2000-216RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-216
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 2000-129
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim did receive an application
from the owner of certain real property located at 1110 Tamarisk
Drive, Anaheim, California, for the approval of Tentative Parcel
Map No. 2000-129 to permit a 2-lot single-family residential
subdivision in the RS-HS-22,000(SC) (Residential, Single-Family
Hillside - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section
18.12.040, the Planning Director appointed the City Zoning
Administrator to decide the above application; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a duly noticed
public hearing on said application on August 31, 2000, and denied
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-129; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time provided by law,
the applicant property owner did appeal the decision to the City
Council and the City Council, on October 10, 2000, did conduct a
duly noticed public hearing on said appeal; and
WHEREAS, the applicant failed to appear at said hearing
and the City Council did receive written correspondence from
property owners in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision
opposing the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. That subject property (Lot No. 11 of Tract Map No.
10996) was developed in connection with two nearby tracts (Nos.
10997 and 10998) in an eastern portion of the Anaheim Hills
Planned Community near Weir Canyon, and that these three tracts
were analyzed as a single project and considered concurrently
with Environmental Impact Report ("EIb') No. 236 and
Reclassification No. 80-81-9 (under which ordinances to rezone
the properties were adopted).
2. That letters were submitted indicating that this
proposed parcel map would be in violation of the Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&R's") adopted in connection with
Tract Map No. 10996 in which this property is located, and which
CC&R's prohibit further subdivision.
3. That, the proposal is for two parcels which are
significantly smaller (0.67 and 0.60 acres) than any other lots
in the same tract, which lots range from 1.0 to 2.13 acres in
size with the average being 1.35 acres.
4. That, the proposed parcels (0.67 and 0.60 acres) are
only one-fourth (25%) the average lot size (2.58 acres) in this
3-tract area of the Anaheim Hills Planned Community, which lots
range from 1.0 to 4.83 acres in size.
5. That, although the underlying Tract Map No. 10996, as
part of a larger project originally known as the Anaheim Hills
Planned Community, was approved prior to enactment of State law
relating to "specific plans," that project was proposed and
analyzed as the functional equivalent of a specific plan in that
it addressed all or most of the required contents of a specific
plan (Government Code Section 65451), as follows:
(a) A specific plan shall include text and a diagram or
diagrams which specify all of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses
of land, including open space, within the area covered by the
plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent
and intensity of major components of public and private
transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal,
energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located
within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the
land uses described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will
proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and
utilization of natural resources, where applicable.
(4) A program of implementation measures including
regulation, programs, public works projects, and financing
measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2) and (3),
above.
(b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the
relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.
6. That a summary of the development history of "The
Texaco Project," which consists of Tract Nos. 10966, 10997 and
10998, EIR 236, Reclassification No. 80-81-09 and a Speciman Tree
Removal request, is discussed in the Staff Report to the Zoning
Administrator; and that said summary includes the following
quote from Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 80-
1407, dated September 2, 1980, relating to the character and
density of development for the area:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in order to obtain
consistency with regional open space and recreation planning
efforts relative to Weir Canyon, this Board encourages the City
of Anaheim to vigorously enforce private open space mitigations
such as estate densities, restricted grading, landscaping edge
treatment and covenants, conditions and restrictions that have
been verbally assured by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc. (the property
owner at that time} to buffer Weir Canyon from adjacent
residential development."
7. That the Goals and Policies for the Hill and Canyon
Area (Area B} of the Anaheim General Plan include the following
Goals which are applicable to the area in which the proposal is
located: "To encourage the maintenance of sound and viable
residential neighborhoods and housing, and To encourage and
maintain living areas which preserve the amenities of hillside
living and which retain the overall low density, semi-rural,
uncongested character of the Hill and Canyon Area;" but that this
project would subdivide a single lot, which was designed as part
of a cohesive 3-tract neighborhood originally designed to
minimally impact the surrounding natural environment; and that
the proposed subdivision would create two ~ acre lots which do
not reflect the existing density of this well-established
neighborhood; and that this neighborhood includes custom homes
built on minimum one acre lots that include large open space
areas in the form of large yards, many containing slopes.
8. That the range of permitted densities for this area is
zero up to 1.5 units per acre, but it is not guaranteed that the
maximum can be achieved. Instead the actual density must fall
within the permitted range, as well as take into consideration
the General Plan Goals and Policies, the size, shape and
topography of the subject property, and the compatible
integration of the subject property into the surrounding area.
Further, these three tracts were intended to be very iow in
density (0.46 units per gross acre) with minimum one acre lots
and designated for a fixed number of lots for single family homes
with large areas of open space/slopes within the subdivision (as
evidenced by EIR 236, Exhibit C of Tentative Tract Map No. 10996,
Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 80-1407, and
the Hidden Canyon Estates Homeowner's Association CC&R's).
9. That the design of the proposed parcel map is not
consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
10. That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed type of development.
11. That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development because the proposed parcels
(0.67 and 0.60 acres in size) are smaller than any of the lots in
the area (1 acre being the smallest existing lot) and
significantly smaller than the average lot size (4.83 acres) in
the project area as originally approved and developed.
12. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
13. That the proposed parcel map is not consistent with the
hillside character and density of the neighborhood and the larger
surrounding area, including Weir Canyon.
14. That approval of this proposal would adversely impact
area property owners who relied on the CC&R's and on the hillside
character, residential densities and open spaces which were
established by development of the area as originally approved in
connection with Tract No. 10996 as part of the Anaheim Hills
Planned Community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the reasons
hereinabove set forth, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-129 be, and
the same is hereby denied.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Anaheim this l0th day of October,
2000.
ATTEST:
C~TY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
37935.1
STATE Of CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, SHERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby cedify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2000R-216 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of
the Anaheim City Council held on the 10th day of October, 2000, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(SEAL)
CITY CLEI~K OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM