Minutes-PC 1983/03/21d
d
REGUI.AR MBETINC OF THB ANAHEIM CITX ~WINNINC COMMISSION
REGUT.AR M~BTING The regular meetin~ of the A~sheim City Planning
Commi~sion wa~ callad to order by Chairman Fry at 10:00
a.m.~ Mn~ch 21~ 1983, in the Council Chamber~ a quorum
being pre~ent snd the Commiseion reviewad plane of tha
it~ ~ o~ today' a agmnda .
REI;BSS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:30 p.m.
PRESBNT Chairmen: Fry
Coaunlaeionera: Bouae~ Bueliore, Herbet~ King, La Claire,
McBucney
ABSLNT Commiseionera: None
ALSO PRESENT Annik~ Santalahti
Jack White
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Jay Tashiro
t)ean Sherer
Greg Haetings
Edith Harris
Aseistant Director for Zoning
Assletent City Attorney
Office Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Aaeociate Planner
Aeaociate Planner
Asao~iate Planner
Plannin~ Commiaeion Secretery
APPROVAL OF MtNUTES: Commieeioner King offered a motion, seconaed by
Commiseioner BoueP and MOTION CARRIED, that rhe minutea of the ooeeting of
FebruAry 23, 1983, be approved as corrected on Page 105 to indicate
Commissioaer Buahore hed previou~ly declared a conflict of interest on this
matter and was absent; and correcting the spell:ng of Lynn Thomsen's name in
Item No. S.
I'PEH N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE D~CLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)~ TEN'SATIVE MAP
TAACT N0. 106 (REVXSIAN N0. 1) AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REMOVAL OF
SPECIMEN TREES
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: VERAE PROPERTIES~ 6125 ~. Lafeyette, ScoCtsdale~
Arizona~ 85251 and PRED STEVENS, 3180 FronterA~ Anaheim, CA 92806. Property
described ae an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consieting of approximately
6.25 acrea loceted at the westerly terminus of Eucalyptus Drive, approximately
980 feet ~outheasterly of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road and nor'.h of
t~lartella Lane.
This isem was hegrd following Che recess at 3:45 p.m.
To establiah an 11-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) Zone subdiviaion and requeat for
approval of rem.oval of specimen trees.
Continued from the meetinge of February 23 and March 7, 1983.
There was no oae
and although the
of the minutes.
indicating th~ir preeence ia oppoeiCion to sub~ect request
etaff :eport Was aot read, it is referred to and~made a part
0438H 83-150 3/21/83
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION L MARCH 21~ 1983 83-151
Cal Quayrel~ Anacal Enginesring~ otated the awnere are edamsntly oppo~ed to
reconuoendad Condttion No. 3 pertalning to liability insuranca for tha hiking
and equeatrlan trail and feal the insuranca should be carried by the City of
Anaheim. He explained his company haw devaloped numerous tract~ in tt~e area
and he did not know of any devaloper who had to provide the insurance. Hs
etetad .1ack White~ Asaietant City Attorney, had ceaearchad the recorde and did
not find where thie condition had ever been impoeed an any other tract.
THF. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Jack White explained thie condition wae developed and requeeCed by tha rarke
Department two yeara ago and that many tracCe have been approved in thie area
and dedication for the trails wae required, but to his knawledge thi.e
condition wae not impueed on nny of the other tracts. He explained the owners
were required to dedicate and improve the tra~ls, but were noC required to
maintain the tratle and provide tt~e liabillty insurance. He stated the City
has the primery legal obligation to maintain public property end iA liable for
any damage or accident on public property and if that condition wae imposed,
the City would still have the primary responeibility~ but would seek
indemnification of that liability in case of art eccident.
Commiasioner Herbat stated tie could agree with thia recommendation if thie waa
an individual property owner developing the tcail for his own benefit~ but
felt demanding dedication~ improvemenk~ maintenance, and ineurance on thie
tract is un~u:c and is expecting too much of the developer.
Jack White atated he would have no problem if the Commiesion wiahea tn delete
that condition.
It was noted an EIR Negative Declaration was previously approved by the
Planning Commiseion on December 14, 1981~ and by the City Council on February
2, 19A2.
It was noted the requeat for removal of ePeci~en trees was deleted.
Cal Queyrel ateted the property owner also hae a problem with Condition No. 25
pertaining to the water mein, becauee it is located on a neighbor's property
and :.a does not have~asement and it would be imposaible to comply.
Pete Carpeuter, developer, explained original2y three properties were involved
in this development and they could have complied, but Mr. Stollo'a property 1s
no longer a part of the proposal, He explained Mr. Stollo's property ran to
Martella Lane and they wanted the water to Martella Lane for a loop. He
stated they intend to run the water main from this cul de sac to Mr. Stollo's
pxoperty and atub it off and when he developa his property, he ahould run the
water from Martella Lane to their stub-out whi~h would complete the loop. He
etated there is water an Eucalyptus Way which is now in Anaheim and is along
the north boundary of their property.
ACTION: Comm3asioner ~erbat of.fered a motioa, sec~nded by Commieaioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED, that the A~naheim City Planning Commiaeion doee
hereby find that the proposed subdiv~eion~ together with i~e design and
improvement, le consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, purauant to
MtNUTE3~ ANAHLIM CITY P1.ANNINC COMMI3320N~ MARCli 21~ 1983 83-152
Covernment Code Section 66473.5; and doe~~ tharefore~ approve Tantstive Map of
Tr~ct No. 1Q614 (Rev. Nu. 1) for an 11-lot~ RB-HS-22~000(3C) (Residential,
Single-Family, Hillside-Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone .ubdiviaion, sub~ect to
the following conditione; however modifying Condicion No. 3 to read the eame
as the previoue etandard condition regerding traile which all other tractg
hava had to comply with and not to include toaintenance of the trai,l; and
modifying Condition No. 25 to require thxt an 8-.inch (8) D.I.P. water main
ehall be e~xtended to the eaeterly tract boundary for e future connection to
the exieting Martelle Lane mein (replecing the 6" AC pipe) and shall be
installed ae approved by the City af Anaheim Ucilities Depertment prior to the
iseuance of building permits.
1. That prior to iseuance of a building permit, appropriate park and
rgcreation in-lieu fees shall be ~ata to the City of Anaheim in an
emount as determined by the City Gouncil.
2. Thak prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
eignal aeaeesment fee ahall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an
amount ~a determined by the ~ity Council for each new dwelling unit .
3. That the owner of subject property ahall dedicate and improve a ten
(10) foot wide equeetrian and hiking trail ae shown on the
Equestrian and Hiking Trails Component of the Anaheim Generel Plan;
and that improvement plans~ in accordance with etandard plens aod
apecificationa on file in the Office of the City Engineer~ shall be
submitted in con~unction with tlie gredi~g pl.~n; and/or that a bond
in an amount and form satisfactocy lo the City of Anaheim shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the inetallation oE the
above-mentioned requirement prior to occupancy.
4. That the private streets shall c~mply with the City of Maheim
atsndsrda for private atreete in the Mohler Drive area.
5. That prior to fJ.nal tract map approval~ titreet names ahall be
approved by the City Planning Department.
6. That temporary ~Creet name signs ehall be inetalled prior [o any
occupancy if permanent street name eigns have not been inatalled.
7. That drainage of subject property ehall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
8. That prior to the issuance of building permite, the alignment and
terminal point of atorm drains ahown on thia tentative tract map
ahall not be conaidered final. Theae draine ahall be sub,~ect ta
precise design conaideratione and the approval of the City Engineer.
9. That grading, excavation, and all other coastruction activities
ehall be conducted in auch a manner so as to minimi;ce the
poseibility of any ailt originating from thie project being carried
into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing
through this project.
MINUTE3~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI9SION, MARCH 21~_1983 83-~53
10. That ehould this subdivi~ion ba developed ~a more than ono
subdivieion~ each aubdivision thereof ehell be eubmiCtad in
tentative form for approval.
11. That all lota within thia tract ehall be served by underground
utilities.
12. That prior to commencement of etructurel framing~ fire hydrants
ehall be inetalled and cherged as required and detecmined to be
neceseary by the Chief of khe Fire Department.
13. That all requiremente of Fire Zone 4, otherwiae identified ae Fire
AdministraCive Order No. 76-01, shnll be met. Such requirements
include, but ere not limited to: chimney epark arrestore, protected
atcic and under floor upenings, Class C or better roofing material
and one hour fire reeistive conetruction of horizontal eurfacea if
located within 200 feet of ad,~acent bruahland.
14. That prior to isauance of buildin~ p~rmits, fuel breaks ahall be
provided ae determined to be necEesery by the Chief of the Fire
Department,
15. Thet prior C~ final building and zoning inapections~ native alopea
ad~acent to newly cunstructed homes ahall be hydroseeded with a low
fuel combustible seed m1x, Such elopes shall be eprinklered and
weeded as required to establieh a minimum of 100 feet of separation
between flammable vegetetion and any structure.
16. That prior Co final tract map approval, the original document~ of
the covenants, conditions~ and restrictions~ and a letter addreased
to the developer's tiCle company authorizinp, recordation theceof,
shall be aubmitted to the City Attarney's Office and approved by the
City Attorney's Affice and Engineering Division. Said documents, as
approved, will then be filed and recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Recorder.
17. That prior to iesuance of a building permit~ appropriate water
assessment fees shall be pxid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount
as determined by the Office of the Utilities Genera2 Manager.
18. Tha: nn grades shall exceed lOX except by pri~r approval of the Fire
Department and the Engineering Divislon.
19. That the propoaed aubdiviaion shall provicle to the extent feasible
far paseive and natural heating and cooling opportur-ities.
20. The the owner(s) of eubject pxoperty ahall pay appropriate draingge
assessment fees to the City of Anaheim as determined by the City
Engineer prior to approval of a final map.
21. Thet prior to approval of the final tract map, the owner(s) of
sub~ect property ehall submit evidence satisfactory to the City
Attorney'e Office ahowing that access is available over thoae
private roada leading to the propoaed development.
MINUTBS ANANP•IM CITY PI.ANNING COMNISSION MARCH 21 1983 83-154
22. Thet davaloper shall, prior to approval of the ftnal tract map,
damonstrata the 0ource and sufficiency of the wator •upply to th~
reaaonable •stiafaction of the CiCy oP Anahe~m.
23. That the owner(s) of subyect propcrty eha11 pay to tha City of
Ansheim aakur primary main asse~sment feee prior to the ioouance of
building permita.
24. That the owner(a) of eub~ect property shall pay to the City of
Anat~eim, water upgrade feee Sn the amount of ~25~577.13 priur
recordation of the final tract mep.
25. That an 8-inch p. I. P. water main ehall be exrended to the eaaterly
boundary for a future connection to Che existing Marcella Lane main
(replacing khe 6-inch a. c. pipe) and ~hall be installed ae approved
by the City of Anaheiw 1!kilities Department prior to the ieeuo~ce of
building permite.
Jack White, Aseistent City Aktorney, presenCed the written right to appeal the
Planning Commiesion'e decision within 10 days to Che City Council.
ITEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATtVE DECLARATION(PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) AND TENTATIVE MAP
V~' •~MVa ~~v•
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~'RS: THE PEtFSBYTERY OF L~S M~CELES, 1501 Wilehire
Bouleverd, Los Mgeles, CA 90017. AGENT: ANACAL P.NGINEF.RING~ 1900 E. La
Palma Avenue, P.O. Box 3668, Anaheim~ CA 92803. Propercy described ae an
irregularly-ehaped parcel of land coneisting of approximately 4.32 acreB
having a frontage of approximately 240 feet on the weat side of Villa Real
Drive, approximately 375 feet south of the centerl.ine of Nnhl Ranch Road.
To eatablish a 26-lot, 25-unit RM-3~00(SC) Zone eubdivision.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to sub~ect requeat
and alkhough the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the mf.nutea.
Commiesioner Bushore declared a conflict of lntereet as defined by Anaheim
City Planning Commiseion Reaolution Na. PC76-157 adopting a Canflict of
Interest Code for the Planning Commission e~nd Government Code Section 3625, et
aeq., in that he represente the owner in oCher real estate traneactiona and
pursuant to the provieions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that
he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection aith Tentative Map of Tract
Na. 10474, and would not take part in either the diacusaion or the voting
thereon and had not discuased this matter with any member of the Planning
Commission. Thereupon Commiesioner Buahore leFt the Council Chamber at 1:32
p.m.
Wayne Jolly~ Anacal Engineering, was presenk to anewer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It wae noted an EIR Negative Declaration wae previously approved in
~
MINUTE8~ ANAH~IM CITY P„ LANNING COMMISSION~ MAR~:H 21~ 1983 83-155
con~unction with Raclas~ification No. 82-83-15 on February 23~ 1983.
ACTION: Commiasioner King off~red a motion, oeconded by Commissioner McAur~ey
a~OTION CARRIED (Coamis~ioner Bushore ab~ent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commisaian does heraby find that th• proposed subdivi4lon~ together
with its deeign and improve~ent, iR coneiatent wiCh the City of Mah~im
General Plan~ pureuant to GovRrnment Code Section 66473.5; end doetl~
therefore, approve Tentative Mep of Tract No. 10474 for a 26-lot~ 25 unit
RM-3000(SC) (Reaidontial. Multiple-Family~ Scertic Corridor Overlay) 2one
aubdivision sub~ect to the following condi~~ons:
1. That the owner of subject property shall pey to the City of Anaheim
a fee for tree planting purposes along Villa Real Drive in an a~ount
as determined by khe City Council.
2. That prior to iseuance of a building permit, appropriate park and
recreation in-lieu feea shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an
amount as determined by l•he City Council.
3. That prior to iesuance of a building permit~ the appropriate traffic
aignal aseeasment fee ahall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an
amount as determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit,
4. That all private etreets shall be developed in accordance with the
City of Anaheim's 3tandard Detail No. 122 for private etreeta,
including ins~allation of street name signe. Plana for the private
atreet lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be
eubmitted to the Building DiviBion for approval and includQd with
the building plans prior to the isauance of building permita.
(Private streets are those which provide primary accesa and/or
circulation within the pro~ect.
5. That prior ta final tract map approv~l, street names shall be
approved by the City Planning Departm~nt.
6. That temporary etreet name eigns ehall be installed prior to any
occupancy if permaneut atreet name aigna have not been lnstalled.
7. That prior to iasuance of a building permit, appropriate water
asaeasment feea and appropriate electrlcal fees shall be paid to the
City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the
Uti.lities General Manager.
8. That drainage of sub~ect property shall be disposed of in ~ manner
satiefactory to the City Engineer.
9. That the alignment and terminal point of dtorm drains shown on this
tentative tract map shall not be considered final. These draina
shall b~ sub~ect to precise deaign conai~erations and the approval
of the City Engineer.
10. That ahould thie subdi~isioa be developed as more than one
subdivieion, each eubdivieion thereof shall be eubmitted in
tentative form for approval.
~IINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY pLANNING C01~'D~IISSION~ MARCN 21~ 1983 83-156
11. rhet stremt lighti.ng facilitias along Villa Real Driva shall ba
installed ~e raquirad by the Utilitiae Ceneral Manager in accordance
with epacificat,ton• on file in the Office of Utilitias Cen~rat
Menager~ and that 0ecurity in the form of a bond~ cerCificate of
depoeit~ letter of cradit~ or caah~ in a~ a~ount and Eorm
eatiefectory to the City of Anah~i~~ shell ba poeted with tha City
~o guarente• the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned
improvementa. Said security ohall be po~tad with the City of
Anaheim prior to finsl tract map approval. The above-required
improvemente ehall be inatalled prior to occupancy.
12. Thet all lote within thie tract ehall be served by underground
uCilitiea.
13. That prior to commencement of etructural framing~ fire hydrante
shall be installed and charged se required and determined to be
neceseary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
1G. That all requirements of Fire Zonc 4, otherwiee identified ae Fire
pdminietrative Order No. 76-01, shall be mst. Such requirementa
include~ but nre not limited ta: chlmney spark arrestors, protected
attic and under floor openings~ Clase C or better roofing material
and on~ hour fire resistive construction of horizontal surEaces if
located within 2Q0 feet of Adjacent bruehland.
15. That fuel breaks shall be provided Fis determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Uepartment.
16. That prior to final tract map approval, the origi.nal documents of
the covenants, conditions~ and reetrictione~ and a letter addresaed
to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof,
ehall be aubmitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the
City Attorney's Office and Engineering DYvisioa. 5aid documPnts~ as
gpproved~ will then be filed and recorded in the Offic~ of t-~
Orange County Recorder.
17. That vehicular acceea to the City's sanitar,y eewer manhole shall be
pr.ovided as approved by the Street Maintenance and Sanit~tion
Division.
18. That approval for the uae of the existing private sanitary sewer
shall be obtained from its owner.
19. That approval from the adjacent property owner ehall be obtained for
encroachment of the curb return at the entrance to eubject pro~ect.
20. That prior to isauance of building permits~ the applicant ehall
preaent evidence satiefacec:y to the Chief Building Inapectof that
the restdential units will be in conformance with Noise Inaulation
Standa~da specified in the California Admini~tr~tive Code, Title 25.
21. That priar c4~ isauance of building permits, the applicant shall
preasnt evidence sa~isfactory to the Chief Building Inapector that
the propoeed pro~ect is fn conformence with Council Policy Number
542 "Sound Attenuation in RESidential Projects".
MINUT68, ANAHBIM CITX PI.ANpING COlQ~tI98I0N. MLARCH 21 ~ 1983 83-157
. _,_.._.~._......~....
ITSM N0. 3. ~IR CATEGORIGAL_BX~IP_TION-CI.A38 3. iiAIVER OF CODB
PUBLIC H~ARING. 0{iNER3: ADO1.F0 AND MARIA SP.RRATO, 1317 S. C1Rr~mont Straet~
Anahelo~ CA 92805. Prap~rty de~cribed ~~ a r~ctangularly-~haped parc~l af
land coneteting of approximetely 7.254 eqvere feet~ and loc.ted at 1317 3,
Clrremont Streat.
To convert an exieting garaga and constr«ct e(granny) unic with walver of
minimum number and type of parking epaces.
There were three ~~roons indlcating their presance in oppoeittan to aub~ect
requeet and although the staff report was not read~ ic ia referred to and made
a part of the minutee.
Adolfo Serrato~ owner, was preeent co anew~r any questions and Annlta Gudino
interpreted for him explgining there 1A a gar.age exieting on the rear of the
propercy and it wae there when he purchasad the property and he wants to fix
it up and bring his parenia to livA there; end chat hie ~noth3r is 62 and hia
father is 66 yeare old and they do not drive,
Ron Everato~ 2322 S. Claremont, Anaheim~ etated he a• ~ied for a aecond
dwelling on his property about one year ago and the rrq~est was denied; that
the garage on aubject property has been lived in and che tenanta moved out
about 30 or 40 daye ago. Ha atated he did not knoW how eaf.e the bui~ding i~
and whether or not it would be a fire hazard. He stated everyone wi.ll want to
convert their garage intu n living unit for someone elae if ehi s 1a approved
and that he sees no point in approving it. Ne referred to the minimum size
allowed which ia 640 syuare feet, and pointtd out thie garage is currently G30
square feet and the petitioner wants to add 77 equare fe~~ and he felt that is
~ust too much. He atated he livea acroes the etreet snd doee not wenC thia
becauae it could be a flre hasard and everyone else will want r.he eame
privilege.
Donna Sullena, 1316 S. Hickory~ ~ust weet of sub~ect propNrty, stated ehe hae
lived in thia area eince 1954 and most of the geragee are for one cer and
eeveral people are already uaing their garagee for living quartere with thPir
care parked on the street. She etated on the two etreets getting out of the
area~ she counted four cars on lawne today and the people acroes the etr$et
from her have eix care and another family hae seven cara~ but without garagee
and parking epaces there will be more care on the etreet. She steted crime ie
also up in the area and ~uat la~t week~ eomeone tried to eteal a vehicle. She
stated appraving thie would mean more people in the area who would w,~nt the
eame thing.
Ms. Sullena atated with this garage converted~ ehPre will be no place for
storege on thie property and right now, nexe door to her, there ie a lot of
~unk etored. She referred to the existing ~ara~e on aub~ect property and
atated the paint ie peeling and e window has been cut on the west eide facing
her yard and alsa on the north facing the yard one foot away f rom the garage.
She referred to an existing 28-year o1d grapestake fence and etated it is only
being held up by the trees. She etated ahe has been keeping he r trees
trimmed~ but ie considering lgteing them grow because of the condition of the
MINUT88. ANAHxIM CI'I'Y PLANNINC CW41T33ION~ lUIRCH 21, 1983 83-15$
prop~rty b~hind her. ~o th~y cen provide a•ou~d and vi~u~l bxcrier. 9h~
otat~d thar• was a 1 ot of noie~ wh~n chera war• people Iivin$ in thi• garage
b~foc~; howsv~r~ th• main problem is parking and tho problem wlth the
n~ighborhocd chongina,
Ms. Cudino statad the patitioner plan• Co p~int th~ unlt und fix it up and
wants to abide by al 1 tha rulee .
THE PUBLTC HEARING hT~-3 CLOSEO,
R~qponding to Commis s'oner Bouas~ Ms. Cudino atated Mr. Serrato has oaned the
properCy for abaut 1-1/2 yeara and that people did live i.n the unit~ but •ft9r
he learned it wea no t legal~ he asKed them to move end they moved about 6
monthe ~sgo.
Reeponding [o Commis ~i~nez Euahore~ Ma, Cudino etated the garage wes a 2-car
gardge and ehe did net think he had purchAeed the property beceuee it had been
con+erted.
Comtniesionec King et ated he d!d not believe he could vote for epproval of thia
requeet becauee of t he parking aituatinn and also the equare faotage exceeda
the State maximume.
Responding to Ms. Gudino's commente that the petltionec'e parenta will not
drive vehiclea, Commissioner Baues stated chis owner may not a:ways own thP
properr.y and the pa r ents mny nut elways live there end this could be a pcoblem
with the next people moving i~ who wuuld drive vehiclea.
Responding to Commi seloner La Claire regarding the neW gcanny housing atate
law, Jack White, As sistant City Attarney, explaiaed the statute that took
effect January 1~ 1 983, providea that Che City may. but ie not obligated to,
approve a conditional use permit for A second uoit, provided the unit is
intended to be occu pied by one or two people, both of vhom are at least 60
yeare of age and provided the unit ie not more than 640 square feet in size.
He atated there is no mendate that the City approve a conditional uae permit,
but the Commiasion has the authority to approve this aA a conditional use and
if it meets the cri teria set forth for grenting other conditional uses, then
it ehould be granted. He etated the Commiasion ehould realize that the atate
law doea not mandat e them to approve any unit that •therwiee ie below
standarde and the Commission is entitled to r~view it in the same light as any
other variance req~est and the requeet could be denied if there are no uniqu~
circumstances. He stat~d there ia a question in hia mind whether oc not thie
particular case eve n falle within Chat etate law eince it is proposed to be
707 aquare feet and the maximum ia 640 square feet. He added he would
recammend conditioas bei~ng added if this is approved~ limiting the «ee to one
or two peraona, bot2~ of whom ere at leaet 60 years of age and further
requirinR the owner of the property to record a covenant againet the pzopexty
deeignating the sec ond unit ab be3n$ reetricted for that purpoee so that any
purchaser of th~ pr operty would know that the second unit could not be rented
Lo just anyone, bu• ts limited to a very speciEic purpoee.
Commissioner Herbs t etated he did not see any way to police something like
this and could see Bpproval opening the door vide for cha~aging a single-family
MINUTBS ANAHBIM CITY PI.ANNINC COMMISSION MARCH 21 1983 83-159
cesidantiel ar~~ int~ A~ultipla-family residentisl ~r~a. He •tatad th•
garag~ was alr~ady convrr~ed and rented to someone other than che paranta and
ha did not think recording a covenent would be adequsta snd he thought
policf.ng would be a ma~~~r problom,
Commi~sioner Bu shore atat~d he cuuld not aupport thi4 caquest and it is ~uet
another illegal garage converaion ahich the Commis~lon 13 being arkod to
rectify. tte atated he could not eupport it becauea of the precedAnt and the
aame thing could have been accompliAhed by rdding ancther bedrou~o onto the
bnck of the house.
bean Sherer, Associate P].nnner, aekud that Paragraph 15 of the staff raport be
deleted and the etnndard paragraph regardtng findings for a variance ehould be
added.
It w~s noted the Planning Dir.ectox or l~is a~~thoriaed cepresentative has
determined tha t the proposed p~oject f+~lls within ehe definition of
Categorical Exempt ione ~ Claes 3~ ae def ined in [he. State Environmental Impac t
Report Guideli nee and is~ therefore~ categorically exempt fcom the requireme nt
to prepare an ETR.
ACT~ON: Commissioner Buehore offered a motion~ eeconded by Commissioner Bou ae
a~ MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Plenning Commiesion does hereby d e ny
the request fo r waiver af Code requiremenc on the baeie that no l~erdahip wa s
demonstrated pe rtaining to the size~ shape~ topography or surroundings of
subject proper ty.
Commieaioner Bushore offered Resolution N~. F~83-59 and moved for ite passa ge
and adoption t hat the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion does her~•by deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 2423 on the basie thet the propoeed use ie not
properly one for which a conditional uae permit is authorixed ai~d the proposed
uae will adver sely affect the ad~oining land uses and the growth end
development of the erea in which it is proposed to be located and that the
size and ahape of the property ie not adequate to allow Che full developmen t
of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or t o
the peace, hea lth, eafety and general Welfare and that the granting of the
permit will bt detrimental to the peace, health, eafety end general aelfare of
the citizene of the City of Msheim.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was pa9aed by the folZowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FitY, HBRBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commisaion's decision within 22 deys to the City Council.
Red Rhinehart stated he owne property at 1317 S. Hickory but does not live
there and was not here to speak in favor or against this proposal; but tha t he
doea belong to the Orange County yenior Citiaena C~uncil and is past chai n~an
of the Housiag Committee, which encouraged and bruught l~gielation to the
atate which was pasaed ~ast Januery and he would like for the Commission to
~ ~
MINUT$S~ ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNINC COMIMtIS810N~ MARCH 21~ 1983 83-160
k~~p en op~n mind in th~s• ca~~~~ becsu~~ ther• ~re eld~rly paopl0 who nesd
placa• to livo. Ha addad one of th~ir concerns aloo~ w~~ how to police tha
aituation.
ITEM N0. 4, ~IR CATECORI
ION-CLA3S 1. WAI
IREMENT
PUaLIC HEARINC. OWNERS: BBN ANU M,ARY LOU HATHAWAY~ 1060 W. Ketella Avenue~
Anahaim, CA 92801. AGLNTs C1.ARIN'DA L. KIT.LIAMSON, 1060 W. lietalla Avanue~
Anaheim~ CA 92802. Property d~ecribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consieting of approximately .S acre toceted at the eoutheaet cornar of
Ketella Avenue and Weet 3treet, 1060 W. Katella Avenue.
To permit a walk-up window in ea existing restaurant with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces,
There wae no one indicaCing their presence in oppoeitioa to eubject requeat
and although the etaff report was nnt read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minuees.
Clerinda Williamson~ agent, stated ehe is the manager of the restaurant end
they would like to have a tekR-out window on the Weet Street side of the
building to accommodate people who are wa.lking with ice cream cones~ hot
coffee. cold drinks, etc.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McBurney stated when he viewed thP property~ the parking 1ot waa
only about half full, so he did not think there would be a parking prohlem.
Cotamiesioner Buahore clarified that the popcarn wegon no longer eits out
front~ with Me. Will.iameon indicating it hae been sold.
Commissioner Buahore auggested that Variance No. 3225 be termineted. He aeked
if any attempt would be made to attract people travpling on West Street which
might cause Chem to atop and try to park on West Street.
Me. Williamson stated she could not imagine any one trying to park on West
Street. She stated they will havr a readcr board on the nuteide of the
bisilding end the thrus[ would be towarde the foot traffic.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated this request for parking waiver is quite
severe and the only way it could be juatified is that the walk-up window will
probably reduce the ne~d for parking and this should not set a precedent.
Commisaioner Buahore asked if thie would permit tables to be set up outeide.
Dean Sherer reaponded that would require another conditional usp permit for a
semi-enclosed restaurant with Commieeioner Buehore clarifying thia approval
for a walk-up window would not be iucreaeing the seating capacity.
It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized rePresentative hae
determined that the proposed pro3ect falls within the defin~tion of
Categorical Exemptione, Class 1, as defined in the State Environmental Impact
MINUTE9~ ANAFIEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION! MARCH 21. 1983 _ $3-.161
R~port Cuid~linas and is~ thar~foxo, ceteqorically axampt from th• r~quiremant
to pr~par• an L-IR~
ACTIONs Commi~~lon~r Bushoru offered a motion~ •~condad by Commiesioner Bouao
ancT MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anaheim City Plenning Commi~sion doe~ haraby
grant waiver af code requirement on th• baele that the parking variance will
not cause aa increase in traffic congeation in the iioieediete area or advec~~ly
affect any ad~oining land usee snd that the parking varienca, as grantad under
the condition~ impoead, will not be dntrimental ko the psace~ health~ safety
or g~neral welfare of the citisens of the City of Anaheim and on the basie
that the propoeal for the welk-up window w~'1 not increaee th~e need for
parking at khe exieting reetaurant.
CommiAeioner King offered Reaolution No. PC83-60 and moved for its paesage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiselon does hereby grant
Conditinnal Use Permit No. 2424~ subject to Interdepartmer.tal Committee
recommendatione includiag a cundition chat the oWner shall request termination
of Variance Nos. 3225 and 748.
On roll cell~ ehe foragoing resolution wae peesed by the Eol.lowiag vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERB3T, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
,~a.. .,n S ATR urtr.sTtvE nECLARATION AND CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0. 2425
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DAVID AND ROBYN PBRSZT, 116 5. Orange Drive, Los
Angeles, CA 90036. Property described ae a rectangularly-ehuped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 1.6 acrea and located at 1720 W. Orange
Avenue (Orengeview convaleecent Hflspitxl).
To permit expansion of an exisl:ing convaleecent hoepital.
There wae no one icrdicating their preeence in ~ppoeition to subject requeer
and although [he ataff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Dr. C1yde Vinyard, AdministraCOr of the Orangeview Convaleacent floapital,
explained they are requeating appraval for ten additional beds in five rooma,
a nurses' .lounge and a atorage atea.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner ~ouas
and MOTION CARRI~D~ thet the Anaheim City Planning Commis~lon hae reviewed the
proposal to permit expansion of an existing convalescent hospital oa a
rectangularly-ehaped parcel of land conaiating of approximetely 1.6 acres
having a frontage of approximr~tely 178 feet on the aouth side of Orange
Avenue, approximate~.y 200 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street and
further described ae 1720 W. Orange Avenue; and doea hereby ap~rove the
Negative Declaratinn from tZie requirement tc prepare an anvironmental impact
report on the basis that there would be no significant individusl or
83-162
MINU'TBS~ ANAK6IM CITY PLANNINC COMQ~IIS3ION, MARCH xl, 1983
cut~u~ativ~ adv~rsa Anvironmantal impact ~ua Co tha approval of thi• Negative
Declaretion since the Aneheim Cenaral Plan de~ignatee th~ •~ib~ect property foc
low density reoidential land use• coaaoensuYSte with the proposal; that no
sene~tive anvironmental impacta are involved in the propooal; that the Initial
Study aubmitted by the petitioner indic~ta• no significant individual or
cumulativa inVethe foregoingnfindingecis~onnfileainttheNCBtyiof Mahei~tion
eubstanttet $
planning Department.
Commissionar King offered Reaolution No. PC83-61 and movod for 1=8~n~essa6~s and
adoption that the Anahaim City Plenning Commiesion doee hereby g
Conditional Uee Permit No,2425~ subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing reeolution wea passpd by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, PRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BL'RNEY
NOES: NON~
AB3ENT: NONE
ITEM N0. 6. EIR NEGATIVE D~CLARATION~ WAIVL~R OF CODE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'f N0. 2 26
IREMENT
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: STANLEY B1.ACK~ ET AL, 6922 Hollywood Boulevard~
Hollywood, CA 90028. AGENT: METROPOLITAN OUTAO~R ADVF.RT'ISING, ATTN: JAY
KINGRY, 10~._Eh~flun~t188ce1. ofilandAconsisting ofoapproximately 0~46racre and~n
irregularly e pe p
located at 2020 E. ICatella Avenue.
To permit a billboard in ttie MI. Zone with waivera of: a} petmitted locetion
of billboard, b) maxiwum displ.ay and c) maximum height.
There W88 nh the ataffareporthwas no[8read~iit~is~referred~touandcmade9separt
and althoug
of the minutes.
Jay Kingry, agent, stated he has appeared before this Commission five or six
timea over the past ten to twelve years and he feela after being in thia
busineas Eor thirty five years, that l~e has a feeling of what people might
ob~ect to and what might be acceptable and selectH~ explained theyuwillebeelt
it qualified ae being cumpatible with the area.
sharing the property with a company that manufactures and installs truck
bodies and there ars alWays several trucks parked in the area; that the sign
will be located at the corner of the building and it Will be an east facing
sign and it is seC back far ennugh so it will not interfere with xhe view of
He stated the property owner
the City's eign on the Anaheim Stadium property.
benefits greatly from the income from this aign and it will be an interim use
until the prop+:rty is developed. He sCated the sign will not interf~re with
the intereection. E~e explained they asked for a 1200-equare foot eign, which
is the eame eiz8 672teeu8reyfootisfgntashallowed by ordinancerwith~approval of
~ermissioa for Q
~he conditional uae permit.
___.. .._... ...
_ -=- „ _ . . ~. _ . . . _
MINUTES~ ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMliI83I0N~ MARCH 21, 198_3 83-1b3
Commis~ioner McBurney ~ointed out that ~ latter of oppoeition aaa rac~ived
from Cabot~ Cabot and Forbes. He .tated thls area io vary vulnarable to any
kind of signage and r~f,erred to all the eigns on Harbor Boulevard and
explained the City ts trying to get away from tha large type signa and atated
he could not see a eign of this sise in thet erea.
Commiseioner Herbst agreed and eteted he could underetend why thny would want
a billboerd in thia area becauae of the traffic and expoeure~ but recogniaes
thet area is undergoing a change from recreational uaea to a certain emount oE
commer.ciel with high-rise office buildinge and that he did not think
billboarde belong in thut area.
Commiseioner Buahore staCed the Commiasion d~es not have any control over
billboards or eigna on City property and that this Comsniseion haa besn
coneistently voting against signa and he could not vote Eor thie propoeal.
ACTION: Commisaioner Nerbet offered a motion~ seconded by Commiesioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIBA, that the Anaheim City Planning Comtoiasion has
reviewed the proposal to per~ft a billboard in the MI.. (Indaetrial~ Limited)
Zone with waivers of permitted locatlon of billboards, maximum dieplay area
and maximum height on a irregularly-ehaped parcel of la~d consisting of
approximately 0.46 ncre having a frantege of approximately 98 feet on the
eouth side of Katella Avenue, approximately 225 feet east oE the centerltne of
State College Boulevard and further deacribed as 2020 E. Katella Avenue; and
does hereby epprove the Nega[ive Declaratlon from the requirernent to prepare
an environmental impact report on the basie that there would be no eignificant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental im~act due to the approval of
this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general industrial land ueee commensurate with the
proposal; that no eeneitive environmental i~pact.s are involved in the
proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
stgnificant individuel or cumulative adveree environmental impacts; and that
the Negative Declaration aubstantiating the foregoing findings is on file in
the City of Anaheim Planning Department.
Commiseloner Herbet offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouae and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Maheim City Planning Commiesion does hexeby deny the
requeBt for wavier of Code requirementa on the basis that no hardehips
pertaining to Che aize, ahape~ topography and aurroundings of subject property
were demonatrated.
Commisaioner Herbst offer~d Resolution No. PC83-62 and moved for its passage
~nd adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commieaion doea hereby deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 2426 on the basis that the proposed use is not one
for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code and that
the proposed usP will adversely affect the adjoining land uees, growth and
development in the area and that the granting of the conditional use pexmit
will be detrimental to the citizens of the City of Ma~eim.
Oa roll cell, the foregoiag resolution wae paeged by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HEkBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
M_INUTE3. ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMI8320N~ MARCN 21. 1983 83-164
_..___.
Jack Whita~ As43itant City Attorney~ pre~ented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commio~ion's d~cision wlthin 22 days to the City Council.
Dean Sharer asked that Condition Noe. 1~ 2 and 4 be deletud from the 8taff
Report~ since it hae been determined that thoas feee have bean peid.
ITF•M N0. 7. AIR N0. 247~P_R,,E,~VIO,USLY CUttTIFIED)~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.
1~ RBCLA3SIFICATION N0. 82-83-2% WAIVER OF CODE RE UIR}~.MENT~ CONDITIONAL
U$E PERMIT N0. 2 2 AND WAIVER OF COLINCIL POt.ICY NA_ SG
PIJBLIC HEARING. OWNBR: PAUL T. SALATA~ 2950 Airway~ D-3~ Costa Meaa~ CA
92626. AGENT: STATE-WIDE DEVELOPERS~ INC.~ 5182 Kntella, Suite 106~ Lo~
Alamitoe~ CA 90720. Property described as a rectangulerly-shaped parcel of
land conaiating of approximately 18.6 ncrea located on the weat eide of Knott
5Creet approximately b5S feet south of the centerline of Aall Road.
GPA RF.QUEST: T'o conAtder change from the medium density reaidential and
commercial profeesional to ~nedium deneity reaidentlal designation.
RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000.
CUP REQUEST: To construct a 43?.-unit affordable candominium complex with
waivere of: a) minimum lot area per dwelling unit, b) maximum site coverage~
c) minimum floor area and d) minimum recreational-leisure area,
WAIVER OF COUNCII, POLICY N0. 43: Pertaining to deneity bonuaea.
There were eight persons indicating thelr presence in opposition to sub~ect
request and although the ateff report was not read~ it ia referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Alex Belle, State-Wide bevelopere, prespnted n rendering of the propoaed
pro~ect and explained they have been working on this program for many montha
with a lot of people throughout the country and it vill go way beyond this one
complex and ia the reault of the developer's inability to build housing~
particularly moderate and affordable type housing with interest rates as they
are today and th~ high cost of construction, etc. He stated they believe this
program can eliminaCe the extreme shortege of moderate and a£fordable houaing
throughout th~ United Statea and it will be accompliahed without any subsidy
or bond issues~ but it will take eupport and 8acr.ifice on the part of every
element involved, including the developer, the citiea and the lenders. He
atated the peoPle would have housing in the form of e lease for a certain
period of time with an ~pkion to purchase at a price way below the market
value of the property aC the time the purchase becomes available. He stated
the properl•y muat be made available to the developer where the cost per unit
is 30X below coat for land for e typical condominium pro~ect and the denaity
malces the difference becauae if densities are kept low, iz is impossible to
conetruct moderate or affordable houeing; that the size of the unita is
another factor, ao they do need the help of the cities in granting waivers.
He explaiaed this program ie called the "Helper" program (housing enabled by
lender participation and equiCy roll-over). He explained equity roll-over is
an aapect which makee the program aelf-perpetuating and will enable the
government~ in the event general funds are used, to be ~eimbureed in an amount
~
MINUTE3, ANANBIM CITY PLANNINC CW~lI38ION, MARCH 21, 1983 83-165
that will generate a vary sub~t~nCial profit. Na steted Mercury 3aving~ •nd
Lonn end Stste Savings and Loa n are two of Che lendcre which would repreaent
lenders thro»ghout the United State4 who will agree instead of ineking
conatruction loano from 3-1/3 to 4 pointa~ to niake the construction loan with
1 point for an adminietration fce which will save approximataly 3X or ~150,000
on a~5~000,000 loan and inetead of having to pay approximately 1/2 to 2X
ebove the take-out rate Eor the con~truction period~ the intereet rate would
be only 2X above the coet of money to them which means interest nf lO.SX
inetead of 1bX. He explained the permenent financing far the 3 to S yeer
leasing period would be at the then prevailing osarket rate~ leee up to SX~ go
if a loan was 13~1/2X~ it is quite poeaible the developer could get that
brought down to ae low ae 8-1/2X. He etated no developer can build an
apartment complex or condominium pru~ect at '13-1/2z.
Mr. Belle etated the greed element hae to be conatrained to make thie
permanent aolution to the houeing problema work~ so certain voluntary
conetrainta muat be buil[ in~ such as~ the developer can get no more than a
lOX fee for the conatruction, which ie coneiderably lower than normal; and
thet normally x d~veloper will finance a project es m~ich as poeeible (75 to
$OX to loan value), tiut with the Nplper Program, the devel.oper muet be limited
to financing based on e value as an apartment building which meane the loan
would not be for 6.4 million dollara~ but would be for 4 million dollars; and
that the developer cannot earn more Chan a SX cash-on-cash return on his
inveatment in order to keep the lease retes doari. He stated the developera
would be willing to meke theae sacrificea so Chat hopefully they would be able
to make a nice profit on their investment in the future.
Mr. Belle stated [hree yeare following the completion of the pro~ect and no
later than five years~ the developer would place the pro~ect on the market for
sale and must make the pro,~ect available to the tenante living there at a very
aubatantial reduction in cost; that a person living there no lese than one
year, would qualify for a SX reduction of the market ratN; that a person
living there two yeara would qualify Eor a 7-1/2X reduction and a person
living there thsee years or more would quality for a lOX reduction. He
explained the tenants will have the right to secure an appraisal if they do
not agree with the developer's appraieal rate and if the appraisera don't
agree, a third appraiser would be hired. l~e etated a 369,900 unit could be
purchased by a peraon who had lived there for three yeara for s62,000 and a
~89,000 unit could be purchased for ~80,000. He atated the reseoa the
developera would be able to do thia ie because no lesa than 60X of the tenents
will become owners and when they become ownere that meana that 60X of the
pro~ect will not be required to pay the real estate commission which ia from 3
to GX and thece will be no merketing coFta involved which is aaother 2 to 3X
and there will also be no renovation coeta. He etated the ma~ority of the
people are no[ quite ready to purchase the unit~ but with this program, they
will be placed on a lease with an option to buy and they vill be given
professiona2 counaeling on hoa Co prepare for home ownership, financially and
emotionally, and they will come into the project as ownere and will operate by
the same type by-laws as a co:dominium and they would ~ecome a member of an
association and they would have a tremendous pride of ownership which would
eliminate a lot of management problems.
MI_NUTE3~ ANAHEIM CITY pI,ANNING COMMI38ION, MARCH 21, 19$3 83-166
Mr. Belle •tated 100X of thase unf.ta would be affordable in torme of tha
1aa.ing period and would qualify on the market today in tl~e affordable renge.
He •tated Commi~sion would ne~d co put ths teeth into this pro~act to make
cartain the doveloper could not put the pro~ect on the market in one year at a
normal prica. He stated the Gener~l Plan would allow 669 unite ae an
apartmmnt complex and a condominium pro~ect would be allowed with g 25X bonue
at approxiroatnly 334 units and they are requeeting 432 units.
Mr. Belle etated they held two moetings with the homeownere in the area and
diecuaaed the plane with them and incorporated their concerns into ttie
project. Ne atated there !e one major problem which they would hape to
mitigete regarding vehtcular access of two of the etreete.
Aonna Westbury, 3434 Thornton~ Anaheim, ataCed they are very much opposed to
the median propoaed in Knott Street because they would not be able to make
left turne frnm Thornton and Brady.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer~ stated the idea ie to provide for safe left in
and out turns from both Brady and Thornton and the ieland ia needed to
preclude co~flicting turns from thie proposed development and will not in any
way preclude free motion from Brady or Thornton.
M~. Westbury aeked what would atop a developer from coming back to th~
Commiasion or Council for another var.iance ei~ce the project ie going to be
built in £our phases and atated they would like some guarantee that this would
not happen.
Nora M~g~~, 3427 Thornton~ stated ahe ia not opposed to this project~ but that
she did epeak with the Traffic Department [hia morning and was not told the
same thing Mr. Singer has just said and wae told there is no definite plan at
thie time and that it would be worked out at a later date and all the
neighhore are quite concerned about the eituation. 5he atated they would like
to keep ingress and egrese on both streets.
Herb Hutchins, 3408 Brady, Anaheim, a handicapped pereon speaking from the
audience~ stated he and his wiie have lived in this home since 1954 and do not
think it is right to have this great ~ density for the people Who have lived
there for all theae y~ars because the deneity does cau~e problems and he does
not want to have any problems.
Windflower Ocho1~~ 1330 Oriole StreeC~ Maheim, etated they did meet with the
builder and were impresaed aith the plans, but are concerned about the denaity
becauae this would bring at least 1,000 people into the area and they do not
know what it will do to the echoo2s~ etc. even though the plana discourag~
pe~ple with children. She stated they think this will be a quality pro~ect,
but are concerned abdut the density.
Chrie Riggins, 3614 Kingeway Avenue~ Anaheim, stated he hae lived at thia
property for three years and has watched plana for development of this achool
aite come and go; that he is not againat the pro~ect and has been to both
meetings w3th the developer and basically this souada like a good pro,ject. He
etated right now the aub~ect property has a lot of high weeds and it is beiag
used ae a motorcrose track.
MINUTE3 ~ ANAHEIM CITY__PLANNINC COMMI38ION~ MARCN 21, 19$3 83-167
Jack White auggeeted en edditional condition ba added that relatae ro tha
den~ity bonus which would r~quira that tho developer/owner enter into an
agreement with the City~ in e form approved by the City Attornay, to maka 100X
of the unfts available to pereone or familiee of low or moderate income ae set
forth in the Government Code Section 65915 f.or rental or eale unita for a
period of five yeare following the date of their origingl occupancy.
He stated that would allow the unite to be continued either as rental units or
sold at any time prior to the five year expiration ae long ae the sale would
be to a person of low or moderate income. He etated he believes that control
is neceseary in order to qualify the pro~ect for the deneity boeus and the
five year control ie the etandard time limit ploced on these projects. He
atated after three yeara the unite cauld be aold within Che parametera of this
condition, but after five yeara the controle wauld be dropped. Mr. Belle
clarified that the low to moderate income guideline ia based on 120X of inedi,~-'
income and etated that would fall in Line with their intent. He etated the
Helper Program muat have a lot of conatraints and the condition would be one
of them, and thie may became the next housing bill an a Federal basie, so
there muat be some way to make aure that once the pruject ie built~ the
developer cannot deviate from the int~nt and to prevent further variances from
taking place.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated a 38X bonusMe id being requested and the City has
not been granting anything above 25X. He stated he feele this ia an apartment
complex and it isn't a condominium although he recognizea theee will be rented
out as apartmenta with an option to buy and eince they will be bought~ he felr
the project must c~me closer to the condominium ordinance. He etated there is
a diatinction in Anehetm between an apartment and a candominium. He stated he
felt thP approach 3e right~ bu[ gpproval of ehis type density would open a
pandora's box all over town.
Commisaioner Bouas asked if the renters who become membera of this asaociation
would pay a fee. Mr. Belle reaponded they would not pay a fee. Commiseioner
Bouas stated wlnen they are ready to buy their unlte in five yeara~ there would
not be a build up of funde to take care of maiutenance. Mr. Belle stated all
the coets for maintenance would be the reaponaibility o£ the developer during
that three year period.
Commieaioner Bouas atated all the people are not going to buy a unit and when
there ere renters, there is a lot of wear and tear oa the unit in five years~
but not much during the firgt five years. She atated there woul•3 be no funds
when it does become their property.
Mr. Be21e stated renters would be paying into a fund, only it isn't called an
asaociation, but ia a fund aet up by the developer and is built into the rent
aad when their property is turned over to them, if Chere are any exceas funds,
they would be turned over to the association, but that the building will be in
excellent candition. He atated theae tenants will have a say in the
maintenance and upkeep af the property.
MINUTE3. ANAHBIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION~ MARCH 21L_1983 83-168
Reaponding to Commis~ionar Bouap~ Mr~ Belle stated the renta would be
approximataly ~470 per month for a nne~bedroom unit and ~565 per month for a
two-bedroom~ two-bath unit, aud the larger unit with the den would be 3625 par
month one year from now and theae rar~ts do qualify 100X of tha unite as
affordable. He stated thera will be four awimrning pools~ four ~acuzsi~s, four
clubhousea with pool r.ooms and saunae and a great deal of open area between
the units. He atatec! each one will havcs a private patin end it ie poseible
there will be eome atreams, economics petmitting.
Mr. Belle respanded to Commisaioner Buahore that they would be filing one
tract map.
Reeponding to Commiesioner I,a Claire~ Mr. 8elle atated they have ao guarantee
for financing three to five yeare from now~ but can guarantee that w!th a lOX
reduction off the price of the property, the tenqnta will moet certainly have
a favorable down payment and a higher percentage of the people can qualify and
paymer.ta would be lOX leas. He eteted they feel in three yeare there will be
a leveling off and better financing available. He stated the developer could
carry back a aleeping second which would bring the effective payment rate down
below the market rate, but they cannot guarantee what the lending situation
will be.
Reaponding to Commiesioner Herbat, Mr. Belle atated the selling pricea will be
based on the then prevailing merkec rate~ less upwards to 10X depending on how
lang they have lived in the unit.
Commiseioner HerbsC stated the Helper Pragram criteria states on Page 1, Ztem
E~ that the pro,ject must meet all condominium ordinance requirements of the
respective communities and thi.s project does not quite meet Maheim's
reqi~iremente. He steted the Commiseion has been very leniEnt~ but feela that
38X ie not meeting the City half way.
Mr. Belle etated they have made every poseible effort to meet the City half
way; that Che General Plan provides for 36 units per acre and they have
lowered that to somewhere betwean the apartment houae and condominium deneity
atandards. He stated condoainium requiremente are 14 to the acre and moderate
or affardable units cannot be built ~o thoae etandards~ so there needs to be
some sort of adjuatment if moderate or affordeble housing is desired in this
City.
Cammtasianer La Claire atated there are meny inflated land values and if the
land ie reaeonably priced, condaminiums could be developed to condominium
etandards. M,. Belle atated the cost of land is a aignificant facCor, but
even with the land cost brought down, if the developer did not build according
to the market~ he could throw away any advantage of lower land couts.
Commiaeioner Le Claire asked if the developer had gny problem with the
condition of entering into an agreement with the City agreeing to sell the
units at an affordable race.
Mr. Belle steted for the pro~ect to survive~ the Commiesion muat include
etrong conatrainta and this condition ie one way to guarantee thl~ it is an
absolute must.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH_21 _1983 83-169
Commi~eioner Herbst reeponded to Commioaioner King that he did not think the
pro~~ct ehould exceed 25X density bonus.
Mr. Belle statad he would agree if thie wae ~uet another request~ but thia is
a totally unique approach to houeing and it is not a condominium in the trueat
eenae of the word and is aot an apartment in its trueet senae of the word, but
is a tailor made pro~ect with great eacrifice from a great number of people
and it could solve not only the rental houeing but the sale housing problem.
He atated it could be a precedenC setting eituation which could be e problem;
however~ it could be a plua if there are other developere who would undertake
the sacrifice and build the type of volume housing needed to eliminate the
houaing prohlem and if that wae the direct reaulC of an innovative idea
enacted by the City of Anaheim and dupliceted thcoughout Che countr,y, it would
be a concept worth considering.
Commiasioner Herbat etated developers usually Eigure pro,jec~s to the minimum
etandarda and thia ia an apartment house considering those minimums, because
of ite mode of construction and accesa to ti~e project. He etated Anaheim has
been one of the for~moet ci.tiee in developing afforduble pro~ecta and the
condominium ordinance has been reduced fram 4,000 to 3,000 equa:e feet and
this is down to 1874 oquare feet and that this wauld certainly set e precedent
because contractors do research the Planning Cvmmiseion actiona. He etated he
would be ver.y reasonable wit.hin the constraints of Code, but felt thie is ~uet
taking it too far.
Commissioner ta Claire stated she really eees a need for this kind of
development; however, the Commisaion has been adheri.nq to the City Council's
direction. She etated she knows the market is different and this pro~ect is
different and ahe underetands what the developer ie trying to accompliah and
she underatands the City will not be able to get affordable units unleae they
do conaider this kind of density. She etated the Commission could deny the
request and the pro~ect conld be coneidered by the Council.
Commiseioner Herbet stated he did not think thia project abides by the City's
previoua commitments to the people of Maheim and if it is going to be an
apartment~ it should be conaidered as an apartment.
^,ommissioner King euggeated reducing the deneity. Mr. Belle stated lowezing
the den~ity would affect the return on their already huge investment and put
preasure on [ceeping the lease amounts in the affordable range and keep the for
sale aspect out oE the affordable range. He stated for example, if the
density vas 18 uniCe per acre, that would be ~17~000 to $18~000 per unit land
cost which would eliminate the vie~ility of affordable, and with 23 units per
acre the cost wnuld be approximately ~14,000 per acre and he believed the
intent of the 25X ~~nus ie to encourage affordable houaing and if 25X equals
3.5 unite per acre~ why not take advantage and double or triple the ?.SX,
providing the developer increaaed the guarantee of affordability
proportionately and noted this is coming in et 100X affordable. He stated it
is poseible en ad~uatment could be made and aoted this program is a prototype
thet wrill go way beyond the City.
Commissioner Herbet clsrified thie will be the firat product of this type
their coIDpany has developed.
MINUTE3. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COZQlI~S:ON~ MARCH 21~ 1983 83-170
Coma-isaioner Bushore statad 2-1/2 to 3 yeara ago thie City did grant dan~ity
bonueea with tha firqt ona being for 144X and there wer~ eome real concerna
which ie why the 25X maximum wae devaloped. He stated this devaloper wa• hnre
about 10 montha ago for the project on Creacent end the City Council approved
!t without any affordable uniC~ ih the extra unita nnd the Council and
Commiesion liked that pro~ect and now the Gommieaion ie looking at thia as an
apgrtment project and he tho~ght the Commiseion would deny it or eak the
developer to reduce the deneity. He atated he felt the Commieaion really
neede to eee what type of agreement the houaing etaff could come up with
regarding constrainta. He stated developera of the firet pro~ecta are etill
trying to sell the units becauee they d~d nat have their finencing lined up
etc. and there are pricing conetreinta put on them and then the interest t•ates
skyrocketed and they ere atill being hurt by those intereet rgtea because they
hed agreed to 100X affordable~ but then could not get the Fannie M~ae
ineurance. He stated Che Commission doea not even know if thie developer
would be able Co agr~e to the price of the houses Che ataff would e~t and felt
that should be explored because it the pro~ect ie going tu go ahesd, there hae
to be certain controls. He stated if this ie Approved, it will aet a
precedent becauae it is an apartment complex and it does not meet tl~e Codes.
He sCated he thinke the pro~ect needs more atudy.
Mr. Belle stated hc would be happy to meet with the Houeing Department to aee
what conetraints can be incorporated to lock in the ingrediente of this Helper
Progrr~m and it ia poseible Che program could work with a lower density if the
leasing period was longer than three years.
Commiaeioner Bushore etated he ie aleo concerned because these affordable
unita are not selling and he felt there are indicatiAns that the housing slump
is recovering s7.owly~ but even th.~ County is debating whether or not they want
ta have their inclueionary zoning because it haen't Worked. He etated the
County ended up creating an underground ~nerket of affordable units becauae the
developer could propose 100X affordable in a County territory and was given
credita which he could then market. He atated he is aot aure there is a need
right now for affordable units because thoae that are there are not being
sold. He suggested the developer do more research t~ determine whether or not
he really wanta to go ahead and enter into an agreement.
Mr. Belle stated approximately SOX of the housing built by Staee-Wide
Developezs has been sold within the category of affordable by price~ but not
by agreement.
Ann.ika Santalahti, Aaeistant Director for Zoning, explained when the City
Couacil orig~nally developed the policy establiahing 25X as the maximum amount
of dwelling units above the Code, when 25X of the units were aet aside ae
affordable, a good part of their reaeoning wae that anyone could a~k for
infinite numbera of waivera or densities and then argue that they only had to
aet aside 25X of the unite for affordable~ so the Coanctl established the
policy and~ eubsequently, diecovered that the regulatory methoda by which the
Citq could retain those units as gffordable were being legiRlated out from
under them and eeveral projects with deneities over 25X~ in fa~*~ ~~ere
originally agreed to when the City believed it had a longer term for retaining
the units in the affordable range beyond the tnitial eale and some membera of
the Council were disturbed tQ find they weuld have less thxn five yeare worth
of affordable houaing.
83-171
MINUTES~ MIAHETM CITY PWINNING COliMISSIUN MAACH 21 1983
CoAmit~ioner Mc~urney ~~ked if thaea unit• could ba sold in iive y~ar• a~
condominium~ if approved aN pr~aented.
pean gherar~ Aesocista Planner~ stated thtl dmvelopor would n~~d approval of x
tentative tract map propo~ing ~ c:ondomintum eubdivi~ion in ordar For th~ units
to b~ eold as oW^er occupiad condominiums.
Annilui Santalahti stated;,~~ devaloper recacdad a tract msp on the proparty,
he could sell it and the ongoing ownership ~+ould not have to be individual
ownerehip; the8rahae theydlike~andttthenraall~thamrastindividual. unitsartmants
for es manY Y
Mr. Be11e re einstDe grtmenteto seecifuthey can plug up someuof the holeecin
with the Hou g p8
their. intent.
Chairman Pry etated Commission's conr.erns ara the deneity; that the ma~ority
of the Commiselon eeems to feel this ie an apertment project; that he is
concerned about the tandem parking ~~a inatedf che number of unika a+~""'~~duced
meybe eome tandem parking could be elita
Commissioner Herbet stated if the number of units wns reduced, othec waivers
could be etiminatoalJ be demonstratedifor grantingcwaivers~ly ehaped parcel
and no l~ardehip c
ACTIpp; Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisgioner McBurney
and MOTIONtoAtheEregularly~scheduled~meetingeoffApriln4~~1983,aatetheerequest
continued
ot the petitioner.
RECESS: There wa:• ten-minute recese at 3:35 p.m.
RECONVENE: The meeting wes reconvened at 3:45 p.m.
ITEM N0. 8. EIR NECATIVE D~CLARATION, WATV~R OF CODE
IREMENT ANU
CONDITIVIVwi. ua~~~~+~~• • ~~~ • -'
PUBLIC HL'ARING. OFTNER: LARRY R. SMITH, 17046 Marina Bey Drive, Aunting1550
VERMAN~
Beach, CA 92649. AGBNT: FOSTER 6 KLEISER CO., ATTN: ROBERT J.
W. Washi.ngton Blvd., Loe Mgeles, CA 90007. Property deecribed ss an
irregularly-ahaped parcel of land consistina of approximately 1.59 acres on
the north side of Ball Road, approximately 205 feet west of the centerline of
Knott Street.
To permit a billboard in the CL 2one with waivers of: a) maximum disolay area
and b) maximum height.
There were three pereons indicating their preaence in opposition to Rubjec*
request and althougii the ataff raport was not read, it ie referred to snd made
a part of the minuteg.
Rob Verman~ egent, aas present to answer any questions.
MINUTES. ANAN&IM CJTY PLANNING COKMISSIOI~~ MARCH 21~ 1983 _,w, 83-1i2
Ron sell~~ ~uperint~ndent of Pay and Play incocporatsd~ op~rator• ot tha
racquecball facilitie• on eub~~ct site~ st,ted they havo a long tarm ~round
lea~~ with the ownar and ara opposed to the propo~ed sign due to th~ir 20~• of
visibility and hardahip for their busine ~e~ He etatad thay o~ly have • sign
on the buil.ding. He st~ted khey are also oppoeed to tha placing of any more
billboard• at that intarsection and alao wuuld lika tha raquaot dani~! bacause
it i~ nat known what tha future developmant of the proparty would be, and
future busineeses would need eigne.
Joyce Kietter, Truetee for the Union 011 9crvice Station~ steted sh~ lives at
716 S. Kenmore~ Anaheim end .t• opposed t c the sign b~cauee it ie juet a
driveway away from her property and the ra are already two ef.gr.s on the weat
and ~orth end ehe felt that is suff:cie n t~
Chris R~ggina~ 3614 Kinga Way Avenue~ An,aheim, stated he te opposed to the
billboard in the midd~e uf a reeidentia 1 houeing tract.
Mr. Verman stated Ball Road is not a re sidential housing tract. Ha atated the
operatnre of the racquetball Eacilitiea muet have been aware when they built
thelr facility that the property would be developed and theic viaibility would
be taken care of. He atated he did not think this sign will block their
visibility and when the property is developed~ the billboard will undoubtedly
be re~ov~d.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisaloner La Claire sta[ed the City t~as a sign ordinance and ie trying very
hard to clean up the City and remove the eigns and keep eigna at a minimum and
~~ery rarely grants a sign variance.
ACTION: Cnmmisaioner La Clatre offered a motion, eeconded by Commissioner
Her st and MOTION CARRIED~ ChaC the Maheim City Planning Commission hae
reviewed the propoeal to permit a bill boerd in the CL (Commercial, Limited)
Zone with waivera of maximum display a ree and maximum height oa an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land cons ieting of approximately 1.59 acres
having a frontage of approaimately 225 feet on the north side of Ball Road.
approximately 205 feet west of the cen terline of Knott Street~ and does hereby
approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report on the bas ie that there would be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
thie Negative Declaration aince the Anaheim General Plan designates the
sub~ect property for general cocomercia 1 land uses commenaurate with the
proposal; that nu sensitive enviranmen tal impacts are involved in the
proposal; that the Initial Study aubmi tted by the petitioner indicates no
eignificant individual or cumulative adveree enviroamental impacts; and that
the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings ia on file in
the City of Anaheim Planning Departmen t.
C4mmissioner I.a Claire offered a motic~~n, seconded by Co~misaioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Flanning ~ommiseion doea hereby deny the
request for waivera of code requirement on the basis that no hardship
pertaining to the size, ehape, tapography~ location and surroundings of
subject property was demonstrated by the petitioner.
MINUTE3. ANANBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 21~ 1983 d3-173
Commis~ioner La Clsire offered Re~olution No. PC83-63 and ~oved for it•
p~e~age and adoption that ehe Maheim City Planning Cammisrion doae heraby
dany Condition~l Use Permit No. 2428.
On roll call~ the foregoing re~olution was passed by the following vota:
AY~S: BOUA3~ BU3HORE, FRY~ HBRBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOBS: NONE
ABSENT: NOPIB
Jack White~ Aeeistant City Attorna;•, preeented the written right to eppeal the
Planning Coromieaion's decision within 22 deya to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 9. REPORTS AND RECOMM~NDATIONS
A. CONUITIQNAL U3E PERMIT N0. 2300 - Request from Michael L.
Crowe Arita Salea Co., for an extension of time for property loceted
at 2720 Eaet Regal Park Drive.
ACTION: Comraieei~ner K.ing offered a motion, seconded by
Commiesioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Maheim City
Plenning Commiasion does hereby grant a retroactive one-year
extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2300 to expire on
March 8, 1984.
B RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-18 - Requeet from Harry A. Tod, Tod
Houeing, for an extenelon uf time for propecty located on the west
aide of Bubach Street, approximately 560 feet north of the
centerline of Orangethorpe Ave:~u~.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by
Commiasioner McB~rney and MOTION CARRIED, thet the Maheim City
Planning Commiesion does hereby grant a retroactive one-year
exteneion of time for Reclaeaification No. 78-79-18 to expire on
Novembe~. 20~ 1983.
C. ABANDQIQMENT N0. 82-9A - Request from Arlyn Toave, Melodyland Schools
and Colleges to abandon a portion of a 6-foot unrecorded electrical
easement located north of Katella Avenue and west of Clementine
Street. The easement formerly belonged to Southern California
Edison Company and was ecquired by the C3ty of Anaheim through
condemnation.
I:: was noted the Planning Director or hie authorited representative
has determined that the propoeed pro~ect falls within the definition
of Categorical Exemption-Clase S, ae defined in the Stete
Environmental Impact Report Guidelinea and is, therefore,
categorically exe~pt from the requirement to prepare an 3IR.
~~
MINUTES AtiAHBIM CI'1'Y pLANNil~C CW41188IOp MAAC~ Z1 1983 83-174
ACTIONs Co~si~~ioa~r Kin~ oft~r~d a~otioa~ •~cond~d by
C~'~~ion~Y ltc8usn~y aad MOTION CAARISD~ that th~ Attah~i' City
Plaanf.n~ do~~ h~reby r~co~nd to th~ City Councii that Abecufoamaat
No. 82-9A b~ approv~d as r~c~awnd~d bq th~ City Engin~~r .
MJOURNt~NT= @otioub•ascoad~dubyhComvi~sioner iCi gisadQMOTIONrC~AR1tIBDerthat
tha ma~tin~ b~ ad~ournad.
Tha meaking wa~ md~ourn~d •t 4t10 p.m.
ltespactfully submittad,
~d~ .t~ ~~~-
Edith L. Harris~ Secret+-ry
Anaheim City Planning Comais~ion
EI.H : lm
0438H