building to a security
guard residence on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 3.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Alameda Avenue and
Valley Street and further described as 2130 w. Alameda Avenue; and dose hereby
approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and a;:y
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-316 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Uae Permit No. 3094 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal code Section
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations; and that conditions no. 1 and 2 be deleted and that condition
no. 4 be modified to read within a period of ninety (90) days.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, 9OYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC SURNEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
11/21/88
~~
+SZNUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISv:~Y,,`November 21. 1998 _,__,,,~rLae 35
ITEM NO 8 - CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION A,ID CONDITIONAL L7SE PS'RMIT N?. 3095
PUSLI~1 iil~JVtZNG. OWNERS: CtD:'1RLES H. PHILLIPS AND LINDA PHILLIPS,
547= :.xe't La .Palma, ATa;neim, CA 92807. PROPEIRTY LOCAT;iON:
5475 Easts„La pP~,~na Avenue. Property ie approximatel!? ?.1 acres :i)p~roximately
319 fea.'• :~r, the north aide of La Palma Avenue and lcca~ced apprsimately 760
feet cos•*- ~` the centerline of Srasfer Street.
To permit: an 8,548 equate-foot physical therapy/fitness center.
There was n~ ot~e indicating their preaenr;s in oppositiot~ c,~ subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it: i~ referred to and made a part of
the minutes.
Commissioner Meese declared a conflict of interest as d?fin.ed by Anaheim City
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest
C,.;:te for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in
that the applicant is a customer of his business and pv.rsuant to the ~,ro:iaione
of the a!+ove Codes, declared to the Chairwoman that he was withdrt:c.a~.~ from the
hearing in connection with Conditional Uae Permit No. 3095, and wo::ld not take
part in either the discussion or the mooting thereor, and had not d:=~usaed this
matter with •any member of the Plyinning Commission.. Thereupon Commission Mesas
left the Council Chamber.
Linda Phillips, saner of the property at 5475 E. LA Pa1~Ra. She stated they are
proposing a physical therapy an:i fi.tnes.a center .in ra alread3^ existing building
that is called Anaheim Hi?,.a He.,' ~.-, plaza.
She stated the physical thera~~y and fitness center i~i.geared to the industrial
community aia well as to reaidEmte of Ar..aheim Hia L. She stated they presently
service tF:e injured employees of t.Fie industrial corridor in their industrial
medics] group and they receive physical therapy in the physical therapy
cb.nter.
She stated they also offer rehabilitation for injured employees and the fitness
co!!±at has corporate memberships t. :he industry at large for health
enhancement programs, and individualis~td fitness programs that are set up
specifically far' the executive that wtints individuali~E~d training.
She stated there was a ques~tian with the F~arking wlth Mr. Singer, Traffic
Engineering. She stated when :.ey built 'she building and gpplied for a CUP for
their day care. She s*..ated they Headed 16 spares fo
r the day care. She explained the remaind.r of the building was built-out at 6
spaces to i :±hich wag the. requirement for medical, but just to be Hafe, t':ey
built the entire building ou`t at 6 to 1. She stated using that formula, that
would have keen 165 spaces and they presently have 177 spaces. She further
explained that d,ua to i:he nature of the type of building that it '~s, patients
cone and gci and no one stays and Darks all dc~y long. She added it ?s her
opinion that there is aufficioaL parking to acr_.om,~adate their needs.
11/21/88
;" ; ,; :~
~.
MIND ES. D.rtAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Page 36
TFi'G PUBLIC HEADING WAS CLOSEO.
Chairwoman Bouas askeo if they advertise this and Ha. Phillips indicated they
di;.
Chairwoman BC~i]AP ask.>d in what manner?
Ms. Phillips explained they do advertise the fitness center to the public in
the newspaper, etc., a~~~ ;ou.ically there is only room at any one time for 40 to
50 gsople. She stateC 1t is not like they can have hundreds of people at one
t!me be. suss it is nct 'cor that need. She stated there are hours of the day
whet: the industry can take use of it and becaueo it is a business they have
opened it up to the kublic if they are intereateZ.
Coauniasiot:er Bouas ,asked about their child care center.
Ma. Phillips stated it is starting to move and although it has been slow
getting off toe ground, it ie ~?oing fine.
Comm?saioner Carueillo stated on page ~' oz the ~ta_f report, it talks about the
egos ~-footage of 3,950 for the phys.ica. therapy tr~atmont room including the
aerobics.
Ma. Phillips clarified the 3,950 square feet :.s for the fitnea~ section of the
physical therapy and fitness center and that portion of it is the fitness
portion and the remaining P.Zuare-footage fa the physical therapy treatment
rooms.
Cpmmiasienr~r Carueillo statefd it also states that the remaining square-footage
consists of private treatment and asked what was meant by ~::het?
Ma, Phillips explained they are like exam rooms, ~•anplete with tables and t?;ey
have regiaterea physical therapies that perforn+ Physical ti:erapy on the
patient a.
Commissioner Carueilic ~sfered a motion, seconded by C.ocaniiesione:- Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Masse absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission ha:a reviewed the proposal to permit an 8,8:8 square-fait physical
therapy/fitness ^enter on a rectrRqular].y-shapa~d parcel of land consisting of
approximately 2.1 acres, having a frcntage of approximately 319 feet on :he
north side of Ls Parma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approttir..~tely 306 feet
and being located approximately 760 feet east of the centerline of Brr~har
Street and further described as 5475 East La Palma Avenue; and does hsrebv
appro:a the Nsgati.ve L`eclaration upon finding that it has considered tce
Negative Declaration tegether with any comments received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
cotmepta received that there is no substantial evis'.ence that th?: project will
have a significant effect on the envirorunent.
11/21/88
NUTES,__AN IH CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Pace 37
Commissioner Caruaillo offered Resolution No. PC88-317 and moved for i.te
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3095 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to interdepartmental
Committee racommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOiJAS, BOYDSTUY, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS,
HERBST, MC BURIiEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MESSE
Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Ca•.:ncil.
ITEM NO 9 CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE RE 'u]~.EMENT CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 3096 AND WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMES M. RZGHEIMER, 10101 Slater Avenue,
Suite 102, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. PROPERTY LOCATION: 3601 Weat Ball
Road. Property is approximately 0.76 acre, located approximately 167 feet on
the north side of Ball Road, approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of
Ball Road.
To construct a 3-story, 43-unit, "affordable" Senior Citizens apartment complex
with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit.
There was one concerned person indicating their presence to subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of
the minutes.
James Righeimer, 10101 Slater Avenue, Suite 102, Fountain Valley, CA. He
stated they are proposing a 43-unit seniors project. He stated they went by
the rules set up for the various types of projects they could put in there for
setbacks, etc. He explained the land is surrounded on one aide by a railroad
track, the other side by an Arco pumping station and on the other side by a
convalescent home that is located on Ball Road approximately 1-1/2 blocks west
of Knott Avenue.
He stated the way the project was set up and the way the projecL• was designed,
the only waivers they are asking for is the minimum building site per area and
they are not asking for any height waivers, parking waivers or setback
waivers. He stated there was some question about the density bonus and the
numbers on it.
He referenced page 2 of the staff report and stated the way the density bonus
was arrived at was they took the amount of land and substratum out thHepstated
and they came up with 22-unite that could be built on the property.
if they built the regular 27-unit apartment building and did underground
parking they would be able to go under the building coverage and build
27-unite. He added when thA calculations were figured they used their 43-unit
building, subtracted their parkin; .iut and came up with the density bonus. He
stated they are allowed 55~ building coverage and they are down to 35~ maximum
coverage. 11/21/88
-f
~~ -
INUTES~ANA_NET'~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Novembe* 21 1988 _Paae 38
He stated tho recreation/leisure area required is 200 square feet and they are
giving 220 square feet. He added the size of the unite are 550 square feet and
they are providing 612 square feet.
He stated they did not feel that there would be any impact on the City or the
surrounding residents.
OPPOSITION•
Linda HcGoldrick, 3159 west Laneraee, Anaheim. She voiced her concern that
this particular area has senior citizen residential care at this time. She
stated her concern was for the residents of that particular project and
explained t'.ey have lead numerous accidents from the elderly people trying to
get acrces Sall Road to go to the donut shop, the drug store or some of the
other facilities that are located across the street. She asked if the
developer has addressed any of these problems in hie plane?
REBUTTAL•
Mr. Righeimer stated he could understand the concern of the indf.vidual that
just spoke. He stated he did not know how to address someone getting hit
walking across the street. He stated the area has a convalescent home which is
more of a bed hospital situation, then their project. He explained then
further down the road there are more convalescent homes. He added the kind of
structure they are building is far ambulatory eeniorB.
Ms. McGoldrick stated the people who reside at Eden Rack are not bedridden and
they are very capable of getting anywhere that they want to go, unfortunately,
it does have to be on foot. She stated anyone that lives in that area has
driven down that street and on numerous occasions have had to slow down or atop
to allow the senior citizens to cross. She stated because they are senior
citizens they do not feel like walking any further then they have to. She
asked if this property was located on the west or tine east aide of the railroad
track?
It was noted that it was on the west side.
Ms. McGoldrick stated she did not want to cause Mr. Righeimer any problems and
she just wanted to voice her concern for the well being of the seniors and
added there could he more accidents. She stated something will have to be done
regarding the traffic safety to avoid any further problems.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLGSED.
Commissioner Reese stated before they addxesa the issue of traffic safety, he
did notice that one of the conditions that staff put on this in accordance with
their Code, is that they have an elevator in each building and according to
their plans he does not see that each 3-story building has an elevator.
Mr. Righeimer stated it is their understanding that the buildings are connected
with walkways.
11/21/88
a
~.;'
MZN`JTES. ANAHEZM_CZ~'SC PLANNING COHMZSSZON November 21. 1988 Paae 39
Commissioner Bouaa stated the walkways on the upper floors are open. She asked
what happens to the poor little old lady when she has her groceries and she
liven on one of the upper levels and she walks from her car, carries her
groceries to the elevator and then has to qo through the walkway and it ie
pouring down rain?
Mr. Riqheimer stated the walkways are covered.
Commissioner Bouas stated that is not shown on the plane.
Mr. Righeimer stated according to the elevation he had, they were covered.
Commissioner Bouas stated these really look like regular apartments and not
senior citizen apartments. She stated she thought they were very nice.
Hr. Righeimer stated it would not be a problem to cover the walkways.
Commissioner Herbst stated that is only one of the problems.
Commissioner Feldhaua stated if you cover it, it takes a•~ray the open apace.
Commissioner Herbst stated when you look at where your parking is located and
where the elevator is positioned, it is a long way to walk from the car to the
elevator to get to the third story. He stated you are larking at approximately
200 feet and by the time they get to their destination, it is a lot further
than that. He added for a senior citi.zen's complexes, it does not look like a
reaGOnable design.
Mr. Righeimer asked what about if they move the elevator closer to the parking
area?
Commissioner Bouaa stated they etiil have to walk to their unit. She stated it
is too spread out for a senior's project. She added she thought it was a
beautiful project.
Mr. Righeimer stated the whole lot is 166 feet wide and if the elevator was put
next to the parking it should be close enough.
Commissioner Hesse stated it is not that large of a lot and he thought if he
did move the elevator a little bit closer to the parking for people that are
carrying things, it would help.
Mr. Righeimer stated that could be done and it would not be a problem.
Commissioner Herbst stated it would help, however, if you figure your distance
from the car to one of the end units they could be walking 300 feet.
Commissioner Bouaa reiterated that it did not look like a senior's project.
She stated you are going to have problems renting it to seniors.
11/21/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION November 21. 1988 Paae 40
Commissioner Meese naked staff what the rule was on elevators?
Commissioner Meese asked Traffic Engineering for their input on traffic safety.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he is very familiar with Eden Rock. He
stated Eden Rock is the excection rather than the rule. He explained over the
years he has had quite a few conversations with the management of Eden Rock.
He stated they have made arrangements for the merchants to come to Eden Rock to
display their wares and the management of Eden Rock has not cooperated in any
of their efforts to provide traffic safety for those seniors.
He stated they are suppose to be guiding those aeniora across the street to the
medical offices. He stated that the City Council, at one time, considered the
installation of a crosswalk and a signal at that point and have denied it
because of the safety problem. He stated many of the seniors that live there
are quite disoriented and it is quite an exceptional problem.
He stated he did not think that this proposed development is anything like Eden
Rock. He stated one thing he would like to bring to their attention is the
security at this particular facility. He stated if it ie in fact to be a
senior complex, it does not conform to some of the information they received
this morning as to what a senior's complex really looks like. He stated this
is a senior complex that is under parked.
He stated ane of the problems is that there is no provision to install future
security gates because they cannc~ meet the minimum standards that they
require. He stated he thought a senior development should have security gates
and under the present design they cannot.
Commissioner Herbst stated when he sees a senior's project, he likes to see
where they can drive under the building and have security gates that lock
behind them. He stated they should be able to drive in, catch an elevator and
go right to their units without too much walking. He added it is an apartment
house complex and not suitable for aeniora.
Mr. Righeimer stated they are very concerned. He stated he did not know why
they could not install security gates and it seemed like they would be able to
set it up properly.
He stated one of the things that they do look at for seniors and did not see in
any of the projects in Anaheim and in most areas, ie a washer and dryer
facility in the unit. He stated these unite are set up that way. He stated
they initially will move out of their homes and then are forced to use communal
facilities. He stated they are sensitive to that and they set it up with
separate washer and dryer hookups. He stated they provided stand-up models
which will be provided for everyone that lives there.
He stated they did want to stay away from one massive building with an
elevator. He stated across the street there is a very nice apartment complex
with underground parking, and it just seems like it is all concrete.
11/21/88
HZNUT~r~S,. ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMIiISSION. N~wember 21. 1988 Paoe 41
He stated the way this building is set up and the way the angle of the railroad
C::acka are, it gives a lot of little triangular areas of grass and the idea was
to keep it open, light and airy and not have a cubical type of situation with
the building in thEa center. He stated the first designs they saw when they got
this piece of property from projects that were done in the City of Anaheim were
that type. He stated the attitude was they did want thin to be more of an open
type area and not like a convalescent environment and added that is what they
were trying achieve.
Chairwoman Bouas stated she thought he had done a fine job in achieving that,
but she thought the problem was going to be the parking. She stated there are
not enough parking spaces for the type of senior they will be attracting. She
stated they are going to attract the senior that is still out in the world and
very active, but has given up their home and wants a place to live and perhaps
they will have 2 care.
Commissioner Mesas stated you think you are going to attract the active senior
citizen with a 615 square-foot unit? He added he did not think so.
Commissioner Herbst stated they spoke with a Traffic Engineer this morning that
referenced this type of apartment house. He stated this would require a one to
one for parking plus guest parking.
Commissioner Neese stated the overall average age for residents in `hie complex
would be lower than other seniors projects.
Commissioner Bouas stated people would still be working and driving and this ie
the sort of complex that would not be attracted to this type of unit.
Commissioner Carusillo stated 600 square feet would coat less than 1,200 square
feet and there will be a market for that as well. He stated these places will
be rented out and the market will speak for itself. He stated he thought it
was put together quite nicely; it does not give you that convalescent look and
if they could satisfy the parking, it seems like a good project 'to him.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated Eden Rock is a gated and secure facility. He
stated even though it is gated, he was surprised to learn of traffic accidents
involving those people who w@Fe disoriented, etc.
Nr. Singer stated there ie only one single fatality that has happe:red here and
that was years ago.
Commissioner Herbst asked with the additional foot traffic that they might
have, would those statistics increase?
Mr. Singer stsced he did not think this particular development world cause a
serious problem.
Commissioner Heeee stated you indicated that there could not be any particular
provision for gating, however, it looks like they could set a gate back along
where the end of the first building is located.
11/21/88
t
~~:
H;NUTES. ANA.u.:~IH CITY PLANNING roMMISSiON, November 21. 1988 Paoe 42
2Sr. Singer stated not at the end of the building because you would have at
least one unit and possibly more that would be unsecured.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated security fa a big thing for these seniors in these
complexes.
Commissioner Meese stated you could leave some of the quest parking facilities
on the outside of the gate.
Mr. Singer stated he certainly would be willing to work with the applicant to
provide these gates. He explained you need to have a minimum setback of 40
feet from the property line before you can even start discussing a gate.
Commissioner Meese asked the applicant if he was willing !o work with the City
Traffic Engineer to see if he could accommodate the gating of the parking
facility and Hr. Righeimer stated absolutely.
Mr. Righeimer stated they had discussed this, however, it was not included in
their plane because of some of the rules. He stated he thought a security
building was fine. He explained he thought the word security ie a scary word
and they do not use that word anymore, however, it ie refpxred to as a gated
building. He added he saw no problem with that at all.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated if you speak with a senior citizen they will use
the word security.
Mr. Righeimer stated their goal was to build something that did not look like a
hospital facility and that they wanted to build something that looked nicer.
He stated the washers and dryers may not sound like a big thing, however, when
you develop a project like this, it makes a difference to try to be able to do
that. He stated they felt they should be able to take care of themselves and
not have to be in a community laundry area.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if the landscape plane were just the artists rendering
or did they haves the names of the types of plants, etc., and Mr. Righeimer
indicated it was just the rendering.
Chairwoman Bouas stated they need a landscape plan and they need specific names
eo they know something ie going in those areas.
Mr. Righeimer stated he is 33 years old and he started in the real estate
business when he was 19 years old. He stated that he has been developing for
the last several years and every project he has done has had an abundance of
landscaping. He stated he owns the properties when they are done and his
attitude is that he wants properties that he can be proud of.
11/21/88
,~ ,~
.. , .
HINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COFMISSION November 21. 1988 Paae 42
Hr. Singer stated not at the end of the building because you would have at
Ieast one unit and possibly more that would be unsecured.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated security is a biy thing for these seniors in these
complexes.
Commissioner Messe stated you could leave some of the guest parking facilities
on the outside of the gate.
Hr. Singer stated he certainly would be willing to work with the applicant to
provide these gates. He explained you need to have a minimum setback of 40
feet from the property line before you can even start discussing a gate.
Commissioner Hesse asked the applicant if he was willing to work with the City
Traffic Engineer to see if he could accommodate the gating of the parking
facility and Hr. Righeimer stated absolutely.
Hr. Righeimer stated they had discussed this, however, it was not included in
their plans because of some of the rules. He stated he thought a security
building was fine. He explained he thought the word security is a scary word
and they do not use that word anymore, however, it icy referred to as a gated
building. He added he saw no problem with that at all.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated if you speak with a senior citizen they will use
the word security.
Mr. Righeimer stated their goal was to build something that did not look like a
hospital facility and that they wanted to build something that looked nicer.
He stated the washers and dryers may not sound like a big thing, however, when
you develop a project like this, it makes a difference to try to be able to do
that. He stated they felt they should be able to take care of themselves and
not have to be in a community laundry area.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if the landscape plane were just the artists rendering
or did they have the names of the types of plants, etc., and Mr. Righeimer
indicated it was just the rendering.
Chairwoman Bouas stated they need a landscape plan and they need specific names
so they know something is going in those areas.
Hr. Righeimer stated he ie 33 years old and he started in the real estate
business when he was 19 years old. He stated that he has veep developing for
the last several years and every project he has done has had an abundsa.e of
landscaping. He stated he owns the properties when they are done and his
attitude is that he wants properties that he can be proud of.
11/21/88
MINUTES... ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 43
He stated the area on West Ball Road is a fantastic area. He stated most of
the area is single-family residence. He stated the street traffic is not ae
excessively busy as compared to other areas of Anaheim and added he would not
want to see his own mother in some of the other areas of Anaheim.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated make it subject to the artist's rendering.
ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Hesse and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal construct a 3-story, 43-unit, "affordable" Senior
Citizen's Apartment Complex with waiver of minimum building site area per
dwelling unit on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.76 acre, having a frontage of approximately 167 feet on the
north side of Sall Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 284 feet and
being located approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Ball Road and
further described as 3601 West Ball Road; and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process and
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
waivers of Code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstances
applicable to the property ouch as size, shape, topography, location and
surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same
vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property
of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to have two (2) elevators, i.e., one
at the north end and one at the south end so it would cut down on the walking
distance. He stated the way it is right now he could not vote for it.
Mr. Righeimer indicated that should work.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, asked if the Commission would like
staff to review those plane and Chairwoman Bouas indicated that would be fine.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would physically like to see the plans and bring
it back under a Report and Recommendation item.
ACTION CONTINUED: Commissioner Caruaillo offered Resolution No. PC88-318 and
moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3096 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 18.030.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommendations; and that security gates shall be installed, that a
landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Planning Commission,
and further that elevators shall be installed at the north and south ends of
the subject senior citizen's apartment project so that each apartment is
located no more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from an elevator.
11/21/88
~~ 1
j~fiNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21. 1988 Paoe 44
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hereby approve
Waiver of Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses.
ITEM tiO. 10 - CEOA NEGATIVE AECLARATION. WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREHENT.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3099 AND WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: GILBERT MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP, 925 S. Gilbert Street,
Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: MEHDI ZADEH, Poat Office Box 3868, Mission Viejo,
CA 92804. PROPERTY LOCATION: 925 South Gilbert Street.
To permit a 2-story, 24-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex
with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of
the minutes.
Commissioner Boydatun 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 savernment Code Section 3625, et
seq., in that her eon represents the developer and pursuant to the provisions
of the above Codes, declared to the Chairwoman that she was withdrawing from
the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3099, 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
Boydatun left the Council Chamber.
Kent Boydatun, 703 N. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA. He stated the Commission
originally approved this project on August 15, 1988 ae a 28-unit senior housing
project. He stated they originally came in with 31-units.
He explained he went back with some problems that they had with the
neighborhood and took a couple of the end unite down and chane}ed some other
things. He stated the Commission approved the project, however, the City
Council held a public hearing and consequently they were turned down for the
project. He stated the City Council thought it was a little tae dense and also
the third story was a little cumbersane.
He atat~ed rather than giving up on the project, they went back to the drawing
board and they have come back with a 2-story, 24-unit project. He stated
basically it is the same configuration on the exception of the building to the
south which is 1-unit wider than its counterpart on the north side.
11/21/88
f
:~
i
°t .'
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 21. 1988 Page 45
He stated the unit size is basically the same and the landscape plan remains
the same. He stated they did make a couple of changes on the site plan
allowing for a secure access to the parking area. He stated they put a gate
back in off of the street and explained for the moat part the project ie pretty
much the way it was originally submitted to the Commission lees four units and
the third story.
He referred to the colored rendering. He stated it is not really accurate
because it still depicts the third story. He stated they do have one other
change on the site plan, i.e., they moved the trash enclosure to a different
location on the parcel, but it ie still on the Gilbert Street aide of the
project and it is still fenced and enclosed.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Feldhaua asked if there was any discussion that took place in the
City Council hearing about the ingress and egress on Bruce Street and
Hr. Boydetun stated that was never discussed and he thought there was a good
feeling by everyone that it was beat to take it in and off of Gilbert Street
and not bring it in on Bruce Street.
Commissioner Herbst asked Hr. Singer to comment on the security gate.
Paul Singer, City Traffic Engineer, stated he did not see any provisions on the
plane for a security gate. He explained if security gates are to be installed
again, then one unit will be unsecured and some parking ie going to be lost,
especially the parallel parking, because there is no way you can park there and
put a security gate in. He stated he failed to see where a provision was made
for security gates.
Commissioner Herbst stated they have a crash gate in the back. He stated they
just finished approving a similar project, but they required them to have a
security gate to protect the senior citizens.
Hr. Singer stated the plan the applicant just showed him would leave at least
2-unite unsecured. He stated he supposed it could be done if you wanted to
leave that many unite unsecured.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not see any gates on the drawing that he was
looking at.
Hr. Singer stated the applicant has an amended plan and Commissioner Herbst
asked to see it.
The question came up about elevators in the 2-story plan. Hr. Boydetun stated
there are pros and cans to the elevators. He explained one is that it ie an
advantage and two it is a disadvantage relative to coat when you put the entire
package together. He stated if it was made a condition of approval, then they
would put one in.
Chairwoman 8ouas stated if it is truly a senior citizen complex then an
elevator would be needed. She stated if they come to stay, they are only going
to get older.
11/21/88
~__`
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMHZSSZON November 21 1988 Paae 46
Commissioner Carusillo stated when this previously came before the Commission,
he was against the project because of his concerns regarding the safety of the
people exiting onto Gilbert because it is a fast street. He stated he proposes
that the ingress and egress be from Bruce Street where one of the occupants who
might have a little slower reaction time, could either go right or left without
too much concern.
He stated he was surprised that he was not backed up on that by the Traffic
Department. He stated he knows the traffic is rather fast and he is concerned
about the elderly exiting right there and trying to go left. He stated it
makes better sense to consider that driveway to empty out onto Bzuce Street
rather than Gilbert.
He stated they discussed this on the last project they just heard and he would
hate to think of the possibilities of elderly people that are still driving
trying to go left or right onto Gilbert because of the width of the street and
the fast moving traffic. He stated he would be favor of the project because it
has been cut down a lot and the density no longer seems to be an issue. He
stated he would like to see the driveway open onto Bruce street and an elevator
added.
Mr. Singer stated it is not that he is not in concert with what he just stated,
but a project was approved on Ball Road which is about 10 times as fast as
Gilbert, and traffic on Gilbert is not as voluminous as traffic is on Ball
Road and he was going by that comparison. He agreed that it is preferable to
have the access point on Sruce Street and on the other hand, he did not know
what the ramifications are or what it means to the neighborhood. He stated is
this really a senior citizen's complex or an apartment complex because now ha
ie having a real problem with the parking.
Commissioner Carusillo stated the Ball Road project was such that it might
invite younger seniors. He stated this project might cater to people who are
older. He asked Mr. Boydatun if he would have problems exiting out onto Bruce
Street?
Mr. Boydatun stated the problem he ease exiting onto Bruce Street is that most
of the services are in that direction, and the only option a person has is if
they are going to go east or west on Ball Road, then they will come around the
corner to Rowan Street and try to exit onto Sall Road which has no control on
it at all and is sitting between the signal for the high school crossing and
the signal at Gilbert.
Commissioner Carusillo stated his concern is with the elderly people and their
reaction time trying to move into the traffic.
Chairwanan Souae stated the people did not want the seniors exiting out onto
Gilbert and stated this was one of their main objections.
Mr. Boydatun stated that Commissioner Carusillo was not at th~a original meeting
and Commissioner Carusillo stated he was.
Hr. Boydatun stated the neighbor's main concern was traffic goine; onto Bruce
street.
11/21/88
~;
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 21. 1988 Paoe 47
Commissioner Caruaillo stated he was concerned about the public's safety and
added he has a problem with the project.
Mr. Boydatun stated the thing to do would to have ingress and egress onto both
Gilbert and Bruce Streets, however, he felt there could .be ~futv:re problems
because of the location of the high school. He stated everyone that heads that
way wi:l cut through the complex to save that 1/2 block of walking.
Commissioner Caruaillo stated not unless you have a security gate that is
monitored with a control and asked how that :.~ould be as an option?
Mr. Boydatun stated he did not think tnet was fair to the people who have been
coming to the hearings that live on Bruce Street to condition this and charge
the site plan back to an entrance onto Bruce Street. He stated they 1-ad met
with those individuals and worked out what they thought was an amicable
solution and now they are changing it without getting any input fry tiAem.
Commissioner Hesse stated he dealt with the neighborhood and he alleviated
their concerns by saying that they were going to close off .Bruce Street.
Chairwoman Bouas stated there was no concern the last time they heard this ao
there would be no reason for him to think we would have concerns this time.
Commissioner Caruaillo stated when people come back before the <;ommiasion they
should be aware that there could be other discussion.
Hr. Boydatun stated he would like to see the project approved as it stands glue
they will put in an elevator.
Commissioner Caruaillo asked what about a remote controlled security gate on
the Bruce Street side? He stated that might minimize the neighbors concerns
and for those people who are concerned about accessing onto Gilbert, they would
have the option of going out onto Bruce Street..
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydatun absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 2-story, 24-unit "affordable"
senior citizen's apartment complex with waiver of minimum building site area
per dwelling unit on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.57 acre, having approximate frontages of 120 feet on the west
side of Gilbert Street and 120 feet on the east side of Bruce Street, being
located approximately 300 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and further
described as 925 South Gilbert Street; and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process and
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
11/21/88
3
ZNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Pace Q8
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McDurney and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydatun absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant a waiver of Code requirement on the basis that
there are special circumstances applicable to the property ouch es aixe, shape,
topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically
zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning
Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by ether properties in the
identical zone and classification in the vicinity.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-37.9 and moved for its passage
and adoption (COmcaiesioner Boydatun absent and Commissioner Caruaillo
abstaining) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 3099 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section
18.30.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations; and that a security gate shall be installed off of Gilbert
Street to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer; that an elevator shall
be provided; and further that the legal owner skull enter into a recorded
agreement with the City of Anaheim for a period of 30 years.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COZgMZSSIONERS: BOUAS, FELDHAUS, HERBST, HC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN
ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS: CARUSZLLO
Commissioner Caruaillo stated he abstained on the issue because of the one
exception. He stated he was glad that the density was cut down and he hoped
the traffic flows witY,out being impeded.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Meese and MOTION
CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hE+reby approve waiver of
Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses.
ITEM NO 11 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REOUZREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3098
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: POTTERS INDUSTRIES INC., 377 Route 17, Hasbrouck
Heights, New Jersey 07604. AGENT: ROBERT W. GUTHRIE, BURKE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT, 42 Corporate Park, Suite 210, Irvine, CA 92714. PROPERTY
LOCATION: 1255 South Lewis Street. Property ie approximately 4.97 acres,
located approximately 1,236 feet on the west side of Lewis Street approximately
422 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road.
To establish a 17-lot industrial subdivision with industrial related sales
businesses and office uses with waiver of required lot frontage.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of
the minutes.
11/21/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21, 1988 Paae 49
Robert Guthrie, partner with Burke Development, 42 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA.
He had no further presentation.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CIASED.
Commissioner Haase asked how much industrial do we have left in the City of
Anaheim and which way is it going?
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he does not have the actual
figures, however, he can get them. He explained they are seeing a lot of this
type of use in *..his particular area.
Commissioner Masse stated they have always believed that they were maintaining
a city that had a balanced use with housing, industrial, office apace and
recreation. He expressed his concern that they were becoming imbalances.
Commissioner Boydatun asked if it would help if he would specify that no more
square-footage would be used for the office portion connected with industrial
then what is shown on the plans'r
Hr. Guthrie stated they originally started without asking for this specify.
conditional use permit, but through the IDC meetings, it was suggested that
this CUP could be added to try to broaden the uses that are acceptable to the
City of Anaheim. He stated the reason that was suggested is because they
submitted pictures and site plans from previous projects similar to this and
mentioned uses that were approved by other cities. He added it was clear that
the City of Anaheim is more restrictive in the uses that they will allow.
He stated they were trying to broaden the allowable uses that the City feels
comfortable with without having to go back for special approval. He explained
what they are suggesting is that they do not try to build-out anymore office
apace then what is currently allowed within the ML zone. He stated they would
be happy to live with the requirement tk~at should they have a user that did
want to build-out more office then what is allowed in the ML zone, they would
have to qo back through the conditional use permit process.
He stated the intent of the project is that it be an industrial project and
they were trying to allow the maximum flexibility for marketing, but they were
nut trying to put in any uses within the park that the City does not want to
see.
Commissioner Mease asked if this was outside the stadium development area and
Mr. Hastings etateii he believed this was in the covenant area where they do
require a covenant,. however, t}ie stadium fees do not apply.
Chairwoman Bouae aEiked what happened with Potters and Mr. Guthrie explained
Potters Industries has cleaed down their manufacturing plant and they have
built a new plant i1 Phoenix. He stated evidently the coat for doing business
for crushing glass has become toa expensive in Orange County. He added they
are going to keep a distribution facility here in the area.
11/21/88
~` _ ' ,. 1
MINUTES ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Page 50
Chairwoman Bouae stated that may tell them what is happening to their
industrial area and Commissioner Meese stated it is because they are allowing
all of this commercial office building. He stated they were creating their own
problems.
Chairwoman Bouae stated she thought there was more of a demand foz this type of
industrial space.
Mr. Guthrie stated he did not want their project mislabeled ae an office type
project because it is absolutely an industrial project. He stated they were
trying to keep industrial in Orange County .:nd the beet way to do that is to
build a smaller space to try to get the small formation. He stated the people
that live in the arem that have a small business would be lees inclined to move
out to the Inland Empire.
Commissioner Meese asked for clarification if staff recommended this and
Mr. Guthrie stated they did not recommend this, they suggested that this is one
way. He stated they were going through the variance process to request
approval for lots that did not front on Lewis Street and it was guggeated that
this could be added to the process.
Commissioner Mesas stated he was not concerned about that area because it was
not an office park, but he was concerned in general and wanted to express his
opinion on it.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to see a condition added that the
amount of office apace that he hoe on his drawing be part of the condition,
i.e., whatever he is showing for square-footage, he cannot go ovwr for office
use.
Mr. Guthrie stated they would agree not to exceed the percentage allowed in the
ML zone and what they have shown on the drawing is less than what is allowed in
the ML zone.
Commissioner Hesse asked if there is a percentage and Mr. Hastings explained
there was not. He stated the Code states that any type of office use has to be
accessory to a warehouse use.
Commissioner Carueillo offered a motion, seconded by Commieaiorer Meese and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to establish a 17-lot industrial subdivision with arceltofalandlated
sales businesses and office usss on an irrRgulariy-shaped p
consisting of approximately 4.96 acres, having a frontage of approximately
1,236 feet on the west side of Lewis Street having a maximum depth of
approximately 410 feet and being located approximately 422 feet south of the
centerline of Ball Road and furtk:er described ae 1255 South Lewis Street; and
dose hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that is has
aoneidered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during
the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study
and any comments received that there ie no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect qn the environment. 13/21/88
~~ a
~`
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 51
Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Masse and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a
waiver of Code requirement on the baeia that there are special circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and
surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same
vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property
of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity.
Mr. Guthrie stated one or two of the users may want to build onto their
existing space. He stated when he commented earlier that they would be willing
to live with an office build-out requirement within the existing ML zone, they
had calculated, based on tl~e parking allocation, if you take the City's parking
allocation of 4 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of office apace and 2.25
parking stalls for 1,000 square feet of warehouse apace, then a particular
building could have up to 49i office space and still be within the ML zone.
Commissioner Hezbat stated he did not agree with him.
Mr. Hastings stated the Code is worded in such a way that if you have an
industrial use you can have accessory office to that industrial use. He stated
a good example would be if you have a warehouse you can have accessory office
in the warehouse. He explained accessory, according to our Code, is less than
SOB, however, they would require that the parking be taken care. He emphasized
that this would be strictly for industrial uses and not for the types of uses
that are being requested here.
Mr. Guthrie stated there are some buildings in the back of the project that
only have two private offices and he would be concerned if someone wanted to
use one of those buildings and they needed a third private office far an
employee, if they had exceeded the 34i office build-out on other buildings,
then that person would riot be allowed to build that private office.
Mr. Hastings explained he was talking about two different typed of office uses;
one is a permitted accessory and the other use ie what is being approved today.
Commissioner Herbst explained the applicant has a set of drawings before the
Commission toddy with a specific size for each office. He asked Mr. Guthrie
why he submitted that set of drawings?
Mr. Guthrie stated they are trying to build a guideline, i.e., this project is
being built on a speculative baeia. He explained there is a tabulation that
shows the square-footage of office that can be built-out for each building. He
stated on the mezzanine building, or the buildings that have some second floor
office space, they would be willing to restrict those buildings to no more
additional office space.
11/21/88
g6-
q 1
HINUTES ANAHEZli CZTY PLANNING COHHISSION November 21. 1988 Paae 52
He expressed his concern regarding the buildings in the back which only have
two private offices and indicated they would like to have the ability to add
more office apace to those buildings if needed.
He stated they will probably build-out those buildings with complete office
apace on the ground floor, but the aecand floor mezzanine would just be a
shell. He explained if someone came into that building and needed the office
apace, then they could provide it for them because it is already approved.
Hr. Hastings stated actually, that would be permitted by right provided there
is eufficienY. parking.
Commissioner Hesse stated you are talking about adding an office to an
industrial building. He stated that is not what we are worried about. He
explained they are concerned about the building that he turned into an
insurance company where half of the building are offices.
Mr. Guthrie stated they would be happy to restrict their office build-out on
any building that would not fall within the approved guidelines of the
zoning.
Commissioner Herbst stated if they want to add or take away something, they
cannot exceed the 34,000 square feet, and if they should decide to exceed the
34,000 square feet, they would have to come in with another set of drawings.
Commissioner Herbst stated they have a complete breakdown of what they wanted
and asked for and now they want something else. He stated they are getting so
many of these types of uses in their industrial area and now they must be very
careful because they are killing the industrial area.
Commissioner Carusillo stated in addition to not exceeding the square-footage
as sited on the staff report, they want to make sure that the overall
square-footage of the office use does not exceed the 34,200.
Hr. Guthrie stated the building that has the,aoet office square-footage in it
right now has below 498 office space eo they are still dealing with a building
that has more than SOi warehouse and truck loading apace. Ha added they would
not be able to fill that building with a pure office user that wanted to find
cheap office space.
Commissioner Herbst stated you are asking fur a conditional use permit and this
is still prime industrial property where all uses must suit the industrial zone
and what he has right now does that, however, if he exceeds that it could wind
up commercial.
Coarn,issioner Carusillo stated c.ilan the stipulation pretty much covers their
concern. He asked before they go on with the resolution, one of the
Commissioners was concerned about the landscaping adjacent to Lewis and he
wanted to know what he intended to do there? He also asked if the fence would
stay?
11/21/88
'~~ {
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COlWISSION November 21 1988 PaQe_53
Mr. Guthrie stated adjacent to Lewis the entire strip is going to be landsczped
and he stated the Commission will be pleased when they see their landscape
plans. He stated they just completed a project in the City of Orange where the
landscape architect was so happy with it that they entered it into an annual
NAIOP award for landscaping.
Commissioner Carueillo offered Resolution No. PC88-320 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit NO. 3098 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommendations; and that the office space dose not exceed 34,200
square feet ae sited in the staff report.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: C0M?1ZSSZONERS: NONE
Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO. 12 - CE A EGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13803
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: AHMAD-SHOJAEDDINI, 1216 E. La Palma Avenue,
Suite 8, Anaheim, CA 92805. RONALD J. CROWLEY, 1700 Raintree Road,
Fullerton, CA 92673. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1500 west Broadway. Subject
property is approximately 1.1 acres located approximately 210 feet on the south
side of Broadway approximately 250 feet east of the centerline of Gilmar
street.
Request for approval of a Tentative Tract map to establish a 1-lot, 15-unit,
RM-3000 air-apace condominium subdivision.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request,
and there was one interested person, and although the staff report was not
read, it ie referred to and made of a part of the minutes.
Dr. Ronald Crowley, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, CA. He stated he was here
to present a tentative tract map on a project that was previously approved.
He stated, if possible, he would like to remove one stipulation in the
condition that requires prior to obtaining a building permit that they obtain
their final tract map. He stated the local neighbors are very anxious for them
to start work on the project and as you may Y.now the site has been in a state
of disarray for some time now and they would very much appreciate it if there
was something they could do which would enable them to start construction.
Commissioner Carueillo asked what condition he was referring to?
Dr. Crowley stated this is PC88-217 and :`.t ie on Variance No. 3829. He stated
it is item no. 6 and it reads as follc~we: That a tract map to record the
division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of
Anaheim and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
i
:'
HINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 54
Commissioner Meese asked if this was from the previous approval and Dr. Crowley
indicated that was correct.
Dr. Crowley stated the houee has been abandoned for quite some time and in fact
they are having rat poison put in and they have cleaned up the site and things
of that nature, but the house is not something they want to be standing for
very long.
Commissioner Hesse stated they will have to defer to the City Attorney on this
ae he did not know if they could change that.
OPPOSITION•
Walt Frankland, 400 S. Gilbuck. He stated he was not happy with the project at
all, however, he gathers there is not much they can change.
He stated he was not sure if he was going to object to anything or not. He
stated if he could get them to change the whole project and put in
single-family homes, he would do that.
AEBUTTAL•
Dr. Crowley indicated he had nothing to add.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated he thought they needed to talk to Art Daw, Deputy
City Engineer, regarding the delay on recording the map.
Commissioner McBurney asked if all they want to do is demolish the houee and
Dr. Crowley stated they would like to start building the project.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he also thought he wanted to demolish the houee.
He stated he has not looked at the property for about 2 weeks now and wanted to
know if he has completed clearing the trees and all of the shrubs and
everything that is around there?
Dr. Crowley indicated that the major portion of everything has been cleared.
He explained they have not demolished the building as of yet, however, they are
working with Vector Control (name not spelled for the record) and explained
that prior to any demolition, they wanted them to make sure there were not any
rate left that would spread to the neighbors.
He further explained that the place was in pretty bad shape and once they are
done with the rat control, then they will apply for their demolition permit and
get the building removed. He stated if there is anyway it can be done by
indemnifying the City or something, they would like to be able to start work on
the project now.
Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated as far as the Engineering Department is
concerned, they would not recommend that the condition be changed. He stated
the only other tie that they would have on a project would be the final
building inspection, and based upon discussions with the Building
Division, this does not give them adequate hold as far as the Engineering
Department is concerned.
A ' r
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 55
Commissioner Mesas stated the matter before them ie just a tentative tract
approval and did not think they could do that.
Chairwoman Bouas asked tir. Daw if he could tell them what they have to have and
give them a time frame that it would take.
Mr. Daw explained from the time that a final map is submitted to the
Subdivision section, which could be done anytime after the approval of the
finalized tentative map, their checking time fa approximately 3 weeks. He
further explained the actual length of time from then on would depend on the
thoroughness of the preparation of the map initially, the amount of corrections
and how promptly the developer's engineer would respond to their corrections
and then the bonds are posted.
Chairwoman Bouas stated then it is up to them if their engineering drawings are
good or not.
Mr. Daw stated it could be done in a shorter time if there are substantial
changes. He explained some of the main delay which does not involve the City
ie the Orange County Surveyors Office. He stated they are reaponeible for the
checking and approval of the blue border of the tract and he does not know what
their checking time frame is.
Dr. Crowley stated it is their experience that it is typically 3 to 4 months if
everything goes very smoothly, and therefore, it is not a rapid process.
Chairwoman Bouas asked what kind of proposal he had?
Dr. Crowley stated they would be happy to agree to not completing the project
nor obtain any occupancy until such time as they obtain the final map.
Chairwoman Bouas stated they have no way of enforcing that.
Mr. Daw stated it is hie experie:~ce with the Building Division that once the
buildings are completed the Chief Building Inspector indicated that he has no
right to withhold occupancy, and therefore, they will lose their ability to
obtain what they need. He stated so items of this ::ature they prefer to have
prior to issuance of a building permit where they do have some security and a
hold.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hesse
and NOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to establish a 1-lot, 15-unit, RM-3000 air apace condominium
subdivision on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
1.1 acres, having a frontage of approximately 210 feet on the south aide of
Broadway having a maximum depth of approximately 266 feet, being located
appraximately 250 feet east of the centerline of Gilmar Street and further
described as 1500 West Broadway; and dcee hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that is has considered the Negative Declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process and
further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. 11(21/88
~y- \ ...,
r"
HINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21. 1988 Pace 56
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mease and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission :ioea hereby find that the
proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent
with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section
66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Hap of Tract No. 13803 for a
1-lot, 15-unit, RM-3000 air-space condominium subdivision subject to the
following conditions:
1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate
traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim
in an amount as determined by City Council resolution.
2. That sidewalks shall be installed along Broadway ae required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
3. That the existing driveway on Broadway shall be removed and replaced
with standard curb and gutter, sidewalk and landscaping.
4. That the driveway shall be constructed with ten (10) foot radius
curb returns as required by the City Engineer. Existing broken or
cracked driveways shall be removed and replaced as required by the
City Engineer.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in
tentative form for approval.
7. That the legal property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim
an agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing
to complete the public improvements required as conditions of this
map at the legal property owner's expense. Said agreement shall be
recorded concurrently with the final tract.
8. That a tract map to record the division of subject property shall be
submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
9. That the vehicular access rights to Gilbuck Drive shall be dedicated
to the City of Anaheim.
10. That prior to final tract, the original documents of the covenants,
conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be
submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City
Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering
Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed and
recorded in the Office of the Ora:ige County Recorder.
11/2i/88
~. `. ~
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CZTY PLANKING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 57
11. That the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 13803 is granted
subject to the finalization of Reclassification No. 88-89-08 Variance
No. 3829.
12. That alp private streets shall be developed in accordance with tt:a
Engineering Division's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets,
including installation of street name signs. Plana for the private
street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted
to the Building Division for approval and included with the building
plane prior to the issuance of building permits. (Private streets are
those which provide primary access and/or circulation within the
project).
13. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
14. That a fee in the amount of $4,500.00 for undergrounding of utilities
shall be paid to the Electrical Engineering Division.
15. That prior to issuance of a building permit the appropriate fees due for
primary mains and fire protection service shall be paid to the Water
Utility Division in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water
Utility Ratae, Rules and Regulations.
16. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation
in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount ae
determined by the City Council.
17. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be submitted
to and approved by the Zoning Division.
18. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be
installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
19. That prior to final tract map approval, condition Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 14,
16, and 17, above-mentioned, shall bcs complied with.
20. That prior to final map approval, the requirements set forth in
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 18, above-mentioned,
shall be set forth on the face of the final map in a form satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
21. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed
request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal
Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval does
not include any action or findings se to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 10 days to the City Council.
11/21/88
1 .'
Y.INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMHISSZON November 21 1988 Paoe 58
Dr. Crowley stated they could have their tract map ready within a matter of a
few days, so they are faizly well along already. He added it ie just that the
County is one of the major stumbling blocks.
Hassoud (name not spelled for the record). He stated he would have to check
with the County, because if you pay double the price in the County, you can
have it anywhere from 15 to 21 days, however, the City does not have this. He
stated he checked with Engineering and they have more than 10 very big projects
and they have only a couple of people working on these. He stated they
indicated to him it would take 2 to 3 months.
He explained it then gcee to City Council and after that they can have approval
from the City Council. He stated they are really at 4 months if everything
goes right. He stated the holdup will be from the City because of the
backlog. He stated Mr. Daw indicated it would take 3 weeks, however, ~~re do
have the holiday season coming up.
Commissioner Feldhaue stated then you know the clock is ticking and you have
heard that they cannot do anything about it at this level. He stated he
thought he heard the process would not ta4~ 4 months.
Hr. Daw reiterated that it was his understanding that their checking time was
up to 3 weeks, but at the same time the City does have consultants under
contract and they can send out work to do the checking for them.
Massoud stated this week he will file the tract map with the City and he will
come back after 3 weeks and ask what has happened.
ZTEM NO 13 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-21
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CLYDE C. FINCH AND ROBERTA K. FINCH, 327 S. State
College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: ARLIN STEINBRINK, 33781 Bayside
Lane, Dana Point, CA 92629. PROPERTY LOCATION:
327 South State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.18 acre located
approximately 61 feet on the west aide of State College Boulevard approximately
348 feet south of the centerline of Broadway.
Reclassification from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zone to the CL
(Commercial, Limited) or a less intense zone to expand the parking area of an
existing restaurant (Sizzler).
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of
the minutes.
Commissioner Carusillo 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 (no conflict of interest form on file) and pursuant to the
provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing
from the hearing in connection with Reclassification No. 88-89-21, 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 Carusillo left the Council Chamber.
~. ~.
MINUTES. ANafe~'.V~{.,a;',.,7I,,Rl1NING COMMISSION. November 21. 1988 Pave 59
Eileen Aertfelder, representing the applicant, her brother. She stated they
wish to remove the existing buildings at 327 South State College Boulevard and
increase the size of the Sizzler parking lot. She stated it seems they have
had tots of trouble with people not having enough parking and this time they
want to rsverae it.
She stated she thought the Planning Commission's recommendations pretty well
cover what they are intending to do.
ACTION: Commissioner HcBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Meese
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-7200 (Residential,
Single-Family) zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) or a leas intense zone to
expand the parking area of an existing restaurant on an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.18 acre, having a frontage of
approximately 61 feet on the west aide of State College Boulevard, having a
maximum depth of approximately 110 feet and being located approximately 348
feet south of the centerline of !roadway and further described as 32.7 South
State College Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on the
basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-321 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 88-89-21, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was paeeed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, HC BURNEY
MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CARUSILLO
Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO. 14 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-04,
VARIANCE NO. 3812 AND WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WALDA EMERY AND STEPHEN EMERY, 716 N. Eset Street,
Anaheim, CA 92805. PROPERTY LOCATION: 716 N. East Street. Property i.s
approximately 0.22 acre located at the northeast corner of East Street and
wilhelmina Street.
Request for reclassification from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zone
to the RH-2400 (Residential, Hultiple-Family) or a lees intense zone with
waivers of maximum structural height and minimum building site area per
dwelling unit to construct a 3-story, 5-unit "affordable" apartment complex.
11/21/88
~_-' 'l
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 21. 1988 Page 60
There were eight (8) persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Rvdo Ostowari, representing the owner. He stated the owner actually purchased
thin lot based on the assumption that the zoning waa RH-1200 and that at the
time he did not know about the change in the General Plan.
He stated after he bought the property, the seller did not tell him about the
change in the General Plan, so he bought the property and realizc+d that he
cquld not build 5-units on the property and now he will lose lots of money and
is petitioning to build 5-units and have 2 of them as affordable unite.
OPPOSITION•
Carrie Beeson, 1219 E. Wilhelmina Stzeet, Anaheim, CA. She stated she lives 2
residences from the subject property. She stated she has been up here year
after year trying to protect their R-1 community. She stated she has been on
thin property for 34 years and some of her neighbors have been there that long
as well and they are all one-time resident owners. She stated to the east of
the subject property ie all residential.
She stated she does not approve of a 3-story, 5-unit apartment house being
built in an R-1 community. She stated she rejects the variance.
Earl Risher, 1211 East Wilhelmina Street, Anaheim, CA. He stated he lives next
to the proposed 3-story project. He stated after looking at the plans, he
noticed he has hie garbage next to a bedroom window. He stated there will be
no parking on Wilhelmina because he is going to have a driveway coming out onto
Wilhelmina. He stated they are an R-1 residential area and they wish to remain
that way.
He stated Mr. Snell, 722 East Street, was here a few minutes ago and he had to
take his wife to the doctor, however, he asked him to tell the Commission that
he opposes a 3-story building next to him.
Don Dailey, 1216 East Wilhelmina Street, Anaheim, CA. He stated the applicant
is entitled to build apartments because it is zoned that way. He stated he has
a rooftop recreational area that is up 3-stories. He stated they do not have a
chance.
John Hartman, 1245 Eastwood Drive, located behind the proposed project. He
stated he has lived in Anaheim for 28 years and although he was born in
Fullerton, he has lived all of his life in Anaheim. He stated he has played
and delivered newspapers in the area and that this was a nice residential area.
He stated this is a bastardized means for these people to make money and turn
their nice neighborhoods into low income housing. He stated he is speaking
against this matter because the; are taking a nice neighborhood where hie
family and neighbors and lived so long and it will be turned into somethi*g
disgusting.
11/21/88
HZNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21. 1488 Pace 61
Elizabeth Eaat, (last name not spelled for the record) 734 N. Rose Street,
Anaheim, CA. She stated she resides on the west aide of East Street. She
stated she is opposed to a 3-story, apartment building or condominiums on
that street. She stated they are taking away the privacy of the people
who live there who do not wish to have 2-stories above them.
She stated she agrees that at one time it was a very nice neighborhood,
however, it has been declining within the last couple of years. She added
there are already a lot of apartment buildings in the area and soon there
will be nothing but apartment buildings on this street and she was sure
there was a better use for this land instead of loading them up with
apartments.
REBUTTAL•
Mr. Oetawari stated based on the Zoning Code they can build 3-unite and
in addition, they are applying for a 258 affordable density bonus. He
explained this is why they were going for 5-unite; they provided enough
open space and enough leisure area for the building and also the parking
is adequate, so there ie no parking problem.
He stated regarding the recreation room, it is situated so that the
tenants do not bother anyone, but if it concerns the neighborhood, they
can eliminate it. He added they have provided everything that the City
was concerned about regarding the Zoning Codes and City Codes.
Chairwoman Bouas stated the height has been a very big concern of the
neighbors.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Coauniasioner Herbst stated thin particular parcel of property from
La Palma to Wilhelmina was before the Commission on both sides of East
Street. He stated on this parcel there was a Resolution of Intent on the
General Plan for RM-1200 and the Commission recommended that it be reduced
in half to RM-2400. He stated they had a public hearing for this location
and it also went to the City Council level.
He stated it fe now zoned RM-2400 and the public present today in
opposition to apartment buildings should have been at those public
hearings. He stated he does net agree with this project because it is too
dense for the RM-2400 zone, however, the applicant does have a right to
come in with 3-unite.
He stated the State has allowed them to increase the density through
affordable units, but there are locations where it does not work because
it infringes upon the neighborhood too much, i.e., even though the zoning
is RH-2400, these people want single-family homes. He further explained
that the applicant is not violating the RM-2400 zone, but they still have
to watch what the developers are doing regarding the infringement of the
neighborhood's privacy.
He stated the applicant would be allowed 5-unite under the RH-2400,
however, he cannot look at this project and say that it meets the
requirements. He explained to the applicant that he needed to get the
height down.
~__ S ~ ,~
HINUTES ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COHHISSION November 21 1988 Paoe 62
Commissioner Hesse indicated that the parking would not work.
Paul Singer, City Traffic Engine?x, stated the parking does not work. He
explained their Code dcea not permit small care in tandem and there are
approximately 4 parking spaces missing fron the project.
Chairwoman Bouas suggested that they go back to the drawing board and
suggested a 4 week continuance and Hr. oatawari stated he would prefer a 2
week continuance.
Hr. Hastings, Zoning Division Hanaqer, stated 2 weeks would be difficult
due to the upcoming holidays.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if he could have the plans ready and Hr. oatawari
stated it would not be a problem.
Commissioner Carusillo eusgested they vote on it, express their concerns
and have them come through the normal process. He stated he was a little
offended that he has other plans ready to submit.
Commissioner Feldhaue stated he agrees with Commissioner Carusillo as he
has been advocating this for some time. He stated m^~-~ staff time is
involved and now the man has a set of alternate plat,: ~n his back pocket.
He stated he thought he should start over and go back through the staff
again.
Chairwoman Bouas asked how long staff would need to review the new plane
and Hr. Hastings stated if these plans go through the Traffic Engineering
Division they would need a little more than 2 weeks, therefore, 4 weeks
would be acceptable.
ACTION: Chairwomar. Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mesee
and NOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaue voting no) that consideration of
the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting
of December 19, 1988, in order to submit revised plans.
Commissioner Herbst suggested that Hr. oatawari speak to the neighbors
before they bring the plane in to see if they could satisfy some of their
concerns. He stated if they come back with 3-stories, they are going to
be dead ducks.
Commiasi.oner Carusillo asked the applicant to submit a landscape plan as
well and Hr. oatawari stated they did submit a landscape plan.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he read in the report that there was none.
Mr. Hastings stated that is correct unless it came in late Friday
afternoon or Honday.
Commissioner Heeee asked that they keep in mind that when they
reclassified this area to RM-2400 that is what they felt would be proper
for the frontage on East Street and not RH-2400 with additional density.
11/21/88
,y °~,
INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 63
E NO 15 CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-2~
VARIANCE NO. 3867
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: DURFEE GARDES, PARTNERSHIP, 1700 Raintree Road,
Fullerton, CA 92635. DR. RONALD CROWLEY, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton,
CA 92635. PROPERTY LOCATION: 747-755 North East Street. Property is
approximately 1.28 acres located southwest of the southwest corner of
North and East Streets.
Request for reclassification from the RS-7200 (Residential Single-Family)
zone to the RH-3,000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or a leas intense
zone.
Waivers of minimum front yard setback, minimum rear yard setback and
minimum recreational/leisure area to construct a 21-unit condominium
complex.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a moi.ion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydatun and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned
matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of December 5, 1988
in order to advertise an additional waiver pertaining to minimum site area
per dwelling unit.
One of the opposition (name unknown) asked to be first on the agenda at
the next public hearing and Chairwoman Bouas indicated that they would be
agreeable to that if it was alright with staff.
ITEM NO 16 CaOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED). WAIVER OF
CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2720 (READVERTISE01
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF
JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER AAY SAINTS, 50 E. North Temple, Salt Lake City,
iitah 84150. AGENT: W!65TPORT CENTERS, INC., ATTN: WILLIAM TODD, 1601
Dove Street, Suite 155, "~°voort Seach, CA 92660. PROPERTY LOCATION:
- o rta is aonroximate~v 7 acres on the north aide of Medical Center
Drive approximately 585 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street.
To complete construction of a previously-approved, 179-unit senior
citizens congregate care retirement facility (Parcel 1), which is under
construction in conjunction with a proposed and previously-approved 99-bed
skilled nursing facility (Parcel 2) with waivers of minimum number of
parking spaces for Parcel 1 and required height and type of fence for
Parcels 1 and 2.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and
made a part of the minutes.
Bill Todd (last name not spelled for the record) and gave no ~addreea. He
stated there were a couple of corrections he would like to make. He
stated the agent is now Emerald Associates, Attn. William Todd,
4770 Campus Drive, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
11/21/88
a
y~ ~t
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COHHISSION, ii0^ren,_ber 21 1988 Page 64
He stated they have submitted a request for a variance regarding parking
and a removal of a condition to install an additional block wall on this
property.
He explained the property to the east and west of this specific site is
also owned by the church. He stated originally a trailer park was built
to the west of them and with that construction they were required to
install a 6-foot wall. He stated it so happened that the 6-foot wall was
really 6.5 feet and is a metal wall and not a concrete block wall.
He stated their original CUP required them to install walla all the way
aroun3 the property and they have done that except along this one aide
because of that existing metal wall. He further explained that the
footinge~ to that wall are on their property under their ground lease and
not on the ground lease adjacent to them, therefore, they are requesting
that the block wall which ie 6.5 feet tall be acceptable in place of a
6-foot block wall.
He stated hie property is a congregate care senior housing project and to
the west of him is a trailer court. He explained since the trailer park
was zoned differently then their project, they were required to build a
block wall to separate the two parcels. He stated it is in place; it is
in excellent condition and their building is outside the building setback,
i.e., it is not within the required Code setbacks, so they are asking that
the metal wall be acceptable.
Commissioner Mesee asked if they would maintain that aide of the block
wall and Mr. Todd indicated they would.
Commissioner Masse stated it ie a good looking wall.
Mr. Todd stated they have installed block walls by the freeway aide and to
the east of them.
Hr. Todd stated Emerald Associates acquired this property from the
original agent, Westport Centers and it has always been planned to be a
congregate care senior residents meaning they are providing 3 meals a day,
social programs, housekeeping, laundry and transportation. He stated they
just approved a 25 passenger bus that will be on-site and owned by the
same partnership that owns the building. He added in fact he believed it
was a requirement of the original CUP.
He stated the parking requirement for elderly housing is .5 per unit. Y.e
explained they would like this project to be considered for what it ie,
i.e., for congregate care and be provided a parking code that ie more
consistent with the other projects that have recently been approved in the
City of Anaheim in the last few years.
He referenced Nohl Ranch which has a parking ratio of .25 per unit and the
Canyon Club which is diagonally across the intersection at Nohl Ranch and
Anaheim Hills Road. He stated he just confirmed that the parking ratio
for 205-unite is at 84 to 85 stalls.
11/21/88
}
i
i ~ ~~i
HINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 65
He stated they commissioned a parking study on behalf of the City of
Anaheim Planning Commission and are new asking for this waiver. He stated
the parking study came back with 206-bedrooms and 179-unite, ao they are
actually a smaller project then the Canyon Club. He stated at the ratio
of 116 stalls they would be at .65 which is SOi greater than the Canyon
Club project.
He stated part of the reason they have run into this problem ie because
they acquired the property. He explained the property had been subdivided
into 2 parcels and there ie a question whether or not they will proceed
with the second phase of this project. He added they probably will,
however, th::y will probably not proceed for another two years. He stated
they want parcel 1 to stand completely alone and have sufficient parking.
He stated the parking is far in excess of what has previously been
approved in the City and historically observed throughout the State.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairwoman Bouas asked for the record if he would go through and explain
the different types of senior citizen's housing and what his feeling was
to the correct number of parking for each of those starting with the
leisure world type.
Hr. Todd explained the elderly housing market is basically divided into 4
areas. He stated for years everyone has been very confused, i.e., there
are different levels of housing. He explained first there ie independent
housing and this is typically for someone over 55 years of age and
commonly known as an empty neater, i.e., someone whose children are gro•~n
and moved out or perhaps they are widowed and they want less real estate,
leas haeEle and more freedom in their lives, so they choose to move into a
leisure world environment.
He stated typically these people are still active and transportation is
not provided with the project, therefore, a parking ratio is leas than
what you would find in a typical apartment, but greater than the next
levels of care. He stated for every unit there would be one parking stall
and in addition to that whatever the City feels is an appropriate guest
parking ratio.
He explained the next level up is congregate living; the next level is
called residential care or assisted care, board and care or personal care;
and the next level after that is convalescent, skilled nursing which is
more hospital oriented.
He referenced the assisted care or congregate care. He explained in this
market all the same services are provided that are provided in a
congregate living including meals, social programs, transportation,
housekeeping and laundry. He stated they also provide assistance in
bathing, dressing and eating. He stated by that very nature, no one wants
to move into one of those projects unless they absolutely have to; it is a
need driven market. He stated typically someone has had a stroke and
cannot button a blouse, and they need a little assistance.
11/21J88
f
~...'
MINUTEC,_ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21, 1988 Paae 66
He stated staffing requirements are much greater than they would be in a
congregate care facility. He stated for example congregated care in the
a.m. shift for 179-unite is about 16 total people and for 108-unite of
assisted care, he would need the same staffing requirement because they
have greater needs. He added medication may need to be monitored.
He stated the next level up is skilled nursing or convalescent. He stated
there are no cars, however, the staffing needs are much greater and are
dictated by the State of California.
He stated as you move out the age and need spectrum, parking requirements
become lees until you reach skilled nursing, then it starts to climb again
because of the staffing requirements and not because of the number of
residents.
He stated in independent care you will see 1 parking stall per unit plus
guest parking; in congregate care you will see parking ratios between .33
and .5 per unit. He stated obviously if you have 60-unite it should be .5
and with 160-unite it should be .33. He stated this has been seen in
studies that were previously approved such as Nohl Ranch and Canyon Club
where the number of unite range from 160-units to 205-unite and the
parking ratio is between .25, which he personally thinks fa too low for
congregate care, and .4.
He stated when you get to personal care, you are looking at nothing
greater than .25 per bed. He explained when you get to personal care, you
start talking about beds versus units because you can start doubling up in
the rooms.
He stated the Code for skilled nursing currently calls for .5 per bed in
skilled or convalescent and that ie the consistent number they see
throughout the country.
Paul Singer, City Traffic Engineer, stated he has had an opportunity to
discuss this with Mr. Todd and he has been very, very helpful in giving
them an overview of the various grades that are involved in this type of
housing.
Mr. Todd stated he would like to make a suggestion. He explained he is a
developer and he has tried to give them an unbiased opinion of this arena
and this can be confirmed by the top specialists in the country, namely
Victor Reigner located at the University of Southern California. He
stated he has spoken before the Senate many times. He stated he can give
information regarding peak parking, peak traffic and all of those issues.
He added he has lots of data.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked where he could be reached and Mr. Todd stated
tho University of Southern California.
Chairwoman Souse asked if anyone had a question regarding the wall?
11/21/88
S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paoe 67
Commissioner HeBurney stated on the waiver it says the required height fur
parcels 1 and 2 ie a 6-foot high block wall and a 5-foot high metal wall
existing.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that should read 6.5 feet.
Chairwoman Bouas stated that is really higher than that and asked Hr. Todd
to explain why that was.
Commissioner Herbst staked it ie a sound carrier and Commissioner HcBurney
concurred.
Hr. Todd explained that congregate care ie a life style choice. He stated
people do not make a decision to move into this type of environment unless
they are not eating well, etc. He stated when you go to personal care it
is need driven.
He stated when you move out the spectrum from independent housing and
skilled nursing, real estate per square-foot including circulation of
common areas diminishes as the services provided increase, and so it is
very important when you look at these projects that you be very careful
about exposed stairways an the outside.
He referenced the distance of elevators. He stated he and his partner
have a rule that they do not have any unit where the front door to the
elevator to go down to where the meals are served be greater than 200
feet. He added this is congregated care and people who go into
congregated care are typically 78 years of age or older.
He stated when it becomes affordable units, then you have to have a
sharper eye and there may be some justification for lowering the parking
requirements.
Commissioner Hesse offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to complete construction of a previously approved, 179-unit
senior citizens congregate care retirement facility {Parcel 1}, which is
under construction in conjunction with a proposed and previously approved
99-bed skilled nursing facility (Parcel 2) with waivers of minimum number
of parking spaces for Parcel 1 and required height and type of fence for
Parcels 1 and 2 on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 7 acres having a frontage of approximately 460 feet on the
north aide of Medical Center Drive, having a maximum depth of
approximately 685 feet and being located approximately 585 feet west of
the centerline of Euclid Street; and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration (previously approved) upon finding that it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and
any comments received that there ie no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
11/21/88
~=
i
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COHNISSION November 21 1988 Paae 68
Commissioner Heave offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydatun and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
waiver (A) on the basis that the parking variance will not cause an
increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely
affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under
the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim;
and further that waiver (8) is granted on the basis that there are special
circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography,
location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned
property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning
Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and further that
the proaer height of the fence ie 6.5 feet.
Commissioner Hesse offered Resolu:.ion No. PC88-322 and Waved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2720 (Readvertiaed) pursuant to Anaheim
Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST
MC BURNEY, HESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COHHISSIONERS: NONE
Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
11/21/88
~V .k
MINUTES, ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 21. 1988 Pave 69
ITEM NO. 17 - REPORTS AND RECOl4iENDATI0NS:
A. PHASE I: HOUSING STUDY I - REVIEW OF CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT VS.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Mc Burney and NOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to:
A. Request a joint meeting ^~rith the City Council to discuss
condominium development versus apartment development study
results and associated Code amendments/ordinances;
B. schedule a first reading for the adoption of an ordinance
(attached) revising the parking requirements for
multiple-family unite as recommended;
C. draft an ordinance amending Title 18 to permit multiple-family
ownership or one-family attached housing in the RM-2400 zone in
addition to the RM-3000 Zone, subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit with, at a minimum, the following
additional findings of fact:
1. That the proposed use include landscaped open space areas
with a maximum lot coverage of 406;
2. that the proposed use include usable recreational leisure
area of not less than 750 square feet per dwelling unit,
and provide recreational facilities including, but not
limited to, recreakion rooms, swimming pool, saunas or
Jacuzzis, tot lots and exercise rooms;
3. that the proposed use includes significant amounts of
quality landscaping and vegetation with a permanent
autanatic irrigation system to be supported by a dotailed
landscape, planting and irrigation plan;
4. that the proposed use will consist of high-quality and
compatible architectural design and construction; and,
5. that the propcaed use will be managed by a property
management firm.
D. Establish and rewire a more informative plan submittal and
review process and general design guidelines for the
development of multiple-family ownership or one-family attached
housing in all multiple-family zones including, but not limited
to, detailing the amount, type and location of landscaping,
elevations of not only the development, but of adjacent
properties and structures on all sides, and interior elevations
of the project.
11/21/88
~~,.' . J'
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COl4fiSSiON November 21 1988 Pace 70
B. PHASE I• HOUSING STUDY I• REVIEW OF MULTIPI FAMILY DECK HOUSING
DEVELOPl~NTS AND SPECIFIC HULTIPLE FAHILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner McBurney and NOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby instruct staff to:
A. Request a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop to
discuss the study results and associated code
amendments/ordinances.
B. (1) Height Limitations/150-Foot Setback Requirement
Amend and replace Sections 18.32.052.012 and
18.34.062.012 to incorporate in its entirety Sections
18.31.062.012 and 18.31.062.013 to limit the height of
multiple-family land uses to one story within 50 feet of
single-family residences with specific mitigation
measures.
(2) Subterranean Parking
That Section 18.01.030 be amended to include the
following statement: "That basements lowered 100 or
greater below natural or existing grade shall not be
considered a story."
(3j Tandem Parki,~
That the City's Traffic Engineering Division should
conduct a study to determine specific impacts of tandem
parking in residential areas. The study should consider
regulating the amour:t of tandem parking for
,multiple-family residential developments in relation to
the amount, availability and nature of on-street parking
in the area of the proposed development. Also, the
;permitted amount of tandem parking proposed in
mmultiple-family deck housing developments should be
:subject to the findings and approval of a Conditional Use
:Permit.
(4) ;Lot Coverage and Open Soace
:1. Amend Sections 18.32.061.010 and 18.34.062.010 to
delete the deduction of vehicle accessories in
excess of 120 feet from the calculation of the
buildable area of a site.
.2. Review lot coverage requirements in multiple-family
deck housing developments subject to the findings
and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
11/21/88
,~. ~.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Paae 71
(5) Recreational-Leisure Areas and Landscaping Requirements
That the Planning Commission direct staff to schedule for
first reading the adoption of an ordinance considering
potential amendments to the RM-3000, RM-2400 and RM-1200
Zone as recoRmended.
(6) Handicau Accessibility and Elevators
Multiple-family residential developments utilizing
deck-type housing (i.e. housing units on top of a
communal parking structure) pose demonstrable problems
for the handicapped. incorporation of two solutions are
proposed at this time:
(1) Require all multiple-family reaideii4:ia1 developments
RH-1200, RM-2400 and RH-3000) to provide full access
to the first level of living unite of said
development (via a ramp or other acceptable means of
access to U8C requirements) for all residents and
guests; and,
(2) Require all multiple-family residential developments
(RM-1200, RM-2400 and RH-3000) over three (3)
stories and/or utilizing deck-type housing (i.e.
dwelling unite on top of a communal parking
structure) to provide elevator access to a!11 levels
of living unite of said development accessible by
all residents and guests; and,
7. Hultiole-Family Deck Housing Develooments
(1) Amend Section 18.01 to add Multiple-Family Deck
Housing to Definitions-Zoning Code as defined in
paragraph no. 9 of the October 24th staff report.
(2) Amend Sections 18.32.050 and 18.34.050 to add
Multiple-Family Deck Housing as a conditional use
and structure.
(3) That Planning Commission direct staff to develop
site development standards for Multiple-Family Deck
Housing.
11/21/88
--~
;..,F
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING Q:OMMZSSION. November 21. 1988 Pace 72
NOTE: CHSCK OUT VARIANCE NO. 1256 - NOT SHOWN ON STAFF REPORT
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 86, 402, 1416 AND 2194 REQUEST FOR
TERMINATION
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-323 and
moved for its passage and adoption that all proceedings in
connection with Conditional Uae Permit Nos. 86, 402, 1416 and
2194 be terminated.
On roll gall, the foregoing resolution was passed by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSZLLO, FELDHAUS
HERBST, HC BURNEY, ?SESSE
NOES: COMlSZSSZONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2830 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION
ACTION: Commissioner Mesas offered Resolution No. PC88-324 and
moved for its passage and adoption that all proceedings in
connection with Conditional Uee Permit No. 2830 be terminated.
on roll call, the foregoi
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ng resolution was passed by the
BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS
HERBST, MC BURNEY, HESSE
NONE
NONE
E. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13744 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC
PLANS: Property ie located at 1226 and 1234 South western
Avenue.
Linda McGoldrick, 3159 Laneroee, Anaheim. She stated
Mrs. Thomas was with the group of residents that were very
concerned about the development that is going to be placed on
the properties involved with this particular item.
Marion Thomas, 1325 South Garrett Street, Anaheim. She stated
she was here today to review the plane because they had not
seen them and added she did not have any objection.
11/21/88
r• .
~.
..^J
HINUTES. ANAHEZH CITY PLANNIN_ ~'OHHISSION November 21 1988 Paae 73
She stated they were told that they would be able to view these
plans before they were finalized, but at this particular point, she
has not been allowed to see any plane. she asked if it was possible
for Mre. Thomas to view them and Chairwoman Bouas indicated that
would be fine. The plane were shown to Hrs. Thomas.
A ZON: Commissioner Herbst oPierett a motion, seconded by
Commissioner HcBurney and MOTION Cc.RRIED that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby aF~grove final specific plane
submitted in connection with Tb~ntative Tract No. 13744.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1888 - REVIEW OF PROPOSED USE FOOD
DISTRIBUTION CENTER/ -URCH1: Property is located at 1212 North
Hagnolia Avenue.
Hr. Rodrigues, 10600 Hampton, Stanton, CA, President and founder of
the distribution center. He stated he would like the Commission to
approve this facility under the existing conditional use permit
1888.
Commissioner HcBurney asked if this would be an added use under CUP
1888?
Chairwoman House stated they need to determine what it was
originally approved for and it was not this.
Commissioner Hesse stated essentially this man has got an office and
is warehousing certain products in that office and then distributing
them.
Chairwoman Bouas stated they are doing more than that.
Commissioner stated they have a child care room and asked what it
was used for?
Hr. Rodrigues stated they provide child care for their meetings.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarification if this was a religious
meeting?
He stated it is and it is not. He emphasized that their main goal
was to help individuals and families in need. He stated they make a
lot of tripe to Hexico.
Chairwoman Bouas asked what kind of food products they have on the
premises?
Hr. Rodrigues stated everything is canned or in a box.
Chairwoman Bouas asked for clarification if they had any fresh
groduce or anything else along those lines?
11/21/88
L' .~,~
I ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI G COMMISSION November 21. 1988 Paae 74
He stated the night before they go to Mexico they will take
chicken and tortillas and this is delivered the night before.
Commissioner Herbst asked how many people did they bring in
their facility?
Mr. Rodriquez stated it depends, i.e., sometimes there are 30
and sometimes there are 70 people. He added they do not have
the same number all of the time.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if he could give them an
approximate maximum and minimum?
Mr. Rodrigues stated it depends on what the meeting is for.
Commissioner Herbst stated they should have a new conditional
use permit because they do not know what impact it will have on
the neighborhood. He explained the neighbors do not know
anything about this. He added they have had a lot of trouble
with some of the food distribution points.
He stated this is an industrial area and there may not be any
problem, but the only way tY,ey can find that out is to have a
public hearing and let the public speak their piece if they so
desire.
Mr. Rodrigues stated no one lives in the area and there are
just businesses.
Commissioner Meese stated they even require churches to have
CUPe in order to be in the industrial area, and then they only
permit it for 3 years.
Mr. Rodrigues stated their agreement with the owner is for 2
years only.
Commissioner Heeae stated he thought the use was u~.k., however,
he would like to see a CUP so that they do not set a precedent
in the City.
Commissioner Bouae asked how long he had been theta and
Mr. Rodrigues stated approximately 12 or 13 months.
Commissioner Feldhaue stated they approved ii in November of
1978.
Mr. Rodrigues explained that was when the rented the place,
however, they did not organize until November of 1978 and that
is when they started dealing with the permits, the State and
the Federal Government.
11/21/88
~,. _ _ . J
MINUTES AI`""°TV nrmv nrawrur_ MyyTCCT(1N. NnVwmber 21 1988 Pa4e 75
Commissioner Feldhaua stated they were approved for a
restaurant nt that time.
Commissioner Meese stated they are talking about the overall
facility on Magnolia.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Meese and MOTION CARRIED, that this use dose not conform to the
General Plan and that this use should be under a separate
conditional uee permit.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if he could apply for a conditional use
permit?
Mr. Rodrigues explained that all the money that comes in, goes
back out and if they try to get a conditional uee permit they
are going to be spending money they do not have. He stated the
person he spoke to indicated it would coat approximately
$600.00.
Commissioner Herbst stated his concern fe the impact it will
have on the neighborhood. He stated they could put this in
obeyance and Mr. Rodrigues could go around to the neiyhbors and
get letters from all the surrounding property owners that there
ie no problem.
Mr. Rodrigues explained the offices era not open during the
times they hold therr meetinys.
Commissioner Feldhaua asked if they had any volunteers that
could go around to the various businesses?
Mr. Rodrigues stated when he applied for the laasinq of the
property, it was stated in the application the kind of business
they were going to conduct in their facility.
Commissioner Feldhaua stated that agreement was with the owner
and Mr. Rodrigues stated the owner of the organization.
Commissioner Herbst stated he will withdraw hie request for a
motion and recommend a continuance. He told Mr. Rodrigues to
go to the various surrounding businesses and obtain letters of
support and give them to staff for their review. He added if
he does not, then he will have to apply for a CUP.
Ruth Rodrigues, 10600 Hampton Avenue, Stanton, CA. She stated
this is labeled food distribution, however, it does not mean
that there is a lot of food where people come and go. She
explained people come and they see a need. She further
explained they do not distribute cheese or anything else from
the governmenL• where there is a lot of traffic. She stated the
other businesses are minimally impacted because of their
meetings.
11/21/88
di}'_`,
. ~l
MINUTES,_ANAYEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Pa4e 76
She stated their tripe to Mexico are done on the weekends. She
stated for example, they went to Mexico this weekend and
everything was conducted after hours. She stated although they
call it a food distribution center, this is not the main
purpose and added they are also involved in counseling for
alcohol and drug abuse.
Commissioner Carusillo stated if they were impacting the
adjacent businesses, it seems like they would have contacted
Code Enforcement. He added this would give them some kind of
valid verification.
Chairwoman Bouae stated this is something they should check on.
Commissioner Feldhaue stated this ie similar to the Aid to Baja
where tripe are made to Mexico with canned goods and clothing.
Ha. Rodrigues stated she is not familiar with that particular
organization. She explained they accept contributions from the
mecnbzrship and the private sector.
Commissioner Feldhaue asked how often they made trips to Hexico
and ;Se. Rodrigues stated approximately every six weeks.
Commissioner Meese asked if this item was before them because
of any particular Code Enforcement problem?
Mr. Rodrigues stated they received a letter and Commissioner
Herbst stated this is an expired CUP.
Commissioner Feldhaue asked for clarification as to when his
lease expires and Mr. Rodrigues stated approximately 1-1/2
years.
Commissioner Feldhaue stated Consciesicner Herbst offered a good
possible solution to this situation.
Commissioner Feldhaue asked Hrs. Rodrigues if she was a
volunteer and could she get around to some of the businesses in
the neighborhood during the day or send letters?
Mr. Rodrigues indicated they could send letters.
Commissioner Feldhaue stated considering the alternative and
the coat, you may want to do this.
Commissioner Herbst withdrew his original motion and offered
the following motion:
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Meese and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled
meeting of December 12, 1988, in order to obtain letters from
adjacent neighbors in support of the distribution center or to
contact them individually. 11/21/88
_.
;_r
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Page 77_
Mary McCloskey, Planning Department Manager, stated they will
include information in the staff report at the next meeting se
to whether or not this was a Code Enforcement Notice of
Violation.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated this came to
them for the Planning Commission to review to see if this use
does in fact fit under this conditional use permit.
He explained it was his understanding that Code Enforcement
brought this in to them for an application for a conditional
use permit, however, the applicant felt that this fell under
the existing conditional use permit.
Commissioner Herbst asked why did Code Enforcement point this
out and Mr. Hastings stated they could present that to them in
4 weeks when this is heard again.
G. VARIANCE NO 3612 - REQUEST FOR ONE (11 RETROACTIVE TIME
EXTENSION AND ONE [11 EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Request for time extension on property
located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Poet
Lane, and further described as 5201 and 5223 Eset Orangethorpe
Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Mesas offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Boydetun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby approve two (2) one-year time
extensions (one retroactive to January 5, 1988, to expire
January 5, 1989 and one effective January 5, 1989, to expire
January 5, 1990), for Variance No. 3612 to comply with
conditions of approval.
H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3062: Nunc pro tunc resolution to
amend vote shown in Resolution No. PC88-270 granted in
conjunction with Conditional Uee Permit No. 3062 on property
located at 3101 Eaet La Palma Avenue.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-325 and moved
for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission dcee hereby recommend approval of the Hunt pro tunc
resolution granted in connection with Conditional Uee Permit
No. 3062 in order to amend the vote shown in Resolution No.
PC88-270.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS
MERSEY, MC AURNEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
11/21/88
#"
~' ~`?
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21. 1988 Paae 78
I. CONDITIONAL US's PERMIT NO. 2995. Nunc pro tunc resolution to
amend the legal description contained in Resolution No.
PC88-245 granted in connection with conditional Uae Pezmit NO.
2995.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-326 and moved
for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend approval of the nunc pro tunc
resolution granted in connection with Conditional Use Permit
No. 2945 in order to amend the legal description contained in
Resolution No. PC88-245.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS
HERSST, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
J. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-49. Nunc pro tunc resolution to
amend the legal description contained in Resolution No.
PC88-172 granted in connection Frith reclassification No.
87-88-49 on property located at 1226, 1234, and 1238 South
Western Avenue and 3159 West Laneroee Drive.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-327 and moved
for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission dose hereby recommend approval of the nunc pro tunc
resolution granted in connection with Reclassification No.
87-88-49 to amend the legal descriptions contained in PC88-171.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS
HERBST, HC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Linda McGoldrick, 3159 Laneroee. She asked if the Commission
could explain for the layman what a nunc pro tunc means and
Commissioner Feldhaue explained it meant after the fact.
She asked for an explanation of item I and wanted to know if it
affected their properties?
Chairwoman Bouas explained it was not the right legal
description.
Mr. Hastings explained the legal description only described s
portion of the property.
11/21/88
t i,...~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 21 1988 Pace 79
Item nos. 6, 17 A, 8, E, and G prepared by:
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~~~~
/ /Janet L. Jensen, Secretary Pro Tempore
Anaheim City Planning Commission
11/21/88