Minutes-PC 1993/10/04ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1993, AT 11:00 A.M.
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
(PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
11:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M.
9:30 a.m. -Combined work ses~lon with Redevelopment Commission regard(ng Northeast Area
Speciflc Plan (Anaheim Canyon Business Center).
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELi_, HENNINGER, MAYER
MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT
CUMMiSSiONERS ABSENT: NONE
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
t. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their
evidence. Additional time will be grantsd upon request ff, in the opinion of the Commission,
such additional time will produce evidence Important to the Commission's consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to
present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter
warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a
participant speaks, but rather by what is said.
3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing.
Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting.
4. The Commission will withheld questions until the public hearing is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ff, in its opinion, the ends of
fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection wRh any
hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non~documentary
evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for
public inspections.
I
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on Items
of interest which are wfthln the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items.
Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. ~
AC100493.WP
10/04/93
~~ Page 1
1a. CEOA iAITIGATEB NEGATIVE DECLARATION Wthdrawn
1 b. WAIVER OF CODE REOUiREMEA"I'
1c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3536
OWNER: EUCLID STREET BAPTIST CHURCH OF ANAHEIM and BRYAN
CROW/EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATES, Attn: Reverend Bryan L
Crow, 8712 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, CA 92808
LOCATION: 8712 East Santo Ana Canyon Road. Property Is approximately
3.3 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
approximately 5,460 feet east of the centerline of RNerview Drive.
To permft the phased development of a 100,000-square foot church factliry
Including a 2,000 se•~t sanctuary, bible study classrooms, nursery, gymnasium,
amphitheater and botanical garden with waiver of permitted number and size of
freestanding identffication signs.
Continued from tha November 2, 1992, January 11, February 8, March e, 22,
April 5, June 2, July 12, and August 9, 1993 Planning Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
OFFICIAL MINUTES.
'^ OPPOSITION: None
Commissioner Messe moved & Commissioner Henninger seconded a motion to accept the petitioner's request to
withdraw subJect petition.
ACTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3536 was withdrawn as requested by the petttioner.
VOTE: 7-0
U
10/04/93
Page 2
.y
;t
t
,.
.~;
n
2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION_
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3636
Approved
Granted
OWNER: MAGNOLIA SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2705 W. Orange Ave., Anaheim, CA
92805
AGENT: LOS ANGELES RAMS, 2327 West Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 2317 W. Lincoln Ave. Property is approximately 10.1 acres
located on the west side of Venture Street and located approximately
275 feet west of the centerline of Monterey Street.
To permit a 9,000•square foot weight room building in order to expand an existing
private sports training facility.
Continued from the September 20, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93-109
FOLLOWING iS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. PLOT TO iSE CONSIDERED
OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPO5ITION: 10 people present, 5 of them spoke
PETITIONER:
Steve Novak, representing the Los Angeles Rams, and George Hanna, Hanna Construction Company were
present. Mr. Novak stated the request is for a weight storage facility.
OPPOSITION:
Ken Catanzarite, 2331 W. Lincoln, immediately north, referred to his written objections to this proceeding
which were hand delivered on October 1. It was noted the Commissioners had all received a copy of the
October 1 st letter. He stated it appears this hearing is flawed and that he had not received a notire and he
understood that there is a requirement that all property owners receive written notice; That Mr. Shah, an
adjacent property owner, also did not receive notice and they have had no opportunity to participate; that
they feel the previously proposed quonset style building proposed two years was incompatible and the use
is not in the best interest of the adjoining property owners and will cause a devaluation of the property. He
explained he has invested approximately $1.4 million In his property and an appraiser has indicated a 20 to
25 % reduction in property values as a result of this contemplated construction.
l~
He referred to promises made by the Rams about 15 years ago and a statement made by the son of the
previous owner of the Rams that they did not want to be anywhere where they are not wanted; that another
neighbor, Mrs. F!nney, does not want the Rams there because they broke the promises; and that Mrs.
Peck, another neighbor, had also asked him to convey her opposftion to the Commission. ~
He stated he did not think this meeting could continue today since both he and Mr. Shah did not receive
written notice.
i
d
i
10/04/93
Page 3 Y
i
;-~
Mr. Catanzarite stated that facility is supposed to be open 7 months of the year as a park, but that ft fs
,.~ locked; and that the view of the golf course is blocked by a canvas across the chainlink fence and the
neighbors are not getting the benefits promised; that 15 years ago they were promised tennis courts and a
swimming pool, but they were not provided. He added the Rams have not shown why they need thl~
facilfty and why ft has to be the way ft is proposed and asked that the neighbors be given an opportunhy to
give their input.
Eric Shaw, SKJ Limited Partnership, 2341 West Lincoln, stated they have the same concerns as mentioned
and they never received any notice regarding this hearing and are concerned about the maintenance of the
property, and about promises made regarding park facilities and the canvas coverings which have taken
away a lot of the enjoyment of their property. He explained the canvas is across the chainlink fence and
they can no longer see the golf course which in the past gave an open feeling.
Robert Rodrigue, 214 Ventura, agreed That the Rams did not keep their promises; that a few years ago,
two temporary housing trailers were p~^iced on that sfte, and when the neighbors objected to those trailers
to the City and the Schnul District, no one seemed to even know the trailers were there; however, notni:
was done about removing them; and then the Rams put some trees in front of them on Ventura and that
blocked their view of the golf course even more. He added thsy are not maintaining the property along
Ventura and they have had problems with their spr(nklers.
Lana Schram, 215 N. Siesta, stated she was not notHied of the addition being proposed on the site.
(Commissioner Messe pointed out that her property appears to be further than 300 feet from the sfte, so
she would not have been on the list.). She agreed with what has been said and stated she used to walk
home from the Peter Marshall School through that parkway and there was a problem with trash and when
she called the Rams, they said they were not responsible for cleaning that area and the golf course
personnel said ft was Parks and Recreation's responsibility and when she called Parks and Recreation, they
were not even aware there was a walkway. She explained they have arrived at a decision that the Rams
are responsible for ft, but they do not take care of ft and ft is a hazard and there are children In the area
who refuse to walk through there because it is very dangerous now with the canvas.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if Mrs. Schram was opposed to the weight room and she responded she was
opposed because she thought ft would be an obstruction in the neighborhood for many years. She asked
why they need the weight room since they have not had ft for the past 15 years.
Doris Schubert, 201 Nortli Monterey, stated she has a circular driveway and every time the Rams hold a
news conference, she cannot get in or out of her driveway. She asked also why they need it now. She
added she is objecting period to that building. She referred to petkions submitted 15 years opposing the
Rams being here which have disappeared.
tzEeuTrn>i.:
Mr. Novak invited the Commissioners to visit the sfte to see how well kept ft is. He stated he thought some
of the Issues being discussed today are rights to a view by the neighbors which they might not rightfully
have; that it is not the Ram's Intent to build a structure to create problems for adjoining land owr-rs and ft
is not their Intent to block their view.
He explained they have a lot of equipment outsiJe and their trainers have expressed the need for this
facility for many years. He added they have been good neighbors and good tenants and do properly
maintain the property.
10/04/93
Page 4
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
n
DISCUSSION:
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained ft appears from the file that Mr. Catanzarfte was notified
at the Lincoln Avenue office. He explained written notices are mailed to property owners within 300 feet of
the property and the property is posted and the notice is published fn a local newspaper.
Commissioner Messe explained the City is not required to comply with all three of the notice requirements.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated he reviewed the agreements beM~een the Rams and
the City of Anaheim and there was a requirement for the maintenance of the walkway and In the beginning
it was maintained by the golf course personnel, but the Rams requested to take ft over and they have
maintained ft since that time; that he Inspected the sfte today and ft appeared that walkway had been
Ignored for a period of time, but that ft is being cleaned right now; that the play area was required under
the conditional use permit and was not being properly maintained; that the Rams were notffied about two
months ago of that problem and they have made some Improvements; and that he would continue working
with them to insure that ft is adequately maintained.
Regarding the swimming pool, Mr. Jarvi stated in the origin3i agreement, the Rams had thought of putting
in a therapeutic pool for their players and then decided they no longer wanted to do that and the Cfty
entered Into an amendment to their agreement in March 1982 which said the Rams would provide the
money to the Cfty to run a summer pool program at Savanna School which has been done since 1982 and
the Rams pay that cost of about $10,000 per year. He explained that pool is open to the entire community
and the Cfty Parks staff feels that is a lot better use of the money than a small therapeutic pool. He
explained their department did try some playground programming on that she but there was very little
demand for ft; that there are tennis courts at Savanna High School and the Parks Department is involved in
the maintenance of those courts and felt since the public knew where to find them, they were much more
accessible.
Mr. Jarvi stated he did walk down Ventura today and looked at the maintenance being done of the east
side of the Ram's facility and ft was in pretty good condition.
Commissioner Messe noted it is the Ram's responsibility to maintain the play area in ttre northeast comer
and that area needs a lot of work; and that he was there and did not feel that area is "fit for children" right
now.
Mr. Jarvi agreed that area is not maintained at the standards he would to see and that he has contacted
Mr. Novak and they will get together and set the standards for that area.
Mr. Novak stated they will be happy to continue the cleanup and Commissioner Henninger stated ft Is not
just the cleanup, but the lack of maintenance of the play area that is the problem. He added they are
responsible for the maintenance and they should consider that ff someone was injured, they would be
involved.
Commissioner Mayer asked the purpose of the canvas and ff ft could be removed in the off-season.
Mr. Novak stated the Rams do have closed practicas and the coaching staff feels the canvas is necessary
for privacy and that it is not ~~nusual and several other training facllfties have that type canvas. He
explained they do have payers coming in during the off-season and k is really a year round business and
added he did not think ft is a nuisance and thought the adjoining landowners have qufte a bit of open space.
10/04/93
Page 5
~,
Commissioner Boydstun stated she thought ff it was removed from the walkway area during the off season,
~--, ft would create less of a hazard.
1
Mr. Novak responded ft is important for their business to have the canvas there.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he understood the desire to have the secret practices, but the neighbors are
indicating the canvas is part of the problem and the Commission is offering them an opportunity to remove
ft during the off season.
Commissioner Henninger stated often the Commission requires a 6-foot high block wall to screen a use on
other properties and he did not think the Commission should be asking them to take ft down. He added ft
is not the Commission's function to preserve someone's view rights which they could have purchased.
Commissioners Boydstun and Mayer Indicated their concern was not the neighbor's view, but the safety of
that walkway area.
Mr. Jarvi explained there is a view of that walkway along the golf course, but there is a portion by the
maintenance yard which h~+s vines growing on one side and the canvas on the uther side and he felt that Is
not safe and he has orderer; his staff to remove those vines.
Commissioner Messe asked about on-going procedures for maintaining the walkway area and the piay area
and thought they might be doing some maintenance right now because of this request and asked how they
would reassure the Commission that they are going to be maintaining ft.
Mr. Novak responded regarding the pathway that their maintenance personnel was supposed to have done
the initial cleanup last week and he understood they are out there taking care of ft right now; and that they
will have a monthly maintenance program in the future and the maintenance personnel will maintain the
pathway as well as the field and other parts of the property. He added he would be happy to meet wfth Mr.
Jarvi about a continuing maintenance program for the play area and after ft has been cleaned, it could be
checked periodically to make sure that it is being propedy maintained.
Commissioner Boydstun stated it should be brought up io today's playground standards for a public area,
wfth equipment and ground cover.
Commissioner Henninger moved for approval of the CEOA Negative Declaration, and the motion was
seconded by Commissioner Caldwell.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, explained regarding notices, that our code requires that notice be given
as required in the government code; that the procedure for notices as described earlier is actually the
notice requirements for CEQA purposes and for purposes of the conditional use permft, the 300-foot notice
is required unless that would involve morn than 1,000 property owners, and then there would here to be a
published notice. She added in any event, it appears that the Individuals who are having an Issue regarding
the notice have somehow received actual notice and are here to state their concerns before the
Commission. She added the Government Code provides that the failure of any person or entity to receive
notice, does not constitute grounds far any court to invalidate the actions of a local agency. She added
there is an appeal to any individual to the City Council and ff there is to be a hearing before the Ciry
Council, the matter would be re-noticed and all the property owners wfthin 300 feet would receive notice.
Commissioner Henninger noted they are not only here today, but were present at the previous hearing.
Mr. Catanzarite asked to speak and ft was noted the public hearing was closed.
10/04/93
~ Page 6
The previous motion for approval of the CEQA Negative Declaration was passed (All Ayes).
Henninger - add a condtion that the applicant wfthin 90 days will refurbish the park play area to the
satisfaction of the Parks Department staff; and a condition requiring the applicant to pay for Code
Enforcement inspections of the park play area and walkway quarterly for a period of two (2) years, and
thereafter as deemed necessary by Code Enforcement staff.
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3636 and added the following conditions:
1. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, the applicant shall
refurbish the playground area to the satisfaction of the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department.
2. That City Code Enforcement staff will conduct quarterly inspections of the walkway and
playground facilftles for a period of two (2) years and thereafter, as deemed necessary by Code
Enforcement staff, and that the petitioner shall be responsible for paying the cost of each
inspection in accordance wfth the fees in effect at the time the inspections are made.
VOTE: 7-0
J rF;.
10/04/93
Page 7
3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPURT NO.281 Previously Approved I Continued to
3b. SITE PLAN FUR TRACT MAP NO.13266 11-15-93
OWNER: THE BALDWIN CO., Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Haie Avenue, Irvine,
CA 92714
LOCATION: Procerly is aooroximately 6 4 acres located on the south side
of Serrano Avenue and auaroximately 1100 feet west of the
nterline of Marblehead Drive ('Tract No. 13266. The Summit of
Anaheim Hills Sueci(Ic Plan (SP88.21.
Petitioner requests a revision to the previously approved ske plan for Traci Map
No. 132116 wthin The Summk of Anaheim Hills Specific Pian (SP88-2) In order to
construct 10 single-family residential structures ranging from 3,395 to 3,911 square
feet (previously ranging from 4,141 to 5,657 square feet).
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 20 people present; 13 of them spoke
PETITIONER
Ron Freeman, Sr. Vice President, Baldwin Company, explained they are requesting a revision to the ske plan
for a development area within The Summit of Anaheim Hills to allow a revised model complex, slightly
smaller in size than the existing Summit product. He referred to the current economic conditions and stated
the housing business has been more extremely affected than most businesses and added they have not
been able to obtain construction financing for the existing product type.
He explained the size of the proposed unks would be from 3400 to 3900 square feet and noted Plan 2 is
actually closer to 3700 square feet rather than 3434 square feet and the bedroom count is 4 to 5 bedrooms;
that they believe the buildout would be estate homes as originally contemplated fcr this development area
and that they believe this is consistent wkh the existing product type.
Commissioner Henninger stated a petition has been received signed by existing homeowners.
Murray Zoota, 1055 Taylor Court, stated he is present on behalf ofi the homeowners. He explained the
Baldwin Company represented Summit Pointe to be similar to Newport Beach, Paim Springs, Belair, Beverly
Hills, etc. He presented brochures of the current models described as graceful estate homes. He stated
their dreams could be gone k the developer Is permitted to do what they are requesting; that the existing
custom homes are of monumental design and are distinctive and are not tract homes. He added the
homes they are proposing are very different and the archkecturai integrity is questioned and they would
have a totally different feeling. He added they are proposing aluminum windows Instead of wood frame
windows; that his home is about 3ti00 square feet and has 83 panes of window; that this is a hills
community and the visibility of neighboring lots is Important; that every home in the current community has
9-foot high double-entry, mahogany doors and the proposed homes would have 7-foot high doors.
10/04/93
Page B
He stated there is a 1, 042=square foot difference in the footprint of these unks; that the existing homes have
--, concrete file roofs and that is proposed as an option in the new homes.
He stated they have had constant problems with the slopes and the Baldwin Company did not follow
through wfth their promises and their credibilky is questioned; that they had problems wkh stains from iron
deposits in the soil; the gate did not work properly; erosion control per the Baldwin Company Is putting in
sand bags; and wfth people driving four-wheel vehicles on file lots which have not been developed which is
dangerous.
He suggested changes be made to the inside so that'the houses look the same on the outside. H~ added
what they are proposing is not consistent with their promises and with what they advertised.
Dianne Shankin, 1062 Sunstream Lane, stated she is opposed to this request; that there are only three
homes developed on this street and they are all very large nice homes and ff they ptd smaller homes on the
rest of the street, ft will really affect them.
Harvey Casey, 1031 South Taylor Court, stated he brought his business to Anaheim and purchased his
home in Summk Pointe because he thought Planning would protect his property and that allowing smaller
homes would cause a lose in property value.
Jim Stiegel, 8140 Morningsun Lane, (the only home on that street since the rest of the lots are not
developed) stated they asked what would be developed next to their property and the Baldwin sales
representative showed them the design guidelines for homes to be built on those custom lots and that
document states all the homes are to have wooden windows and would be 3500 sq. ft. or more. He
presented that document to the Commission, and noted they thought that document would protect their
property.
He stated he understands what is happening with the California housing market, but the developer could
make the homes smaller, but still Ilve within these guidelines and he would have no problem living next door
to a 3500 square foot house which met these guidelines, but this proposal does not meet those guidelines
and these will be more like tract homes. He stated Baldwin has other tracts and they are selling quite well
wfth condominiums and smaller homes.
He stated there are only 38 homes in Summit Pointe and the people who own them are committed to
remain there.
Pat Padilla, 1061 Sunstream Lane, stated she and her husband built a "build to suft estate home" which Is
more than 5000 square feet and their neighbor built one which is more than 6000 sq. ft and they were all
held to the strictest design and building standards to insure maintaining the integrity of this community, and
was baffled that Baldwin is proposing to compromise that integrity and she is opposed to the plan as
submitted.
She stated this proposal is aesthetically inconsistent with the original archftectural plan for this community;
that it is !n difference to the planned community concept which was used and sold as a marketing feature;
that ft could negatively affect property values; lower the tax income base for the community; that
assessments are subject to challenge based on lower values and that she will submk that immediately;
marketability to prospective buyers is weakened due to compromise by the developer; that the quality of Ike
is adversely affected; and that acceptance of the proposed plan Jeporadizes the Integrity of the Planning
Commission's role in a planned community concept; that recent sales support the desire and marketability
of the homes at the higher price range; 3 or 4 recently sold homes were for the highest priced model; that
houses designed for the first time buyer are not designed for this part of the community.
10/04/93
Page 9
Bob Dwyer, 1059 South Taylor Court, stated he thought there is a market for these homes; that he would
~._ like to see more homes developed there, but was concerned about abrupt changes fn the roof lines, entdes
and fn the general "feel" and structure of the homes; and that what the developer is proposing is a total
mismatch for what they presently have in this neighborhood.
Scott Werner stated In 1991 they sold their home in Orange and looked at other communities before
relocating and the decision to purchase in Summit Pointe Estates was not based on the size, but the quality
of the home. He stated he felt their dream has really be stomped on by the Baldwin Company and asked
the Commission to considar their opposition not really to the sizo of the homes, but to the feel of the
community.
Property owner at 1071 South Taylor Court explained her neighbors asked her to speciflcally discuss the
common slope areas on Taylor Court; that the main slope Is parallel to Taylor Court along the west side of
tho community; that when they purchased their homes, they were told they had 6 months to have
landscaping plans approved and now after two years, the Baldwin Company has continually been able to
avoid their obligation to properly landscape all the slopes in question. She presented photographs of 1i the
front entrance to Summit Pointe which shows lush landscaping going Into the community; 2) photos taken
across from the model homes show slopes put in two years ago and are landscaped quite nicely and
explained they were told the slopes that would be put in would be nicer than those; 3) slope along Taylor
Court and those hills have never been properly landscaped; 4) slopes outside their community, down
Serrano to the east and they are lush and beautffully landscaped; 5) slopes behind the new Target Center
installed wffhin the last two month which are beautiful. She explained they have discussed this problem with
the Baldwin Compan;~ and have written numerous letters to the Baldwin Company and the City, and read
from a letter to the Ciry of Anaheim dated February 1, 1993, stating their grievances have been completely
ignored by the Baldwin Company. She explained the photos marked 6 are of the slopes on the interior part
of Taylor Court.
Kimberly Le, 8120 E. Osly Court, stated she objected to Baldwin Company's plan to build entirely different
homes in the immediate neighborhood of Summft Pointe; that more than a year ago her family came from
New Orleans to Summft Pointe and believed that they had found their dream home. She stated they were
promised this would be a distinguished community of more than 200 beautiful homes in the next 4 to 5
years. She added she could not believe the Baldwin Company, one of the largest and most respected
builders, would fail to keep their promises and irresponsibly violate their commitment to the Summft Pointe
community.
She stated she hoped the Planning Commission in their wisdom can preserve the beauty and unfformfty and
reputation of the Summit Pointe Estates.
.Selma Sett, 8135 E. Loxie Court, referred to the sales brochures published by the Baldwin Company about
this community and explained when he was looking for a place to retire, he bought that whole sales
presentation and now the community is going to change; that he had invested his Iffe savings in order to live
in this community.
Concerning the slopes, Mr. Scott stated he lives on the east side of Taylor Court and the company has said
when they finish the tracts on that side, they will landscape the slopes ;that the east side has the same
probfem as the west side and when it rains they get all kinds of debris in their pool. He stayed there is no
grading that has to be done on the west side and there is no plan to put any kind of landscape for maybe
five years and during the rain last winter, they put sand bags out and did not came back to clean ft up.
Mr. Scott stated they are proposing these houses right at the entrance of this community and he thought
that would be very detrimental to their property values.
10/04/93
Page 10
U
Fernando Padilla, 1D61 Sunstream, stated they one of the last three homeowners to move In and they were
not Informed of any proposed changes and feels they purposely misrepresented a lot of the Issues being
brought forth today. He added ft appears they do feel the should have to live by the same strict rules
everyone else has to follow. Regarding the economics, he stated theirs was one of the last four homes sold,
three were the largest models and one was the second largest models and he knows there was a lot of
Interest In the larger models and did not agree they can not sell them.
He added he hoped the Planning Commission will enforce the requirement to insure the Daidwin Company
lives up to theli' commitment.
Murray Zoota, 105G Taylor Court, stated the people in their community worked very hard in order to
purchase their homes in this community and change their lifestyle and just want to be able to keep what
they were sold. He stated Baldwin created the integrity of the community and they croated the standards
and they are asking that they be maintained.
He stated he was the first homeowner to move in and submitted the history of the community for the
Commission's review. He added if this is approved, ft is a double standard and the homeowners are not
being treated faldy.
Mr. Freeman responded that the Baldwin Company has made efforts to address the concerns of the
homeowners. He stated he did not think a lot of the Issues raised by the homeowners relate to the site plan
revision before the Commission.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to discuss - 1) exterior wall textures on the pop-outs on the
backs of the units and noted the proposed units appear to be flat and they have a lot of archtectural details
on the backs of existing homes; (aluminum windows; 3) roof pitch; 4) 9-foot double entry doors and 5) the
roofing material.
Mr. Freeman stated they are constrainVd by a 26-foot height limitation in this area of the planned
community; that the existing homes carry a 10•foot plate line downstairs and 9 feet upstairs, so they are left
with very little distance between height limitation and start of roof construction on the existing houses; that
this downsized version of an estate home is •at 9-foot plate lines so they end up with more area between
second floor ceiling level and the maximum height.
Comm!ssioner Henninger asked ff the elevated r~oor plates lend a monumental character to the archtecture
which might not be there wfth a normal plateline.
Mr. Freeman responded the difference between a 9 and 10 foot plate line is not as noticeable as In a volume
ceiling area; that the Intent of these plans is a slight downslze of the community in order to address their
need to move this product type on these lot sizes. Ho stated they have made efforts to add some
architectural detail on the fronts of these house to keep consistency wfth the existing product; that they are
proposing metal windows, but with a wood trim around them to continue the feel of the community; that the
existing houses are visible from both sides but the majority of the remaining 210 lots are relatively flat.
Regarding erosion control, he stated he has contacted the Vlce President of Construction and Instructed him
to make sure tho sandbags that are placed behind the houses on the east side of South Taylor Court will not
abut any fences that are protecting pools in the back yards of the homeowners and that they are to actively
maintain those sandbags.
10/04/93
Page 1 t
Commissioner Caidwel! stated there is a signttitant difference between the original tract and the proposed
tract and that he would tike fbr the developer to review the plans and find some way in the downsizing to
keep the integrity of the neighborhood so it would not feel driving through that you are driving from one
economic stylo to another. He added there is some evidence that the sales people did imply that they
would keep the Integrity and noted the guidelines submitted did have a comment that it was subject to
amendments.
Commissioner Mayer agreed and added the proposal appears to be tract homes in her opinion and that the
homeowners are giving some excellznt testimony and the developer should be listening and including their
Input Into these homes such as the wood windows, the roofline, etc.
Mr. Freeman stated it would be their intent to continue this product throughout the rest of the area.
Commissioner Boydstun added the homes need to flow with the community.
Commissioner Henninger stated the guidelines mentioned 3500 square feet and there proposal is more than
that and he would prefer to see smaller house sold at the appropriate price than a larger home sold for less,
but that he was concerned about 4he consistency of the architecture and thought these do not appear to fit
in with the existing homes. He added he thought the developer could revise this plan and still downsize the
product and add features as mentioned, such as the double-entry door, the roof pftch and adding details
such as the wood windows and thought that would make the difference.
Mr. Freeman explained the guidelines submitted by the homeowner were done for the custom homes.
Concerning the roofing material, Mr. Freeman stated they would like to keep as consistent look as possible
but that file roofs are fairly expensive and that they had downszzed the amenities In the last phase of the
existing product and wanted to consider file roofing as an option.
Responding to Commissioner Henninger, Mr. Freeman stated they are looking at cost saving and they have
noY made a decision as to what other type roof material would be offered, but asphalt file roofing might be a
consideration and would not want to preclude that possibility. He added since the Commission has asked
that they look at providing more consistency, they would review the roofing material, as well. He requested
a six-week continuance.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that the public hearing be reopened.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION
CARRIED that consideration of the above mentioned matter be continued to the meeting of November 15, 1993,
at the request of the petitioner.
I
VOTE: 7-0
10/04/93
Page 12 Ik
t
i
4a. CEOA NEG.ITIVE DECLARATION I Approved
4b. AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. SP87-1 Granted
4c. DENSITY TRANSFER REQUEST N0.93-05 Approved
OWNER: THE PRESLEY COMPANIES, ATTN: ALAN D. UMAN, 19 Corporate
Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: Property is approximately 27.9 acres located at the northwest corner
of Horizon View Drive and Sunset Ridge Road (Development Area 7
of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1)) .
Petitioner requests amendment to Ordinance No. 4860 pertaining to The Highlands
at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) Deveiopment Area 7 Zoning and
Development Standards (Code Section No. 18.70.060.050) to provide for the
development of a 414-unit condominium complex. Currently Development Area 7
provides Zoning and Development Standards for the development of apartment
units.
Petitioner further requests the transfer of 24 dwelling units from Development Area
11 to Development Area 7.
SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION NO. PC93-110
FOLLOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF TILE PLANNING COMMiSSi~N ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
OFFICIAL MINUTES.
O!POSIT[ON: None
Commissioner Tait abstained. He 11ves within 1,000 feet of this residence.
PETITIONER:
David Boyle, David A. Boyle Engineering, 2098 S. Grand, Santa Ana, CA, representing the applicant.
Staff has mentioned two Issues that have not as yet been resolved. The project fs located in the
Highlands in Anaheim and this is to complete the final development area within the Highlands known as
Development Area 7. They are proposing that the condominiums be built and the plan has been reviewed
by the staff.
Items no. 5 and 6 are the two Issues that are still remaining.
Item No. 6 is an amendment request relative to the recreation leisure area. Presley requested that this be
reduced as part of the Specific Plan Amendment to 725 square feet per dwelling unit. It is possible by
increasing the balcony area of two of the units of each of the 6 plexes, that the square footage could be
brought up to 750 square feet which would not require an amendment to the Code. They will withdraw
the request to reduce the minimwn area required for recreation/leisure. That should eliminate no. 6.
10/04/93
~,, Page 13
Item No. 5 is where staff has recommended that the number of tandem parking spaces not be permkted.
.-. Presley has come up wkh the proposed compact archkecture that they have drawn for this plan to meet
the need in the housing market. The plan does provide 138 more covered parking then the minimum
required or 18% access. There are 414 unks proposed and 138 extra covered spaces would be delivered
by the tandem layout.
If the plan were modified, they cauld ro-engineer the streets by making them wider and they can provide
addkional parking on the street. They can Increase the street parking by widening the sliest In order to
get parking on both sides of the street. In many areas they have parking on one side to keep the
openness of the project in tcoi. He added k is possible to increase the parking up to the 25% ratio.
Regarding the concern expressed by the Tmfflc and Transportation Manager relative to the garage space
being used as storage, Presley fails to see the difference between a double car g,9rage or a tandem
garage relative to the problem of use as storage. The CC&R's may be able to address that Issue.
Prasiey's previous project was Development Area 11 and that was approved and Is partially built and
currently under construction for the remaining unks as a tandem garage proj~et. It appears tc be working
o.k. and there are no real concerns that they know of.
If the Commission is vkally concerned about the tandem setup and storage, they could push the garage
door back In so that the interior space Isn't closed and the outer parking space is open. Therefore, you
would not have an enclosed space and would address the Issue that the Traffic Manager !stalking about.
However, Presley does not think that is the best solution. Technically, k would meet the requirements k
the Commission insists on k.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Peraza stated there was a letter sent to the Commiss!on asking that the Height Iimk be kept to
two stories.
Commissioner Boydstun stated they have received letters from individuals whose homes back up to
Sunset Ridge expressing concern regarding their view. She asked k they could underground the parking
on those units?
Mr. Boyle stated if they do, k could cause some drainage Issues. They are wkhi~n the height Iimk of the
Code and there was a view profile presented.
Commissioner Boydstun asked for clarification k they had a 35 foot height wkh the parking and the two
stories?
Mr. Boyle answered that was correct.
Commissioner Messe pointed out that that row of condominiums was inside the 150 foot line.
Commissioner Boydstun stated once they are outside the 150 foot line they are alright. Our Code states
you cannot exceed over one story wkhin that 150 foot line. She stated the residents have a genuine
concern.
Mr. Boyle stated she was correct.
' 10/04/93
Page 14
hk
,~~
i•.
Commissioner Boydstun asked ff they could put the parking below grade level for that one section?
~-.
Further discussion took place regarding the possibffffies.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he did not see any reason for them to stop outside of the Code. Any
changes should be warranted and fair to all parties involved. Economics Is not a consideration. He could
not vote for a project that puts 2-story apartment buildings in addition to the parking garages next to the
single-family residential homes.
Commissioner Boydstun stated they could have single-story condos in that one row.
Alan Uman, Presley Company. This is an economic condftion in the Interest of the community. When
they start any modffications and push things Into the ground, ft starts driving up the cost. This is
proposed as a condominium project and not an apartment project as it is curcently zoned. They are trying
to have something that is very compatible wkh the community.
Staff did not have an objection to the separation and the one-story restriction area. Because of the grade
separation from across the street, up a major slope, the houses sit over the top and there is a significant
difference in elevation.
Commissioner Caldwell stated the Issue is can you build according to the rules, laws and Codes that exist
in the Cffy?
Mr. Uman explained that the Specific Plan is a Zoning document of ftself. It Is not violating anything to
have the Specific Plan list modifications to it to fit the topographic features. They are not asking to amend
the City's Code, it is a matter of the development standards within the Highlands that have unique
features.
Discussion took place regarding the height of the slope.
Commissioner Henninger referenced paragraph 3 on the recommendation. He stated tho change basically
is justified but staff also asks that the petitioner submit addffional line-of-sight drawings at the time of the
final She Plan approval. He asked what they had hoped to gain?
Greg Hastings, Zoning DNision Manager, stated originally staff was comfortable with what they are
currently seeing, however, since the time this was brought In, there were neighbors who were calling
indicating that they had aconcern-that they would have their views blocked. Staff would not be opposed
to the Development Standard deviation, provided it could be shown that all of the unks that are being
constructed are not blocking the view. There is really no way to do it wffhout having final Specific Plans
and the developer would obvioi!:;ly take that as a second step otter the approval.
Discussion took place regarding setbacks.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he would be happy to approve that one portion of Yie height requirement ff
he knew they were going to have drawings and the drawings were going to specihcally show that there
was not going to be an obstruction to the views of the single-family homes that are immediately adjacent
to the project.
Mr. Hastings stated the Planning Commission would have another opportunity when the Final Specific
Plans come In and at that point h can be demonstrated. if h is not demonstrated, then they would not
meet the Code requirement. He stated it is a matter of how the Development Standard is worded. The
10/04/93
~ Page 15
Development Standard would indicate that it would be one story within 50 feet; between 50 and 150 feet ff
could be 2 or 3 stories provided that they show byline-of-sight that the view is not obstructed from the
residential; and 150 feet and beyond, they would be able to build up to 35'.
Commissioner Messe referenced the chart on page 3 of the staff report. He indicated that the parking
requirements could be meant. They could widen a couple of extra streets and provide the extra parking.
Mr. Hastings explained as part of that, the conceptual proposal was to have tandem on both sides of the
drNeway and it is only allowed on one side.
Commissioner Messe asked for further clarffication on the tandem parking.
Mr. Hastings explained the engineering standards require that there Just be tandem parking only on one
side of the driveway and not on both sides. He deferred to the Traffic Engineering Department for
comments.
Commissioner Messe stated a tandem garage is inconvenient. The forward space would normally then be
used for storage.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff there was a regulation that deals wkh tandem garage spaces in facing
garages where they face common backup space? Where they only want tandem on one side of the
facing garages?
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering. He stated when there is tandem parking, they say only one side of the
aisle should be tandem because when they back up there should ba enough room.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff he has a problem with their tandem spaces ff they come In with 25%
- rather than 33%?
A discussion took place and Mr. Yalda explained K is almost impossible to get in and out when you have
tandem parking on both sides of the street.
Mr. Uman asked what the dffference was wffh a doubts car garage as far as getting out?
Mr. Yalda explained the dffference was the maneuvering of the car. He p?ve an example.
Mr. Uman stated this was mentioned in the IDC meeting.
Mr. Yalda stated Mr. Uman did not mention he was having tandem parking. He found out later from the
Planning Department. He referenced Standard Detail 60i or 602.
It should be one side tandem only.
Mr. Yalda stated ff they could demonstrate wffh a template that these cars could make the fuming
movement, Traffic Engineer ~g would not have a problem with ff.
Commissioner Henninger stated they would condition it that way.
Commissioner Boydstun stated ff that does not work, they could come back with another solution.
10/04/93
Page i6
a
ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved
- . Amendment to Specific Plan No. SP87-1 -Approved as follows:
Development of an RM-2400(SC) condominium complex (up to 414 units) was approved
utilizing RM-2400(SC) standards with the exception of the following deviating development
standards:
1. Condominiums shall be permitted primary uses rather than conditionally permitted uses.
2. Structural height shall be limited to one-story wfthln fifty (50) feet of a development area
designated for single-family residences; one (1) to three (3) stories (not to exceed thirty-
fNefeet) within fffty (50) to one hundred and fifty (150) of a development area designated
for single-family residences, provided the Planning Commission is satisfied by line-of-sight
drawings submitted prior to issuance of building permits by the developer indicating that
the 2 and 3 story units do not havo a negative effect on said single-family residences; and
three (3) stories, not to exceed thirty-five (35) feet for structures further than one hundred
and fifty (150) feet from development areas designated for single-family residences.
3. Minimum setbacks between two (2) adjacent walls with no main entrances shall be ten
(10) feet, provided that any walls containing windows Into a habftable room shall be
obscured in a manner to maintain privacy.
4. Maximum of 25% of the required number of cov~,sd spaces may be in tandem, provided
that tandem may be located on both sides of the driveway only if approved by the Traffic
and Transportation Manager on the basis that safe turning movements can be made.
5. The proposed Code deviation regarding recreational/leisure area was withdrawn by the
petitioner. A minimum of 750 square feet of recreational/leisure area per dwelling unit
shall be provided as required by the RM-2400(SC) Zone.
Density Transfer Request No. 93.05 -Approved
VOTE: 6-0 (C.~mmissloner Tait declared a conflict of Interest)
~I
f
10/04/93
Page 17
y
s
~F.
`t;
,.
5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
5b. VVAiVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Deleted
5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3638 Granted, in part
OWNER: KENTWOOD PARK, 1100 N. Paradise Street., Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT: VIETNAM MINISTRIES INC., Attn: Phu Xuan Ho, P. 0. BOX 4568,
Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: 1100 N. Pnrodise Street. Property is approximately 1.99 acres
located at the southerly terminus of Paradise Street and located
approximately 370 feet south of the centerline of Balsam Avenue.
To permit a church with on-sfte caretaker's unft in an existing private recreational
facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93.111
FOLLOWING [S A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
OFFICIAL MINUTES.
IN FAVOR: 2 people
OPPOSITION: 2 people
PETITIONER:
Phu Ho, Vietnam Ministries, Inc. 2520 E. Venon (? ck. flle) Court. Up until this point, a CUP has not been
required. The park is currently being used far recreation; swimming area; community center and a place for
church actlvkies.
They plan to conduct the same sort of duties on this property and to open the rooms up for the use of the
members of the community for activities such as boy scouts, girl scouts, etc. The swimming pool and the
recreation of the park will be utilized in the same manner as it has always been.
IN FAVOR:
Ian Cook, 2263 Sandalwood Place, President of Kentwood Park Homeowner's Association. He gave some
background on the Association. The Vietnam Ministries approached the association with the possibility of
leaving the park the same as It Is; they would take over paying the bills which included Insurance and doing
improvements to the park and still allow the homeowners the opportunity to use the park as they have in the
past.
The Vietnam Ministries also approached them about opening up the pool k they make improvements and
pay for them. They made thousands of dollars worth of repairs to the pool so various members of the
association would be able to participate in a summer activity.
~~
10/04/93 ~
Page 18
0
OPPOSITION:
- The Ministries have always indicated that they want to make the community a part of the use of the park.
They would be taking away the financial burden the association has and still allow those why are Interested
to participate and they are seeking their Input as to what is being done there. Hls fear is that wkh no money
the park would have to be closed down. He elaborated further on his concerns.
Ronda Minton, homeowner at 2500 E. Sandalwood Court, Anaheim, CA. She has been away from the
property for some time, although she is the homeowner. Her mother is tho resident. When she purchased
the home, along with the deed, came a deed to the homeowner's association. She expressed her concerns
regarding her Interest in the park and how h would personally Impact her.
IN FAVOR:
Jodene Cook, 2263 Sandalwood Place, Anaheim, CA. They have had meetings for the homeowners and ff
they were at the meetings they would know exactly what was going on. They did have a meeting at the
beginning of the year when this proposal was made. Those who paid their dues got to vote and the
overwhelming majority voted for this plan. She gave some further background.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Ho stated they propose to use the facility, but they do not plan on having the regular worship service
there on Sundays. They would rather have Bible study and they would prefer to have more workshops and
seminars to serve the people in the communffy. They would like to do something for their community.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Messe stated according to the staff report on page 4, there are going to be worship service
and 91b1e study classes from 10:OOa,m. to 5:OOp.m. on Sunday. He asked ff they were planning usage the
'- entire day Sunday?
Mr. Ho explained they may have a workshop or a seminar in the moming or afternoon. They do not know.
They were told not to limit themselves to the mornings because in the future it could be a problem for them.
Commissioner Messe once again asked for clarification ff they were going to use this as a sanctuary?
Mr. Ho Indicated they were not.
Commissioner Messe asked ff their ministry had a place of worship?
Mr. Ho stated he had his own place in Pomona.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff they were purchasing this property?
Mr. Ho explained that the ownorship would be transferred to them and they had to pay the debt and the law
suit and work wRh the community.
Commissioner Henninger stated the community will still have the use of these facilities and wanted to know
if their agreement states for how long?
10/04/93
Page 19
u
Mr. Ho stated they addressed that matter In the contract. He elaborated and stated as long as they stay
there they will provide service to the community.
Commissioner Messe asked how long this agreement was good foR
Commissioner Henninger asked how about when they leave?
Mr. Ho stated if they leave before 10 years, the homeowner's association will be the first one to have the
rights to buy it back and pay them.
Commissioner Messe stated the title is changing hands.
Commissioner Henninger stated he hoped they were not harboring great plans for this site. This is a dKflcult
site and it would not work for a major church. He did not know what the alternate uses might be.
Mr. Ho explained at the pre file they proposed a recreational and educational facility.
OPPOSITION:
Theresa Greeman, 1115 N. Paradise Street. They are the only street that has vehicular traffic into the park.
Her concern is how much traffic will this entail? When they do rent this in the evening, the traffic Is very
heavy. She expressed her concerns regarding the presence of children.
Commissioner G,Idwell stated the homeowner's association has given up their rights to that park by having
neglected it and as a group have not taken care of it nor paid the money In order to maintain h. The
Vietnam Ministdes has come in and given them an option.
Commissioner P4esse stated this is almost the very thing they talked about when they got together wfth the
City Council, I.e., getting neighborhoods together. Here was an opportunity over the last 30 years for a
neighborhood to run a very lovely facility for themselves and unfortunately they let it go down hill.
Commissioner Henninger stated they might consider selling the land in order to build houses. There are
possibly 8 lots.
Mr. Hastings reminded the Commission that there needed to be a 15-foot setback from the property line to
the parking areas, so this would have to be slightly redesigned ff the Commission approves it.
ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved
Waiver of Code Requirement -Deleted (withdrawn by the petitioner)
CondRional Use Permit No. 363!3 -Granted, In part, and added the following conditions:
1. That the walkways leading from subJect property to the surcounding cultle-sac sha!I be
maintained b•; the petitioner.
2. That graffiti appearing within subJect property and within the adjacent walkways shall be
removed by the property owner.
3. That the parking facilfties shall maintain a minimum fifteen (15) foot setback from all
adjacent residential property lines.
VOTE: 7-0
,~
10/04/93 ~
Page 20
6. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
PROPGSAL FOR DIRECTIONAL SiGN PROGRAM IN THE PUBLiC RIGHT• Continued to a
OF.WAV: REQUESTED BY MIKE WILSON, TEMEKA ADVERTISING. future Planning
Commission mtg.
Continued from the September 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. for staff to
perform an in-
depth comparison
Commissioner Henninger abstained.
DISCUSSION:
Mike Wilson, owner of Temeka Advertising, 43339 Business Park Drive, Temecula. He met wfth
Greg Hastings and John Poole. He showed them what they had to offer; they would return a portion of the
proceeds back to the City. Mr. Poole is excited and they would put that possibly towards the anti•grafffti fund.
These funds apparently are Iimfted.
Greg Hastings, Zoning DNision Manager, stated they did receive a copy of the Fax supporting the B.I.A. program
from the Baldwin company.
Kelly Sylvester, Community Affairs Manager for the Building Industry Association. She presented the B.I.A.'s
views on the Anaheim Directional Sign Program. They currently administer the program. She addressed some of
the concerns about the current program.
The B.I.A. originally was contracted to do bi-weekly monftoring. The probiem that has occurced is that the
weekend bootleg signs go'up on the weekends and their Code Enforcer was actually doing the enforcement
during the week. They did not know that there was a bootleg problem or concern by the Cfty until this proposal
was put forth by this Company. B.I.A. has never been notHfed to say there was a problem on the weekends.
Apparently the signs go up after midnight on Friday night and are taken down on Sunday. They need to look at
the root of the bootleg problem.
She explained there are only 5 current sign locations and she is speaking about the latter signs that are
permanently erected to advertise model home tours. There are not enough of these signs. As development has
progressed, ft has moved east in through City limits and the signs are still found located in the westerly part of
that area. Part of the problem Is that the design needs to be updated. The original Planning Commission's
request is that the signs blend in and look part of the landscape. They are a little bft too subdued. Their builders
have told them they are a little too successful in blending in.
B.I.A. submitted proposed modfticatlons. She spoke about locations and designs; they know bootlegs are a
problem, but they also believe ff the sign locations and design is enhanced, that problem will diminish greatly.
Another revision they would like to ask for is an annual review of the program. As they take on programs in
other cities, they are fine turning them as they go and this is one of the things they would like to add.
10/04/93
;~ Page 21
As far as revenue enhancement is concerned, they are willing to look at that as an option; they do feel h is worth
-~ mentioning that Temeka's bid is somewhat unrealistic in promising the city $24,000 as an example. She is not
here to degrade their proposal, but just to inform the Commission that B.I.A. does not make $24,000 on the entire
program. She understands that more signs mean more money. She stile felt $24,000 was very unrealistic and
added those are numbers that do not sound feasible to them.
She asked that the Commission treat them faldy--that they give them an opportunity to continue to run this
program. They should have come forth sooner and they realize that now. As the market declined, they have lost
50% of their staff at B.I.A.
She stated she is fully responsible fer overseeing the Directional Sign Pogram in Anaheim and she is their staff
person. She can guarantee that B.I.A. has now made this program a priority and they will not have these
problems continue. They leave made some mistakes, but they ask the Commission to renegotiate and rework the
program.
The B.I.A. is anon-profit educational trade association dedicated to furthering the home building Industry. They
have been in existence for 30 years. in Orange County. The proceeds from this program go back into this
Industry. They run directional sign programs in 5 Orange County cities. If the contract Is awarded to another
sign contractor, builders wile have to pay another setup fee and their new signs run about $2,700 each. She
asked chat they review the 2 proposals.
Chairman Peraza asked if the bootleg signs were being put up by their members?
Ms. Sylvester indicated that was correct. They know who they are. She emphasized that h was not strictly their
members, but everyone out there because it has never been enforced.
Commissioner Messe stated when you have a contract wfth these builders, do you not feel you have a conflict of
Interest when you say they are putting up signs against their contract. Do you have a conflict of Interest with the
builder?
Ms. Sylvester stated she did not think h was a conflict of interest, however, she does think h puts them in a
awkward position when they are out putting up bootleg signs and they are telling them they have no choice
because the locations of the permanent signs are no good to them. She added they will continue to do this until
they have an effective means of marketing their project. If they have the locations they need, the bootlegs will
not be a problem anymore.
Commissioner Messe stated the B.I.A, is a fine organization and he has a concern that they will nct get tough on
their members.
Ms. Sylvester stated the builders are in a situation where they will do anything or take a risk to keep these houses
moving and keep their Jobs. They are looking to B.I.A. to negotiate with the Ciry; get addftlonal locations, a new
design and see where it goes from there. This is the only thing that will stop the boot legs.
Chairman Peraza asked H they were willing to pay for a Ciry Code Enforcement Officer for weekends?
Ms. Sylvester stated absolutely. They w(II do whatever it takes because they want to keep this program.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if the B.I.A. Involves themselves in any political campaigning or endorse candidates
or provide campaign contributions?
Ms. Sylvester explained they do. She elaborated. She stated it is not part of their sign program revenue and it is
overseen by their B.I.A. of Southern California.
10/04/93
~. Page 22
Commtssioner Messe stated he was more concerned ff they had the teeth to enforce the program. Commissioner
- , Messe suggested they give staff some time to compare the two ~oroposais.
Commissioner Taft asked what other cfties are they contracting with?
Ms. Sylvester stated Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Laguna Nigel, 1.;:'ra Forest and Anaheim.
'Commissioner Messe stated and we are the only problem?
;ds. Sylvester stated they take responsibility for that because communication works both ways and they should
ha~~s been in contact wfth City staff to see ff there were any problems.
Commis loner Taft stated he was sympathetic wfth them, because the Cfty, in fairness, shouid have let them know
there was r: problem so they could respond to ft. He suggested another year wfth probation rather than analyze
this further. Then they could open ft up for bids.
Commissioner Caldwell state i he was looking for reasons to support F.I.A.
Commissioner Mayer asked how this came before the Commission?
Mr. Hastings stated B.I.A. has a month to month because the agreement says 30 days notice ff the Clry wishes to
terminate this. Temeka Advertising came to staff and asked what they would need to do to get their sign
program approved in place of B.I.A.
He explained to them that the Commission and Council approved the original concept and he wouid have the
same opportunity to make his presentation to the Commission and Council for replacement. At this time the only
thing before the Commission is whether or not Temeka Advertising should be recommended to City Council to
replace B.I.A. If no action is taken, then B.I.A. would continue wfth the program.
Commissioner Messe asked ff the Cfty has looked at Temeka's references in any depth? He stated they should
do a thorough side by side analysis of the two.
Commissioner Taft stated ff you have a contract with someone and there is a problem with the service, then the
City should let them know we are hav(ng a problem and ff it does not improve, then they open ft up for bid from
several sign companies. The Cfty was remiss in letting B.I.A. know they had a problem with their services.
Commissioner Messe is now saying they need a lot of addftional signage and a lot of similar places as the other
proposal. As long as the City is going Into this where they have to increase the number of signs, this is the time
to look at these 2 proposals side by side.
Commissioner Mayer asked for clarification about the existing signs serving the needs of the business
community.
Ms. Sylvester stated in 4 years, they have not updated this program and the locations are outdated.
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement. He stated this program was brought about because of the problems that the
C(ty was experiencing with the proliferation of signs in the Anaheim Hills area. It was also his understanding that
this program was going to eliminate those signs and that they wouid police the Hills area on a regular basis to
remove those signs. The problem has always been on the weekends for the last 10 years.
10/04/93
~ Page 23
Commissioner Mayer agreed with Commissioner Messe in that they need to compare the 2 proposals and closely
look at the locations ff they are going to be recommending adding additional signs. If the problem will not be
solved unless they Increase signage, then they need additional time to look at it.
Ed Hoag, (phonetically spelled) Hoag Outdoor Advertising, 1955 N. Main Street, Orange. He is the sign
contractor for the B.I.A. He handles 30 different city programs In master planned communities. They specialize
In this particular type of service. He gave some history.
They are here today discussing that the program is not effectNe. They need new locations, they need to move
toward where the market is now at and how they are going to be drawing their traffic Into their model complex
and they need a sign that is more visible. The current sign is green and white and blends into the environment.
It does not stand out well enough. They are proposing a header panel with the City of Anaheim's name on it. He
elaborated. He was willing to work with staff to consider some of these design changes and make the program
more effective. Their contract in the past was to do semi-monthly Inspections of the Anaheim Hills area which
they have done. Unfortunately it was during the week and the problem is on the weekend. If B.I.A. gives them
that contract, they will be happy to do that.
Joanne Brudough (phonetically spelled), Outdoor Dimensions. They do about 90% of the bootleg signs in
Anaheim Hills. She stated the bootleg problem surfaces for a reason. Part of the reason is that there have not
been enough sign structures to handle all of the iooatfons that builders need to get traffic to their hous'r.g
projects. The builders need their own identity which the Kiosk signs do not provide. The Commission should
look at coming up with a program that could be utilized by all builders in all areas of the Ctty. She cfted some
examples.
She asked them to consider a supplemental program. If bootlegs are out of the question because they are
cardboard, and some feel they are tacky, then consider a pole sign program which could be made of a more
substantial material like masonite. She elaborated. She had letters from 5 of the builders in Anaheim Hills that
asked her company to represent them today. (Presley, Warmington, Pacfflc Commur~fties, Western National
Properties and Kaufman and Broad.)
Mr. Wilson stated they have had 100% participation from the large developer. They do not allow bootlegs and
the kiosk. They cannot work together. Kiosks are the resolution to get rid of the bootlegs. This is what they
have done in the Cfty of Temecula. The first weekend they took down 447 slyns which is about 4 truck loads.
Now they have none. As long as the person next to them cannot run them, they have no problem with h. You
cannot have bootlegs and kiosks together. You have to have one or the other.
Chairman Peraza stated he would personally like to see staff review the proposals.
Commissioner Mayer stated she would like an overview of the supplemental program that the spokesman for
Outdoor Dimensions mentioned in Siml Valley or Glendale.
Commissioner Messe stated the Commission may want to consider going out and looking at the areas they want
to put the signs in. They could make one trip out of it.
Continued to a future Planning Commission meeting for staff to perform an intiepth comparison.
10/04/93
Page 24
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3449 • REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TiME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL: Calvin Lin requests an eMension of time for Condftional Use
Permft No. 3449 (to permft a 20A-unft single room occupancy (SRO) hotel)
to expire on October 7, 1994. Property is located at 1360 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Approved CUP 3449 for
60 days (to expire on
12-7-93) & Cond. #11 of
PC91-155 for 90 days (to
expire on 1-7-94) 5-1
(Commissioner Caldwell
No and Commissioner
eoydstun absent)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.359fi - REOf_TEST FORA Granted 6-0
NUNC PRO TU":C RESOLUTION TO CORRECT THE MAXIMUM (Commissioner
NUMBER OF STUDENTS CONTAINED iN RESOLUTION NO. Boydstun absent)
PC93-33• To correct the maximum ~ ember of elementary through high
school aged students from 500 to 695. Property is located at 1565 West Mabie
Street.
NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION NO. PC93d12
„'"~
E....:
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.23R3 - REQUEST FOR PLANNING
COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO
PERMIT A BOAT HULL REPAIR FACILITY WITHIN A PREVIOUSLY
Determined to be
in substantial
conformance wfth
CUP 2383
APPROVED AUTO BODY REPAIR FACILITY: Jim St. Omer Roy requests
Planning Commission determination of substantial conformance to permft a
boat hull repair facility wfthin a previously approved auto body repair facility.
Property is located at 1205 N. Lance Lane.
.~
10/04/93
Page 25