PC 1984/04/30~
~b ~ ~
REGULAR MEBTING OF TtIE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION
REGULAR ME~TING ThE regulac me~ting of khe Anaheim City Planning
Commiesion wae c~lled to order by Chairwoman Bouas at
10:00 a.m., April 30, 1984, i~~ the Couhcil ChambPr, a
quorum beinq preoent ancl the Commission reviewed plana of
the items on taclay's agenda.
RECESS; 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:33 p.m.
P~tESENT Chalrwoman: Bouas
Commissiuners: Bust~ore,
McBur.ney
ABSENT Commissioners: None
Fry, Herbat, L~ Claire, King,
ALSO PRESENT Ron Thompson
Annika Santa~ahti
Joel Fick
Jack White
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Ray Auerbach
paDlo Rodriyuez
Chris Jarvi
Robert Kelley
Jay Tashira
Greg Hastings
Edith E~t~rris
Planning D~rector
Aasistant Uicector for Zoning
Assistant Director for Planning
Asaistant City Attorney
Off:lce F.ngineer
Traffic Enqineer
Water Engineering Manager
Wal-ec Engineer
Pa:ks Superintendent
Associat~ Planner
Associate Planner
Aseistant Planner
Planning Comrniesion Seccetary
ABPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commiesionec King offered a motion, seconded by
Commissionec Pcy and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire abstaining), that
the minutee of Apcil 16r 19fl4, be approved as submitted.
ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECI.,ARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3386
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BERNARD J. STAHL AND BILL J. NlCKEL, 8151 Katella
Avenue, Stanton, CA 906t30. AGBN'1`: J. WARD DAWSON, 280b E. Xatella Avenue,
fiul, Ocange, CA 9~667. Property described as a rectangula~.ly-shaped parcel
of land cor.~isting of approxima~ely 1.0 acre, 1666 South Nukwood Street.
Waivers of maximum structural height and minimum atructural setback to
conetruct a 26-unit apartment complex.
Continued from April 2, 1984.
ACTION: Commiasioner La Claice off~red a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mc9urney and MOTION CARRIED, that conRideration of the above-mentioned matter
be continued to the meeting of May 14, 1984, in order for the pe~itioner to
aubmit revised plans.
ea-zzs
4/30/84
#0043m
,H
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNYNG_CUM_MISCION, APRIL 30, 1984 84-226
ITE'M N0. "l. EIR NEGATIVE QE;CLARAT20Nr RECLASSIEICATIGN NU~ 83-8A-23 AND VARANCE
N0. 3334
PUBLIC NEAkING. OWNkRS: DUN C. ANp Z'~MIRIS DUKE, 3538 W. S~vann~~ 5tre~t,
Anaheim, CA 92804 ar~d DUANE FREpERICK AND SALLY ANN PETFRSEN, G00 S. Nutwood,
Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: JUH~J KING, 19522 lndepend~nce, i.ane, Huntim,,.on Hench,
CA 92646. Prope~ty ia deacribed as a re~atangulmrly-c~haped parcel of land
consisCing of ap~coxi.m~lely 0.78 acrc, :i538 W. Savanna Street.
kS-A-43,OU0 to the RM-1200
W~aivers of: (a) mAximum structural heiyt~t, (b) minimum [loo~ area, (c) minimum
landscaped cetback, (d) permitted encro~7chment into fcont yard and le) permitted
lncation of tandem parking spac~a t~ COASCI:UC.f a 28-unit ap~~rtment complcx.
Continued fcom April 2, 16, 198A.
A~TION: Commissioner I,a C1Kiice oCfeced ~~ motian, secondE~d by Conmiflsianer
McF3urney and MOTION L'ARRIED, that canslder.ation ~L the abov~-mentioned matter be
continued to the meeting oC May a~l, 1~84, ra~ the reque3t of tF~e petitioner.
ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE D~CGARATI.~J'N AtJD G'r'.NERAL PI.AN AMEN~MEN'i' N0. 193
(READVF.RTISED)
PUbLIC HEARING. OWNERS: 'WCS INTE[~NA1'iONAL, ATTN: GEOttG~ ADAMSr 32U0 E. Fr.onkera
Street, Anaheim, CA 9'ZBUb. Prc~pert,y la described a~ a rectangular:y-Rhaped parcel
of land consisting of up~roxima~.ely 2.8 acres (Parcel A.) 1.9 ar.res (awner
initiated) located sour.r~ of the Riverside Freeway ~3nd 1030 feet eaet af the
centerline of Glassell Street; p.ric~, (ParceJ B.) 0.9 acre iCity initiated) located
south of the Riverside Preeway ~nd 1750 Eeet east of Che centecline of Glassell
5treet.
To change the curcent Gener~~l Op~en Space deeignation to G~ener~l InduHtcial.
It is the intent af the property owner to Expand the existing reaource recovery
and recycling cer.rer. It is th~ City's intention to bring the lAnc~ uae
designation into conforrt~ance with ~he existing zoning and land use.
Continued from A~ril I6, 1984.
ACTIUN: Commiasxoner La Claire offered a mqtion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTiON CARRIED, that considezation of the above-mentioned matter be
continued to the m~eeting oE May 14, 1989, at tl~e cequea~ of the petitioner.
ITEM t30. 4. EIR NBGATIVE DECI.ARATION, RECL~A3SIPICA7.'ION N0. 83-84-15 iRBADVERTISED
PUBLIC t1EA:tING. UWNERS: WGS IN~ERNATIC-~iAL, ATTh: GEORGE ADAMS, 3200 E Fcnntera
Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Propercy dea~ribed as a rectangular.ly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximate].y 1.85 acres, having a frontage of appraximately
476 feet on khe south side of Frontera 5treet and being located approximately
2,OOQ fset east of the centerline af Glasaell Street.
4/30/84
~
a'
~ q
`
~
M2NUT~S, ANAHEIM ~ITY PLI~NNING COMMI_S_SI.ON, APRIL 3U, 1984 84-227
RS-A-43,OOU (Roaidential, Agricultur4l) 2one to Lhe ML (Induatrial, Limited)
Zone to expand A re~ource recovocy ~nd recycling operation including an
Automobile ~3lamantling businpsa with wholesele and retail sales of Quta parts.
Continued from April :6, 1984.
ACTION: Commisaioner La Claire o~tered a motion, eecnnded by Commiasioner
Mci3urney and MOTION CARRIED, that conaideration of the ab~ve-menkioned matter
be c~ntinued to the meeting of May 14, 1984, r~t the requeat of tt~e petitioner.
ITLM N0. 5. EIl2 NEGA'PIVE DF.CLARA'PION ANp CUNUITTUNAi. USE ~ERMIT NO. 2525
(READVERTISED)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNEftS; HOLLY W. DAVYDSON, P.O. B~x 325, Nolualoa, HI y6725
and WCS 1NTERNATIONAL, 3200 F:. FronCera 5treet, AnAheim, CA 928U6. AGENT;
ORANGE CUUNTY STGEL/SALVAGE, INC., 3200 Frontera Street, Anaheitn, CA 42806 and
GEORGE ADAMS, 3200 E. Nrontera Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Praperty described
as an irree~ularly-a'riaped parce.l of land consisting oE approxim~9tely 8.2 acres,
320U ~ast h'rontera Stceet (Ocange C~~unty Steel 5alvage).
To ex~+and a resourr.e r.ecovery o~eration including an automobile dismantling
busfness witti wholesale hnd retail i;ales of autumotive parts.
Continued from April 16, 19d4.
ACTION: Commisaioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner
McBurne;~ and MU'i'lON CARRIEU, that conaideration of the afore-mentioned matf.er
be continued to Ctie meetfng of May 14, 198A, at ~he requent of the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR N0. 223 (PP.EVIOUSLY CEFtTIFIED) AND T~NTATIVE MAP OF TRAC1' N0.
12156
PU~LIC HEARING. OWNERS: WAI2MII~GTON t1UMES, 3Q90 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa,
CA 9'1626. AGBNT: pSOMAS & ASSOCIATES, 150 °A' P~ularino Avenue, Costa Mesa
CA 92626, ATTN; JOHN STEVENSON. Property described as an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 6.96 acres, having a Erontage of
approximately 655 ~eet un the west side of willowbrook Lane, having a maximum
depth of approximately 500 fePt and being located a~,~roximately 255 f.eet north
of the centerline of Chapman Avenue.
To establish a 6-lot, 95-unit RM-30Q0 Zone condominium subdi,vision.
Continued fcom April 16, 1984.
It was noted the petitioner was not present.
ACTION: Commissianec King offered a motion, second~d by Commissioner Pry and
MOTIUN CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find
that the proposed subdidision, together with its design and improvement, is
cnnsistent with the City of Anaheim aeneral Plan, pursuant ko Government Code
Section 66473.5; and doe~, thereFore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 12156
for a 6-lot, 95 unit RM-3000 (Res.idential, Multiple-Family) Zone condominium
subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of the Tentat:ve Map of Tract Na. 12156 i$ g[anted
subject to the approval of Varisnce No. 3391.
4/30/84
~ ~'~,.
MINUTE~,, ANAH~IM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRZL 30,_ 1984______ 84-228
2. That should this aubdivision be developed ae mora than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereaf shall be e~ubmitted in
ten:ative form fur approval.
3. That a11 l.ota within this tract ahall be aecved by und~rgraund
utilities.
4. That a final tract map of aubj~ct pcopecty shall be submiCted to and
approved by the City Cauncil and then be cecorded in the office of
the Orange Counl:y Recocder.
5. That prior to Cinal tr~ct mr~p approval, the orfginal documen~s of
the covenants, condil•i~ns, und restrictions, and a letter addressed
to the developec'a tik~.l~ rcmpany authorizing cecordation ttiereof,
shall be submitted to the t.lty Attorney's ~£fice and appeoved by the
City Attorney's Uffic~ anci Er~gineecing Division. Said doeuments, as
approved, will tl»n be filed and recorded in tt~e Office of the
Orange County Recorder.
6. That street ner~es rhall be approved by the City ~lanning pepartment
prior to appr~vAl. af a final tract ma~.
7. That dcai~zage of suby~ct ~roperty ahall be disposed of in a manner
satfsfact~r.y r.o the City Engineer.
8. That the cUV~enants, conditions, and restrictions shall incl~~de a
condi.cian khat there shall be no motorhomes, boats, trailers,
c:~am,~prs, ~ecreational vehicles, etc., parked in any of the
designated guest parking spaces, and any parking in the guest
parking spaces by the occupants shall be by permits only,
9. That pr.ior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and
recreation in-liEU fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an
amount as determined by the City Council.
I7'EM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE llECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2561
PUBLIC E:EARING. OWNERS: LEMON ASSOCIATES, 146 E. Orangethorpe Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 9280],. AGENT: SEE'S CANDY SHQPS, INC., 3423 S. La Cienega
Boulevard, L~s Angeles, CA 90016. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acre
located at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Str.eet, 75
East Orangethorpe Avenue.
To permit retail sales of candy in the ML Zone.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requeat
and although the staff report was not cead, it is refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
David Heck, 29423 Stonecrest, Rancho Pa1es Verdest agent, explained they are
proposing to open a quantity discount store to serve the busfness community
and large ertiployee associations far minimum orders of 50 pounds of candy or
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION. APRIL 30, 1984 8A-229
more and there would elso ~e cetail oalea for people who do not wiah to
pur.chase 50 pounda. Ne expl~ined the candy will be pce-packag4d and is top
quality candy.
THE PUBGIC NEARING WAS CL05a~.
Respondiny t~ Commiasioner Buehoce, Mr. Beck explained the facility will ~E
o~en to the public. c:ommissioner auohore stat~u ~~~c thaught there might be a
parking problem w~th retail sales to the pub~ic. Mr. Beck explai.ned most of
the ordera ece phoned in and ttien picked up so thece is no waiting and the
L•ransfer i.s made quite ce~idiy.
ACTIUN; Commisafonet King offered a motion, s~coi~ded by Commissioner Fry And
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planninq Commisaion has reviewed the
proposal to permit retail $ales ~f candy in the ML (Industrial, t~imited) 2one
on a rectangulurly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acrea
located at the northeast corner of Orangethocpe and ~emon Street and further
de~cribed as 75 E. Orangett:~rpe; and d~es hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it ha~ considered the Negative Dec.laration
together with any commenrs received during the public review proceac and
further finding on the ba31s of the initial 8tudy and any comment~ received
that thece is no substantial evidence that the pro~ect will have a signiEicant
effect on the envirunmenr..
Commissionet La Claire explained if this is approved and then there i~ a
paxking problem oc conditions change, the conditional. ~ae permit could be
revoked and stated parking and traffic problems are the CommissSoner's main
concerns.
Commissionsr King offeced Resolution No. PC84-76 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2561 pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Se~:tion
18.03.U3U.030 thtough 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On coll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote:
AXES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRB~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NQNE
ABSENT: NONE
ITEM NO 8. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF COD~ REQUIREt~1ENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2567
PUBL'!C HEARING. UWNERS: APOLLO INN~ 1741 S. We~t Street, Anaheim, CA 92802.
AGENT: DONALD K. KNIGHT, 3513 Honeysuckle, Chino, CA 91710. Property
described as a rectangularly-shapQd parcel of land consisting of approximately
2.41 acres, 1741 S. West Street (Apollo Inn).
To permit on-sale o£ alcoholic beverages in an exiating mot~l with waiver of
minimum numbec of parking spaces.
4~30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, APRIL 30, 1984 ~_ _84-230
There wa~ no one indicaling their pres~:nce in oppoaition ta subject requeat
and although the staff repork was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of th~ minutes.
Donald Knight, 3513 Honeyauckle, Chino, age~t, explained they propoae t•.he sale
of alcoholic beverages atrictly for their guests and explained there would be
a buffet room And stand-up bar.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSEb.
Responding to Chairwoman ~ouas, Mt. Knight explained any outside siyn~ would
be for their guests' benefik only and thece would be no adverti~ing to the
general public.
Commissioner Fry claci£ied that the hours of operation will be 10:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m., not 2;OU p.rt~. as indicated in the staFf report.
ACTION: Commissioner King offere~ a motion, seconded by Commissiona..r Fry and
~OTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim ~ity Planning Commisafon has reviewed the
proposal ko permit the or~-aale of alcoholic beverages in an existing motel
with waiver a£ minimum number of patking space~ on a reckanqularly-shape~
parcel of land consisting of. approximately 2.41 acres, having a frant~ge of
~pproximately 350 feet on the west cide of West S~reet and futther described
as 1741 South W~st StCeek (Apollo Inn); ~nd does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it lias considered the Negative DEClaration
together with any comment9 received during the public review ptocess and
furth~r finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any coinments received
Chat there is no substantial evidence that the project wi11 have a significant
effect on the environment.
Commissioner King oEfeced a motion, seconded by Commissionec Pry and MOTION
CARRIED, that the parking waiver i8 hereby yranted on the baeis that it will
not cause an increase in traff:c congestion in the immediate vicinity nor
adversely affect any adjoining land uses and gcanting of the parking waiver
uridec the cond.itions im~osed, if any- Will not be detrimental to the peace,
health, $a=ety and aeneral wplfare of the citizenA of the Ci.ty of Anaheim.
Responding to Commissioner Fry, Mr. Knight stipulated that the stand-up bar
will not be converted to a sik-down cocktail lounge in the future.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-77 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doAs hereby grant
Conditional UEe Permit No. 2567 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.U30.030 through 18.03.03Q.035 and scbject to the petitioner's
stipulation that the pr~posed stand-uQ bar will not be converted to a sit-down
cocktail lounge and there will be no signs on the outside of the building
advertising the bar to the general public and subject to Interdepaztmental
Committee recor.imendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resoluti~n was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NQNE
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 30,~ 1984 __ 84-231
~~ck White, Assistant City Attorney, clArified thar, th~ cond~tion should
read: "That no advertising aigns advertiaing ~he bac ~~r cocktail lounge or
aimilar sale of alcoholic beverages ahall be perm~tted on th~ premiaea for
purpoaes of ddvertisin~ to the general public."
ITEM N0. 9. EI~ NEGA~'IVE A~CLARA'PION, WAIVER OF CODE RE~UIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL U5E PFRMIT N0. 2568
~UBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PEGGY LAYNE hALKENOERG, ET AL, 21681 Wesley DriVe,
South Laguna, CA 92677. AGENT; DIVERSICIED EDUCATION COMPANY, 1670 Wilshire
Boulevazd, Los Angelea, CA 90017. Property deacribed as a
rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.92 acre,
1101 South Anaheim Boulevard.
To permit a technicAl school with waiver of minimum number of packing epaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppoeition lo aubject requeat
and althnugh the staff reFort was not reAd, it is refec[ed co and made a part
of the minutes.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, suygested a change in Condikion No. 1 to
read as follows: ~That there shall be a minimum of ane hour between the end
of any class and the beginniny of the next class to prevent overlap of
vehicles enterinq and exiting the property.'
Walter Reed, Vice President, agent, responded that that conditior, was
acceptoble. He stated they are propusfng Co eatablisf~ a private school to
teach telecommunications and that there would be only 100 studenta on the
premises at any one time with nine ntaff inembers.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Reed indicated their lease is for
three years with an option for anothet three years.
The number ~f parking sPuces was discussed with Mr. Reed explaining there
would be thcee classes during the day. He explained a study of their existing
school~ indicated that 758 of their students uLilize public transporkation
which means onlv 25 people would be dciving vehicles to school and indicated
he thouyht the 88 spaces would be adequate.
Commis6ioner Fry ascertained there is a drapery shop on the premises and
stated he has a problem with the parking situation.
'it wa~ noted there was a busine~s school at this locakion previously with an
enrollment of 70 t~ 100 students. Gceg Hastings, Assistant Planner, explained
business schools are permitted by right in the CH Zone.
Commissioner Bushore stat~d the parking lot was about three-quarters full at
noan tuday and stated the Commissioners all have concerns regarding the
parking.
4/30/84
Z ~~
MZNUTES. ANAHEIEI CI'rY PLANNING COMMZ55I0N,_APRIL__30, 1984_ _ 84-232
Ct~airwoman Bouas asked if any of thQ ~tudents would b~ ntaying aEter clasa to
do lab work, etc. Mr. Read explained many ot their students have part-time
j~bs and aa ooon as thEy are finishod with their school ~ork, they ~o to theiK
~ubs.
Mr. Kniqht responded to Commisaioner Buahore tht-t the previoua achool at this
locatiun wa3 one of Che cansider.ation~ for choosing ~his aite and any c;hanges
to the buildi.ng would bA very minor. He stated they want to move to thie area
because they feel there is a need.
Commissioner La Claire atated ahe has seen schools where thece isn't a parking
pcoblem becauae students do carpnol a~ot. She stated thF Commisaion is not
opE~osed to the school, bu~ is worried about the parking. She suygested that
the ~retitioner agree that if there are parking problems and the achool does
congest the street, the petitioner would have ~n drop the school enrollment to
the number of parking spaces available.
Mr. Knight stated he would yo along with that suggestion and asked if he could
stipulate that they would either dr~~p the snrollment t~ 88 students o~ secuce
additional parking in the vicinity.
Res~onding to Cammissioner Bushore, Greg Ha~tings ex[~lained the ott~er school
at thia location was a businea~ college which was pecmitted by Code; however,
this is a technicaJ. school which rEquires a condit.fonal use permit.
Commissioner Busf-ore stated he did not think it is consistent to allow one
school by right and require another similac school. to have a conditional use
permit.
ACTION: Commissiuner King offered a motion, seconded by Conmisaianec McBUrney
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commissiort has reviewed the
proposal. to pe~mit a private educational institution with waiver of minimum
number of parking sPaces on a r.ectangularly-shapeci parcel of land consisting
of approximately 0.92 acre, having a£rontage of approxim~tely 120 feet on the
west side af Anaheim eoulevard and further described as 1101 South Anaheim
Boulevacd; and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration u~on finding that
it has consic3ered the Negative Declaration together with any r_omments received
during the public review process and furthec finding on the basis of the
initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Cortunission does heret~y grant
waiver of Code cequirement on the basis that the parking waiver will. not cause
an increase in traffic cungestion in the immediate vicinity nor adv~~rsely
affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver ui.ider the
conditions imposed, if any, wi11 not be detrimental to the psace, health~
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Cummiss:oner King offered Resolution No. PC84-78 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Maheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 25fi8 for a period of three yeacs pursuant t~
Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 khrough 18.03.030.035 .~^u
subject to the stipulation by the petitioner that if there are park3ng
4/3U/84
:~, ~ ~ ~
MINUTES._ ANAHEIM CIxY PLANNING COMMS6SION APRIL 30 1984 84-233
probleme And the sctiool doea cong~eat the atruet, the petitianer would have to
drop the school enrollment to the numbor of p~rking spacea ~vailable or
acquitg packing epace,~ in the vicinity and aubjeat to interdopartmentel
Committee recommend~tiona.
Gi.miting th~ cor~dit.ional uae permit to a certain period of time was diacuf~Ad,
and it was noted that a canditlonal use permit could be tevoked at any timc.
and algo tha stipulation wae to Qither cut the size of hhe enroliment or
acyuice more parking in the area. Mr. Knight expldined the lease is foc three
years with an option to renew. JACk White, Asaiatant City Attorney, clarified
that ttie reviaion to Condition No. 1 shou.id be included in the Commie~ion'A
approval ~t the reaolution and expldined the conditional use perrnit will bQ
limited to three year~. Mr. Knight asked if the variance could be gxanted for
six years. CommissionEC King ~tated he w~uld change hi~ reaolution to mAke it
for p~ix-year peri.od. Commissioner La C1airP stated she felt the
petitioner's atipu.lation ~hould be apelled out in that he agceed to reduce the
number oi students enr~lled or sec:ure additional parking.
On roll ca11, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the £ol].owing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, tiUSHORE, FkY, HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
1'PEM N0. 1_0. E.IR NEGAT_IVE QECGARATION AND CONDITTUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2564
PUgLIC HEARING. OWNERS; STEVEN p. AND LEA ANNE HBINRICN, 613 S. Bruce
5treet, Anaheim, CA 92804. Pcoperty deacribed as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land cor~c~ittting of approximately a,528 aquare feet, 613 S. Bruce
st~eet.
To permit a child day-care center fur. a maximum of 12 children.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire oEfered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner
McBurney and ~10TYON CARRIED, that consideration of the above-mentioned mattec
bp continued to the meeting of May 14, 1984, at the request of the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 11. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2566
PUBLIC HFARING. OWNERS: MILLER STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 17711 Mitchell
North, Irvine, CA 92%14. ATTN: DAVID P. PF2IZI0. AGENT: ALL-MET LIMITED
pARTNERSHIP, 812 San Diego Lane, Placentia, CA 92570. Propecty described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appxoximately 1.1 acce, 1401
North Miller Street.
To permit a non-ferrous recycling facility in the ML Zone.
There was one necson indicating het presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it ia referced to and made a part
of the minutes.
Manuel Chavez, 812 San Diego Lane, Placentia, stated they are proposing a
4/:~0/84
84-234
MINUT_ES ANAH~IM CIZ'Y PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 30 1984
non-fecrous metal cecycling bueinees At thie location And they will pick up
acun~ m~ndcotherasmallfdealeranwullrbringntoeir9truckatinaAndLtheAmataciAl
Co Y
wil~ be pucchaaed.
Glocia Hecaglia atated they own the propertiea at 1501, 1503 and 1505 Miller
Stceet an~ thay F~el this will depreciat~ the ~ropectiFa on M~ller Streett
that traffi c is already bad and with a lot af trucks in and out of this
drivoway, i t will be even wocae and ahe did not wnnt to see n acrap yard on
Chis property~ She stated shc ha~ nat seen the plans, but pointed out cight
now there ace tcucks and automobLle bodies on the pKOperty and ir. is yust a
mea~.
Mr. Chave~ stated they do not buy sccap cars and old junkt that their bu~inesa
ie industrial s~rap and it is all in containers and they w~ll have an in ~nd
out exit s nd there will not be moce than 20 to 30 trucks per day coming in to
the pcoperty. he etsted they are building a waceho~se where the material will
be stored and evecytihing will be behind closed walla.
THE PUBLIC :IEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairwoman Bouas asked Mr. Chave~ to clariEy what will be stored inside the
building. Mr. Chavez stated they wi11 be building a wArehouse and the
majority of the material will. he inside and the bins will be inside the
building a nd all the metal will be ineide the fenced area. He stated there
will be indust[ial bins and the scrap ±~ill be insi.de the bins and the bin
sizes vary and are 4-feet wide and 6 l-u 7-feet high and they ahould nnt be
visi~le from the street.
Commissio ner Kxng referred ko Ftaff's concerns expressed in Paragraph 19 of
the staff teport and the fact that the applicant indicRtes that all tYie
concerns will be complied with.
Commissio ner Herbst stated there ia a stor~ge acea in the rear secured by a
4-foot high chain link fence and the building is quite small. Tt was
clarified by Mr. Chavez that all the material will be skored in$ide the
building or inside the yard area.
Cortunissioner Herbst stated it bothers him because this City has had sevesal of
these ty pe facilities around and not one of them has lived up to the
conditxo ns agreed ro and he thought bins ~utointingeoutiad6nfootlhigh fence
metal wo u1d make it look like a junk yard, p
wovld no t do any good if the bins themselves are S-feet high.
David Fr eeman, General Contcactor, eta~ed thie is the only property that
drains i nto the storm drain to the cear so the 6-faot fence is on toF o: a
tapering berm ~rom M111er and going to the rear so that the top of the fence
is in e x cess of 8 feet from the bottom of the bins. He stated the property on
one sid e has a more ~ffensive opecation thai~ this and they have no slats or
scCeeni ng. He addEd they would slat the fence on th~ nor~h and soukh sides.
Commiss ioner King stated the petitioner has stipulated to live up to the
condxtions. Commissioner Herbst indicated he was concerned whether or not an
4/30/84
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLRNNING_COMMISSION~ APRIL_30. 1984 84-235
8-foot high fenc~ could be acceened. He etated h~ thaught thie would ue the
wcong lor,ation and khe building is only 1925 aquare feet and the pcoperty ',a
285 feet by 165 Eeet, so the building would be amall and he thought the
cecycling cnuld not be done inside nnd ha [elt 90B o~ it will be stored
outsid~.
Responding Cn Commicsioner La Claire, Mr. ChAVez expl~ined the mat:eriA1 ia
induatrial acr~p which they would pick up from machine shope Eoc inatance and
it goea into containere which vary in size from 4'x4' to 4'x6' and explained
the basic height of a container is 4 feet. Ne added the metal ia basically
aluminum and it is solid strip~ chopped in various sizes. Commissioner
La Claire atated the concern ia ~t~at it will be sticking up in the air and Mr.
Chavez responded that nothing will be looae on the ground and will not be
sticking up over the tence. Ne atated the materials come tA them in bins and
they sort lt by type of alloy. Fie atated they l~uy the scrap metal, package it
and send it out Co a foundry that makea finiahed products out of it. He
atated tn~ ~cales will be inside the buildiny and the bins will be stc~red
inside and there will be a small office. He eL•atPd thece are various types nf
bins and eome will be outcide, but nothing will be hanging over or s~icking up
in the air~ !~e s~ated they have bPen in thi~ business Eor 20 lear~ and the
last 7 yeara were in Los Angelea at 366 E. 58th Street. He stated they intend
to keep ~he ptoperly clean.
Commisaioner Fry stated ttie bins will ue stored against the back fence and it
was nuted the bins will vary in size and do not exceed 4 fePt in height and
the roll-off containers which are haule~ an top of the trucks vary in height
fram 4 to ZU fee~ fcom the ground to the top of the bi~s bpc~iuse of the berm.
Commiseioner La Claire stated this is a conditional use permit and could be
revoked at any Gime and she thoughc if the property is adequately screened,
there would not be a problem~ She sta ed she thought ~he petitioner has
covere~ all the ba~es and th~s kind of ~peration is very different.
Commias.inner Hecbst aaked if any of the materiala ace collected Erom sheet
metal shops, with Mr. Cha~~ez respanding they are. Comrt~.is~ioner Herbst stat~d
some of thoae ~craps are 10 to 12 feet long. Mr. Chavez stated scrap from a
shop like that would not even come t4 the yard. He stated the m~jority of
their customecs ~ut the materials in the bins pcoperlf so it does not stick
out.
Cammiseiones Herbst stated he did not t~ink the clients would spend that much
labor ta cut the matetial so Chat it will lay down in the bins. He stated he
handles a lot of scrap metal in his own business and it doesn't always come in
small aizes. He stated if it isn't properly screened, it will be a mess.
Commissioner King pointed out one 4f the conditions wxll be that the propert~
be properly screened, otherwise the conditional use permit could be revoked.
Commissioner La Claire stated this is an industrial ar$a and r,his is where a
~se of thie type belongs and she felt the applicant should be given the
opportunity to do the operakion subject to all the stipulations.
4/30%84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNZMG C_OMM?SSZON APRI1~ 30~__1984_ 84-236
ACTION: Cammiasioner L~ Cl~i~e ~fEered a motion, aecond~d by Commiaei~ner
McBucney and MOTION CAFiRIED, tha~ the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed tt~e propo~el to permit a n~n-ferroue recycling Facility in the ML
txndust•rial, I.lmited) Zone on a rectangularly-sheped parcel of land consisting
oE Ap~.roKimatelY 1.1 acre, having a fxontage of Approximately 165 feet on the
west side of Millcr Street and further f~tNS~CC~bE'd Qa 1401 North Millert ~nd
does ha[eby aPPrave th~ Negal.ive Declar~tion uNon finding thal. it h~s
considered rhe Nsgative Declaration together with any commer.ts received during
the public review process and further finding on the basiR of the initial
Skudy and any comments received that there ie no aubar.antiel evidence that the
project wi21 h~ve a siqnificant eEfect on the pnvironmor~C.
Greg HasCinqs askQd that a conditian be added to Approvul of the conditional
use perm.tt and it would be Condirion No. 16 read.ing as foliows: "The~t
vehiculac access yates ~hall remain open during buciness hours' and the
current Conditian No. 16 would become No. 17.
Jack Wtiite recoir.mended that Condition Nos. 5 and 6 be madiEied with r.he words
"and muintained" to be added after th~ wocd "install~d".
Commissioner Bushore atated it would be the intention of the Commission that
prior to s~ar.t vf thE o~eration, all t}~e improvements would be in.
Commis~ioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC84-79 and moved for its
passaye and adoption that tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Cunditional Uae~ Permit N~. 2566 pursuant to Anat~eim Municipal Code
Sections 18,03.030.U30 l•hrau9h 18.03.030.035 and subject t~ petitioner's
stipulations and modified conditions and additi~~nal canditions pertafning to
the gatea b~ing left open during business hours.
On coll call, the foregoing resolution w~s passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUASr FRY, KING, I~A CLAIRE, MC BURNBY
NOES: BUSHORE, HERBST
ABS~NT: t~ONE
,iack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the wrikten right to appeal the
~lanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the ~ity C~uncil.
ITEM N0. 22. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIR~MENT ANA
CONllITIONAI, USE PERMIT ~10. 2551
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HARULp K. AND KAREN L. OERTLE, c/o Capitol
Industcial Propecties, 310 W. Orangethorpe, Placentia, CA 92670. AGENT: JEFF
JILKA, 244 Btiardale, Orange, CA 92665. Property described as a
cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.62 acre
located,,t the northweat corner of La Cresta Avenue and Red Gum Street, 1251
North Red Gum Street ("Mild TA Wild).
~'o cetair. an automobile cuskomizing shop in the ML Zone with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
4/30/64
84-'l37
N~INUT ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIG 30, 1984 ___ --
7'here was no one indi~ating their pcesence in oppobitian to auUject request
and although tho ataff report wea not read, it is refRrred to and made e part
of the minukes.
JeEf Jilka, agent, ex~~lained he wanta to get a fenced-in .lot around n parking
ar~ a for storage nt vehicles for detailiny work. He oxp.lained thNY cto
deta iling- coll~sion work and cuatomize thinqs r~uch as mini-vans, and they
chop tops, aL•cetch cars into limouaines, etc.
THE PUBLIC NEARINC WAS CLOSED.
ites ponding tp Commiseionec E3ushoce, Mr. .iilka atated they have been in this
loc a tion sinGe FebKUaKy 19a3.
Commieaioner Y,ing re~erred to concerns li~ted in the Ataff report perkaining
to overiyight• parkiny and asked if ~he petitioner would be williny tu make the
atipulation thr~t all overnigtit parking will be limited to the starage areA.
Mr. Jilka stated the parking will be limited to tt~e atorage areA inside the
wz,r ehouae. He atnted rnust of the customera c~rs will be stored in~i.de and
poi nted ou~ the Eenced area on the plans.
Commissioner King referred to the landscaping adjacen~ to La Cceata Avenuo and
sta ted it. ia not maintained and is overgcown. Mr. .7ilka stated he would
st i pulate to bringing that up to Code and on-site parkin~ areas which are
bei ng used for stocage and customizing will be cleaned up and all storage and
wo r k will be kept ir.Ride the fenced area. Mr. ~Tilka stated they do not work
on vehicles outside, but if they have pulled a~enc~er off a car and are
wa i ting for parto, they might put f.t outside, but will bcing it back in at
nig ht. He responded to Chairwoman Bouas that the fenced area wil.l be to the
rig ht and pointed out two driveways and the proposed fenced area on the pl~ans.
Gommissioner King clarified that no more thbn 4 parking spaces will be
ut ilized for outdoor storage of rautomobiles and Mr. Jilka responded he wili be
wi lling to make that stipulation.
G c eg Nastings pointed out the proposed condition restricts that there aill be
no outdoor storage or work within a proposed screened outdoor vehicl~e waitirtg
a reu. It was pointed out that there werQ at leaet 18 vehicleb stored outside
ye sl•erday and one vehicle was parked on the lawn.
M r. Jilka e~xplained he shaces thia building and the old black sofa referred to
~ oes not belong ta him an~ also that the unmaintained portion of the
1 andscaping is supposed to be taken care of by the other occupant.
Commissioner Buahore stated the other occupr~nt is operating there without a
permit. Gceg Hasting~ expleined ~he other operator had been notified and that
t his action is the result of a businesa licen~e being issued automatically
w ithout Zoning Division approval. Comm~s~ioner Bushore asked why it has taken
t his long ko get this Ear.
M r. Jilka atated the other occupant was suppased to take care of the property
a nd the permSts and explained the lease is for 5 years with 4 years left.
' ~30/84
_.,,.
k
0. 1984_ 84"238
MTNUTES Atvnn~in ~~~_ ~- - - - -
Commiesionec 8ushoce stAted he did not sea how thic is yoing to be taken cace
of. Commissioner King t+sked if the petiti«ner hae the right ~.o take cace of
thinge requi.red by r.he pcoperty ownec. Mr. Jilke cesPonded that he ha8 t,he
right and explai~d~the otherboccupantscahould be~filingnanrapplication•forrthe
Naetinga explainQ
m~eting in 4 weeks.
Commisaioner Fiushore atated he wc+s conceCned about thi~ businees licenaE~
situation ~nd he thought with th~r layout in the new City Hal.l and with th~
public cuunt~re lacated adjacent to each~pV~arandtcpviewedebyuh.hsmPlanningle
for the puhlic to get their licenaea App
G~eg
Uepartment be£ore permits are iasuecl to prevent situatians like thie.
Hasting3 re~ponded thaC this could have been taken car~ of through the mail.
Commissioner Bushore ceplied he thought L•hat was a miatuke and a licenae
ahould not be i.ssued automatically. Annika 8antalahti, Asaistant Director for
zoning, etated sometimes a pers~n moves trom on~ location to another th~.~iking
because the uae was fine !.n one locatiun, it will bE fine in thE new
location. Commissloner au~i~ece ctated it i8 difficult to im~one c~nditi~ns on
a busine~s that is already opetating. Annika 5antalahti etated the business
operator is alertQd witt~in one month that thece is a p~obl~m, so she doea n~t
have sympathy for them.
Commissioner Bushoce stated the pr.oufi~ma~'collectionpof Che tax andiis4not a
licenses do not know it is really j
permit to continue their upecation and suggested maybe that should be a
warninq on the licenrie.
Annika Santalahti atated thousands of the3e are handlPC~ every year and only ~
few ever have a problem and have lo come bQfore the Planning Commi»sion.
Commissionec La Claire stated the Zoning Bnfurcemenk Officer has qone out to
this property and talked to tl~~ese petitioners and she thought this is an
efficient system even though it hCouncilwwouldsdenynthe~esrequeets, thered if
the Planning Commission and City
would be a drop in thi$ kind of behavioc. Mr. Jilka stated a Zoning
Enforcement Officec did come out and talk to them and the other occupants'
secrekary was suppoaed to handle the permit paperwork. Greg Haxtinqs
clarified that this particular conditional use pecmit wouPSted~continuingethis
petitioner'~ half of the building. Chairwoman Kouas $~99-
matter until the other ~ccupant ~omes in. Commissioner Bushore noted that
whatever the other occupant does certainly reflects on this busines~ because
the two a~e very much the same and it would be difficult to tell who is
parking the vehicles outside.
Commisaioner La Claice atated the owner of the propeLty is really responsible
£or keepin~ the property up and he is n~c present. She stated she felt the
two applications should be heard ~ogether and she would like to see a peGCe9a1
letter sent to the owner requesting that he be present at the hearing.
Hastings stated the earlie~st this could be doni6tF~u1dHeerespondedJtoPMc1tJilka
meeting, providing the applicant files by May
that there would be a separate filing fee for }'~ ~'her business. Mr. Jilka
Depar ~:aff had told him since
cesponded that a m~mbec of the Planning .tie permit would cover
the busineases are simllar and under the same .
both and it was noted the other buainess has a os..:rent business license.
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION~~PRIL 30~ 1984 _ 84-239
~ack White etatQd the applicetion mAy be filed by the owner or. the awner'o
authorized bgent. Commiesioner Herbst asked why this particulnr application
could not covet both operatf~na.
.lACk Wt~ite stated this conditi~nal uae permit could leg~lly ~over bol•h, but
L•he problem would be tt~e enCorceability of one agninet ttie other with one
bus.tnesa complying ~ompletely with all the requiremPnte and the other not
complying. Commiasioner Nprbat etated a lot ~f theae conditi.ons pertain to
the whcle ouilding, particulacly parkiny.
Jack White stated it could be legally acaomplished; however, khe owner woiald
have to fil~ a new Application Lor both propertiPS. It waa noted that the 'l7
~acking ~paces are required for the Whole building. Commis~ioner HerbsC Eelt
it ahould all be tiea[d together and tied dc~wn since the otlier ope:ator will
probably wnnt outside parki.ng also and noted if the property owner doea not
live up to the conditions, he could lose both tenants.
Commissioner Iiushore stated he does not remember the Commiasion ever
consideriny out~ide storage f~r automative related use~ and referrecl to other
usea in the acea where the petiti~ners were told they could nat pack any
vehicles outside and now tt~ere were 16 to 18 vef~icles parkQd outside this
facility koday. Eie stated the Commission hAS not al].owed this and he thought
if the petitioner does not have coom inRide for all the vet~icles, he wiJ.l be
storing them outsic~e and thi~ has not been allowed i~, the past and outdoor
storage in the induot~lA1 area is t~ecoming a prob'.em because empl~yers have
been using oukdoor parking spaces Eor storage and the ~mploXees are beinG
required to park on the st~eet.
ACTION: Commissioner Mceucne/ offered a motiun, seconded by Coruni.ssioner King
and MOTION CARRIEp, that considecation of the afo~ementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of June li, 1°84, in ordec that
the tw~ applicatiana f.or this whole building can be considE~red together and in
order for the owner to be present.
Jack White stated he underst.ands tl~at this is being continued so that th~
owner of the property, either him~elf ~r an authorized agent, could make an
amended application to cover both portions uf the pcoperty. He stated that
one permit to consider the two uses jointly could be issued and would be
broken down into twu ~epacate areas and there wou!d be a mutual set of
conditions and if there was a violation, the City wauld conaider a
modification to elimf.nate the offending use. He clarified the pucpose of the
continuance ia to request the owner of the properky to be pcESent and to apply
by May 16th far a permit on the balance oE the property and the additional use
undec the existing ppplicatfon ao that it will be considered jointly. He
stated the matter will be readvertised foc the additional portion oE the
property and the readvErtisement will hav~ to be peid for.
Mr. Ji.lka atated all the buildinga acroas khe street have fenced storage areas
behind their buildinga. Commist~ioner Bushore stated those are probably the
ones he was referring to and they are probably operaking wii:hout benefit of
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI7'Y PI~ANNING CUMMISSION, APRIL 30. 1964 84-240
permits. No eteted thie ig becoming a pcoblem becauoe em~layeea do nat have
places ta park. Mr. Jilka stated he ia aakin~ Eor 1/7 or 1/8 of the averall
parkin9 gpaGes.
Commisaioner Buahore stated the CommisNion cannot discuas thP ~rapertieo
ac~oss the at.ceet, but the chances are they are doinq their operation without
pormit~. Commisaionec La Clairp asked if the pecmit cen he cancelled 1E this
CommiASi~n doeo not aee nny c~~oE~eration from the property owner or the other
tenant. Jack White pointed aut there are no condikional uae Permits nn this
property for theae uaeo At tt~ia time. t?e explained a busineas lic~noe ie nut
a legal pecmit to operate and ie only a revenue-produciny function oE the City
and the fact that eomeone has a busineas l.icenae d~~es not entitle them to
qperate a specific buainess at a sPeci~ic location.
Commiasioner La Claire asked haw noan the City could stop ~ per.aon Ecom
operating if they are not wil.ling to cooperate. Jack White atnted the City
could immediately bring action to stop the opec~tion, but. in tt~e past the City
has had a~cactice of allowiny a limited wind-down period of about thirty days
before legUl proceedinys ace commenced. Ne stated legally the~e s no right
ta conduct the use on this pcoperty at this time.
Commiaeioner ~uehore stated he cannot underskand t~ow this happened bec~u~e
when aomeone walks up to the Buoine~s Licenae window, askE for an application,
f.iila it out and befoce the ~icenae is issued, they have to go acroas the hall
to the Planning Departtnent for the xoning ta be checked, yet when it is aent
through the mail, the licen~es are iasued without the zoning being checked.
He stated he felt ao~ething should be done about this procedure because it
does create problems.
Mc. Jilka stated he aid noC apply for a l~cense until someone came out from
the Planning Department and told him he had to get a license. He stated they
were j~~sl setting up their warehouse and the ofEicer came in to tell the othec
operator he needed a license when they found him.
Cornmissioner Herbst asked if there ia anything on the Business License
application whict~ indicates it may not be ~egal to operate in khis location.
Annika Santalahti renponded that this issue has heen discussed at City Council
level and not•ed that the license is just a tax. Commiasioner HeCbst atated
the people getting the license assume they have tt~e cight to operate in that
building. ~nnika Santalahti atated the ma7ority of the Buainess License
holders did ~omply with Code. Commissioner Elerbst stated the license should
be stamoed to ~how it doesn't give the right to operate.
Commissioner Bushore stated he felt it. should say 8usiness ~ax and not
~us~ness License. Commissioner La Claire auggested discussing this at the
next morning aession because of the length of today's agenda.
Annika Santalahti explained the application will be readvertised to include
the second address and that staff will try to contact the property owner
regarding the Commission's interest in havin~ him come to the meeting and also
she would check the Business License application to vecify if it d~es have a
warning. Stie stated they will need to readvertise this permit and a fee would
need to be collected to readvertise.
REC~SS: 2:55 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:05 p.m. 4/30/84
MINUTE5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO_ MMISSION,_APRIL 30, 19_ 84 __ 84-241
ITEM N0. 13. EIR NEGATIVE AECLARATION, WAIVER OF CQDE RCQUIREM~NT AND
CONDlT:ONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2563
.....r_.
kUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PACIFIC BELL 6 A.T.T. COMMUNICATIONS UF CALIFORNIA
CORP., 7337 Tcade Stteet, Room 4140, San Diego, CA 92121, ATTENTION: P. L.
HAMILTON. Property de$cribcd ~e An irregularly-ehaped parcel of land
consisting of approximal,e'ly 2.4 acres located at the southwest cornec nt
Cypresa Street and Lemon SCceet, 217 North Lemon Stceet (Pacific Bell
Telc~phone ) .
'Po permit two 23.5-foot high roof mounted antennas with waiver of maximum
~~ructucal height.
AC~ 1pN; Commissioner La Claire oEfered a mution, seconded by Commisaioner
Mck3urney and MOTION CARHIGD (Commissf.oner Kinq ubstaininq)- that conaideration
of the above-mentioned matter be continued to the meeting of May 14, 19R~.
ITEM tJO. 14. EIk CA'PEGORICI:L BXEMP'I'ION-Cl,AS5 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3390
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GENERAL AMERICAN LIF~ IN5URANCE CO.~ 163U S.
Sunkist, 5uite B, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: F3U~INESS FROPFRTIES, 17631
E'itch, Irvine, CA 92714. ATTN: RICHARD OGGBSBY, J0~ WALTHOUk. Pcoperty
described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximar.ely
3.24 acres located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Howell
Avenue, 24U1 East KAtella Avenue.
Waiver of minimum landacaped setback to construct a 6-stocy office building.
Richard Oc~lesby, 17631 Fi.tch, Irvfne, agent, explained they are reyuesling a
waiver of the 10-Eoot setback requirement Eoc the parking 3tructure on the
north side and it is befng requested in order to eliminate an area that will
become a maintenanr_e problem and also st;itccl it permits an additional 10 feet
of landscaping on Katella.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEA.
It was noted the Planning Uirector or his authorized representative has
d~termined that the proposed project falls wi~hin the definition of
Categorical ~xemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact
Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically ~xempt from the requirement
to prepare an ~IR.
ACTION: Commissioner Ki~g offered }tesolution Na. PC84-SO and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby
grant Variance No. 3390 on the basis that there are special ciccumatances
applicable to the property such as size, shape~ topography, location and
surroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned property in the
same viciniry; and that strict arplication ~f the Zoni~g Code deprives the
propecty of privileges enjoyed by other prope~ties in the identical zone bnd
classificatipn in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental CommitteQ
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pass~d by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ PRY~ HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BllRNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
MTNUTES, ANAHE~M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRI_L__30,_1984__ __ 84-242
ITEM N0. 15. EIR NEGATIVE pECLARA'PIUN1 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 83-84-26 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3393
PUBLIC NEAk1NG. OWNER5; GARY N. HUNTER, ET AL, 315 E. Nocth Stceet, Anaheim,
CA 92805. Propecty deacribed as a rectan~ularly-ahaped percel of land
conoisting oE approximately 7280 equare Eeet, 315 Fast North StreeC.
Waivere of minimum type of parking epaces, minimum aide yard setback and
minimum wid~h oE pedesCrian a~ceaswAy to convert an exiating single-family
structuce and de~a~hed yarage into a duplex~
There were ttiree persons indfcating their ~reaence in oppoaition to ~ubject
request a~id although thA staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and mad~
a part of khe minutes.
Gary Hunter, owner, stated he is requesting a reclassification to allow a
duplexs thal• he recently purcha~ed the exl~tinq structure and it is one of the
few ~roperties on North Street which has a garaye ~acing on North Street and a
two-car garage faci~g th~ alley. Ne stated he feels this will be in
conformar~ce with the General Plan for that area.
Mrs. Erickson, 301 E. North Str~et, Anaheim, atated a lot oE the neighbors Are
eldecly and have more or less designated her as their speaker and also signed
petitions as Follows:
'We th~ ur,dcr;;igncd :a:~idents of the neiyhborhood
surrounding 315 East North Street, Anaheim, Ca.lifornia,
take exception to Recla~sification No. 83-84-26 and
Variance 3393. Building of a duplex would change the area
as Knott Street Erom Anaheim Boulevard t~ Olive Street
over the years has been confined to single-family
dwellings and they can visualize moce street parking,
additional traffic and related noise on Norrh Street and
~hrough the alley with oveccrowding of tendnts, thua
opening a Pandora's Box for ttiis area."
She stated she also has letters from sevecal neighbors s.imilar to this
petition. Mrs. Erickson referred to a list of neighbors and the number of
years they have lived in the area, ranging from 10 to 45 yeara and noted they
are al.l sin~le-family houses. Sh~ stated North Street has become a regular
speedway and they have that going on all day and all night and with all the
new tenants, they would have moce traffic in the area and then with the
traffic late at nights, the dogs start barking with people turning on their
lights to see who is there. She pointed out they have had several cobberies
in the area. She sL•ated the next-door neighbor h~~s G cars and a matorcycle
and when they back out, they bump into the fence in the rear. She stated
because some of the property was rexoned doesn't mean it should be continued.
She stated they belong to the Central City Committee and attend t~e meetings
and are trying to £ix the area up and st~e thought if this is approved, ft
woulc~ be detrimental to the area. She stated the petitiUner is requesting
varian~es on almost everyth.tng and she did not think they should be granted.
She stated thece is a rea~ traffic problem in the area now.
4/30/84
MINUT~5. ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 30~ 1984 __ 8b-243
necthA McLaughlin, 219 E. Nnrth Street, AnAheim, stated she hae lived there
Lor 24 yeare and has always kept khe property in go~d condition and there atE
neM nQighbors in the ecea who are impcoving their pcnperty. She ~L•ated ~he
attends the Centcal City mpeting~ and they are t[ying to impcove the area and
she is agai.nat bll theae variancea and ahe is ulao agatnst the
reclassification. She re~d the letter she had sent to the Commiasion, da~ed
Apcil 26th, a copy of which is avail~ble in the Planning Department's file~.
Mr. Hunter stated Mr~. Ecickson is a pilar ~E the c.ommunity and he reepects
her views 1008 and explRined he had talked to her ptior to ceyupsting the zone
chonge And ahe had not ~ndicated any opposition at th~t time. He expla~ned
the variancea Kequested are necessary because the ptope~ty i.s existing and khe
garage he is a~king to convert is also existing the way it is. He stated he
only owns two cara and they have never been parked in the area, ao the parking
problem is not a result of his Eamily.
He stated he is only requesting reclassificatio~ of his property and that• he
cealizes reclassification wa~ denied in the ~ast for ttie 200 block. He sL•~ted
the property would be perfect for a duplex and that he does not plan to bring
in la or 15 people to live in St and rhat parking does conform to Code. He
stated he di~ not believe the signature~ presented are all from p~ople in the
area because he had talked to just about everyone on khe block and until toda,y
had not realized there was any oppo~ition. He steted the other neighbors did
not object and indicated they are interested in doing the ~ame thing. He
stated there are 12 houses in the area Zoned R-1 And that he respects the
wishes of the peaple in the 200 block who want to keep th~t zoning, but he is
simply askiny tu upgrade his property to the same zoning a~ the surrounding
area so he can build a fully legal dup?ex there. Ne stated many of khe houses
in the ar~a have other structures on the lots which would not be allowed under
today's Code~.
He atated he wauld be interested in seeing who si9ned the petition. The
petition was presented to M~. Hunter and he requested a copy . Mr. Hunter
ref.er[ed to the list of signatures and stated everyone except Mr~ and Mrs.
Esickson and the pEOple un Page 2 who live on the 200 block of N~rth Street
are in ar~ RM-1200 or RM-2400 Zone. He stated he is requesting a one-bedroom
apartment and he thought maximum traffic added to the area would be two
vehicles plus visitors and he is reques~ing permission to have ane covered
space ar~d two uncnvered spaces.
THE PUBI~IC NEARING WAS CLGSED.
Responding eo Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Hunter stated he has li.ved at the
propecty since November 15, 1983, and he bought the propetky aE a residence
and orig~nally had thought the property was zoned RM-2400, but found out
during escrow that it was nc~t, but decided to buy ft anyway And try his luck
at getting it approved.
Commissioner Hushore stated hie only concern is the type of parking pcoposed
and the effect it would have if it was allowed for every duplex because it
would allow people to convect their gacage and park outside and he thought
standard parking spaces should be grovidpd. He stated originally the
neighbors had talked about changing the zone and it was detecmined by the
4/30/64
MINUTES. ANAFi_E.IM CITY PLANNING COMMIS_SION, APKIL 30~ 1984 84-24A
neighbora themaelves that khey wantQd to keep th~ curcent aoning. Mr. Hunter
stated he has an exioting one-car gara~~e and the garage he is proposing to
convert 18 a two-cec garage on the alley which was act~ally built Eor
conversion Nurpoees.
Commiasioner Bushore suggested ~^aving the yacage ae is and building another
sttuctuce.
Commieaioner Bushors asked if the peGitioner has conaidered a~ranny unit. He
added he thought thia would be an ideal location for a granny unit as long as
it complies with regulati~ns.
Greg HastingR stated the size of tt~is unit is largez than the cequlations Eor
granny units; however, the petitioner could convert the garage as is without
adding on.
Commiaei.onec Herbst stated he believes the petitionec could meet all the
reyulationa for a g[annY unit as long na the unit ie to be occupied by person~
6U years of age or older.
Jack White stated even if it wAS to be a granny unit, a conditional. us~ permit
would be re~uired ai~d parking would be subject to review and compliance with
the Code or a variance would be necessary.
Commissioner Flerbat etated a granny unit occupied by per~ons 60 years old or
older would require less parking and a smaller sized unit would be more
acceptable. Fie stated this is a tool now avail~ble which helps witti lots of
this size withour requicing a lot of variances. Responding ro Chairwoman
Bouas, Mr. Hunter stated he olane to live cn th~ pr~perty. He stated he was
not ac*_~ally aware of tt~e type o£ granny unit Commissioner Herbat was
diccu$sing and had originally thought he was referring t.o the "grandfather"
clause. He added he w~uld still have the saRe parking problem.
Jack White atated the request would still be advertised as a waiver from the
parking code; however, it is passible the Commission could look at it more
favorably xf the occu~ancy of the units was restricted to two persons 60 years
of age or older.
Commiseiuner Fry asked if the petitioner would like a continuance in order to
considec the possibility of a granny un~t. it was noted the matter would have
to be readvertised and a new application would have to b~ filed. Commissioner
Bushote stated the Commission would still look very carefully at the type of
parking proposed because oF park:~g problems i.n the area and stated a~so, a
covenant would be cequired to be recorded againet the property restricting the
occupancy, sa that !f the propecty is sold, the new owner would be aware of
the restriction.
Mr. Hunter stated I~e thought he had proposed enough par.king spaces and it was
noted the spaces do not meet Code. Commissioner Herbs~ painted out an elder2y
couple might only have one car and also reclassification would not be
necessaty if this is approved as ~ gr.anny unit. He stated he ia against
reclassification until everyone on the block would agree and approval uf thi~
would be pure 'spot' zoning. He isked if the petitioner would like to requesk
4/30/84
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION. APRIL 30, 1984 84-245
a continuance in otdec to eaamine the poasibility of a granny unit. Mr.
Hunter requeAted a 4-wQek continuance.
ACTION; Commiaeioner Mceurney offered a motian, aeconded by CommisRioner FrY
end MOTION CARRIED, that consider~ti.on of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the cegularly-sctieduled meeting ot May 3Q, 1984, at the request
oi the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 16. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-C[~ASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3392
~U~LIC HEARING. OWNERS: HOWARD W. AND LESLIE J. ATWELI., 1917 Sundown Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as an irregiilarly-ahaped p~ccel of lRnd
conaisting of ap~~roximately 5498 aquare feet, 1917 oundown Lane.
Wriver o.t maximum lat coverage ta construct a room addition to a single-fanily
residence.
There was no one indicAting their prezenr.e in oppasition to subject request
and alth~uyh the stAff ceport wa~ not cead, it is referred to and made a part
oF the minutes.
Howard Atwell, owner, was pcesent ko answer any quEStions.
TNE ~UBLIC HEAkING WAS CLOSED.
It was note~ the P1Anning Directur or his authorized representative h~s
determined that the pcoposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemption~, Class 5, as definEd in the State Environmental Impact
Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requi[emen~
to pre~are a~ EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-81 and mov~d for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Varianc~ No. 3392 on the basis that there are special circumskances
applicable to the pcoperty such as size, ahape, topography, location and
surcUUndings which do not apply to other identically zoned propecty in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Z~ning Code deprives the
property ~f privileges enjoyed by othec properties in the identical zone and
claasification in the vicinity and ~ubject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, th~ focegoing resoluti.on was passed by the following vote:
AY~S: BUUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KZNG, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NOtiE
ITEM N0. 17. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIA2~CE N0. 3394
PUBLIC HE7,RING. OWNERS: PEI-~~HUNG CHAO AND ROSAtJA HSU CHAO, 1560 S. Harbor
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 9280'l. AGENT: K.S.L.W. ARCHITECTS, ATTN: STAN
SAKAMOTO, 3833 Long ~each, Boulevard, Long Beach, GA 90807. Property
describsd as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of apgroximatQly
4.3 acres, 1717 South West Street (Emerald of Anaheim Hotel).
4/30/84
MINUTES. AN~H~IM CITY NLANNING_COMMISSION,__APRIL 30, 1984 _ 84-246
Waivera oE pecm~tted location oE roef aign and minimum distAnce bel•Ween signs
to consrruct a non-illuminated roof eign.
There wa~ one pereon indicating his presence in opposition to ~ubject cequest
and although the ofaff report was not reAd, it is reEerred to and tirade n part
oF the minu~es.
Commisaioner Bushore declared a conflict ot interest as defined by Anaheim
City Planning Commisaion Resolur_ion No. PC76-157 adopring a Conflict of
Interest Code for the Planning Commi~sion and Govecnment Code Section 3625, et
seq., in that he had previously declared a conflicL oE intereEt on this matter
and purauant to the ~GOVieions of the above Codes, declaced to the Cha.irma~
that he was withdrawing from thE hearing in connection with Variance No. 3394,
and would not take part in either the discusaion or the vot.ing thereon and had
nok discusoed this matter with any member of rhe Planning Commi~sion.
Tt~ereupon CommissionEr Bushore .left the Council Chambec.
Stan Sakamoto, ayert, was pcesent to answer any que~tion~.
Bill Kumer, Chief Engineer at Disneyland, recommended that the original
conditions still stand. He etated they were before the Planning C~mmissian
before for certain co7ditions becttuse of visual in~rusion and at that time had
stated th~re wece oome inl•rusions Erom ~rontierland, Biy Thunder Trail~ and
from the Macl. ~wain and Columbia on the aig River. He stated many of the
trees which conceal the ~ign presently, a~ ahown ~n the photograplis, are
trimmed in tt~e summer because of the rivec stage show when lighting is set up
on top of the roofs. He stat~d they fe~l the BmecAld is an asset to the area,
buk do not Eeel the sign would benefit the ~atk.
Mr. Sakamoto stated Erom the very beginning they have been very sensitive to
the concerns of Disneyland and originally they thought the north tower wtiich
faces Disneyland was too tall and they eliminated a whole floor at great
expense and agreed tio limit the illuminated signs to a height oi 116 feet
which was asked for by the Disneyland people, but khey understood that only
apPlied to the north tower and pointed oUt rhe south tower faces the parking
lot of Disneyland and nor the park ltaelf. HQ added the roof sigr, would not
be illuminated so Mould not be a problem at night and duting the day from the
roof of eig Thunder, the sign is visible, but thE trees obecuce the entire
sign althouyh they ace trimmed down in the summer. He added they do not want
to do anything to hurt Disneyland, but feel the roof sign is very important to
tf,e hotel.
THE PUk3LIC: HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioncr La Claire atated she thought the sight intrusion iasues had been
resolved at the original hearing. Mr. Kume[ stated the north tower was
lowered because it was vi.sually intrusive and that they also decided at that
time to look at the sign program aftec the hotel was built to see which areaA
would be aff~cted within the park and no hasty or rash decisions or ~udgements
were made at that time fot the south tower. He stated they did do extensive
balloon tests from all aspecta of the park and ~hey do have visual intrusion
of the hotel, but it is nnt objectionable fram all the attr~ctions, whereas,
they feel the signing would be objectionable.
9/30/84
.~ ..._,._.......,._.._._._-. .._ _,. _._. ...._ ... ... .......... ~... . _.__ . __ _ _ . . .... ~
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 30. 1~84 84-247
Commiagioner Herbst asked i~ the Oieneyland t9otel lighted sign is viaihle
inside the park. Mr. Kumer reaponded it ia not visible from Big Th~ndor Tral.1
and the Big Thunder ~ide iteelt, but it is visible from other points o[ the
parkt however, moak oE the trees on that side havo covece~ it.
CommiRSio~ec HerbAt stated he would hate to deny someone the right to hnve a
aign that someone Qlse has becn a.lluwed, eapecially when theae pet•tioners
have tried to meet the requests oE the Dieneyland personnel and L•he i~otel
needA some xort of recognition to sucvive. Fle pointed out they did elimina~e
one fl~or and he thought it would be going jus~ a little too Ear ka ask them
to not have th~ aign ~uat because the treeo a~e going to bp trimmpd in the
aummer. He atated he has always tried very hard to pcotect Disngylend an~
pointed out the sign will Eace the parking lot.
C~mmissioner La C1aiKe referred to the .hotographs and detecmined that the
back par~i~~et wa.ll would be 130 feet hic~~~ and that the structuce shown on l:l~e
plans in the rsar ls the elevator mach.nery.
Mr. Kumec and Mr. Sakamoto reviewed the phatogra~hs with Commissioner [.a
Clr~ire and cliscussed the various heighta. Commiasioner ['ry deter.mi.ned there
will be no l.ighting of any kind inaide or outside the sign. Mr. Sakamoto
stated the only illuminated signs would be the onea on the ends oE the tower
which are at 116 feet. He also pointed out thaC all the hotels in the area
have rooE signs and many of them are illuminated and statacl he did not think a
vertical sign would wock on this building. He also doscriaea their othec
signa proposed and stated, under Code, they ace allowed to have a 60-fuot pole
with a ga~s atation-type sign which they c!~ose not to utilize. He atated there
is only one spot in~ide Disneylar.d where the sign will be visible. Mr. Kumer
atated the photo5raphs were tuken from the track of thP Big Thunder rid~ whic'~
is atout 10 feet higher than the ~idewalk.
Commissioner Fry staCed the beat aesthetics of Disneyland are dimed at night
and this is nol an il.luminated sign eithec internally or externally and he did
not believe it wou.ld be khat much of ~n intrusion into the park and pointed
out the petiti~ner has already eliminated one stocy to help the sikuation and
he could not see any objectfons to this sign.
Chairwoman Bouas stated if the Commissinn has denied signage to other
petitionera in the area, she did not think it would be appropriate to grant
thts requeat.
Commissioner Fry stated the oth~rs sign re~uests ~~crc cicnied becausc of the
intrusion and he did not think thcre would be a significant intrusion from this
sign and in addition. when the foliage grows for another two years, it will
not be seen anyway.
Jack White stated the twc vaciances beino requested relate to the distance of
the sign ~com the property line and the distance beL•ween signs and there is no
ceSuest far any waiver of hefght limitation and the height limitation as
currently aPproved, meeta the height limitation map for the Di;sneyland area
and the only limitations imposed were in connection with approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2324 by the City Council and the City Counctl would
be requi.red to modf£y the permit.
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY_PL~-.INING COMMISSION, APRIL 30. 1984 84-246
Greg Nastinga claciEied ata£f definition ~f a roof sig n is anything above th~
ceiling of tt~e top floor.
It was noted the P1Anning Director or hia authorized r epresentative has
detarmined that the propoaed project Eal.ls within the definition o£
Categurical Exemptions, Clasa 11, as defined in the S tate Environmental Impact
Repoct Guidelines And is, thecefore, catogarically ex ~mpt from Che requicement
to prepare an EIR.
ACZ'ION: Commisaioner Herbst offered Reaolution No. P C44-d2 and maved for its
passagp and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning ~:ommis~aion does hereby
grant Varianc.e No. 3394 on the basis thAZ there ace s pecial citcumatancea
applicable to the property such as aize, shape, topog raphy, location and
aurroundinyR which do not apply to othec identicAlly zoned property in khe
same vicinityt and that strict applir.ation of the Zon in9 Code deprivea the
~~roperty of pcivilegea enjoyed by other propertie~ in the identical zone and
classification in the victnity and aubject to InCerde partmental Committ~e
cecommendations.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not think the sign would hurt Dianeyland and
that petitioners have heen bending over backyards to cooperate with Disneyland
and he did not think it would reflect into the DisnP y land area.
Prior t~ voting, ,Jack White auggested a modification to Condition No. 1 Co
read: "That this variance shall he effect've only u pon the ~pproval of the
deletion or modification oC Condition No. 1~f City Cauncil Resolution No.
~2R-3a5 to allow a 1d0 foot 11 inch high r.oof sign'.
On r~ll call, the Eoreyoing cesalution wos passed by the following vote;
AYCS: FkY, HERDST, K2NG~ LA C~P.IR~, MC BURNEY
NOES: BOUAS
ABSENT; BUSHURE
Ja~k White, Assistant .:ity Attorney, presented the w ritten right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 d-.ys to the City Council.
Cnmmissioner Bust~ore retucned to the Council Chamber at A;00 p.m.
I'PEM N0. 18. EDiVTRONMENTAI. IMPACT REPORT N0. 224 ( PREV. CERT. ),
RE~CLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-27 AND VARZANCE N0. 3395
PUBLIC t1EARING. OWNERS: TEXACO ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. , 380 5. J~naheim Hills
Road, Anaheim, CA 52807. AGENT: HUDSON DEVELC~PMENT, 21941 Herencia, Miesion
Viejo, CA 92692. Property descrit~ed as an irregular ly-shaped parcel of land
consiating of approximately 14 acres, having a fron t age of approximately 1016
feet on the southeast side af Imperial Hi9hway, appr oximately 1650 fept eouth
~f the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road.
RS-A-43,000(SC) to RS-5000(SC).
Waivers o~ ~equired lot frontage, minimum building site width and required
locction and orientation of structurea k^ construct a 25-lot (plus 3 open
~oace lote) subdivision.
4/30/84
MSNU7'ES AN~-H~IM CITY pLANNING COMMIS&ION APRIL 301w1964 84-249
Therg wae no onv indicating their preaence in uppoeition to subject roquest
and elthough the staff ceport wus not read, it ia reEorred to And made a pArt
of the minutes.
Richard Hudson, agent, explained ho ia rPquestl.ng a zone ch~Ange to PUD for
single famil y RS-S000 dwellinga. tle stated their current project was approvcd
in 1979 for 25 unita and that they du not plan to change the density, but
eimply want to detach the units rand have a single-LAmily detached unit zuning.
George Maso n, Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc. etated they objeck to the propoaed
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 which I~ave been added to thiR tractt ttiat the
tract wt~s u r iginally appcoved in 1979 and re-eatablished in 1982= that Tracts
104U7 throug h 10410 wece Apprqved and provided for. conatructiun by lhe
developer of the sidew~alk, curb, gutter and 24 feet of asphalt conccete
pavoment alo nq the alignment of Impeclel Higt~way ~hat adjoins th~ tracts. He
stated non~ oL theoe tracts took acceus Er.om Imperial Highway and it was
required that there bF~ an irreVOCAbiQ oEEer af cie~~ication of the southeastecly
53 feet of Z mperial HighwAy, basically from Big Sky Drive l•o the end of the
City line a n d that section of Im~ertal Highway which wou16 bN dedicated was to
be canstr.ucted when tl~ere was an arterfal hi.gtiway f.unding project app~uved to
~ay for the conskruction of that portion of the highway. He stated it would
appear beca uae it was an artpr.fal highway and becttuse the tracta t~ok no
ar.cess Erom it, that the City was~ in eftect, committing to participate in the
constructio n end of thnt half of imperial Highway; that subaec,uently in 1979,
Texaco-nnah eim fiil.ls, Inc. r'irst submitted Tract 10617 for approval and in
connecti~n with that ~,ppr~val, the ~lAnniny Commission conditioned them ko
construct ttzat 53-foot section of Imperial Nighway fronting on Tract 10617
becauae it t ook access from Imperialfiighway and there ha~ never been any
objection to that and that is 168 feet of Imperi~l tiighway. He atated Tract
10407 was b uilt and ttie tract map was recorded and the developec ciid construct
the curb, g utter, sidewalk and pavement on t~in aide of Imperial. He stated
last year w hen they submitted Tract. 10409, again the City said rhe original
approval wa s supposed to be changed and they were a7ain conditioned to
dedicate a n d imp~ove the southeasterly portion of Imperial Highway, 875 feet~
which the C ity had originally committed to build with highway funds. F+P
~tated on T ract 10617 they are being aaked to condition for improvements of .
another. 70 0 or 8U(, Feet of Impecial that is off-site and he felt it is being
cequested bFCause ataff feels it is the last shot they have. He stated this
tract canno t affocd to build that portion of Imperial Highway and if ::. is
found nece s sarp ta retain that condition foc this reque~t, which fs simply to
change the duplex housin9 to single-family detac;hed, that they wo~ld withdraw
tt~eir appl i cati~n and proceed with their original application of duplex p1An~.
THE PU6LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner 8ushore ascertained that the tract referred to which expired in
1962 has be en re-entablished and never finalized and that this was not a
condition of that tract. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated that was the
tract that was conditioned to dpdicate and construct a portion of Imperial
Highway fu rther south. He stated the tract has not been finalized, but thfs
i.s a conditi.on.
4/30/84
NlINUTBS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNXNG COMMZSSION APRIL 30 1984 84-250
Commlaeioner Duehore stated thcce is a conditio~ on the tentative to pa~e a
c erkain poctian oE ImperiAl ot that point and that ia acrose the stre et ae
w ell ne next lo thi+s site. Commiesioner tlerbst asked why the lots ~-r e being
requeated for RS-5000 when they were originally approved for RS-10,0 O 0,
Mr. ttudson reeponded the reaaon is the width of the lc~tat that with t he
R5-10,000 'Loning, a 75-foot aicle yard setbACk would be requiced and w ith
RS-5,000 c~nly 50 feet would be requiced, so they could not rrovide 2 5 lotg.
Commiesioner Hecbat reviewed the origin~l approved rract map. Mr. M aaon
stated this wae an RS-10,000 aquare feet PDC Overlay and duplex hous ing was
pcopc~aed and they are juat tr,ying to bteak it up to provide aingle-f amily
detachec~ houaing~
Commiesionpr McBuKney a~ked if the urea k,eing discuased for bonding and
improvemr.nt from the tract boundaciea to the Anaheim Ci.ty limits An d the south
edge oi future roadway is developable property. Jay Titus ce~ponde d it is not
developable and Comtniasioner McBurney poinked ~ut the property would juek ~it
there ~and wxit unkil the City or County improves it.
Commiseioner Herbst stated he is oppo~ed to changing tt~e lot size w i th the
requpsted reclasaiEication.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for 7,oning, stated if the Comn:ission
looka tavorably an this proposal, the developer would have to devel op it in
conformance with the Exhibit, so although the underlying zoning is different,
they would hAVe to meet those sitP developm~nt atandards and if th e zoninq
remaine at RS-10,000, the vaciance would probably have to be modifi ed to
include some diEEerent waivers. She atated the RS-10,000 Zone has a different
side yard setbuck requirement than the RS-5,000 and app~rently they are more
in con-pliance with that than the RS-10,000. She stated if the Comm issi~n
wants the RS-10,0U0 Zoning to remain, she tihought the side yatd se t back waivec
would have to be advertised.
~:ommisaionec Herbst stated he has mixed feelings abaut changing th e lot size
down one-half of wiiat was appcovedt that the whole plan cauld be c h anged in
the future to 5,000-square foot iota and the Qroperty would have a lready been
reclassified, if this is approved t~day.
Annika Santalahti stated this approval would be tied to specific p lans and
that is the way they would have to develop the property And they would have to
re-subdivide it if they wanted to do anything diffecent. Commiss i aner Herbsk
clarified his concern that if this developer does not build on th e propetty
and sells it to someone else, then the property would have alread y bepn
rPZOnec .
.lack White explained when a reclassification is adopted, typica:l y it has a
condition that khe property be developed in conformance with spec ific plans
and specificationss that the ordinance would be adopted placing t h e property
in the RS-5,000 Zone and tihe only question would be the ability o f the City to
reyufre r~ aubsequent developer to build in accordance with those previously
approved specific plans. He stated the reclassification would be the zcning,
but it is not the designatian as iniiicated on the Ganeral Plan.
4/30/84
~
MINUTES, ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, APRI~ 30, ]984 84-251
Commiseianor Nerbst st~tvd ceGldaaification of this proPerty would draaticelly
change the denait.y i~ the Areo. He odded he is not opposed to thi~ plen, but
doea not went tn c hanye the 2oning.
Annika Santalahti stated the rr.ally big difference between thi.s proposal and
the ffcat one is that the firat onE dfd invo!ve attached uni~a And this would
bc clelached and t he practicAl issue is l•.hr~t rhP RS-5,00() is comm~nsurate with
what tt~ey want to do. She atated the property owner could be cequired to
record a covenant on the proper:y atating that ik ahrall be limited to 25
units, or whateve r the number is, eo that a future owner would he aware of the
restriction.
Jay Titus, Otfice Engineer, atated when Tracts 10407, 1a4Q8, 10405~ and 1041U
were aPpcoved in 1978, there wAS a candition placed on those tracts that a
portion oE the ha lf of Imperial Highway be irrevocably offered for dedication
and that l•hey bon d for improvements which would consist of aurb, gutters,
aidewalka ~,~d 25 feet of pavement, with the intent at that kime, that the
remaindNC uf the street be conotructed when the City had AHFP Pro,ject Funds,
t~ut obviously in the last 6 years, financial conditiona have chunged
considecably Eor cities and counties. He sCatQd the Commission reApp~oved
Tract 10409 in 19 82 and those conditions were modified and ~ointed ou~ the~e
tracts were on ~h e opposite side af' Imperial Highway fcom khis property being
consideced today, but the conditiona wECe modified at that time to indicate
thAt the Eull rig ht-of-way on Im~erial Hfghway, 106 feet from the eastern
boundary oE tt~e t ract to Anaheim city limika shall be irrevocably offered f~r
dedication to the City of Anaheim far the full width oE Imperial, including
the one-haif on t he side of the tract, plus the one-helf on the opposite side
of the street where there ia no fucther developable property. He read the
ori9inal conditio n plACed on tt~e tr.act and ..ted thal is what they are
prapasing for th i s particular tract and the precedent wa~ set on TrACt I0409.
Mr. Mason ~L•ated he is saying originally the intent was that the City was to
participate in t h e constcuction of that street through an AHFP Pr~ject.
Mr. Mason etated tha~ is not the condition that is being requested nor the one
they are objecting to; that the condition on Tract 10409 was for the full
width of Irnperia 1 tor 106 feet ~rom the eastern boundary of this tract to the
City limits and t hey did not q~~estion it. He stated tl~ey rec~gnize that
things have chang ed and they recognize the ability ot that tract to bear that
condi.tion, but w hat is being requested now is that the portion of imperial
Highway, not adjacent to this tract, be constructed. He stated this portion
of Imperial Highway is bordeced on one side by Tract 10407 which is a recorded
tract and adjacent to it and on the other side is the open space which has
been given to th e County of Orange; that in 1979 tnis tract was condiLioned
and then again i t was re-conditioned and the tract was re-established,
pointiny out they have the right to build this tract today as it was approved
in 19A2, and tha t i~ what they p~opose to do if, in fact, it is found
necessary ko condition this change. He stated they would prefer to build 25
single-fa.mily de tached houses and felt tt~ey would be improving the
neighborhood by providing single-fami~y residences. He sta~~d this condition
extends the abligation on the landowner fcr another 900 fe;.c of Imperial which
is very expensive and puts them in a position ~+here the land in Tract 10617
has a negakive value.
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANAtfEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, APRIL 30~19~4 84-252
Jay Tikus stated the ~tcetch of Imperial Highway under consideration doea abut
Tract 10617 and extenda from the boundary of 10617 approximatQly 800 feet to
the south. M[. Maeon state~ as the centerline of Impecinl proceeds south, khe
ontire area they are ob~eating ko southoasterly of thio tract is the poction
of Imperial Hlghway whi~h wea originally intended back in 1978 to be subject
to an irrevocable offer to dedicake and to be built with artecial highway
Eunding. t1e ~tated with this condition they h~ve picked up about another 1700
feet o~ lmperial.
Commisaionec La CZaire referced to the discusaion wlien the Robin Hills Tract
wae approvec. Mr. Mason atated Robin Hills ia bonded for the conntruction of
the cucbs, gutters and 24 fee~ of asphalt cancrete. Commiasionec La Claire
ataled there was a subskantial discussion ~t that Cime and the developer
questioned why they had to construct the other slde of ImperiTl and she
remembe~ed thNre wae not an s9reement whether or not to enter int~ a
constcuction agreement with Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc.
~ay Titus stated that was back in 1978, and the conditlon, in ~act, mentioned
an AHFP project by Tract 10409 which was re-approved and re-conditi~ned in
1982, placed the full responslbility upon the tract it~elf.
Mr. Mason stated Tracts 10617 and 10409 were re-established and re-approved on
the o~me date by the ~lanning Commission and with reapect to Tcact 10409, the
obligation was expanded to include the 106-foot width of imperial fcom the
easterly boundary of thak tcact to the ~ity limits and with regacd to Traet
10517, the obligation remains foc 53 Eeet of imperial abutting the tract which
is a distance of about 968 feet ~outherly from Big Sky I.ane. He stated they
feel advantaga is being taken of the praposal which they ttioughL• would make
life somewhat easier and that is to have single-family detaehed housing cather
than the duplexes and now they are being confronked by the staff with a
condition on the tract for another S00 oc 900 feet of imp~rial Higiiway
improvement. He stated it is clear that on Auqust 28, 1978, when the four
tracts were approved, it ~as the intent of the City that the southeasterly 53
fset be dedicated with ;inirrevocably uffer af dediaation, but it would be
built thcough a funding program pruject.
Mr. Mason responded to Commissf.oner He~bs~t that Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc. was
to participate in t' construction of the one-half of Imperial Highwcy
adjoining the tracta that were under discussion and he felt the diacussion
Commissioner La Claire ceferred to was due to the fact that this was an
arterial highway from which these tracts were taking no access und it fa a
street being built for the benefits af the County or City.
Commiseioner Herbst asked if it does nnt ga Across to the City of Orange and
if it would be necessary to have that portion of I~nperial widened.
Paul Singer, Tra:£ic Engineer, replied ~hould Imperial not extend as planned
an~ as is sh~wn on the Genecal Plan, certainly all conetruction in Anaheim
Hills will come to an end because there will be no place foc the traffic to go
and this land and othec lots would become questionable, He stated the entire
community ia based on the projectionA for Imperial Highway and he doe~ not
know what would hapFen if it doesn't go thcough. He stat~d there could ~e an
diveraion of Imperial Elighway and instead oE yoing into Villa Park, it could
divert westerly at some other point.
4/30/84
M1NUT~5_._ANAHBIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 30 1984 84-253
Mr. Mason atated there has been discussion of the poa~ibility of ImperlAl
tying into Via Escola and proceeding weaterly to M~aCs Avenue, with Meato
proceeding southerly to Santiago, Kellogg, etc. Ne atated Imperial would need
to be widened wliothec it connecta with Loma oc not.
Cammisaionec F[y asked if this cequest ia denied whetti~r or nat khey could
develop the pcoject c>rigina.ll,y approved or lt they would need to come back foc
a vari~3nce.
Greg Hastinge resp~nded th~y could build the exiating approved new tract which
is a 25-unlt attached condominium :zubdivision and no variance would be
required.
Commiesioner Herbc~t aske~9 if Annika Santalgl~ti felt ttie City would be
adeyuately protected. Annika Santalahtl responded that a covenant ohould be
cecorded on the property under the underlying zoning limiting the unita to 25
and the cil•y would be a party to that covenant and it must be appcoved and
they would have to came back to the City foc review.
Mr. Masan stated khey would have no problem with a cequirement ko record a
covenant on the propcrty as one of the conditions.
ACT10N: Commissiuner Hecbst oftiered Resoluticn No. PC84-83 and moved foc its
passage and adoplion that the AnAheim City Planning Commission does hereby
gtant Reclasaification 83-84-25 subject to petit'~ner's stipulati.on to execute
and record a covenant against the propecty re~tricting the n~mber of unita for
this tract to 25 and gubiect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
Jack White stated the resolution for the reclasaific~tion should have an
additiont~l condition to read: •Thbt the owner of the property should cecord a
covenant on tt~e property appruved by the City Attorney's ~ffice limiting
subdiviaion and development of subject property to no moce than 25
single-family units plus 3 open-space lots whi~h would not be devsloped with a
residence and the covenant should be cecorded prior to intraduction of an
urdinance.'
On roll call, the foregoing rpsolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner Herbst offered Reaolution No. PC84-84 and move~ foc its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Pl~nning Commir~sion does hereby grant
Variance No. 3395 on the basin khat there are ~pecial circumstar~ces applicable
to the property such a~ size, shape, topogrAphy, location und surroundings
which do not apply ka other identical~Y zoned property in the aame viciniky;
and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the pcopecty of
privileges en~oyed by other prop~rties in the identical zone and
claasffication in the vicinity and subject to Intecdepartmental Commfttee
recommendations.
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHBIM CI'fY PLANNING CUMMJSSION, APRIL 3U, 1984 84~254
On col1. call, the fucegoing reaolution was paased by tt~e Eollowing vota:
AYES: BOUAS, DUSkIORE~ ~RY~ HERBST, KING, LA CLAIR~, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ARSENT; NOME
CommisRioner La Claire etated she would 11ke to suggest the Commission and
Council looked at not only tt~is, but at aome oE the other things that are
happening in the Hill and Canyon Area and the cumulative effect theae thinga
will have.
ITEM NU. 19. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC2' REPURT N0. 265 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMGNT
N~ . 188
PUB~,IC HEARING. OWNERS: D. L. ENTERPRISES, LTG., 15 E3rillantez, Irvine, CA
92714. AGENT: JAMES DENNEHY, 15 Brillanl•ez, Irvine, CA 92714. Pro~eCty
described as approximately 6U0 acr.es boundeo on the nocth hy the Fialle~ce
Ranch, eaet and south of the Irvine Company property and west by Texaco
Anaheim Hills, Inc. pcoperty.
Amendment of tl~e Land Use Element of the General Plan: Alternate proposAls of
ultimate Zand uses including, but not limited to Hilleide Est~te Uenaity
Residential, Hillside Low Denaity Reaidential, HillaidP Medium Density
Itesidential, General CUmmercial, and General Open Space.
'Phere was one person indicating his pressnce in oppositian to subject requeat
and although the staff report was not read, it ia ceferred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Jarrod Iketa, Edah Ir~corpocated, 18002 Cowpn, consultant, explained their firm
prepared the envirvnmental impack re~ort.
Jay Tashiro, Associate r~anne:, presented th~: staff repurt t~ the Planning
Commission dated, April 30, 1984, and explained this is a property owner
requested amendment ta the LAnd Use Element of tt~e General Plan; however,
thece ace many issues un:~ol~ed and all the critict~l issues have been
identified in the staff r~port: (1) pceliminacy public facilities plan, (2)
the appropriateness oE the 2608 inccease in density on a site where
approximately 508 has slopea af 30$ or greater, (3) water capacity (the
cumulative impact of incre~sed density), (4) reaervoir site, (5) park site -
between 10 and 15-1/2 acres af flat :sable park land will. be necess,~ry
adjacent ko the proposed school site, (6) ~chool site - apgcoximately 20 acres
are necessar}, (7) relationship of the proposed development to Weir Canyon
Regional Park altecnatives, (8) relationship of prop~sed development to the
Eastecn Transportation Corcidor alternatives and (9) traffic c~ncerns. He
explained City Service Department representa~ives are pcesent to answer any
questions.
Mr. Iketa stated the primary concerns seem tio be related to the density and
noted the plan is a General Plan Amendment and they have not gotten in~.o the
details or precise development plans and the intent was tc~ analyze the
potenti~+l holding capacity of the land with cesp~ct to the physical
environmental conditions as well as looking at the total ~rainage area of Weir
4/30/E34
MINUTES. ANAH~I_M_CITY PL~NNING COrMISRI~N, APRIL 30 `1984 ,_,_ 84-255
Canyoti. Ne stated thoy have been involved in the planning of thia property
for over a yenc and ~uring thnt time, thoy have been involved with the
aucraunding land ~wnQra. He presented a chacC ahowing the comparison of the
density of this project with the ~auRr Rdnch projec~~ He stated they feel, by
comparison, the two dre vecy cloae in density since there ig commercial land
in ttie Bauec ~Anch project. He atated they have tried to preserve 37~ of k.he
aite as open space with inclusi~n of the park lAnd pushing the kotal u~ to
appr.oximately 408.
Commisgioner McBurney left the meeting at 5:02 p.m.
Mr. Iketa atated tt~ey h~ve tried to pul the project on a very pcellminary
engineering basis and have not proposed the water and raservoi~ sitea and
their preliminary engineering work was done to i~entify the £easibility and
costs of development in the area and whether or not the costs will balance
with the number of unita.
Ne ~tated they tiave been wocking with the City Water DQpurtment end will
continue tn work with them on an angoing basis. Reqarding the packeite, he
sl•ated the parksite has been proposed to be develaped in conjunction with and
adjacent to khe school and they have come to a geneXal agreement with the
representatives of the Wallace Ranch on the Ucreage that is to be shared
between the two pcojects becauae the schaol and park sitE~s are right on the
border line. He stated they have been in contact with the Orange Unified
School District and do have a letter indicating thelr concurrence with the
location of Che school site; however, no agreement has been reached at thia
time.
Regar~ing the Weir Canyon Re~ional Park, Mr. Iketa explained that is located
to the aouth of Uak Hills and there is a very small acea of approximately 30
acres in th~ aoutheast corner of the Oak Hi11s property which is within the
view shed o£ the park, but ~hey do not have any preGise development plans, so
do not know the nature of the impack on the parks howevec, feel confident that
that piece of land can be developed to be screened and will present no visual
impact to the regional pack site.
Concerning the Eastern Tcanspoetation Corridor, he stated the study area does
include the Oak Hil.ls P.anch at the present time; however, they reviewed the
Park and Road Study and found thece were several alternatives and it was
dete[mined Lrom that study, those particular alignments were not feasible and
would require an extensive amount of grading and incli.nes of about 68 which
would be unacceptable and the extensive grading would impact the habitat and
view shed of the regional park, so the study concluded that the southerly
alignments avoiding Oak Hills would be more feasible. He atated there is a
study being conducted by the County for a more precise alignment of the
Eastern Transportakion Corridoc; and that they feel confident that a more
southecly alignment would be likely.
Mr. Iketa stated they reviewed the traffic concerns thoroughly and found the
traffic could be handled by t[~e roadway system propoaed with the inclusion of
the eastPrn corridor but if the eastern corridor is not includ~d, there is a
major problem at the intersection of Weir Canyon and Santa Ana Cany~n Roads.
4/30/84
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC;_CUMMISSION, AYHIL 'JU, 1984 84-255
George MdBQn~ Texaco-Anaheim Nille, Inc., 39Q S. Anahpim Hills Road, Aneheim,
etated with respect to the dengity that i~ being requeRted hece, they would
look up~n it aH about 7~-1/2 or 8 units per acre for the acreage that will be
devoted to rPaidential uRe and thie compares with A den~ity of aboul• 2.46 pec
aace that has been rea~ized tu date on the 1,891 acces that are within
subdivided tcachs in Anah~im klills that have been npproved to date and that is
n~t including any open apace, commercial properky or roadA and is j~~st within
the tracts. He etated the 1977 requeat by Texaco-Anaheim Flilis, Inc. for
hiyher densities in the area that adjoin the oak Hills Ranch to the west w:~~
denied by the Planning Commi~sion nnd in 1980, General Plan Amendment No. 155
was adopCed coveriny 950 acces and provided for a maximum of 2,690 unite or
abaut 2.83 units per gross ~cre and if the open apace is deducted and any uses
that are not residential, for instance, the 13-acre park, the 15 acres of
commercial, 30-acre al~owance for aecon~ary ~oa~s and 20d acres foc open apace
and 96 acres foc conditional ea~ements, it ia about a 596 acre net that would
Ue devoted to 2,690 units allowed or a denslty of abouk 4.5 as compared to
7-1/2 or 8 as requesred by tt~e ~pplicant.
Mr. Mas~n stated they wish to point out that the diaparity in thes~ densities
will result in their judgement, and is a cignificant change in the residential
envirunment of this area which will probably mean that in the future the 950
acces which remain within the Ci.ty of Anaheim and which are undeveloped, and
a:e part of the Anaheim Hills developrnent, ~ill probably be sub~ect of a
reque8t to increase density tp be more compatib~e with what is beiny built in
the neighborhood. He stated tt:ey mu~t remain c~mpatible and it is going to be
difficult to market the large numbec ot lower density larger houses as imp].ied
in General Plan Amendment No. 155 with a m~ch more intense cesidential
devel~pment immediately adjoininy the tract.
Regarding the Public Facilities Plan, Mr. Mason sGated Chere are certain
statements made with regard to Reimbursement Districts in which !t is
apparently contemplated that reimbursements for cerrain sanitary sewers and
storm drains wil~ be obtained from the Anaheim Hills project and the basfs foc
reimburseme.nt is not spelled out in the Facilities Plan. He stated their
engineering to date does not indicate any connection with any of the~e
faci~ities that mighk be built ir. connection with the Oak Hills or Wallace
de~ lopments; however, if there is any such connection, they fepl very
strongly that ceimbursement should be limitEd to a proportionate ~hare uniC
basis and not an acreage basis. He stated there is also an indication in that plan
t1~at there would be an indexing of co$t of facilities whir_h are to be sub~ect
to reimbursement payments,and many ceimbursement agreements that have been
issued in connectio~ with th~ development of Anaheim Hills projects cannot
provide for such an indexing of the amounts spent and they stil~ have several
millian of dollars of reimbursements coming back to the land owners,
hopefully, over a period of time, and do not think the rules of the games
should be changed by indexing the amounts spent contrary to what has been done
in the past. He stated there is also an indication there would be
reimbursement in connection with the dedication of land for school sites and
if there is a virtue to consistency, the school sites in Anaheim Hills were
dedicated unconditionally by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, inc. to the school district
with na pro~ision for a reversion of the sites to Texaco-Anaheim Hills if the
school district failed to use them within a certain specific period of time
and there was no reimbursement from the developers and they do not think that
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~ APRIL 30. 1984 84-257
it would be proper, in connectior- with these later developments, to make thoae
change~ in prectices.
Joel Fick, Aosistant Director for Planner, stated largely because of the
subtnittal time and alBO becauo~ of the lack of epecificity that some of the
items can be addressed and until such time as thece i8 a General plan
Amendment or Planned Community 'Loning or more detailed zoning unc]ertaken, it
lg staff's recommendation that the Public Facilitiea Plan was ~ubmittEd for
information only and is not to be acted upon by the Planning Cammission oc
City Council. He stated basica.lly ~he ~peciEi.c cotnments are that many of the
iseues ace premature and have to be worked out bekween the landowners and
sta~f in the ~uture. He ~tated the indexing of coste ao propas~d was very
similac to that ~ppcoved an the Bauer RAnct~ Plan ~~nd reimbursemPnt agreements
are things that have not been workPd out in the Bauer Ranch, yet even though
they have had an adopted ~ublic Facilit~es Plan Eor aome time.
Mc. Iketa stated they tried to do a lot of studies and provide a lot ot early
in~ormation so that as a more precise development plan occurs, they can focus
on apecifics. He pointed out this is ~ Genecal Plan Amendment and is general
and they do understand the coat agreementa can be worked out. Regarding
density, he atated ~hey tried to concentr.ate and cluster a yreat deal of open
space a~d the land to the west of oak Hi.lls and adjoining Anaheim Hills has
been develuped in such a way that that can be done compatibly with some
hillside estate deve.lopment ar~ the most aou~hwestern noction of the pro~erty
and there are othec hi9h density developments along the weste~n bound~ry, but
they ace on the slopes facing the east. He stated compatibility to the north
is a concern and they have worked with the eauer and Wallace Ranch development
plans.
Joe~ Fick stated even though the Public Faci:ities Plan is Eor information
only, he wanted ta relate that the plan greatly assisted staff in a rapid
review by focusing on a number of public facilitiea issues, but on the subject
of providing a pool of money the property owners can take credit Eor, staff
has very preliminacily looked at that and the ~nztial thinking was that
probably each particular service will be analfzed independently and
teimbucsemenk districts from benefiting ~ire~3s or properties can be worked out.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WA3 CLOSEU.
Commissioner Fry atated he thought the Commission has been handed one of the
finest compliments ever since the developer and staff have been working on
this plan foc about 1-1/2 years and have come up with a11 these
recommendationa and the Commi~sfon has only had it since Friday night and are
expected to dig~st it and come up with an answer. He asked if the Commiesion
really doesn't have to concern itself with park sites, location, sizes,
densities, public facilities, ekc. and if those ~hings can be worked dut at a
subse~uent date.
Jo~l ~ick stated it was staff's feeling that the main issue in a General Plan
Ame~dment proposal, particularly a iarye one like thiE, is to determin~
whether the f~cilities are adequate to service the prop~sal that is before the
Commission and that is what staff has attempted to identify. He stated
regatding the park site, that there was one ma~oc General Plan Amendment in
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANAN~IM CITX PG~NNING COMMI5SIpN, APRIL 30, 1984 84-258
the Anaheim Hills erea and ttie perk aite was a large isaue ~nd the ataff
recommendation at that time was that the acreaqe, based upon the projected
number of reaidents in the urea, actunlly be cammitted at that time with the
general locatio~~ committed and the specifics to be worked out later. He
stated in the past, staff has treated that aa being a commitment for a
apecific acreage ot flat unab~e area which is what Che Par.ks DepArtme~L Is
recommending, ao there is recognition on the General Plan for both the land
owner and any futuc~ buyec~ in the area indicating that is the direction of
r_I~e community.
Commiasionec La Claire Asked if khe ataff has A Eormula for making a
recommendation for a park site and what is feaaible f~~r the area.
Chris Jarvi, Director of. Parks, Recreatic~n and Cammunity Services, stated thP
City has a formula of 2 acrea per 1000 people introduced into the s~bdivision
and that is baeed on a City Ordinance so there ian't a 1ot of variation. Ne
staksd it would be his intEnt to get th~ acreage b~sed on lhe ordinance and
thece ls Park Site Planniny crite:i.a under which the park sites are selected
and that cril•eria was approved by ~he Planniny Commission And City Council and
the Parks and Recreation Commission. He ataCed this critecia was the result
ot some problerns faced when some park land was rlonated and was not suitahle
F.or development i~ the Ana}ieim Nills are~a.
Commissioner La Claite stated she remembeced guing thcough this wilh Anaheim
Hills, Inc. and because they could not pi.ck a site because the GenEral Plan
Amendment was general and there were a lot of unanswered questions, ttie
Commission had them designake a ce.rtain amount of flatland and it had to be
adjacent to their highest density development.
Mr. Jarvi stated the pcimaCy apptoach would be to tcy to acguire land that
would meet the nepds of a cammunity park site which would be similar to
Brookhurst or Peralta Canyon and they would be interested in moving it
ar3jacent to the school site to maximize the utilizat~ion of public open space,
particularly for active recreation.
Coinmissioner La Claire stated ahe did not know if she agreed with the request
for flatland. Mr. Jarvi. stated that criteria has been established and they do
want flat park land oecause they have been in a situa:ion, particularly in the
Canyon area, where flat land is at a premium and with new development coming
in, the City will be pressed for additional flat land and when it is located
adjacent to a school site, the public's ability to use that park can be
maximized for soccer, football, etc.
Commissioner La Claite stated there is a difference betwpe~ hillside
development and flatland development and asked if Mr. Jarvi would be happy
with the site adjacent to tt-,e sc'.ool that meets the park site selection
criteria and Mr. J~rvi responded that would be accsptable.
Commissioner Herbat left the meeting at 5;20 p.m. and did not return.
Commissioner La Claire skatea it seems this project is far from being able to
identify the sites because a lot of questions are not answered and she
wondered if thP school site, park site and public facillties i~sue could be
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 30, 1984 84-259
answerod et a later db~e if today the Commiasion can say that it is their
inkent that the spirLt of the ordinances and cequirementa will be met.
Mr. Fick stated the park site was actually deaignAted so the City would b~
uble ko go back at u later ~ate and dekermine thAt.~~ site was physice+lly
designated on the plan and he thought it was at the elbow of area~ 9 and 10
where there was high denaity. Mr. J~rvi stated the ocdinance would havE to be
met when the develo~~ment comes in. Cummi.ssioner La Claire stated she thought
the Ci~y would be protected and Mr. Jarvi agreed it might not be a good idea
to tie down acreage at this point because it is not known what the ultirnate
density might be.
CommisAioner Bushor.e stated in the pASt, staff has tried to get the
~nviranmental imPact reports ko the Cammission as aoon ar, poasible c-.o they
would have more time Eor review and thought staff probAbly has had theae
reporrs for a long timv ar~d added he hoped they were not ouC of the habit of
doing that. He Nsked about the decision that each area,as it is being
developed~would have to stand on its own ~nd this prnject, with its proposed
density i~as a negative impact of $3d4,0U0 to the City.
Commissioner La Claire stared ~he diEfercnce is ir, tt~e commercial projects
propoaed on r.he Bauer Ranch and r,tated it was alway~ known khat if the area
was builL-out in confocmance with ~he Gensral Plan, it wauld have a negative
impact on the City, no matter wha~ buildi:~g took ~lace in the Canyon, and the
only way it• was turned around tc lessen the impact was to allow a lot more
commeccial uses in the Kaufman und eroad Development; h~wever, any residential
development has a negative impact.
.1oe1 Fick stated staff did receive dire~tfon from City Gouncil sevPca~ years
ago that any new development in the Canyon Area would effectively stand on it~
own and not be a burden to the existing re~ident~ in the City. He stated the
Rauer Ranch plan and ~everal othe~s have been submitted and the 9auer Ranah
plan was actually a deficit for the first few years and then would return a
positive cash flow. He stated he would agcee that the deficit is because
there is less comm~rcial and added he thought the amount o£ the deficit would
depend upon huw the dwelling units are spread out over the ranch and the
infrastructure design, 3o that Ehe infrastruGtuce demands are the same.
Commissioner Bushore stated it would only pay to keep the units close together
to keep the development costs down and it would also only pay in the hills to
put as much development as possible on the pcoperty. Mz. Fick stated it
really depends on the specific design because the maintenance cosk to the City
aFter the inf.rastr.ucture is in is basically the same, so it would aatually
depend upon the clustering and design.
Cort~iasionec eushore stated with taday~s engineering techniques, mountains can
be moved and if it was more consistent with the pZan originally consldeted, he
thought the units would be more clustered togetiher an8 khece would be a
positive impact to the City. He added he has some real concer~s about cutting
the ridge lines because it could change the whol~ atmosphere in the Canyon, as
well as changing the g~ographic consequences in terms af weather. He stated
he also has concerns ahout the proposed density and 3bout what will happen
when the other properties ace developed. He stated there aeems to be a race
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITX PLANNYNG__CO~MISSIU_N_,_ APRIL 30i 1904 94-260
to see who can develop firat and as a result, there is no~ a specific, more
compr~henaive, more meaningtul developmQnt in the Canyon. He pointed out the
General Pl~n showa apecific zoninq aceas and they end up in concrete. He
etated the .~ctua~ densi~y for this devPlopment is aL~out 8 unita per acre. He
Added he has nu problert~ Wi~h the General Plan Amendment, if it is within rhe
Cily's sphere ~E inEluence and within the pr.operty ownera wants and the wants
of ~he Cily, but he wants to go bar.k to having A project stand un ita own. He
stated he does not want ~his General Plan Amendment tied to a specific number
o£ units becauae there are ~ti lot of queationa that have to be answered.
Commissionet L~ Claire atated she would like to see the Commission adopt the
General Plan Amendment, but it is hard for her to adopt Exhibit A. She added
she thought it rniyht be adopted with a condition khat there is no specific
number of unitr~ Approved.
Commissioner Bushore atated he remembers other General Plan Amendments,and
referred to the Bauer R~nch~where several ext~ibit3 were pcesented for
Commission review. He st~~ed this is pre-annexation zoninq and it sh~uld be
zoned for the lowestcicn~ity residential use and then tt could always be
increased. He stated the Commission does not know what the proposed yrading
is or even if some of it is possible.
Commissione[ cry ~tated he doea not have any trouble with the annexation inta
the City As long as apeciCic number~ are not fixed at this time because he is
not happy with the denaity.
CommissioneK Bunhore stated he does not like showing the southwest cornec of
the property because it is within the City of Orange's sphece of influence and
should not even be shown.
Joel Fick stated the developer has indicated intere~t in annexing into just
one juriadiction and there is a partion af the property where the ridge line
was the historical bounda[y of ~he sphere of influence between the City of
Orange and the City of Anaheim and there have be~n boundary adjustment~ that
have taken place between the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange in the
Anaheim Ni11s area and the City and the developer have had some preliminary
discussions with LAFCO and they view the sphere of influence boundaries, in
some cases, as being quite gen~ral and would be receptive to considering
annexa:.ion to just one jurfsd~~:t:.on.
Commissioner La Claire stated she thought thiE property should be brought into
the City and the General P1an Amendment adopted. She referced ko Page 17-t of
the staft report which points out that if this amendment with a maximum of
2900 uni.ts is approved, it is not automatically guaranteed for development of
that numr~er of units. She stated she felt this amendment should be approved;
however, it should read: "That the number of developable units would not be
detetmin~~7 at this time."
Juck Whit~ s~ated he has no problem with the Commission not putting an upper
limit on t-.he approvalt that a General Plan Amendment is a basic guideline for
subsequent development of tt~e lansl and there is no question that the approval
of a General Plan Amendment does not guarantee a specific density or a
speci£ic niamber of uriits an a piece of property. He stated the Commission
4/30/64
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PI~ANNING CUMMISSION, APRIL 30, 1984 84-261
should be aware that thi.s ia the fict~r_ stage in the development ~rocess for a
propert,y and onr.e the det~cmfnation iH m~~de, and a~and use deaignatio~ is
madQ on ~he General Pl.an, the next atep io an application Eor zoning oE ~he
pcoperty in A mAnner that implem~nta the land use designation and thoae
~eaignations are set f.~r '.he Land Uoe El~ment oE khe General Plan. Ne stated
as a.ong as the developer ~ubmite ane that complie~ wit}~ And is consistent with
the land use deaignatio,i, il• io prob~bly incumbent upon the City ta consider
one af thGS@ deoiqnation~ f~r ~he properky and tl~e c~nly limit~tion ie khAt the
action is not done in an arbitrary or capriciou~ way and iE the designation is
tota].ly incunsiskent with the designstion on the General Plan, an argument
could b~ made th~t tt~e Ackian was arhitrary or capricioua. He stated the mere
facC that the property i~ zoned RS-10,0U~ does not ,yuarant~e that the property
will be allowed, in the ~hird sta~e of development, to be divided into 10,000
squace Eoot l~ks. He stake~ the find:nrs have t~ be made conAistent with tlie
Subdivieion Map Act a~ Ea:~ aa whethec o~ not the property ia of a size
~uitable Eor a propose~ density, etc. He ad~cd there are three distinct
stages of approval for any ~evel~pment of the pc~perty beEore it come~ into
L•he City and this iE the first ~tagQ and the action today sets the stA~~e far.
the next t.wo stages and is not to be construed as a guarantee Eor a cer ain
numt~er of. unit~.
Commissioner iiushore ~tated probably the mo3t appropriate designation f~r ':he
property would simply be PUD (Pl~nned Unit Development).
Jack White statad the PUD i~ a j:oper zone, but is ~oC a deaignation f.or the
General Pl~n. Commissianer Bushvre stated many times we have ha~l
ure-an~-exation zoning uf RS-A-43,OU0. Jack Wkiite stated the Cotnmission is
cun3ideriny a General Plan I~me~dment today and is not conAidering zoning.
Commission~r Bu~hore etar.ed ev.~ryone wants to come into the City with certain
~imple guaranl•ees and he could not s~c anything wrong with a aimple
deslynation of PUD.
Jack White stated there is a General Plan ~f Development which wou2d be in the
nature of a pr.ecise or apecific pl.ar. £ur how the property is going to be
developed and the terms 'Master Plan" or "Ger.eral Plan" are often used
synonymously and cften cefer to the sartiFl thine~ w;iich i~ l•he stage we are at
t~day and there is not a repoct in fro~L of the Cort;r~+:ssion to rezone the
pcoperty or an appl.ication pending for rezon:nq and sr.aff !s not recommending
khat at this time and he did not think anX member uf the staff is in a
position to discuss the zoning today. He stated the request toaaf is to
determi::e whether ar not to change the lari~i use designation on thc General
Plan and that designation could be implemented with a vaciety of different
zones and one of them could be the PUU Zone, as well as others.
It was noted the current designation for this property is Open Space, Estate
Density, Low Density and a pocti~n ~ith no desig~ation.
Commi~ssioner Bushore stated the General Plan as displayed on the Council
Chamber wall is just an arbitrary picture and the point earlier discussed is
that its colors do become indelible ink and he doesn't want that.
Commzssiuner Lu Claire stared khe General P2an is general and Ls always
changing, and proi~ably rightly so, because it means we can change with khe
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS3JON. APkIL 30, 1984 84-262
timea And get in etep with the pe~ple and it should always be r.hanged. She
aeked if the City will have a handle on the number oE units that will be butlt
iC Exhibit A is adopled.
JoQl hick atated the ~lanniny Commiesion always has a hand.le because they will
be aubsaquontly reviewing the zoning and subdivision oE the landt however, the
~~~e item that doea ^ome into play in c~nsidecing the philosophy ot thP General
t'lan is that the Gen~ral Plan is the oEficial guide to development of l•he
property and givea dicection t~ lan~ownecs and okhecn as ko wh~t might be
developQd on the property and staff uaea ik for dire~tion for inErastructure
planning. He atatcd those $ervice depactments ~~~-~o plan tt~e intrastructuce
will need to be look.iny at the amended plan and probably the outside num~~ec oE
building units to know what types of facllitien ace needed in order to provide
ultimate mu~icipal F~cvice.
Commiesfoner eushore stated he knowa wtiat happ~ns when colors a~e put on the
General ~~lan and thi~ Genecal P~an Amendme~t dues not atand on it~ own and if
che Commiasioners are true land plenners, they showld be looking ahead to
development of the Wallace Kanch and ocher ranchea and looking at wha~ co.locs
they are going to be putting on the mAp Ar thitt time.
Commissi~..~t Fry skated he has never cunoidered the Ganeral Plan cast in
concrete and Eelt aseuced the 2400 maximum developable ~nits is not
neceasarily going to happen. He stated the Com~iesion hAS ex~ressed their
concecn abour, the park sitE Mnd it will have to be adjacent to the school site
and th~t it will be developed according to the c~cdinance3 as they now exiat
and the Commicsion has been assuced that the aervices are avaflab~e and this
will no~ put a heavy burden on them and at this time, he w~uld have no problem
appro~~ing this request.
Commissioner King stated he felt the er.vironmenta: im~act report should be
certified and the General Flan AmendmenC approved based on the statement in
the staff report, Page 19-t as referred t~ earlier by Commissioner La Claire.
Commissioner Fry askPd if the Planning Department stafE felt the Commission
would be doing tt~e right thing by cerCifying the EIP. and appcoving the GPA.
Joel "ick stated the Commission is correct in that th:ere is no guarantee as to
the number of units; that a Genera] ~lan ia very specific howevec, for
example, the density ranges for estate are l~sted as up to 1.5, low-denaity is
up to 5 up to 6 up to 16, so the General Plan is very specific but it does not
guarantee hhe number of units. Ne stated the specific color exhibfted on the
map goes theoretical.ly much highec than the 2400 units, but the developer has
inclicated 2400 is the maximum they hav~ looked at in their dev~lopr~ent qlans.
He stated thete are one oc two other iesues that have not been disc~ussed as
addre;sed in the staff c~port and they primarily hinye on watec servi.ce and
there is a wAter resecvoir indic,~:ed as being needed in this area end the
developer haa looked at the p~ssibly of splitting ~his into two reservoir
sites. He stated the staff rep~rt indicates the Water Division is currently
looking al• thP overa.ll w3ter capacity in the area and addres~ing alternate
methods of handling additicnal water to the Canycn area. He atated there are
representa~ives present from the Utilities Department if the C~mmission wishes
to address any que~ti~ns to them. He referred to Paye 19-z af the staff
; ~30/84
MINUTCS, ANAHd1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 30. 1984 84-263
report which ~ddcesses the i~ems the eta[E identiEied as being diecusaiun
i~ems and he thought the Commisaion hAS addren~ed mosl of them in some fashion.
Commi~sioner aushore stated this i» like a buai.ness license becaur+e it d~e3
not yuarentee anything, but it doeo set specifics, a~t it ie aluo genera.l ~nd
should not be relied on.
Commiesioner La Claire stated one of L•fie problems this pcupecty has ia water;
that th~re i~ a cumulative affect on tl~e whole Canyon area and thie project
yoes over the maximum number o[ units orlginally planned Cor the area~ She
etated she knowa there will be increased density in the Euture in this area
and that has always been knownt however, it waa not known wt~at the economy wAs
going to do and that the homes would not sell and now the Genecal P].an haa to
be changed, but thp services have to be ccnAidered Eor the infrastructures,
nct only Eor this development, but foc the rest oE the urea. She atated there
are a lot oE problema that need to be reaolved. She stated she al.so wants to
be sure the developer know~ the Cornmiasion ifi cor~cerned about the density in
khat area and the 24 units may not be possible.
Commi~si~ner LA Claire offered a inotion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and
MOTION CARRiEn (Commissioner Bushore voting no, Commissionecs McBurney and
Herbst abaenl), that the Anaheim City Planniny Commis~ion ~Eter reviewing the
Draft Environmen~al Impact Report No. 265 for the proposed annexation and
development of oak Nills Ranch and reviewing evidence, bott~ wcitten ~nd oral,
presented to eupplement to Draft EIR No. 265 finds that Environmental Impact
Repart No. 265 is in compliance with the Califocnia ~nvironmental Quality A~t
and the City and 5tate CEQA Guidel.ines; that ecunomic, sccial and physical
canside=aCioi~s make it infPasible tu el,minate all the significant
enviror~mental impacts of the project wh~ch have been identified in EIR No.
265; ~~nd that it wi].1 be necessary ~o complete planning and provide for
fundiny oE a system of arterial hiyh~ays having adpquate capacity to serve
this project and other Leature developmcnts in khe regior. prior ko the
appcoval of zoning the property for ~evelopment; however, the benefita of the
project have bpen bal.anced against the unavoidable environmental impact.s and,
pu~suant to the provisions of Section 15093 oE the State CEQA Guidelines, the
occurrence of the significant environmental effects identified in EIR No. 265
an~ as set forth above may be permitted with~ut further mitigation due to the
following avecriding conciderati~ns: 1) the project will pcovide a balanced
cesidential community to fill a~zeed for housing an increasing populationj 2)
the pruject is compatible with surrounding land u~es, and 3) the mitigation
measure~ have been incorporated into the project tn reduce the environmenl•al
impact to an accept~ble levelt therefore, the Planning Commission recommends
that the City Courcil certify EIR No. 265 fnt the annexation and general ~lan
of Oak Hills Ranch and adopt this Statement of Overriding C~nsiderations.
Commissioner ~ushore atated he had voted against cectification of the
:nvironmental impact reF~ort, no+. becau~e oE Che report itself which was
adequate si~ce it does point out the problems, but there ace two o~!erriding
considerations and one is that tl~e economic, social and pt~ysical
considerations make it infeasiblo ta eliminate all of the significant
environment~l im~~actb of the project which havP been identified and that
basically is because the property development, as proposed, with the density,
grading, etc. is too gteat and that mitigation measures have been incorporated
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. APR IL 30, 1984 84~264
and a18o the repart indicatee that mitigation measu~es have been incocporated
nto tho proje~t to rRduce the environmentel i mpacta to an acceplable lAvel,
;et in a previ~u~ st.ntemont, the repo~t atete s it ia not feasible to expec.t
theae things to be mitigated. Fle atat~d CEpA woe designed to bring these
impacts to mind eo ~.hnt the peace~ health, An d satety ot the peuple could be
take~ into considecation ~~nd the repoct d~es :=hat, but the project is cn~~aing
these impacl•s and he tt~ought the projecl•, as proposed, is juat ton heAVy.
Chairwoman gouas stated any devel~pment in th at area would cause aome of thoae
impacts.
Commissioner Bustiore atAted decreasing the pr oject would mitigate the
impacts. Ne stated the report sim(~ly identif ies the concerns and points out
that the concerns have not been mitigat~.~d.
Commf+~sfone: La C]aire oEfered Recolution Na. PC84-85 and moved for its
passage ~nd adoption that the Anaheim City P1 anning Commission does hereby
adopt and r~commend adopt.ion of General F'lan Amendment No. 188 with emphasis
on the 3tatt~„ent that khe applicant ahould b e aware that approval of ttubject
amendment witt~ a maximum uf 2,~00 dwelling u n its does not automatically
guarantee development of those units. U nder the General Plan designation
the number of developablc units would range f ram 0 to 2,4f)0, with the actual
number of implementible units to be authorix ed by the City at the time of
approval of Planned Community (PC) zoning an d aubdivision appcovals.
Commissloner La Claire stated she wanted to make sure the applicant
understands khat it is Planning Commiasion's intention that the property will
iior be built-out to the propooed naximum number of 2,400 dwelling units and
that there ar.e many issues that need tu be r esolved.
Joel Fick asked if Commissioner La Claire wi shed to incort~orate into the
resolution that the maximum theoretical unit count is 2,400 rather than what
could be hi9her. Commissioner LA Claire res ponded that was her intent.
On roll ca11, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: [i0UA5, FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE
NOES: BU5HORE
ABSEN'P; HERBST, MC BURNEY
Commissioner Bushore stated he voted no on t he basis that he did not think the
CommisKian was given altecnatives and other alternatives should have been
presented for review and also the project d oea not stand on its own.
Jack Whi~e explained this mr~tter wi21 automatically be heard before the City
Cauncil at a public heacing and notice will be given.
ITEM N0. 20. EIR :IEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLA~ AMENAMENT N0. 195
Amendment to the Housing Element o~ the Gen eral Plan. The amendment wil~
consider an update of housing needs, goals, policies, plans and programs
citywide.
4/30/84
MINUTES ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 30 1984 84-265
There was nu one ind~cAting theic pres~nae in oppos iti.on to subject cequest
and although the ataff report to rhe Blanning Commisaion dated April 30, 1984,
was not read, it is cefeccNd to and made a Nact ef the minutes.
Joel Eick, Aesietant Director for Planning, presen t ed the atAf[ report and
explained thiR is n ataff-initiated General Plan Amenciment to consider
revisions to the Houaing Element of the General Pla n.
THE PUBLIC HF.ARIN~ WAS CLOSED.
Jack Whlte, Asbistant City Atlotney, explained the motion to approve the
Negative Ueclara~ion should be a recommendation for appcoval by the City
Council.
ACTION: Commissioner King offere~] a mot.ion, se~~ond ed by Commiosioner Fry and
MOTION CARItiEO lCommissionecs Herbat and Mc t~ur.ney absent) that the Anut~cim
City Ylanning Commission has revfewed the proposal to amend the Houeing
Elem~nt of the General Plan to camply with State g uidelines pursuant to
Gorernment Code Section 655883 (b), and does hereby recummend approaal of the
Neyative Declacation to the City Couneil upon finding that it tias conaidered
the Negative lleclar~tion together with any comment s received during the piiblic
review process and further finding on the basis nf the initial Study and any
c~mments received that there is no subatantial .idence that the project will
h~ve a siqnif.icant effect on the environment.
Ccmrtiissioner King offeced Itesolution No. PC84-86 ~ nd maved for it~ pa~sage and
auoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissio n doea hereby recommend to
the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendme n t No. 195, amendment to the
Housing Element.
On roll call, ~he foregoing resolution was passed by the followi.ng vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST, MC EiURNEY
.tack White, Assistant City AtGocney, ~resented tt~e writl-en r.ight to aopeal the
Plar~ning Commission's decision withii. days to tt~e City Council.
IT~M N0. 21. REFORTS AND RBCOMMENDATIONS
A. CONDI'PIONAL US~ PERMIT h0. 1612 - Request f.c om Robect N. Reddin for a
retroactive exrension of time for Cor~ditianal Use Perrnit No. 1812,
property described as 1203 West Lincoln Avpn ue.
Commissioner E3usi~ore explained he h«d originally declared a~.onflict of
intetest nn this rt~tter and even though the r e is no longec' a conflict, he
would abstain on tt~is matte:.
ACTiOt' Commissior~er King offered a motio n, seconded hy Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionecs Herbst and McBurney absent and
Commissioner eushore abstaining) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant a retroactive one-year extension of time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1812 to expire on April 10, 19ti5.
4/30/84
u'
M_INUTBS. ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMIS5ION, APRIL 30. 19$A 84-200
B. RECLASStFICATION N0. 79-8U- . ANU VARIANCE N0. 3141 - Requeat from Robert
Fuller for retcoactive ~~xtenaions ot time Eor Reclassificdtion No.
79-80-31 and Variance No. 314]., property deacribed ~s an
icregulArly-scheduled shaped narcel of land consiating of apprc,ximately
6.34 acres located at the southeast cor.ner of Frontera Street and
Glassell Street.
ACTION: Gommiesioner King offered a motion, secondec~ by Gommissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioners Herbst .:~nd McBurney Absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commiseion does hf~reby yrant a one-year retcoactive
exter.s:on of time for ReclassificatiAn No. 79-80-31 ancl Variance No. 3141
t~ expire on April 7, 1985.
C. CONUITIONAI. [~~~E PERMIT NU. 2324 ~ Request for deletion or modif~.cation oE
Condition Nc 11 of City Council Reso.lution No. 42Ft-385.
Jack White, Asai~tant City Attorney, Qxplained this is the same pcoperty
as discuased under Item No. 17 and the City Gouncil imposed conditions in
their resclution and a.notion should be mc~dr_ recomr~~nding deletion of
Condition No. 11 reatricting the height.
Greg Hastings, Assistant Plnnner, explained the City Council approved the
hotel plans with the condiCion that the sign shall not be higher than 116
Eeet above grade and now the petitioner is requesting to have a sign at
148 feet-11 inches and that would cequire a modifica~ion or deletion to
the Ciky Council resolukion.
Jack White explained rhe action on Item N~. 17, if it becomes final,
would be inconsistent with Condikien No. 11 of the existing conditional
use permit for the hotel and t~~ey would not be able to do anything
~ecause it would violate that condition and they would only be allowed to
build the sign if the condition is amended.
Mr. Kumer, Chief Engineer of Disneyland, expla.ined thiF is the cond:tion
that they proposed to the City Counci.l when the cnnciitional use permit
was approved because they wece concerr,ed dbout the sign on the hotel.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded 'oy Commissioner
King and MOTION CARRIED (Chairwoman ~onas votiny no and Commissioner
Bushore abstaining), tha~ the request Eor deletion or modification to
Condition No. 11 of the City C:ouncil R~solution No. 82R-385 be granted on
tt~e basis that it will not be an illumfnated sign and wi].1 not be
detrimental to Disneyland and phokographs indicated this is probably les~
visible than other hotel signs in the area.
Jack White stated he understands this is a modification ta Con~ition No.
11 of the City Council reso2ution to permit A 148 foot-11 inch high roof
sign in accordance with the plans on file with the Planning v~partment.
Jack White expl~ined the City Council will automatically aet this for
publfc heacing and n~tices will be mail~d.
4/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG CQMMISSION, APRIL 30. 1984 84-267
n. CONDITIONAL USE p~~MIT N0. ~187 - Request Erom Ray Siegl~ fnr A
retcoactive extension of tir:e for Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2187,
pcoperty locaked de 9'9 Eas: South 5treet.
Greg Eiastings, As9latant Planner, reapon~ed to Commieaioner ~uahore that
Mr. Siegle's office was closed today arid staff. could nok conl~at t~im
regatding attending thia meeting.
C~mmissioner Ery s~ated he would like to have the petitionec ~~reaent and
Comrnzs~ioner La Claire suqgeated a rwo-week continuance in order for the
applicant to be present.
Jack White Explained the Commission could ~,~t: this f~,r a public hearfng
for purposes of revocati.on or modiEication ot the conditions.
Commiasioner Bushore c~tated khis was to expire March 23, 1985, and the
Commi.ssion could do nothing and kill it oc could deny the extension af
time or sec. the matter for public hearing to amend the conditional use
permit. Mr. White stated sekting the matter for public hearing would
give the Commission g:eatec options and explained the original
conditional use pecmit wa~ granted for a Nc-iod ~f one year, with a
condition that it would be subjeck t~ fucthFr extensions of time by nc~
Pl~~nning Commission, and if the conditfon h~s been that il• would expire
on a cectain date, there would be no problem. He stated if the
Commission wants to impose certain new conditions or to terminate the
use, they would havE~ L•ha~ option at ttie public hnaring. He explained the
only matter Eor consider~.tion today is whether t yrant the one-year
extensiun oP time.
ACTION; Commissioner Fry o~feced a motion, seconded by Commissioner
La Claire and MOTION CARRIEU lComtnissioners Herbst and McQurney absenti
that consideration of tt~e afoceme~tioned matter be Continu~d to the
regularly-scheduled meeting of May 14, 1984, in order that tt~e mal•ter can
be set for public he~ring for purposes of considering revocation ar
modification to the conditions of approval.
UTHER DISCU55I:)tJ:
(1) Cummissionzr Sushore stated he r.}~ought staff was going to start
putting stceet addre~ses on public notices.
(2) Commissioner Bushore stated he would lfke to know the status o~ the
study pectaining to the r_otnmpteial cecreational area and its
boundaries and the possib3.lities of bringing certain portlons of the
acea into cunf.acmance with the General Plan. Joel Fick stated staff
has been moving ahead With the Skadium Area Land Use Strategy and
are very close to haviny a scope of work done within the next few
days, but realized t}~at ~'~.d not include the Disneyland area.
(3) Commissioner La Claire asked the status of the computer analysis
which would provide up-to-date information to the Planning
Commission. It wa~ noted that John Anderson, Associate Flanner, is
still Working on that analysis.
4/30/84
MINUTE&. AN~HEIM CITX PLANNING COMMIBSaUN, ~PRIL 30, 1984 64-268
ADJOOKNMENT; There being no fucther businese, Commisei~ner King offered a
moti,~n, aeconded by Commieaioner Pry and M~TZON CARRIED, tha~
the meE_:ng be ad~ourned.
The meeting was ad;~urned at 6:22 p.m.
Reepectfully eubmittpd,
~ ~ ~1~~
Edith L. Nacris, secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commiaeion
ELH;lm
0043m
4/30/84