Minutes-PC 1985/11/25RE~ULAR MEETING OF ~li~ 'i~HnH~IM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION
RCGULAR MELTING The regular meeting of tl~e Anaheim City Planning
Commission waa called to ~rder by Chairwoman La Claire at
10:00 a.m., November 25, 19a5, in the Council Chamber, a
quorum being preaent, and the Commiesion reviewed plans of
the itema on todAy's agenda.
RECESS:
~ECONVENED:
11:30 a.m.
1:34 p.m.
PRESENT Chairwoman:
Commiseionera:
ABSEN'f: Commissioner:
I.~ C1Aire
Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Mesae, McBurney
L~wicki
ALSO PRESENT Norman Prieot
Annika Santalahti
.loel Fick
Malcolm Slau~hter
Mary McCloskey
Gceg Ha~tings
Pat Whitaker
Jay TitUs
Kendra Morries
Edith tiacri.s
pirector of Communfty Aev./Plan~ing
Assistant Dicector f.nr 7oning
Assiatant Director for Pl.anning
Deputy City AL•torney
Associate Planner
Associate Planner
Neighborhuad Kestoration Cord.
Office Engineer
Asslstant Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
MINUTES FUR AFPROVAL: Commissioner fiouas offp[ed a m~tion, seconded by
CommissioneC McBurney and htOTION CARRIF.D (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that
the minutes of the mEeting of November 13, 1985, be approved as eubmitted.
ITEM N0. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 2681 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-2,
WAIVER OF CODF REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USI; PERMIT N0. 2713
PUBLIC HGARING. OWNERS: STATE COLLEGE PARTNERS, c/o DUNN PROPERTIES, 28
Brooktio~low D[ive, Santa Ana, CA 92802. AGEN'P: BILL SINGER & ASSOC., 5100
Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parce'1 of land consisting of approximately 7.67 acres
located at the northwest cocner of Orangewood Avenue and State College
Boulevard.
ML(FP) to the CU(FP). To permit a 10-story and 12-story commercial office
complex with waivers o~ minimum number of parking space3, maximum structural
height and minimum landscaped setback.
Continued from the meeting~ of August 19, September 4, 16, 30 and October 28,
1985.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it fs referced to and made a part
of the minutes.
85-632 11/25/85
MZNUTGS ANAf1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONL NOVE~iBER ~5. 1985 85~633
Floyd Farano, attorney, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 340, Anaheim,
CAliforniA, explained they have met several timen with stxff and have done H~
several etudiea regarding the effecl of an intetim fee ~pon theic project.
atated they want thQ Commission to know that an intecnal rate of return, whtah
ia the manner on which the financial aspects of a projecC are measured, muet
be at least 14$. He explained atatf has develaped a three-tier.ed fee program
and the fee program proposed is $A.12, $2.10 and ~1.05 per square foot of
development depending on certain criteria. Ne stated it is thetr opinion that
their project meets all the criteria or will meE~t it for the $1.05 ~~.~r square
£oot fee.
Mr. Farano stated they do not ~gree with the proposed ordinance and think it
is still speculative because money will be paid without provioion fur
repaytnent if improvement~ are nok made, and since ~taff. has not engaged in
studies sufficient to be able to detecmine whetF~~c or not the am~unts are
rcall.,y scientific. He added the prupo~ed ordinance doeU not propose a
proportionate am~unt of the fees, in accordance with the need created and the
benefiks der.ived; and it divides the amount of squace footage to be devel.oped
by the amount oi funds needed, and it does i. *. provide for the extent to which
a certain develapment puts a strai.n upon the i~,trastruclure enviranment and
does not measure tl~e benefit. derived by the development. He stated no credits
are given for a contribution a develonment would tnake ta the area and tax
~tructure and explained the proposed subject development, over a period of 20
years, would produce tax cevenue benefits in excess of 2 tnillion dollars.
Chairwoman La Claice ~uqgested Mr. Farano discuss the pr.oposed ordinance with
the City Council tomorrow because the Planning Commission does not have
anything to do with that.
Mr. Farano stated Dunn properties proposes: 1) that pur~uant to Cundition No.
2 of Reclassification No. 85-86-2 and Condition 24 of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2713, that they pay an interim development fee of $1.05 per square foot of
improvements, and it shall be understood that said payment of infrastructure
shall be for al.l infrastructure requirements as set forth in the Anaheim
Stadium Area Stud,y, except for watec and eleckrical, as was extracted by staff
xn khe fee schedule; 2) that the fee be paid prior to occupancy ~.ther than
prior to the iss~ance of building permits; 3) that Dunn Proper~.es pay its
propoctionate sl~are of electrical and water infrastructures imptovements
pcedicated upon the portion which Dunn Properties contributes to the need or
benefits from said infrastructure improvements and, 4) that said water and
eleclcical paymenks be made at tt~e time o~ occupancy, or at the time that the
improvements are act~xally installed; and 5) that Conditions 2 and 14 be
changed to eliminate either the ttaffic signai assessment fee as provided in
~ondition No. 2, or that thp requirements for relocation and modification of
existing traffic signals, as provided in Condition No. lti, be deleted. Mr.
Farano stated Condition No. 2 require3 payment for a traffic signal assessment
fee and Condition No. 1~ of the CUP cequires them to move and modify the
existing traffic signal, and they feel they should either have to pay the fee
or. modify the signals, but not bath; and 6? that off-site improvements as
required in Conditions 4, 5, 6 and 7 be subject tio a reimbursement agreement
between Dunn Properties and the City and explained Dunn Pcoperties is going to
install approximately $350,000 to $400,000 of off-site improvements and it has
been detetmined in lhe environmental impact report that a~praximately 258 of
11/25/85
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON NOVhMHER 25 1985 85-634
those improvements would be brought ab~ut by the Dunn Pcopertiea developmen~
and i~ is theic proposal to he reimbursed ~nd ~taFE concur.as and 7) that the
Uondiny requirements set Eorth in Conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 be deleted.
fie explained 7 bonds are requited on this ~roject and this developer has been
in Anaheim for a long time and will continue to be in Analieim and they feel
the expense is not necessary and the return of revenue makes this a borderline
project without the bonds.
Chairwoman La Claire s~a~ed thece was a Eee discussed oE more than ~5.00 an~
the Commission requested a joint work session with City Council and at that
meetiny ik was determined that Dunn Pronertieu would enter intn negatiations
with the City to establiah a fee for the property. 5he stated stafE was
requested l-o louk at the return to the City and what the bottom line cost of
providing the infrastructur~s Eor that area wou1~ be, She stated there have
been numerous discu9sions with Dunn Properties and siie under~tood that the
~2.00 fee was the one suygested by Dunn Properties, and the Ci~y has now come
u~ with a fee of ~2.10, whict~ is lesr than it w~ul~ eventually be for others
developing in the area which wi].1 be as much as ~4.10 per square foot. and
without furthec discussion with thc City Council and with all the allegations
which have been made, she L•hought il would be best to go ahead with approval
~f this, including the conditions, and let the applicant appeal the Planninq
Commission's decision to tne City Council if. desired.
Floyd Farano stated the fee of ~2.1U is not really Lhe total fee because it
take~ oat the electrical and water £ees, which were included previously, and
including those fees it would be ~2.72 per square foot and the impact of che
~1.05 fee would be $1,67 and they would be willing to absorb $2.00 per square
foot, but the formula is stil:l excessive.
Chairwoman I.a Claire asked if tt~e petiti~nec would like to reyuest a
continuance and Mc. Farano responded they would not wanr_ a continuance.
P~~ul Singer, TrafEic Engineer, responded to Commissioner Hecbst that the
traffic signal assessmen~ fee was included in the fee because traffic signal
fees collec~ed in this area will be for traffic signal improvements in the
area.
Commissioner Nerbst pointed out the peti.tioner will be installing the traffic
signals on the corner. Mr. Singer responded that the traffic signal
assessment fees are a part ot the ordinance and fees collected in this area
have been enteced into the matrix which established the Eee at ~2.10 and
removing that fee for some developers means some other developers have to pay
for it. Commissioner Herbst a~ked about replacing trafFic signals at the
corner of Orangewood and Mr. Singer responded that those traffic signals are
presently on the corner, but the developer has to relocate r_hem and to put iri
new curbs as a part of normal off-site improvements.
Ch~irwoman La Claire stated the proposed urdinance requires the developer to
put in off-site improvements ~hat would ordinarily impact the area due to the
development, so this developer will have to do that in addition to paying the
$2.10 fee.
Jay Titus, Otfice Engineer, stated Mr. Earano referred to a reimbursement
agreement for drainage and stated the Engineer.ing Division has no objection tn
that and it is in keeping with the City's current practices. He recommended
11/25/85
MINUTES ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVFMHER 25 1985 85-635
that Condition No. 7 be modified that a drainage reimbursement agreemPnt be
made available to the developer upon his rpquest.
Commissioner Mpsse asked if thp difference between the ~ermitsewillabehtaken05
fee is merely a matter of timfng such as when builg~aged the difference is
out. Joel Fick, A~sistant Director for Planninq,
that !'~~ ~1.05 squACe fee ~ertain~ to properties that are on the General P:~an
for u~fice commercial development, zoned for ofEice development and have final
plans approved and cight now can be coming in requesting building permits, and
that is different f.rom this item whir.h is pre-zoned Eor industrial uses, and
is requesting a zone change to cammercial offir.e and isn't in a Position right
now to be gettinq building permits. f~e atated when thi~ =rea was considered
for a general plan amendment, there was ~iynifican~ discussion by the Planniny
Commissicn and City Council about the change from industrial ~o commercial,
office and it was quite widel.y recognized that there would have to be
improvements done and that was discussed ir. great detail when this projACt was
considered by the Commission.
Commissioner Bouas asked if the building currently under construction was
included in any of. these ~ategories. Joel ~ick stated even though there have
been discussions at a number of public hearings associated with buildings that
have gotten permits and have completed construction or are under construction
at this time, there is no effort being made in the fee pcogram to go back and
address t}~ose projects.
Commissioner Bouas stated the petitionec had ro aqree not to cantest an
assessment clistrict fur the first building.
J~el Fick stated in additior~ to the fee it~m before the Commissi~n, there ~aas
a recommendation that the property owner submit a covenant agreeing not to
contest the formatio~ of an assessment district and stafE has eliminated that
condition in this instance.
Commissior~er Herbst stated the evaluation of the stadium area did not cost the
taxpayec any money and the Commission now has the choice of. waiving thPSe fees
or putting a moratorium on development of that area and he really did not
think that is what the developer wants and noted the infrastructure was put
for industrial uses and would have to be changed in ordec to accommodate
high-rise development.
It was noted the environmental impact report has been previously approved.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC85-248 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning ~ommission does hereby
grant Reclassification No. 85-86-5 subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the follcwing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI
11/25/85
MINU'rGS, ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION, NOVEMBER 25y 1985 85-636
Commissionor Herbst offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION
CARRIED l~ommissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commiasion doea hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the baeis that
there are special circumstancea applicable to the pcoperty auch as size,
shapc, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other
identically zoned pcoperty in the a~me vicinity; and that strict applicAtion
of the Zoning Code depr.ives the property of privileges enjoyPd by other
properties in ~he identical zone and clasnification i.n the vicinity.
Commiasioner [ierbst o[fered Resolution No. PC85-249 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planninq Commission doeo hereby grant
Conditi.onal Use Permit No. 2713 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 througl~ 18.03.03U.035 and subject to Interdepurtmental Committee
recommendations including modification to Condition No. 7 pertaining to a
drainage fee reimburaement being made available to the developer.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y, MFSSE
N0~5: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI
Malcolm Sla~aghter, lleruty City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 2 EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-5 AND
VARIANCE NO.r3509
PUBLIC FIEARING. AWNERS: CORNELIUS W. AND MARY ALICE DERUYTBR, 530 N. Colgate
Stceet, Anaheim, CA 92801 and HACIENDA UNITED CORP., 945 ~verett Street, ~1,
Los Angeles, CA 90025. AGENT: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ, 619 S. Live Oak Drive,
Anaheim, LA 92805. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consicting of approximately 1.05 acres, 2230 West Lincoln Avenue.
CL to the RM~1200 or a Zess intense zone. Waivers of minimum structural
setback (deJ.eted), minimum building site area pes dwelling unit, maximum
structural height (deleted) and maximum site coverage (deleted).
Ther~ was no one indicating their presence in opposition l•a subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Hugo Vazquez, agQnt, explained thF project has been redesigned :~nd no portion
of the building is in excess of 30 feet in height from the sidewalk grade and
by dropping the building, they have deleted 3 of the originally requested
waivers.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTIOh: Commissionec Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MUTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent? that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to reclassify subject property from the
CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-1200 (Re~idential, Multiple-Family)
11/25/85
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 1985 8, ~°63~
Z~ne to construct a 2-story, 46-unit affordable apartmenh complex under
authc :ty of Government Code Section G5915 with waiver of minimum building
site area per dwelling unit on a rectangularly-shaped parr,el of land
consisting of approximately 1.05 acres, having a frontage of approximately 16A
feet on the soutti side of Lincoln Arove~theaNegative DeclarationeuponOfinding
Lincoln Avenuet and does hereby App
that it has considered L•he Negative Declaration toge~her with any comments
received during the public review process and further finding on ~he bASis of.
thp Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a siynificant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Fry of£ered Resolution No. PC85-250 and moved Eor its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doPS heceby grant
Reclassification No. 85-~6-5 subject to Interdepartmenta.l Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution wa~ passed by the following vote:
AYES: BUUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
AaSENT: LAWICKI
Commissioner Fry offered ~esolution No. PC85-251 and tnoved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning CommiASion does heceby grant Variance
No. 35U9, in part, denying waivers (a), (c) and (d) on the basis that said
waivecs were deleted by revised plans and granting waiver (b) on the basis
that ~here are special circumstances aE~plicable to the property such as size,
shape, kopography, location and surround~.n4s which do not apply to other
identically zaned pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that strict applicakion
of the Zosling Code deprives the property of. privileges enjoyed by other
propecties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and
subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICK.L
Kerzdra Morries. Assistant Plannec, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's der.ision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READV.) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 20~
RECLASSIFICATION NU. 85-86-15 WAIVER OF CODE RE UIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 27265 REAAV.), CONDI'TIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2727 (22EADV.) AND REQUEST
FOR WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY N0. 543
OWNERS: CALIFURNIA LUTHERAN HOMES, 2312 S. Fremont, Alhambca, 91803. AGENT:
ED A. STRUTHERS, 721 N. Euc~ic St., ~307, Anaheim, CA 92801 and T. A. Jones &
Assoc., 485 E. 17th St., #608, Costa Mesa, 92627. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consxsting of approximately 10.6 acres,
located at the north~vest corner of Ball Road and Walnut Street, 891 S. Walnut
Street (Walnut Manor).
11/25/85
MINUTCS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON. NOVEMBCR_25, 1985_ ___ _~ 95-638
mo consider alternate proposals of u1L•imate land use, including, but not
limited to low density residential, low-medium density residential and medium
density residential dssignation.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less inten3e zone.
To permit a 3-story, 134-unit aEfordable senior citixens apartment complex and
a 99-bed skilled nursing facilit,y in conjunction with ttie existing seniors
retirement facility wiCh waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling
unit.
There were Lhree persons indicating their ~re~ence in opposition and three
persons indicating tt~cir presence in favor to subject request and although the
staff report was noL read, it is referred to and made a pack of the minutes.
Gerald Bushore, 721 N. Euclid, Anaheim, explained the,y have filed for a
General Plan Amendment and staff's two alternatives are displayed. Fie stated
they moved the building back and eliminated one story, making it the ~ame
height as the other 3-story strucLure on the property and have ~rovided
underground parking. He sta~ed this property has the oldest senior citizen
home in the City of Anaheim and i~ the only facility which oEfers c~mplete
care, with ihs own library, ductor, nurse and intermediate and skilled nursing
facilities, swimming pool and various types of living units. He stated
counting the nur~ing beds, there are 406 potential uni.ts and divided by the
total acreage is only 38.3 units per acre, but the problem is that the
property will be divided and each parcel must stand on its own.
Mr. Bushore stated as a tilanninq Commissioner he wauld be concerned with
putting a high density z~ning on the property, but i.f it is tied to this
proposed use, the area will be protect•ed.
Roger Buckner, 1721 E. Har~ony Lane, Fullerton, stated he is vice-president of
the Prince of Peace Lutheran Chucch wh.ich is next door to subject property and
they have a membership of about 200 and there is a school on site, first
through eiyhth grade, including a pre-school and a kindergarten, Eor a total
of ~50 students and staff of 25. He stated they do not object to the rezoning
to Ri-1200 and did find the plans superior to what was originally presented.
He stated, however, they are concerned about the density of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2726 for the senior citizen's apa*tments because with the RM-1200
Zone, they could have up to 76 units and with a 25$ senior citizen bonus, they
could have 95 units, and the uwnec is asking for 139 units oc 418 in excess of
what is pecmitted by Code. He stated apparently the flag-shaped lot
considered for CUP 2726 is to he sold so the home can develap the 99-bed
facility on the front portion oF the pr.operty. He skated that is too far in
excess of Code and is going to add considerable traffic wikh a single driveway
located directiy next to tt~e church's primary driveway.
James Lee, 914 S. Hampstead, stated he represents the neiqhbors and homenwners
of ttiis area and they have alceady presented a petition indicating they are
not opposed to the senior citizen housing, but would prefer it be limited to 2
stories. He stated if they eliminate one story, they will probably have about
88 units. He stated most of his neighbors had to work and could not attEnd
this meeting; that the success of this home depends on its setting and they do
11/25/85
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI55ION NOVEMBER 25 19a5 85-639
think it• will adveraely aFfect the neiqhborhood wilh people moving out and
o~hers moving in wh~ don't really care and it will affect the homc ~s well.
He stated they do nut understand why this skilled nucainy home has to be only
1 story and suggeated it be 2 stocies with tl~e apactments spread out more so
they are 2 stories. He suggested removing some of the exiating nmall cottaqea
and moving the 2-story building instead of having a 3-atory building on one
spot. He ~t.~ted if this is ~pproved the City will be sacrificinq its z~ning,
the chucch will be sacrificinq par.t of their access and the neiqhborhood is
sacrificing because they would have to look up at a 3-atory building, but the
home itaelf is not really ~accificing anything.
Richard Anthony, 1200 W. Ball Road, stAted his property is across he street
on the corner ~f Ball and Walnut and two years ago he requested a change on
liis property and there was no op~osition to his requNSt before the Planning
Commission, but before the City Council there was an objection from the Walnut
Manor to the 4 offices he had proposed accoas the street because it could
cause a severe trafEic prublem, and iE they thought 4 offices would be a
traff•ic problem, he thought tt~is would be a trafEic problem. He stated Ball
Road is a busy street with fast traffic and he did n~t think this would work
nut with the access proposed. t~e stated he did not think the traffic has been
considered enough, especially with the type of transportation the people at
the home will bP using such a~ Dial-A-Ride. Eie stated with a 99-bed hospital,
there will be a lot of people working there and he did not think that issue
has been considered caref.ul.ly enough.
Gerald Rushore stated all three people in opposition referred to traffic on
Ball Road and explained they would wark out the access with tt~e City Traffic
Engineer; however, thece is an alkernative to retucn ~ome of the traffic from
the northern part of the property through the existing driveway and an
easement could be worked out. He stated the church does have a considerabre
concern and his own children attended that school and the traffic is heavy,
however this is a ~enior citizen project and he did not think there would be a
great influx of traffic at those peak times and many of them do not own
vehicles. He stated there is some concern with the total access going out
onto Ball Road, but that could be modified.
Concerning the question regacding the skilled nursing home being 2 stacies,
Mr. Bushore explained convalescen~ homes are not 2 st~ries because it is the
desire to keep them close togethec with one nusse's station, etc. He referred
to the question about removing some of the cottages and ~tated that would be
breaking up the overall concept of the praject and eliminatinq a certain type
of lifestyle which some people may want. He stated they have tried to address
all tlie neighbors' concecns and moved the 3-story building as far back as
possible, and they are requesting a packing variance, and are providing the
lighti.ng on the street and al:~o in~ide the project.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL05ED.
Commissioner Bouas stated there is a 3-stnry building existing on the property
now and asked how far i.t is located from the property line. Chairwoman La
Claire stated the proposed building is 70 feet from the property line. She
stated she is not as concerned about the front portion on Ball Road, but is
more concerned about the portion that backs up to the homes on Beacon Street.
11/25/85
MINUTES ANAH~IM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBCR i5 1985 ~5-640 >`
f
Commis~ioner Herbst stated he ia concecned Rbout the 3 storiea within 70 feet
oE the pcoperty line and it has neve: been allowed before and thought it would
set a very dangeroua precedent and it sh~uld be moved to at least 120 feet
from the property line. He stated he agrees with the neighbors tt~at ~hey
should not have to look up to a 3-story buildiny within 7Q feet ~f thelr
backyards.
Mr. euehore skated L•hey wun~ to have the 134 units and maybe they could step
the units up with 6 etories at a 150 £eet or something similar. Ete stated
they are tryi.ng to work out somethiny compatible with the neighborfl.
Commissioner EieCbst stated the variances are uaually acceptable as long as
they do not intrude on the neighbors' rights.
Chairwoman La Claire stated the setback i~a u~ually 15G feet to 20Q feet for a
2-story building and ahe would like to see the t~eighL• reduced near the
property line to 2 stories within 150 feet. She stated she understands they
want to have as many units as po~sible and ahe realizes the need for 3enior
citizen housing.
Mr. Bushore asked if the Commission is looking at the density situation and
Chairwoman La Claire stated this is a large pcoperty and in hec opinion it
could handle the hiqher density since it is Eor ~enior citi~.ens. She stated
ahe is not concetned about the density, but wants to protect L•he adjacent home
owners.
Commissioner McBUrney stated maybe a deceleration lane should be considered
alonq Ball Road to get khe traffic into the driveway a lot easier.
Chairwoman La Claire staked since this is a senior citizen retirement home and
it is aifordable, they should be entitled to some density bonus, and also
noted senior c.itizens do make wonderful neighbors. She atated she would like
to see 2 stories 70 feet with 3 stories at 125 teet from the property line.
She adc]ed she did not think they should propose anything higher than 3
stories. it was noted some 1-Rtory stcuctures could be eloser than 70 feet as
long a~ the pool is not any closer.
Kendra Morries stated a continuance would nesd to be to the January 6, ].986,
meeting with revised plans being submitted by the llth of December.
ACTION: Commissi.onec McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Messe and MOTION CARRIED (CommissioneC Lawicki absent) that consideration of
the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
January b, 1996.
Commissioner Herbst suggested tMr.dBushorerindicatedetheydwouldsmakehthat
neighbors before the meeting.
attempt.
ImEM NO. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECL~RATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-13 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3517
pUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANAHEIM HILLS UEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o THE GtINSTON
HALL COMPANY, INC., 6507 Serrano Ave.~ Suite B, Anaheim, CA 92807, ATTN:
ll/25/85
MINUTFS. ANAHFIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOV~MBER 25,_1985 85-641
GEOItGG ~. MASON, .iR. AG~NT: CftAPARRAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., 21941 Nerencia,
h;isniun Viejo, CA 92692, ATTN: RICNARU tJ. HUDSON. Pro~erty is ~ 1andlocked,
irreyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ot approximately 3.35 ~cres
located appruximaLely 6U0 fee~ east o£ the centerline of Im~erial Highway,
approximatel,y 2tt0 feet south of the aoutherly term:~ ~~F of E'rnntier r,ourt, and
immediatel~ northeast oE the Southern Califor.nia Edison Company easement.
RS-HS-43,000(SC) to RM-3000(SC) oc a lesa intens~ zone. Waiver~ of maximum
sL•ructur.al helght and ir,inimum landscaped aetback to construct a 2-stocy,
16-unit condominium subdivision.
Tl~e'e were two personr indica*ing ~heir presence in oppoaition t.o ~ub~ect
requeat :.~nd although the staff: report was not cead, it is cefecred to and ~rade
a part oE the minutes.
Dick tiud~on, agent, stated r.hey are currently dev~loping the Ccown Point.
25•-unit aL•tached and detached project on ttie westerly boundary ~E subject
pcoperty and thxs proposal is the necond pha3e which will inclu~e a
reccealional center to be enjoyed by bo~h projec~s. E~e reEerred to the
illustral•iona displayed Uhowi.ng a Cape Code acchitecture which is compatible
with the ~urrounding neighborheods. tie state~9 the staff report requires fire
retardant treated wood ruofing materials and that is an error because they
have proposed a conccete-type matecial just like the ficst p'~aye. He
c.larified plan A is a 194U-Fquare fuot, a-bedroom unit and not 2 bedrooms as
ind~catEd ir khe at~ff report. tie staEed they agree with tt~e proposed
condikions.
Jill Or`.i.z, 689 Erontier Court, Anaheim, stated they :eeA these are not small
~.~aivers 5eing r.equested and they ar¢ requesting a reclass~.i:catian Pcom
sin~;le-famil.y liomes to multiple-family kiomea. She stated they own a
sinyle-Family home at the bottom ot the hill and there is a requested waiver
ot• height for 2 stories within l3 feet of the property line and landscaping at
13 f~et instead of 20. She stated they need a 6-Foot wall fnr privacy and
dl'~21113qe problems. She pointed out there is a tall slope behind her house and
they ar~ asking to grade iC. She adde~ when they purchased their properky
3-1/2 yea[s ago, they were told subject pruperty was zoned for single-£amil~
uniks, and multiple-family uniks are entirely dlfferent. She stated they feel
it w~uld de~troy their property values to have someone looking over their
property, and they feel the developer purchased the property knowing the
zuniny ~~1~ they ace askiny f~r a lot at the neighbecs' expense.
Scott Isbe11, 695 Frontier, presented photographs taken today showiny the
topography and the relationship of their home t~ the propo3ed development. He
stated there is a hill behind their homes and the developer wants to grade it
to make it level at~d they feel a 13-foot Eet~ :ck would allow 2 stories to be
very visible just above the hei~~ht of the_r home and the occupants ~,~ould be
able to look r.ight into their bedroom or fcitchen wi~dows. He stated he bought
his h~me under the assurance of the Anaheim Nills Master Plan that ih. was
zoned for single-famiiy residences anb when he went to the Anaheim Hills
Development Corporation befote purchasinq his home, they said there would be 1
or 2 homes on that lot. He stated they feel this rEquest is fur a
considerable difference with 16 units and will certainly impact their $300,000
to $400,000 homes and the condomini.u.~~s would be valued at $200,000. E:e
11/25/85
85-642
MINUTES ANAH EIM CI7`Y PLANNING COHMISSIUN NOVEMHEk 25 1985
ptesented potitiona circu]ated in the Haven H111, Robin Hill and Warmington
Rro~osednrequesttandnmanydmoretpeoplepwouldobeQpreaent.v~fYtheyeha~iknowniS
P P
Qac].ier.
Mr. Isb~11 staked the pcopoaal sounds reasonab.le and atter reviewiny the
pro~erty;C can be seen it is not quite the way it sound~ and pointed out thi•
is the highe st knoll in the area and the streetbu~e~hetpeople u~ ~owards that
knoll and~h e people to the west are exis~ing,
further weat ob}ect because they do not want that many conduminium~ luoking
down into th eir properties and thete is a big diff.erence in the noise and
traffic lovels with the pro~oaed cl~ange:. He explained the petition contai.nn
a~proximately lU0 signatures obtained in the rain ypaterday and read the
statementL•h ~t they object to ~he cequest tor high d^nsity and would r.equeat
the [egulationo be cetained E~ertaining to maximum height, min'mum landscaped
setback and cequirec] ~ite screening becau~e of the E~ropercy vr lues and scenic
valuea o[ the surroundings.
Lloyd K1ein , 665 Frontier, Anahei.m, staked i~e ob jects to the r~aque~t because
of the intrusion this pruject wAUld ha~e and a1RO beca e of the devaluation
ot propetty values. Fie st~ced the market Eor condominiums is trending
downwarda and it is concei~able thr~t if thN units do not sell rapidly, they
wc.uld beconve[ted to rental units and that would certainly impact the
neighborhood. He atated subject pro~erty is on a beautiful piece of hil.ltop
land andhas a•~iew of the ocean on a clear day ar~d he thouyht the ~roperty
could be~eveloped with a better use than a lb-unit condominiurn project.
Mr. Hudaon atated the main concern seems to be property values and explained 9
ot the 16 ur~lts have 2,134 square feet with a 3-car garage and on 4 sides uf
the buildings, there iv a lot of siding ancl a lot of ~atailed architectural
flair andln°the community and thep$200,OOOupricemPsrsetto~~sthe unitsewili~notg
pro~ects
cemain unsold.
Mr. Hudson stated the reason ~or the request for landscaped berr:~ un~ wall is
that there ia a slope that goes up about 70 feet which they feel would
suffice, He stated the Generzl Plan designates this property for 5 units per
acre a~.d they are requesting 4.6 units per acre.
THE PU6LIC HEARING WAS CJ~USEU.
Commissioner McDurney stateii the plans shuw units facing the residential
properties and asked ff any of the lower floors have visibility towards those
cesidences. Mr. Hudsun stated ~ auildings to the north will be win•.3owless
tuwards those residences and stated they have made every attQmp~ to satisfy
the commu nity's concerns.
It wasno ted the existing cesidential homes below the proposed project aCe two
st~riea~
Concerning the cecreational area, Co~~:missioner Herbst stated ther will be
chi.ldren going to the pool area and that is c,uite a slope and S4yy~_ 'd thsre
shouldbe sidewalks. Mr. Hudson explained if therc~ was a condition for
11/25/85
-6
sidewalks, theY Wiildrovide~stepemto tho recreationa~ centerbEr mabothards.
Ne ~tated they wi P
projecte.
Commis~foner Herbat stated the General Plan wus prepared based on the number
of homea pcop~sed L~c the ofe~h~~gl~peshe t~1e~~skedHhowsman/ahomes couldebenits
wece not poaaible bec~use
developed in the RS-10,000 ZonWi~V1Mt111~~p~=ticularnplantandedesignec3rabluxurye
S home~ and then they came up
townhouse.
Commissioner t~erbst stared he could not agree with tQis conandithought~the~
because of the 10~ and 128 grade roads which ace nec_asacy
project ahoulc3 be rel~°i~tfaom~lookingt~down3onethefsingleefamilyrresidential
order to keep the p p
homes.
Kencjra Morries statzforhZ~1~3~000tand$therCeneralLl'lan cucrently designatea the
developec i.s asking
property for hillside low densit,y which would permlt 2 to 5 units per acre.
Commissioner ~'ry stated three peopl~ have spoken in opposit;ion and none of
tho~e people ar.e alarsiaC~ austhandhtheytareeentitled tonber~r.otQCted and the
thought theic concern j
units should be ma~~ed further away Lrom the property line to pcevent the
visual xntrusion this would present.
Kendra Morries explained the side~~ard setback for a single-fami.ly 2-story
p r o j e c t i s 1 0 8 of the width of the lot and in this case, no r o° e c tt a nd Lhe
feet. Mr. Hudron stated he could develop a s ing le- fam i l y p j
neighbors would have the same problems w:th the single-family house 10 feet
from the p[operty line.
Chairwoman La Clairh aSainQEast tlillshornalproject a~lotllessedesirablercould
howe~er, houses su 2_;,tory home 10 feet from
be constructed and there could be a single-family
~he propecty line and that would not protect their peivacy or proper.ty
values. She stated larger home~ are not being constru~ted today.
Mr. Hudson stated house$ in Crown P~i*~te currently under coa~~ached homes ando
square feet to 1626 square feet ar~d they are single-fatrily
they wi.] sell for $129,000 to $179-000 and pointed out they are selli~g with
17 of the 25 homes currently in escrow.
Commissioner Herbst asked about the wall and Mr. Hudson responcled they felt a
6-foot wall would lfmit the view.
Chairwoman La Claire~~aa*hetehace noewindowsWOnh~hatSSidetoflthe~unitshe
ne~ighbors pcoperty
Kendra Morries pointed out the floor plans reviewed by staff do show win ows
on :hat side of those units,
',1/25/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PGANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 25, 1985 85-644
Chairwoman La claire atated there is only unit that co~ald over.louk ~he houses
below an d the t~omes are 200 feet away from that unit. Ms. Qrtiz pointed out
that slope is 200 Eeet straiyht u~. Chairwoman i.a Claire stated they could
develop a single-fatnily, 2-story homF 10 Eeet Erom the property line with as
many windows as they want and with this plan, there would be no wi~doa~s on
lhat aid e and they would be able to look out over L•hair prc;~er~y.
Commiss i oner Herbat stated he thought A condominium project could be buil~ on
this pro perty within the Code, except for the 3creening, and he aould have no
pcoblem with the waiver of that if the other requir.empnts ar.e met. Kendra
Mocries er,plained the Code reyuires this ~~roject to be ser back 50 ~~eet with ~
20-Coot landsCaped buffer. She further expl~ined in ordpr to c~mply with
waiver (a), the 7.-story units would have to be set back at least 50 Eeet and
drawing s would have to be submitted proving there is no visual intrusion on
the adja cent single-fAmily residential properties, ar~d in order to comply with
waiver ( b), there woul~ have f.o he a 20-Loot landscaped buffer adja~ent to the
northerl y property line.
Chairwoman La Claire stated shs is really fighting For the ne~ytibors' privacy
and expl ained if Commission denies this pruject and does not reyuire the
project to be moved back, the develope~ may develop a E~roject within Code and
the Commission would have no contrc~l over it.
Mr. Huds on stated they took ever.y avenue to insure the exi,ting homeowners
would h a ve the privacy and that is why ther~ are no windows on that side.
Commiss i oner McBurney stated t~ thought the unit could be moved to 20 Eeet or
25 feet and he a~uld go along with it then and could not understa;id why the
Code allow:~ a 2-story sin~~le-family residen ~e to 5e within 10 feet of another
single-f amily residence, but a 2-stot:y multiple-family project could not be
within 5 0 feet. He stated he thougt~t with a 2U-foot fu11v landscaped buffer,
he coul o~e in favor of the project.
ACTION: CommissioneC Herbst off.ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOT I ON CARRIED (Comtnissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City
Plannin g Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property
from tn~> RS-HS-43,GJ0(SC) (Residential, Agricultural Scenic Corridor Over.lay)
to the RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-E'amily Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone
to cons truct a 2-story, 16-unit condominium subdivision with waivers of
maximum structural height, minimum landscaped setback and required site
screen i ng on a landlocked irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approxi mately 3.35 acres located approximat~ly 600 feet east of the centerline
of impe rial Highway, approximately 280 feet south of the ~outherly terminus of
Erontie r~:our*_ and immediately nocthaest of the Southern California Edison
Campan y Easement; and does hereby approve the Neyative aeclaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together wit;~ any
commen t ~ received during the publi.c review process and further finding on the
basis o f the Initial Study and a.; comments received that there is no
substa n tzal evidence that the project will have a siqnificant effec~ on the
environment.
Mr. Hu d son ~tated they could relocatE that structure on the north 20 feet with
additi o nal retaining walls and he wou'd be agreeable to that revision.
11/25/85
MINUTES ANAf1EIM CTTY ~LANNING CUM MISSION, N~ OVEMBER 25. 1985 85-645
It was noted ane atructure is at 4U feet and ane is at 13 feet currently.
Commissioner Nerbst ofEered Reool ution No. PC85-252 and moved Eor its ~asRage
and ado~tion thak the Anaheim Cit y Planning Commis~ton does herpby q~ant
Reclassification No. 85-86-13 su b~ect ~o Interdepartmental Committee
recommendationa.
On roll call, the foreqoiny reso 1 ution was pa3aed by the £ollowing vote:
AXES: BOUAS~ FF2Y, kIRRHST, I.A CI.AIRE, MC F3URN~Y, MESSE
NUES : NOtJG
ABSENT: [.AWICKI
Commissioner Nerbat offered [tes a 1 ution No. PC85-253 and moved for ita pa~~aqe
and adoPtion that tt~e Anahei.rti City Planning Commission d~es hereby grant
Variance No. 3517, in par.t, ap~r oving waiver (c) on ~he ba~is ~hat there are
special circu-nstances applicable t-o the property such as size, shape,
topography, location and surroun dinge which do not apply L-o other identically
zoned property in the same vicin ity; and that stricl application of the Z~ning
Code ~]ec :es ~he property of pr ivileges enjoyed by other pro~erties in the
identical zone and classificatio n in the vicinil.y; and denying ~raivers (a) and
(b) on l:he basis that both stru c tu:es ahould be relor.aked ta A3 feel• from the
property line ~ubject to Interc:~partmental C' ~m~nittc~e recommenc3ations.
Prior to voting on th~ above re s olution, P,endra .Morcies stated an ameridment
should be included that no wind ows be permitted ~n the north faci.ng the
r.esidences. Commissioner Herbs t statPd '~ the struc:ture is relocated to 50
feet, the developer could have a s many windows as he wanted and chanqed his
resolution for denial of waivers (a) and (b) and added he felt i.f the
st[uctuce is celocated to 50 fe e t it would be a oetter pcoject.
Mr. Hu~lsan stated it is physica lly impossible to move them to 50 feet without
redesign. Chairwoman 1~a Claire asked if the petitioner would like to request.
a continuance in order to redes ign the plans and asked if he would be willing
to meet with the adjacent homeowners. Mr. Hudson asked if t:~e Commission is
r.equesiing him to meet with in d ividual homeowne[s adjacent to the property or
all of the 100 property owners.
On roll call, the forPgoing re s olution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: E'~UAS, FI2Y, t1ERBST, LA ~LAIRE, MESSE
NOES: MCHURNEY
ABSENT: LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Atto~ney, presentad the written right to appeal
the Planning Commicsion's decis ion N'~hin 22 days to the City Council.
RECESSED 3:20 p.m.
REC:ONVENED: 3:35 ;~.m.
11/25/85
MINUTBS ANAHEIM CI'rY PLANNING COMMISSI~i~~ NOV6MDER 25, 1985 85~646
I`rEM N0. 5 EIR N~GATTVG DECLARATION (P~EV. APPROVED AND CONDITiONAI, USE
PERMIT N0. 2~23 (REAOV.)
PUBLIC HEARING. RLQUESTE~92Q~6 cABTN: JEFFRFY"C.~SMITti. ZPCOpertyrdescribed
Avenuer i300, Anaheim, CA ~
~a a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consistiny of ap~roximately 3.9
acreA, 220t East orangew~od Avenue.
Reyuest iuc amendrnent of Condition No. 12 of Planniiig Commiasion Reaolution
No. 84-203 pertaining to recocdation of a covenant.
There was no one indicating their pre~enca in oppo~itian ta nubjecl- reque~t
and although the staff report waa not read, it ia refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Jeff ::mith, Cabot, c:abot and t~orbes, 2390 E. Oranqewood, Anahei.m, wAS present
to answer. any que~3tions.
TEI~: PUBLIC HEARING I~AS CLOSED.
Commiesioner McBurney suggested changing the wordage to read tt~at the covenant
would be recorded prior tc~ occupancy and Kendra Morries explained staff did
receive a recorded copy of the covenant last week.
It was noted the negative declaration was previously approved in conjunction
with Reclassifi^ation No. 84-85-8 and Conditional use Permit No. 2623.
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PCdS-254 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City ~lanning Commis~ion does hereby
art:end Res~lution No. PC84-203 granting a 90-day ti.me extension for compliance
with Conditi.on No. 12 in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2623.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed b~+ the f.ollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA c:LAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NOtJE
ADSENT: LAWICKI
ITEM IJO. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DE;CLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDi'PIONA~ USB P~RMIT N0. 2739
OWNERS: ROBERT HUSTETTER, 1661 W. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT:
OBEZAG OF CALIFORNIA, 1700 E. Gary Ave., Suite 102, Santa Ana, CA 92705, ATTN:
EDWARDS kALPH. Praperty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately ~.56 acre, 413 South Brookhurst Street (Sherwood
Inn).
To permit a walk-up restaurant in con~unction with an existing r.oc4ctail lounge
and waivet of minimum numbec of parking spaces (deleted).
There was no one indic~~ting their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part
of the minutes.
11/25/85
MINUTES, ANA~~f:IM CITY PLAIJNING COMMISSION1 ~20VEMBER 251 1985 85-647
Bob Hoatetter, owner, was preaent to anawer ~,ny questiona.
E;dwar.ds Ralph, 1700 E. Gary, Santa Ana, agent, st.ated they concur. With the
recomm~ndations.
THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSEU.
kesponding to Chairwoman La Cla~re, Mr. Ra1~F~ ntated he would be landscaping
the front in compl~~nce with the City Code.
AC'PION: C~mmiasioner McBurney oi.feced a motion, aeconded by Commisaioner
Herbct and MOTION CARRIED (Commis~ioner Lawicki absent) L-h~t the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed Che propc,~sal to permit a walk-up restaurant
in conjunction with an existiny cocktail lo~inge on a rectangu.larly-shaped
p~rcel oE land conmisting of approximately 0.56 acreR, haviny a fcontage of
approXimately 70 feet on the west side of Brc,okhurst Street. and f.urthar
described as 413 South Hroakhurst Street (Sherwood Inn); and does hereby
approve tl,~ NEgative Declacatlon upon fi.nding that it has conside:ed the
Neqative Declaration together with any comments receivec~ during the pubiic
review process anci further Lin~3ing on the basis of the initial Study and any
comments received that thece is no subatantial evidence that the pro~ect will
have a aignificar,c effect on the environment.
Commissioner Mc icney offered Re~olution No. PC85-255 and moved [or its
passage and :do~tion that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2739 pursuant to Anaheim t7unicipal Code
Section~ 18.03.030.030 through 18.U3.U30.Q35 and subject to Interdepactmental
Comm9.ttpe recammendations.
On roll ca~l, the foregoing zesolution was passe~ by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, ME:;SE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICK.I
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days tu the City Council..
ITEM NU. 7 EIR CATEGJRICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIOtdAL USE PERMIT N0. 2740
PUBLIC HE~RING. OWNERS: JOSE RAMON AND MARGARITA CA9RERA• 300 N. Carol,
Anaheim, CA 9280I. AGENT: JOSE R. CABRERA, JR. 300 N. Carol, Anaheim, CA
92801. Property described as a rectangularly-~haped parcel of land consisting
of apptoximately 4,975 square feet, 608 South Philadelphia Street.
To construct an attached secand-famfly (granny) unit and a room addition to a
sinqle-family residence with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject reqnest
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
11/25/85
MINUT~S, ANAHE2M CTTY PLANNiNG COMMISSI~N~ NOV~MHER 25, 1985 _ a5-64a
Jose Cabrera, Jr. 30U N. Cacol, Anaheim, et~ted t.hey are reque^ling a permi~
to Allow an attached granny unit in addition to a single-family rpai~ence w:th
waiver of minimum number of parking apacea from 5 to A And stated they feel
there are enough Apeces. ~~e stated the granny unit wou.ld Ue ~ubsidized by
Secti~n 8 liuuainq for either a Ringle person or an elderly couple 60 years of
age or older.
Kendra Morcies explained zn reapon~e to questicna by Ch~icwoman La Claire that
a granny unit is permitL•ed by state law, provided it is no more than 640
syuare feel and is rented to 1 or 2 adult ~ersons, both of whom ar~ over 60
yeac~ of age, and that would be accomplished by a covenant recorded ayainst
the property and it is not restricted as to who the senior citizen has to be.
Chairwoman La Claice stated in reviewing the plans, it appeara the room
addition on the property could be uaed as a rentaJ. unit with acce~s gained
fcom the cear. She stated if the Code Enforcement Officers do find out the
raom is r~nked aeparately, Lhe conditior.al use permit could be revoY,ed. She
asked if the rents will be increased with the addition. Mr. Cabrera stated
they will stay within the guidelines for a 3-bedr.oom ur~it as provided by the
City. Chairwoman La Claice ~tated she sees difficu.itiea h~:e because they
will.:~e rentiny this to a~i affordable £amily and then will be increasing the
size o.f the residence and that the Commission has never been req~aested to do
th:.:; be.fore and it makes hec wonder what thetr plan i• for the units.
Mc. Cabrera stated the entrar~ce is ofE the hallway and Commissionet Herb~t
stated as long as there is a hallway, there would be no problem. Chairwoman
La Claire stated as lung as ti:~: petitioner is informed that if he rents the
unit, the whole conditior~al uae t~~~mit cuuld be cevoked, she would have no
probiem.
it was noted the Planning Director o~ his authorized cepresentative has
determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptiuns, Clas~ 3, as ~efined in the State f:nv3ronmental Impa~t
Rr,~crt Guidelines ar~d is, therefore, categorically e~cempt from ct~:: reqvirem?nt
t0. Prr`~.~l~:c~ .:i17 ~,ii:.
ACTIUN: Chairwoman La Claice off~red a moL:~n, seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (CammissioneC Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission do~s hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis
that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in
the immediate vicinity nor advecsely affect any adjoining land uses and
grantiny uf the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not
be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general wel.fare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Chairwoman La Claire offeced Resolution No. PC85-256 and maved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dces her~by gran~
Conditional Use Permit No. 2740 pursuant to Ana-~eim Muni,ci~al Code Sections
18.03.030.03U througt~ 18.03.030.035 including an additional condition ':hat the
additio~~l room not be renked to anyone as a sepacate living unit and subject
to Interdeparkmental Cornmittee recommendations.
~1/25/85
.~- _'
MINUTLS, ANAHEIM CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMB~R_25y 1985 85-648
Joae Cabrera, .ir. 300 N. Carol, Anaheim, stat~d they are requesting a permit
to allow an attached granny unit in addition to a single-family reaidencP with
waiver of minimum number of parking apeces from 5 to 4 and stated t.hey feFl
tt~ere ~:e enough spaces. He atate:3 the qsanny unit would be subsidized by
Sec=tion 8 tlousing for eikher a single person oc an eldecly coupl~ 60 yeara of
age or older.
Kendra Morrie:~ expl~. ;ied in respon~e to queationa by Chairwoman J,a C1Aire that
a gcanny unit is pe rnitted by state law, pcovided it is no more than 640
syuare teet and i cented to 1 oc 2 adi~lt persona, both of. whom are ovec 60
yeara of age, ar~ that would be accomplf~hed by a c~venant cecorded against
tlie properky a~~ it is not cectricCed a~ to who the senior citizen has to be.
Chairwoman I.~; Claice stated in reviewing the plans, it appear~ the room
addiki~n on the pr.operty could t>e uaed as a rentAl unlt wftl~ access g~ined
from the rear. She stated if the Code ~nforcemen~ OfficerR do ffnd out the
room is rented ~eparately, the coi~'itional use permit could be revoked. She
asked if tt~e rents will t~e increa~ed with the addition. Mr. Cabrera staked
they will stay within ~he yuic3eline~ for a 3-bedroom unit as provided by the
City. Chairwoman La Claire statecl ~he sees difficulties hece because they
will be renting this to an af.fordable f~mily and then will be incceasing the
size of tt~e residence and that the Commission has never been requested to do
this before and it make~ her wonder what L•heir plan ia Eor lhe units.
Mr. Cabceca stated the entranae is ~ft the hallway and c;ommissioner Herbst
stated as lnng as thece is a hallway, there would be no problem. Chairwoman
La Claire stated as long as the petitioner is infocmed that if he rents the
unit, the whole conditional use permit cauld be cevoked, she would have no
problem.
It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized [epresentative has
determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Catsgotica.l Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the ~tate Environmental Impact
Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorical~y exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Chairwoman I.a Claire offered a motion, secanded by Commissioner Fry
an~? MOTION CARRIED (Comnissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim Cit~
Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis
that the parki~sg waiver will not cause an increase in traffic r.ongestion in
the immediat~ vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining ].and uses and
granting of the p~~rking waivec under the conditions imposed, if a y, will not
be detrimental to the pcace, health, safety and general welface of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Chaira~oman La Claire offered Resolution No. PC85-256 and moved fot its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dces hereby grant
Con~itional Use Permit No. 2740 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
16.03.U3U.030 through 18.03.030.035 in^luding an additiona? condition that the
additional room not be rented to anyone as a separate living unit and subject
to Interdepartmental Committee recommer.dations.
11/25/85
, a~
MINUTES. ANAHGIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMnER 25, 19 `-
~- -
On roll ca11, the Eorenoing ceaolution wa~ ~aased by the fol.lowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ GA CLAIRE, MC f3URNEY~ MESS~;
NOES: NONE
AIiSF.NT: I,AWICKI
Kendra Morries, peputy City Attorn~y, pre:~ented thP writtcn r:~ht to appea.l
the Planniny C~mmi~sion's decision within 22 days ta the City Council.
IT~M NU. $ EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION WAIVER OF COQE REQUIREMh;N'f ANU
CONDITIUtdAI~ USE PERMIT N0. 2738
OWNERS: EUCLID STREF'r BAP'PIST CHUI2CH OF ANAH~IM, iN~., 140Q S. Euclid Stree~,
Anaheim, CA 92802, ATTN: CHRIS'POPNER LqWTyER. AG~;N'P: HOPE UNIVERSITY, P.O.
Box 4818, Anaheim, CA 92802, ATTN: GEORGE ~~EWMAN, SR. Pro~erty described s
an iccegularly-st-aped parcel. af ~and consis~ing oE approximately 3~cres,
located at the northeasl• coCne[ u£ F3uena Vista Averue and ~uclid S~ceet, 1408
South Euclid StrePt (Euclid Street Baptist Church).
To permit Hope University, (a school for L•he gifted mtntally retarded adults),
an elementary school, a pre-school, and to construct a'l-s~ory, S-~init housing
~acility i~ conjunction with a ct~urch with waivers of (a) reo,uir.ed setback of
playg[ound area, (b) minirnum number of parking spaces, (c) rnaximum fence
height adjacent to Euclid Street and (d) maximum structural height adjacent to
single-family zoning.
There were L-F~irty eight per:>ons indicating theiL presence in favor. of thi~
requesl and forty-five present in opposition to suc~ject request and although
the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a p~~rt ~f the
minutes.
Vincent Lupo, 22708 Stagg, Canog~ Pa[k, CaliEo rnia, stated he 15 a memb~r of
the Board of Directors of Ho~e University and thP spokesman for this meeting.
He stated this proPerty ia an ideal facility for Hope University in that it
will cor.cinue to function as a school and the church h~s been there for 23
years and will continue to function in that ca~~.city ~nd the zoning is
consistent and compatible with the area and t;~~re is an~ther school accoss th~
street. He stated High Hopes is a group of musically gifted mental.ly disabled
~~-.~~ny ~euple and Discovery Twirlers is a square dance group ~,~ho also attends
Elupe University a:~3 th~y have been one of the greatest goodwill ambassadors
for the City.
Doris Walkec, 1?55 W. Greenleaf Avenue, Anaheim, Adm~ strator, stated Hope
University has four major goals and the first is the dEVelopment of their
students who are foung adults who have mental retardation and happen to be
qifted and interesc~~~ in fine arts; and (2) is to share the message and ways
af ~~orking wi~h these students with administrators all over the country
through training courses and materials; and (3) that they want to widen the
rpportunities for the performers who are disabled and (4, to heighten the
public awareness ~f the potential of the mentally retarded and disabled. She
stated the High Hopes have appearec] for abcut ]0 vears all overed~eWithaaalot
at the Convention Center and it has been _he.r rrivilege to app
of =ars, and stated they also provide educacion t~ help these students become
a~.~ntributing part of the community. 11/25/85
MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS_ION_~_NOVEMBER ^c5. 1985 __85-650
Joe U'Neil, 408 5. Adria, state~ his Froperty is at the coKner ~t Adria and
Chanticleer and they have t~ad an ~pportunity to review tl~e Pro~or~al and had a
tneeting in the neighborFiood t~ diacuss the prnpasnl and the Commission does
have a petition signed by 174 neigl~uars in oppnsitt~~n. He sLatcd t;he General
Plan dec~ignates the property to be low d~:nsity residential and office
protessional uses and ttiat other usea are ~ermittcd witl~ approval of A
conditional. uae permit and the church and achool are nol tt~ere by right, t~ut
Chrough the approval of a conditianal u~e per.rnit. He stated thiS prop~nal is
not for one use, but for five uses, the church, elem~ntary school and a
day-care center which are existing and the {~ope Univec:~ity and L•he apartment
cot~p.lex. fie ~tated acr.iviti.es at the complex are proi~osed to be continuous
from 5:30 a.m. ta 9:UU p.m. every day and this does not include any activities
froin the apartment complex and obviously thece will be activities fcoro that
aparL•m~nt use.
Mr. 0'Neil stated currently there are ,~roblert~s ak this site and the noise iy
considerable and added they feel the ~~nvironmer~t~~l preparation was not
suff.ici.ent and does not address the }7roblema ~f noi.se and traffi.c. He ^tated
ther~ will be ~eople te~tifying that there t~ave r.e~n nois~ readings taken at
this site whicti indicated noise lev~ls bPyond 70 decibels and one nei3hbor
will testify she has been driven t~om her home because of ~he noise of the
playground. He ~t~ted he was sur~ the Commissian is very familiar with the
traFfic situation on Euclid A~enue between Ball and CerritoF and the Traffic
Department gave him a volume count. of 120,000 vehicles, A'PD, a~ the
intPtsection of Ball and Luclid. Ne stated there is definitely a traffic
problem with the existing development and it has exlremely poor access from
Euclid. He stated at peak hours traff;.c backs up beyond Palais almo~t to
Cerritos. He statPd peo~.le who do use the property now use the '.ext
alternative which is out Palais, a residential street, and ~lso people us~~q
t.he facilit} r~ow are cos~in~ in Erorti C~rritos via B~~y1e..s Street, so accesa to
the property is very poo.~ and additional uses ~.ill make it even worse. F'~
stated he did not understand why these probl.ems werc: not ~dciresse~ in t;he
envi.ronmental impact report pceparation and felt at least a focused EIR would
have pointed out these problems and suggested some mitigation measures.
He stated, apparently, if thi.~ is approved, '..he situation could only get
worse, that the church h~s alt~ady expnnded i~to the re~idential area by
purch.:sing a single-family home on Chanti~leer. and apparently, it has been
used for some schaol ~urpose~. He asked where the development wili end and
added uar.ditional use permits a~~ ne^essary to contral ~he growth af the
cummunity and to protect the r•~sid~ntial character of the ne:gt~borhood and if
this is approved, it will all an expansion into ~n al.ready crowded
neighborhood with apartment: ~nd schools to the no~rh, schools t~ the west and
apartments to the east and suuth and a convalescent ho:ne on the nurthwest
cornec of the propert,. He stated these encroachmenta canr~.ot be allowed to
cor_Lir,~e and that thert is no one in th~ neighborhood who has any objection to
the churcl~, the school, the university or ar.y of these uses, but the basic
problem is five uses ori 3 acres of property in a tesidential neiahborhood. He
stated the staff report rpfers to a 3-year time limit with the school and
church t.o be phased out. He referced to a publi.cation put out by the ahurch
saying they will be able to :.ontinue the school at this locati~n f or the next
3 years and will ha~ve the option to cantinue using it beyond that date if
desired, and thay will :,e able to continue the arrangement on a year-by year
11/25/85
MItlUTES, ANAHEIM CITY HLANNING COMMTSSICNI NOVEMt1ER 25, 1985 85-G51
basis as long as both tlo~e University and ~he Euclid Street Baptist Church
agrPe, and the achool will be at~le to continue their use of the property wt~ile
Hope is getting esCabli.shed in kheir new far.i.lit•y. t~e stated it also
indicated tl»y will be able to continue with their teaching and preaching
ministry at 1408 S. Euclid and thought that 3ounds like an op~n-ended
arrangement which r.ould continue for a lonq time. He s~ated lie thinks Hape
University is a very needed, desired function Eor the City and thought it is
going to be very popular and will conti.nue to qr~w, hui did not think it is
righ~ to put it in a site which already }•~a~ ;er uses that ace complex.
tiE~ stated he would be worried about t•he saEN ~ Chat many children
crossing the stteet going to school and he I~a~ .~.~n a 1ot oE near misses and
wauld al~o be concErned about the safety ~f khe handicapped ctiildren in th~
area and not just becau~e r.t~ey should not be there, but ber.ause of r,he saf~~ty
haza-ds.
Mr. ~'Neil stated the Planning Commission must make Eindings of fact Eor
granting a conditional use permit as listed on Page 8-y of the staEf report
and he would question whether the apa~tment complex relates to the c~.urch and
its celated activities. fie stated he would also question tt~e school because
the school is impacting the residential nei.ghhorhood now and they feel it will
adversely affect the adjoining land uses and growth and development aE the
area; and that tne size and shape of the property is not adeyuate ta allnw the
fu11 development of the proposed uses in a manner not detrimental to the
partlcular area nor to the ~eace, health, safety and general wel£ace; and th~:.~
the traEEic generated by the proposed se will propose an undue buc~3en unon
khe st:eets and will be detrirt~~~ntal to the peace, healr!~, safety and general
.+elfare of the citizens oE the ~:ity of A~~aheim. tie a9ded they would request
that the Planning Commissio~~ deny this request i~ecause it is an
over-inkensification of the land use.
Dorot:,y Rubin, 1674 Chanticleer Road, stated her propecty is right behind the
church and wanted to ask how many af th~ peopl.P present in favor of thi.s
request were neighbors with approximately 2 people raising their hands. She
stated she has lived in this area for the past 30 years and has had five
children who graduated from Loara High School and they have been verY happy
with the r,aighborhood, but at present are concecned about a dep~eciating
neighborhood and decreasinq property values partls caused by the trafEic
congestion and noise Erom Euclic:.~treet including the fire station. She
stated when they moved to this location 22 years ago, they were pleased with
the neighborhood and were happy to see the church in the neighborhood, but
today the noise, traffic and conge~tion generated from the church and its
schools are deafeniny, and unknown to the neighbors, the schoois have
increased tn 260 students and the chu ~~h has pu~chased a residential home ~,n
Chanticleer across Erom her home about 7 years ~ga and it t~as h~en used for
chucch activities. She stated th~~re have been pool pacties and daily usage of
that home and that John Poole, Cod~ Enforcement Officer, explained to her that
Reverend Crow told him the neighbors ha~3 given him permission to u~e that home
and the neighbor.s do not have that authority; and that the tenants in the home
fo.r the last 7 years have ranged from a schuol secretary of the church to an
elderly couple, and a small fami?.y and during the last 2 to 3 years various
young men whn have stay~d from 3 months to 2 years and the last young man
moved becaus~ i5 was so noi~y he could not study. She stated she did not know
any of the young men, who appeared to be very nice, but that she had a i5-year
11/2s/as
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION1 NOVEMBLR 25, 1985 85-652
~ld daughter and har9 to have a new front door inaL•alled with a deAd-bolt ~ahich
was very expensive.
She ~kah.ed wftt~ the rising school and church enrollment, they I~ave increased
the usage o[ tl~e reaidentiAl tiume in the neighborhood and the neighbors have
become very angry and hurt and did not want to complain against the church or
children, but after ahe personally viewed power tines dr.oppe~ down on a swinq
set with live wires dancing arouiid the fcet of the ct~ildren, she was con~erned
and also she sees the children's lunch tables within a few feet of an onen
drainage ditch and realizes thefie conditions could never t~a~pen in a public
achuol. 5he explain~d ~tie is a pre-school teacher ak ~dison Elementar;~ School
in Anaheim and she does care what. happens to these children. She s+~at~d ~he
children do not have ample playground area and noted there are 3~ublic
schools in this immediate area and with the increased traffic, noise and
congesti~n from Euclid with the aparlments, that acea is already overly
saturated and the3e additional uses wil.l be a burden on a once w~nc9ertul
neighbarhood. She stated she is not against Ftope University because of the
mentally retarded ~adults, but she is aqainst any additional school becauAe i~
is loo much for the area. She stated about 1/3 of the neighbor.hood ~re the
original owners for 2U years, t.herefore, this is a ver~+ stable neighborhood.
She stated ahe heard the neighbors plea to help the neiyhborhood from the
noise, traffic and congestion and that they would reyuest that the Euclid
E3aptist Church conLinue to fu~ction for its c.ciginal purpose. She presented
pictures of the power lines pver the school swing sets and the classrooms
being used in the home.
Mrs. Rubin read a letter £rom Mr. and Mrs. Ron Jones, the next door neiyhbors
who could not be present. Th~ letter pertained to large diesel bu~as b[inging
yroups of people to the residential I~ouse in khe neighbor~~ood and leaving
their engines cunnin9 with the fumes and noise about 6 feet from their fence.
Colleen McKeon, 1603 Palais Road, Anaheim, e:cplained her property is 1 block
north of the Tiaptist Church and they have lived at t.his location for
approximately 25 years and since the f3aE~~ist Church has expanded from time to
time, they hav~ had church members parking on theic street. She stated at the
present time there is not adequate parking facilities at the church and as a
good neighbor they have tolerated this fnconvenience w;thout objection, but
l.l~~ k~resent plans by the church to e.cpand would only add to their
inconvenience and they feel the churches' proposed plan foc exPansiori is
overlooking their obligation to be gaod neighbors. 5he 3tated they wou:ld
respectfully request that thE Planning Commission deny this rE~~:~est. Ms.
McKeon read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Cason, 1661 W. Palais, expressing
opposition to this request on h.he basis that the never-ending changes,
additions and expansions of what originally was represented a~s a community
church only and there was ;.his misrepresentation that the neighbors gave
permission and asked hew these changes have all come about.
Bruce Newell, 1679 euena Vista, Anatieim, stated his pcoperty abuts the
commercial-limited zoned property which ia part of the church property and the
proposed plan show~ a two-story 12,i100 sq. ft. temporary housing complex on
that property and pointed out the area between the housing units and ~he
pro~ecty whece presently playground equipment is :.nstalled with an existing
6-foot chainlink fen:.e which is ko remain in place. H~ stated he finds it
11/25/85
MINU`^~S~ ANAtiEiM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN~ NOV~t1BER_ 25, 1985 85-653
u:~belinvable ttiat thia area wi,ll not a~r~in be used as a playground and
pr.esented pt~otographs showing the area. He Atated he belleved the ptaposed
hc~sing facility should be termed "apartments' and that he fs totally ugainsr.
high dPnsity living next to a single-family home, Farticularly I~is own. ~te
stated during the lask four Xear3 when he has been home due to i1lneFS or has
taken a v~cation day, the noise from children attending the church school has
made it imposaible to reat or relax in his own home.
Mr. Newell aL•ated on Octobec 4, 1985, he took a day oif work and uaing a sound
intensity meter t.c~ measure the noise level from hiA awn backy~~rd, observed a
reading of 72 cier..ibela on tt~e A-weiyhted scale for 5 mir-utes at 1:26 p.m.,
with his wife a~ a witness, and at 1:32 p.m. there was a readiny of 73.5
decibels fo[ a period of 4 minutes Lrom the neighbor's backyard. tie stated
this instrumenL was calibrated to USHA standard3 and is used by him in his
c;aPacity as d design eng::neec for testi.ng noise levels ftom packaging
machinery built ta hi.s designs. E~e etated this level of sound intensity is
actually between the accepted average figures for loud traff.ic and an average
Lactoty. fie stated he feels that any permit allowing the churcY~ school to
continue operating on the premisea would be contrary to the ociginal
conditional use pecmit (No. 2~1, I2esolution N~. 235-Secies 1961-62) and any
furthet permits and/ur zc~ning changes would be detrimental to the pear_e,
hpaltn, safety and generai welface of Che residents of the tract.
Mr. Newe11 stated in addition to his observation, he wanted to make it clear
fo the C:~mmission that the volume o£ traffic entering and exiting from the
cl~urch pruperty between 7:45 and 8:15 a.m. on weekdays has caused him to
experience many near-misses from vehicles being driven hactily in and out of
that p[operty. He presented photographs of the traffic situation.
Mr. Newell stated cpncerning L•he pa[king variance, at present vehicles are
Farked by employees and visitors of the f~uena Vista Guest Home o:~ Euclid, and
he Knows the owner of that facility is worKing on the property, but it does
not relieve him of the concern that ~~ny additional changes in the church's own
parking facilities can only caus~ an increase in tt~e congestior-, particularly
with the prop~sed housing units as shown on the proposed plan.
Mr. Newell stated the reasoR for this heari7g is because af a Notice of
Kailure to Comply issued to the church, brought about by complaints from the
neighbors for the past 3 to 4 yeacs, ~~.~e to ;-oise, traffic, congestion and
general unsi9htliness of the chucch property. He stated he feels the Hope
U~iversity project is purely a diversion brought about by the church to mask
ths real pcoblems causing these protests. He presented more photographs to
sup~ort his complaints about unsightliness. tie stated he strongl; reque.~ts
the Pla~ining Commission not to grant the canditional use permit Eor this use
and further that the church withdraw its application and become the good
neighbor they have reported to be and give the neighbors peace in their homes
to which rhey are entitled.
Mr. Newell read lett~rs from Mrs. Joanne S. Orth, 1641 Buena Vista, dated
Novembec 25, 1985, concerning her opposition becauAe of the day-care center
and the elementary school with traffic, noise and other problems. He read
another letter from Mrs. Gemault, 1663 Buena Vista, regerding her concern
about the four schools within a few city blocks creating noise and traffic
1?/25/85
MINUT~S, ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING CUMMIS5ION, NOVEMBF.R 25, 1985 _. 85-654
congestion. He presented three additional letters - s~~hjer.t lette[s are
a~~AilAble in the Planning Departm~nt files.
Marilyn Richcy, 165 ~+~laia, stated her property is very cloae ta the church
and tier primary concern is LrAffic L•hat h~s cume about aince tt~e elem~ nttacy
schaol started and her concer,~ Eor the aaEety of the c;~ildren invo]ved. She
stated a newspa~er article recently indicated Rev. Crow said there was "bit oE
an misunderslanding" and tt~ak much oppuRition ~tem~ from ~~isunderstanding by
the neighbors about men~ally retarded people and *_t~at is not true and they are
responsihle citizens. She ~xplalned she is a cPtired teacher and has taught
all races, ages, religians, and the handicapped and she worked for rnany yeara
wi.th teschera of inentally retarded children and was ap~alled at Rev. Crow's
indication that their objeclion ia to [Iope Schaol and wanted to expla in their
objections are, and remain to be Che creation uf any achool in that small
confined area where on.ly a church was to have beF~n and she felt the ch~arch
could have let ~he neighbochood know what was goir-g to hap~.en.
Chairwoman La Claire stated tiie Conr,~ission did not know either and there was
never a public hearing.
Coreen Newell, 1679 Duena vista, Anal~eim, cefer.red to her letter datec3 Uctoher
10, 1985, regar.ding the op~n field next to their pro~erty. She state d they
purchased ti~eir property in June 1981, and have contacted the Planning and
Zoninq Uepartment, clating back to 5e~tember, 1982, at~out the pr~blem; that r~he
was contactecl by ~ev. Crow and he told I~er not to call the oEficials again
because he ii~:d friends who w~uld take care of everythinq; that h~ promiseci to
ct~ange the insect screens whict~ had been battered by balls flyii~g into them on
the west side of her house, and he also said they would have a 2-foo~ addition
placed on the f.ence becauce th~ ct~ildren wece climbing ovPr the fence at least
twice a c:ay to retrieve their balls. She stated she begged the Nlayg round
supervisar to stop them and all they did was bring the children to h er door
asking to pick up LhPir balls, and that happened daily; and that appr oximately
?n August 1984, on one of Pastar Craw's visits to her home, which was br~ught
~uout by her cornplaint about the noise from the facility, the excessive use oE
whistles was disrussed and he told her he tiad a doctorate in psychology and
did not agree with whistles being used to summon childcen or any huma n being
and that amazed her because the whiatle~ had been used for at least 1 8 months,
Ms. Newell stated the Sl•ate of California does not have any jurisdiction uver
private e.lementary schools and all they require i3 the number of stu d ents in
attendance; that they coulcl be taught in tents because the State Education
Department has no jurisdiction over what they ace taught, ho~~ they a r e taug't,
or wheze they are kaught.
She referred to statements of justification made by the petitioner f oc
approval of this request, especially No. 3, and felt it is not even r emotely
related to this hearing ar.d a zone change is not being requested, an d she felt
the hardship is self-created. She stated the pastor and his skaff h ave always
been f ully aware tnat she works from her home which she has had to s top doing
because she c~uld not concentrate because of the noise; and that she tried to
work ~lround the playground ~cF~edule which was furniahed from time to time, but
it constantly changed. She stated sh~ has tried to work with this
organization.
11/25/85
MINU'PES. ANAHEIM CITY_P~ANNING CUMMTSSION. NOVFMBER 25, 1985 __ 85-655
Ma. Newell submitted copies of affidavLta foc the elemer.ary school, the first
a~ted November 1980~ witl~ 33 children in the schuol. St~e stated these
~ffidavita pc~ve, more or l~es, that they were increasinq their enr~llrtient at
an alarming rate while the problema we~c going o~ and being reported to tha
Code Enforcement OfEice. She explained the counts are taken each Octobec
after the opening of the new school yeac, and the Eirst complaint about noise
was in the spring of 1982 when there were 32 ki.ndergarten childcen (ages 5),
.l5 Grade 1 children (agea 6), ~nd ~1 grade 2 children (Agea 7), and these
affidavits show how the grades and agea have increased to the present
intolerable level of Grade 6(ager 10-11), wi-ii a total of 190 elementary
school children, as opposed ta A7 when the first complAint was made. She
state~ there is no ~uy lhia orq4nization can say they have tried to keep the
noise down and be goud neighbore in !.ight of these affidavits and she cannot
accept thexr word on any part o£ theic new proposal and asked when it will be
possible Eor her to ceturn to her home during the day. She stated ~he can
clearly hear the screatning in her own bedco~m with all windows closed ~~nd
there have been days, beiore the children were removed from the open fie~d,
when she could not converse with hec daughtec standing in the hallway because
of the noise. She stated the church runs a summec school program and Bible
school., ~o the noise is year round, and as it stands now, they could only sell
their property to a deaf family, peo~le who wark during day away fcom home, or
to the chu~ct~. She submitted the Penny Saver dated June 12, 1985, proving
that the school sol.icited business from anyone ~repared to pay knowing at that
time there was strong opposition Prom the ne'.ghborhood. She asked if this
indicates natural gcowth and if it is being a good neighbor and is this a
caring Christian oriqi~ation. She presented an article f[om the Register
dated November 9, 19a5, a~ to how the City of Stanton is helping working
parents with an after-school ~rogram using buses to pick up children from the
surrounding schools and taking them to the 5tanton Doy's and Girl's Home where
they ace supervised until parents pick them up and the cost is $15.00 per
month per student. She stated she ~hinka that is one solution for the Euclid
Baptist Church because it is mostly a~ay care center and the only probler~i
would be the extra traffic on Euclid at peak times.
She stated the real solution is to use the 30 to 50 acre~ of land in SanLa Ana
Canyon, which accordiny to a letter sent out by Reverend Crow, has been
donated ~o the Hope University and l-hat way they could stay in Anaheim and
there is ample land for them to carry on all ~heir. plans f or the church, a
day-care center, a pre-school and the Hope Universily, with adequate parking
and a buffer zone, but please not to allow it on this 3 acres of land.
Patricia Eckhardt, 1678 Chanticleer, stated hec property is adjacent to the
church and after yeara of living in close harmony with the church, they find
it difFicuit to complain now with strong beliefs in the home and church and
they have ignored many of the churches e;tpansion activities which the}• felt
were improper. She stated they have obsecved children a.t. desks located in
what they have called 'Red's Tool Chest' and this structure was located just a
few [eet from their back fence. She stated they have watched Red's labor of
love for the church for many years and underskand the need and are now
concecned about the shed's appearance and about the children's safety. She
stated she watched the congregation build their gym and Sunday School building
and rejoiced because of their active youth proyram and ~er son has
participated in many of those activities. She stated some time later the
11/25/85
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PT,ANNING CUMMISSION, NOVEMB~R 25, 1985 __ 85-656
_ ~.~_- -
ctiurch bought the home nQxt to them at 1677 ChantLcleer and then chey started
the nursery school. wt~ich seemed at first, a sensible thing to do, and then
they moved in a lArge mobil.ehome-type trailer adjacent to the church and the
number oE childcen grew and grew. She atated the children are squ~ezed into a
parking lot and a dirt area near the cirainage area where they play. She
stated r~he wonder.s about the quality of their education and whether or not the
safety conditions are being met, but the real question is how an area zaned
~or normal church activities can be legally expanded to include all the
preAent activities witt~out ~he appcoval oE the affected neighborhood. She
stated Erankly the entire yituakion is frightening because this was a
desirable neighbor.hood with a wonderful school system and their homea were
their pride and joy and ttiNir value is their largest inves~ment in their
reticement income and now, it will be nearly impossible to sell their homes to
anyone who s~ends any time at all to look at the situation and listen to the
noise. She stated there are only 2 choices to make, cither (1) reyuire the
church to reduce their activitiey to the normal acceptable zoning laws and (2)
to cezone all the adjacent proper~ies to multip~e-fan~ily residential uses or
commercial use:;. She presented pictures of. Red's shed and the trailer.
Mr. Lupo stated the oppositions' concerns are noise and traffic and it is hard
to Ketute that and th~re is too much noise ~nd traffic. He stated he was sure
there has been a grave misunderstanding as to what this property will be used
for and how it will be purchase~ by Hope University. !~e stated Hnpe
Univer3ity has been lookiny for ~~n adequate facility f~r a number oE year~ and
regarding joint occupancy with the elementary schaol, etc. this is a phase -out
progcar~ and Hope Univecsity is not purchasing this pro~erty to forever be
joint occupant~. He stat~d the program would be phased out ovec a 1 tu 3 year
period and tt~e Euclid Street Bapt.ist Church and school have outgrown kheir
Eacilities. He stated they ar.e not talking about an increase in tra.ffic or
noise and the students who will be occupyiny Hope University will not be out
on the playground because they are adults interesked in learning about fine
acts and music and tr~is will be reducing the number of students from 250 to
approximately 100 students.
!~e stated they are trying to do somekhing about the noi~e and traffic and
understand a traffic consultant is presently pceparing a report with
recommendations to alleviate the problems and reduce the current traffic. He
stated the apartments will be occupied by students who do not drive; and that
Ftope University is purchasing this property at a great expense and to occupy
it with Euclid Church and School will help them get started and it would be in
the interest of the citxzens to have the school there and to receive the
report from the Traffic Engineer with recommendations on ~lleviating the
existinq traffic problems.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst statecl the problem here is not so much the university, but
what is there now and what has been going on Eor the last few years, even
without the approval of the Planning Ccmmission, and it appears there is a
day-care s~hool without the proper conditional use permits and tt~e Code
Enforcement Officers have had to go out from time to time and try to alleviate
the problems and it is contin~:ally getting worse. He asked where the present
school and church will be moved to. Mr. Lupo stated they will be moved within
11/i5/85
MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 25, 1945__ 85-657
the next 3 years and that iA the problem of the church and they wo uld not be
purchaAing it with the understanding that they will occupy And co ntinue to
occupy thie building.
Commissioner Herb~t stated if ~he church would relacate immediate 1 y, it would
be acceptable, and then having handicapped children there and eliminating the
day-school would probably be acceptable to the neighhors. Mr. Lu po stated the
activitiei3 of the adults at thi3 college will be spread out over the day ~nd
night so it will be greatly alleviate many of the problems. He s tat~d there
has to be a phaAe-out program and ttiat is a question t~ be answec ed by
Revecend Crow.
Reverend eryon Crow, 6069 Morning View Arive, stated L•hey have en t~red into a
joint proposal and they wi~1 do the pha~e out ov~r a 3-,yFar progr am, with
aopcoximately 100 students b~ing moved the ficst year and 100 or rn~re the
second year, and phasing out ttie r~gt in the third year whir,h wil 1 give them
an opportunitX ro relacate without totally upsetting the students and theic
parent.s.
Commissioner Herbst asked why they have not come before the Plan ning
Commission or City Council before and gotten the proper permits n ecessary to
do what they are doing now. Rev. Crow stated there are a couple oE difficult
things for him to answer because he wankec: to be fair to everyon e. Ete stated
this difficulty ca-ne about because two staff reports they had re c eived somehow
gok misplaced out of the City fi.les and one is ceferred to on th e second page
oE today's staff ceport. He stal•ed when the need arose tor day care, he came
to the Planning Department and told them what he wanted to da an d ask~d if it
would be alright to start a day-care facility in conjunction with their scl~ool
and pointed out day cace is from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and fr~ m 3:30 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. and told the Planning Department they did not want to be in
violation of the Code and wanted to know what they cauld do.
Commissioner Hecbst stated he does not recall ~his church ever b eing here for
such a request and explained any clay-care school is required to came before
rhe P.lanning Commission for a c:onditional use permiC. Reverend Crow stated
when they discovered this matecial was misplaced, he wrote an e x planation of
how they have gotten to this point and submitted it for the Commission's
review.
Chairwoman La Claire stated th~ day-care and pre-school are the r e and they are
existing and causing great problems for the neighborhood and we r e never
approved by the Planning Commission and this t~as to be stopped, she stated she
did not know whether the neighbors realize what is being propos ed and
explained they are proposing to change the use of the property and it will no
lonqer be a church aftec the 3-year period ~f time and would be just Hope
University. She stated this is church property and there has been a chur.ch in
existence for a long time and the people bought in the acea thi nking that
property would remain as a church and a church has several diff etenl: uses, but
among them is not a public school oz day-care center and the tr aditional uses
for a church pr~perty would include church services, Sunday Sch ools, etc. with
occasional youth meetings in the evenings, she stated this has grown to this
point and all the neighbors are upset and the Commission does n ot get this
many people in opposition unless there is really a problem in t he area and the
11/ 25/85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 25, 1985 85-659
Commission t~as to aomehow correc t this problem and 3~~ears is not sufficient
because they are cauaing a problem now. She stated ~he understandg the need
foc the tiope Univ~rpity achool, but the Commiasion needa to know more about
the school, the houca of operution, etc. and also ~he was concerned about the
school growing Erom 100 ~tudents as propo~ed. She staCed the existing
appraval for thie is for ci~urch usea only.
Commi.ssioner Herbst staL•ed l•hey are opera~.ing tllegally as far as the City
ordinances are concerned and normally when this happena, they must comply and
reyuest a conditional use permit in order for a public heArinq to be held and
the conditions imposed. He stated they are aperating illegally and must cease
a~ s~on as poa~ible and they mus t get proper pErmita, and the reason for the
conditional use process is to determine the imp~ct• on the neighbors.
Reverend Crow stated they are not proposinq to do someGhing illegal and to
kheir knowledge tt~ey have not. He stated they came in in .t976 and asked the
Planning Director if they were within the Code an~] he said they certainly were
and then again in ,iune oE 198A, they came back co the Flanning Director and
aGked, considering the present zoning, would it be possible for them to sell
their propecty to Hope University and was told by the Planning Director the
pr~perty was properly zoned ~o Hope University could take over. He stated
they are in £avor ot City government and would not want to leave here with the
impression they were trying to by-pasu the system and to a certain extent they
are victims oE Cheir own ~uccess and have been operating under the impression
=hei[ acl•ivities were legal.
Responding to Commissioi~er tierbst as to the number of violations they have
recelve~ during the last yeaz, Re~~. Crow stated they have been inspected 14
times by 4 different aqencies in tne last 2 months and they have done
everythinq to comply with al.l the complaints and as of Eriday, the Code
Enforcement Officec indicated they have done everything they know that can be
done to comply wi~th the la~.
Malcolm Slauqhter, Ue.puty City Attorney, stated he has been advised that a
parking c~emand study i.s being prepared and ha~ not been submitted to staff foc
their review in conjunction with the request for the parking waiver and under
the City ordinance, the Commission would be hard-pcessed to approve a waiver
legally without that parking study; and also in discussing this with staff,
and based on the evidence staff has heard today, it is his feeling the City
would be hard-pressed to support the application presently before the
Commission without preparation of a full er~vironmental impact report.
Chairwoman La r,laire stat~d with this many people complaining about noise and
traffi.c, an EIR would be required. Rev. Crow stated they want to be good
neighbars and are here ta solve Lhe problerns.
Chairwoman La Claice stated there may have been causes for misunderstanding,
but that really doesri't matter, and in fact, they are in for a hearing now
because there fs a problem and that problem can't go on bpcause it is too much
of a problem and she is concerned that if this is approved, there will
contfnue to be problems.
11/25/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, NOV~MBER 25, 1y85 85-659
Commiasionec Herbst stated the request is for Hope University, dn elementary
school, a pre••school and a 2-story, 8-un.it huueinq facility and approval af
this permit would bring all the uses into compliance, but with the pcesent
opposition and with the existing schools, he did nut think this should be
approved.
Chairwoman La Claice 3tated she did not wanl- to approve anything without an
EIR and that is very expensive and the existing uses are already causing
problema. Commissioner Bouas stated Iiope University should not be penalized
for the church'a mistakes. Mr. Lupo stated they have spend several thousand
doll~rs already foc a traffic report to come up with a solution and are trying
to solve the problems and the real complaints relate to the church and ach~ol
which will be phased out.
Chairwoman La Claire sta*_ed she would like for Hope University to get the
traffic and noi~e reports, provide schedule~ oE their operation, total number
af stud~nts, utilization of khe apactment buildings, h~w many students would
be there and where tt~ey will practice and how many people will be staying in
the housing units, etc. She added, in the meantime. Commission will not vote
on this request today hecause there is noC a traffic study or noise study and
the neighbora have nol• had an opportunity to find out whaL Hope University is
all about. She suggested the Eiope University official~ meet with the
representatives from the neighborhood to tell them what tl,e sct~ool is all
about and atter the skudies ar.e all compleked, thP hearing can be continued~
Commissioner Messe stated the Commission has nok heard ~Snythi.ng against Hope,
but the residents are afraid of a continuation of the rurrent problems. Mr.
Lupo skated they will be happy to meet with the residents and it was auggested
he contact Mr. 0'Neil, It was suggesked thir matter be cuntinued to the
meetiny ot .lanuary 6, 1985. Mr. Lupo stated they would cequest a continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, se~onded hy Commissioner
Messe MUTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-~hedul.ed meeting of
.7anuary 9, 1985.
RECk;SSED: 5:15 p.m.
RECONVENED: 5:30 p.m.
ITEM NU. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIPICATION N0. 85-86-14 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3518
QWNERS: DOROTHY LEE MACDONALD, 925 S. Webster Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804 and
THOMAS c:HAFtLES CONWAY, 917 S. Webster Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: ALASH
t~IOMENY, 25283 Cabot Road, Suite 205, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. Property
de~cribed as a rec~angularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
0.87 acre, 917 and 925 South Webster Avenue.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waivers of maximum fence height and maximum structural height to conatruct a
25-unit aparL•ment building.
11/25/85 ;;
~
5 ___ tl5'
There was no one indicating thsir pceeence in oppoaition to subject request
r~nd alth~ugh the staff ceport was not read, it ia cefecred to and made a~Art
oE thQ minutes.
John Dorris, 4457 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, explained their request is for
teclasaification to RM-1200 to construct a 25-unit ap~~andnexplained~theyh
waiver of maximum f~ence height from 6 feet to 10 feet,
discus~ed this Eence with Che neighbors directly behind ~.he propecL•y and they
had no objections and wece happy the property will be devel~ped. He f.urther
explained their properL•y ia 2 Lest lower than grade requiring a 10 feet fence
t o m a k e i t t h e 8 feet they would like un their side. Concecning the r.equest
for three atories within 54 feet oEaa sin5overatheyunits, and paubmi tted ta` h e
a c a l e m o d e l diF pla yed showing the p rking
letter from the neighbor behind the property ind ica t ing t h e y w e r e n o t i n
oppoaition.
Kick Wesslen pointed uut Lhe plans submitted for this project are identical co
the plans he had appcoved for a~toject at a31 South Webster and was concerned
that a personlained hemhadnpai.dha lotnofnn~oneyAtomhaveahistplanspdr~wnfrom a
file, ~nd exp
Commissioner McHurney stated the Planning Commission is not in a position to
make the determinaClatirehasked t4r.nWessleneto~contacteheompersonally,roPlans
and Chairwoman La
discuss the problem.
hl~. Dorris responded he is not aware of anything dishonest, and pointed out he
is not the architect.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL05EA.
Commissioner McBurney stated the nlan shows the project only degressed two
feet below grade and asked if that qualifies the project for thceHesexplained
Mr. Dorcis stated one-halt of the garage is counted aa a story.
they made the project identical t~ 831 S. Webster and there are a couple of
other projects which have the same thing.
Commissioner McButney stated the Code di~tateMrthDor[is` staked thishis~nexactly
before it can be classified as nCOVedsonrthe street.
like th~ ones that have been app
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, state:d this area has a mix
that the Zoning staff's
of building height3 and below gr.adP projects;
interpretation is that the building is measured at the actual grade at the
base of the building~ meaning to thp property line; and that the B~iilding Code
doesn't define it quite the same way, and she thought there~~ovedebyrZoni~g-
which has done something other than what would have been ap_
and the Zoning staff does not count a mounded-up earthern berm to the edge oi
the building as establishing a new grade foz the site. She stated when staff
cealized that some difterent interpretation was being made in the Buildiny
Division, it has beenoresthandl/2tstocYlbelowrgradeois~not rcounteda~s a~story.
Commission has been m
11/25/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PGANNING COMMISSION, NOV~MBER 25, 1985 ~85-661
Commisaioner Mesae atated thece seems t~ ~e only one buildin~ on thE> west aide
of that street thal• would be counted as three atocy.
MohammAd EanailiA, architect, stated thece are ~hree other pro~ectr: on the
same ~tree~ which f~ave the aame ~.ituation and the ataff report indlcakes they
ace within 54 Eeet with three stories whi.ch is not true, And it is. actually
about 100 feet because stAfC is counting the loft as one stnry an~] he did not
know that was what they would be doing and atated the loEt was not counte~ as
a story ~t 831 Webster in 1983.
Kendra Morries, Assistant Planner, sta~ed at the time the building Permits
were issued far the project at 831 S. Webater, Lhe suilding Division made a
difEerent interpretation on how to ccunt the storie~ and inste~d of ineasuring
it Erom the ~idewalk grade, lheX A1lowed the developer to pravide a
substantial becm up to the Eace ~E the building wall, so ~he parking garage
level from the sidewalk level does not fall. 508 below the existing sidewalk
grade at khe property.
Chairwoman La C.laire ~tated evidently that was allowed by mistake and
Commissioner McBurney stated two wrongs don't make a right.
Mr. Esnailia ,tated the building will be
neighbors and he did not think the height
difference, and the lofts are in the back
from ~eein~ the units.
very nice and they have talked to the
will make any signtficant
and l-he roof preven~s the neigr~bors
THE PU~LIC Fi~ARING WAS CLOSEU.
Commissioner HerbEt asked if the loft will be used for .living purposes. Mr.
~snailia stated the loft will be used a~ a den or bedroom, but does not have
any windows on the west side. Commissioner Herbst s~ated the Commission
considers a lof~ such as this as a second story because it is livable arsa.
Chairwomen La Claire stated the pstitioner is asKing for the same thing
gcanted ':.0 831 S. Webster and in that circumstance, ~he Commission was not
aware th~~~ were grantinq three storie~. She asked if the parking is the same
configuration as 831 and Mr. Esnailia respondPd that i". is. He also explained
the elevation and f]oot plan is not the same, but the concept is the same.
Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Wesslen stated tiis units have a lof.t and
their units are substantially belaw grade.
Commissioner Mc~urney state~ in the photographs supplied by the applicant,
there is a 6-foot person sCanding in the driveway right by the brick front and
the top o£ his head was a~ the finished floor of the firs.t floor.
Chairwoman La Claire asked how many more ;.~roperties on this street could be
developed in this manner, with Kendra Morries expiaining there are probably
three or four more and most oE the street is already develeped wfth apartments.
Com.mi3sioner Herbst stated the pcoblem he has ~~ith approval of this request is
that they are asking for three stories within 54 feet and every other
developer will want Lhe same thing.
11/25/85
85-662
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY 6'LANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25 1985
Commiasionet Mesae skated if they W~~t andtCammisai nerhHerbatareplied if it
wnuld have two stories within 54 feet,
was worded that. way, t~e wuuld have no problem with it, b~it three sL•ories i~
the problem.
Chairwoman La Claire stated lhis ia a terriEic .looking projec~ and she
tealizes it is buile ~$ anxordinanbetortreyulatlon,ptheretishthe exception~~a
a.lmoat anytime ther
the rule and this seems to be ane.
Res~ondl.ng to Commissioner Herbst, Kendra Morries explained the resolution [or
a~proval of. the on~zonin theCQmmissionerfHecbst statedshetthouqhtathat isehig
From single-fami.ly 9
difEerence.
Mr. Dortis staL-ed this projeal• is ideeC~~l~'identical~asnfarsas~thePhefyl~tr
total 3-story building, and this proj
Kendra Morries sta_?d it is
and there is no difference in the setbacks.
identical but the Building Department dg~a£ft use the same de`inition af how
to count storiPS as used by tihe 7,ontng
,:i~~ Ec~r r.heir
Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission has ta use the
decisions.
Mr. Docris stated they were tcying to get the most ~~ark_,- +i~~~ -~*~ best
project for the neighbors and i.t i~ one of the few pro~°- "~ ~T~."= on ttie
lm~-; ~z~etore on this
entire street for de•relopmen~, and it has been done ' ;{.-,nted thrPe
street. Commissianer Herbst staled the Conimission 1~:~
stories.
`~ teet in order foc
Kendra Morries stated they would have to go down a-~ok, .--.•-
it not to count as a story. She stated the stand~~r~-, =,,s-'~I,"Nhew9~uldihaveEtot
and it i8 p~oposed to be down 2 feet and to get ~~he =?i'~~ ~'-Y
sink it another 2-1!2 feet. Mz. Dorris ~tated the 1~.: ''-=-~ls from the front to
the back, two feet lower in the back, so theya~evact'Ui-~_y~cuttingefour Eeetnd
in front next to the street. He stated they
next to Webster, and two feet at the back of r_~7e lo~.
Kendra Morries stated they would have to come down SO`• :~elow the natural
sidewalk grade, so if the gaza,e is 9 feet, 4-1~~ Eeµ= is 5t's.
Mc. Esnailia stated if they bcought it down 4-1.~:: feet, th-y would lose four
garages, and would have to reduce the numbec of unit.s because of the tamping
r.equirements. Jay Titus, OfEice ~ngiReez, stat~ed they could not park on the
ramp iP it is over a certain percentage because it wauld he too steep.
Chairwoman La Claice state~. the Cnde requireS andtthe Commiesi.onSisanotas a
living area, it has to be ~~.flunted as a story,
allowing three stories. ~e stateci she thought in this caswitkhthemfrontbe
willing to compromise with three stories ory ta~abeclowered 2-1/2 fee~ in the
conforming to two stories, with the parking g 9
front. She asked if they would like a two-week continuance in or6er to
possibly cevise the plans.
11/25/85
MINUT~S. ANANEIM CLTY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOV~MBER 25. 1985 _ _85-663
Kendra Morcies asked if it ~n the Commission's intent that the petitioner
revise the pl~~n ta <~lleviate all three-~tory areas, with the entire par.king
atructure SOv, below a.dewalk grade. Ch~irwom~n La Claire explained it was her
intent that br:4~use o£ khe one down the s~reet, whir.h was a miatake, to
compromise and ~ek this pro~ect be lowered on the fronk half to 4-1/2 Eeet,
and indicztPd sh~ did not know if it could be done. Kendra M~rrie~ stated
probab.ly 1/3 of the huil.diny would have to be three Atories, and the ecea in
question with the lofla ia approximately 1/10 of the length ot the buildi.ng.
She ~Lated the ~~jori.xy of the building is a atandard three-otocy building
wit•h a parking garage and two habitable levels above it.
Commiseioner. tie-bAt stated he felt thie property is being overbuilt, and the
develo~ment of the other property was a mietake and the Commission has to live
within the urdinance.
Mr,, Ef;nailia acated yoing down 4-1/2 feet would tnake the pcoject undesi.rahle,
wiGh Cotnmi~sioner E~erbst pointing out several ait~ilar projects have been
approvec9 all. over town.
Chaicwaman La Claire skated the Commis~ion feels very strongly about upholding
tht~+ ordinance and the history of Anaheim is to keep development at two story,
and then the cievelopers came up with undecground parking and suddenly three
etories were being developpd.
Malcolrti Sla~ughter, Deputy City Attnrney, stated the problem m~ly stem £rom the
wording of the Code and staPf interpcetation pertaining to a story beinq
measured fcom the Eloor to tt~e ceiling and iE it is below the qrade, then it
is considered a basement, under the Code, and thexefore, not considered a
habitable sl•ory.
It was clarified that the difference is in how the Bui.lding Divi~ion and the
Zoning staEf ineas~~re the grade, however, for ~he past sfx months it has been a
firm measuremen~ taken from the top of curb or ~idewalk level.
Mr. Esnailia askQd for a two-week continuance.
Mx. Esnailia asked for a two-week continuance, with Kendra Morries explaining
due ~o the holidays, any changes would have to be in by Wedne~day morning of
this week.
ACTIUtd: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTZON CARitIED iCommissioner Lawicki absent) that consi~leration o
the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting o~ December 9, 1985, at
the [equest of the petitiune~.
ITEM NO. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3522
OWNERS: KENT LANA COMPANY, cJo ItAUFMAN & BROAD, 11601 Wilshize BlVd., Lo~
Anaeles, CA 90025, A'PTN: At~IN VAKIL. Property described as a
rectangularly-3haped parcel of land consisting of approximaeely 33 acres.
lo~ated at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Caryon Road.
Waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, minimum structural setback and
required site screening to construct a comrnexcial shopping center.
11/25/85
MINU'rES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, NOVEMBER 25. 19b5 85-664
There was no one indicatiny their presence in oppos~tion to sub~ect request
and although the staff report was not r.ead, it is referred to and made A part
of the minutes.
Commissioner Bouas declared a conflict oE interest as def~ned by Anaheim City
pt.anning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Intecest
Code for the Planning Commission en~ Government Code Section 3625, et seq.- in
that her huaband is doing work for the company- and purAUant to the provisions
of the ab~ve Codes, declated to the ChairmAn that she was withdtawing from the
hearing in connection with Variance No. 3522, an~ would not take part in
either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this mAtter
with any membec of the Planning Commi~sion. Theceupc~n Commissioner Bouas left
the Council Chamber.
Amin Vakil, Kaufman & Broad, stated ChPy ace in agreement wilh the stafE
repurt, except ti~e condition requiring deletion of the westerly driveway, and
added he has 3ust been informed that the City Traffic E~~gineer is willing to
accept that driveway.
THE PULIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Jay Titus, Office Engineet, sta*ed the City Traffic Engineer indicated to him
that he was willing to go a~uz~g with the driveway, but would like the
condition included r.equirin~a that the deaign of that driveway be approved by
the TcaEfic Enginees.
Co~missioner Herbst staCed i~e has a problem with the lack of screening on the
Riverside Freeway side with people being able to look into the back of these
buildings with loading areas, etc. and thought screening should be done along
the top. Mr. Vakil ~tated the s~reening would be right at rhe botkom of the
hi11. Chairwoman La Claira stated she would like a decorative block wall
similar ta what they have in Mission Viejo, irvine, etc., and it will be
required all along Santa Ana Canyon Eor those stores which back up to the
freeway.
Mr. Vakil stated rhey will create a 44-inch high wall at the top of the
progerty and they will have to get specific approval later with materials
available for the Commission to review. It was clarified that a wall will be
constructed all along the shopping center and Mr. Vakil stated the variance
pertains to the six-foot Fence right at the bottom of the property.
Commissioner Me~se clarified that the slope below the wall to the fenc~ is
alr~ad~ landscaped. Commissioner Herbst stated his concern was the loading
nreas at the rear of the shopping center, and Mr. Vakil explained the ioading
areas will be screened with a block wall, and the chainlink fence referred to
is at the bottum of the hill for security purposes.
Mr. vakil stated the screening wall will be all along the shopping center and
trash areas, but not to the end of the property which goes into a wedge.
ACTION: Chairwoman La Claire offered a motion, spconded by Comrt~issioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Co~~missioners Bouas and Lawicki absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a
11/25/85
MINUTE5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC CUMMISwION, NOVEMa~R 25~ I985 _ 85-665
commercial ehopping cer.ar with waivers of ttiinimum number of parkl.ng spaces,
minimum structural aetback and required site screening on a rectangularly-
ahaped parcel of land conoisting of approximately 33 acres, located at the
northweat corner of Santa An~ Canyon R~ad and Weir Canyon Roadj and does
hereby a~p~ove the Neg~tive Declaration. upon Einding that it has'considered
the Negative Declaration Gogether with any comments received during the public
review pcocesa and f.urther finding on the ba~is oE the Initial Study and any
~omments received that there is no subatantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Chairwoman La Claire offered Resolution No. PC85-257 and moved for its passtige
and adoption that the Anaheim Ci~y Pl~nning Commission does heceb~ grant
Variance No. 3522 on the basls that there are special ciccumslances applicable
to the property such as $ize, shape, top~graphy, location and surroundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned ~roperty in thr. same vicinity;
and that sttict applicati~n of the Zoning Code depriveG the property of
privileges enjoyed by othec properties in the identical zone and
classifical•ion in the vicinity and subject to :i~terdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
Commissioner E'ry poinked out that Condition No. 12 shall be mndified to
cequire that the westerly most driveway shall be approved by the City Traffic
Enyineer.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYES: FRY~ HF.RBST, LA CLAIPE, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOE:' : NONE
ABSENT: BOUAS~ LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaught~t, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision withfn 22 days to the City Council.
COMMISSIONER FRY LEFT THE MEETING AT 6:15 ANA DID NOT RETURN.
ITEM N0. 11 EIR NBGA'PIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3523
OWNERS: ORVILII B. WOODb', ET AL, 621 N. Pine Way, Ananei.m, CA 92805. AGENT:
RONALD J. CRO~'J~EY, 17Q0 Raintree Rd., Fullecton, CA 92635. Property described
as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.82 acre,
1224, 1228 and 1236 East La Palma Avenue.
Waivers of (a) ma:cimum number of compact spaces, (b) requiced type of parking
sQaces, (c) required screening of parking areas (deleted), (d) maximum
structural height, (e) mini.mum struc'tural setback and (f) required block wal.l
(deleted) to constcuct a 20-unit apartment complex.
There was no one indicating their nresence in upposition to subject request
and although the staff rzport was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Ron Ccowley, agent, presented an article from Parking Magazine, July-AUgust
1985 iESUe, which di,scusses parking standards, and eaplained they are asking
11/25/85
e..
85~666
INUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMHER 2a 198~ -
to have small (~u:king space8 instead of the standard aize. He skated r~~ of
1984 558 of the cac8 beo~9~hevy Citation~,aandsthe/mainCCOnr.lusionbofl~hBs/
approximately the size
arti.cle is that approximately 36~ oE nll vehicles car~ ndequately be
accommodated 1n a small car stall, and by 1990 508 of all vzhicles wi11 be
able to be accammodaunatla ar.tmentacomplex8~ndhthQYahr~vettried to'provide 50
stated thi.a is a 20 F~
parking spaces and the averages given are slight1y incorrect pNrtaining to
apactmen~ dwellersr e~dhouseh ldsgbuyasmallacarsyetYPi~al~of4theeapartmente,
ancl one and two memb
dweller.
Mr. Crowley stated they propose 16 small car stalls and the re~t woul.d be
standard. Fie sGated they did not interpret the setback ~e9theeri.ght entrance
as staff, and the only thing encro~'~ching is the parking Y
lookinq ~owar.cls the south. Conc~o thattit isltwo skoriesiwithha mininum ~f 51
they have designed the building
£eet Erom the single-family zoning, and the windows to the south are a[tangea
so there will be a 5-foot wall and the homeoNnerfi have indicateda~~sWfCOm
acceptable to rai~e that wa11 to obscure the view oE their backy
these windows. He stated winclows are required because theae are bedrooms.
Richard Emard~ 726 Jiiniper Place, stated~hca~Pr~p~$Peakbin~oppositioneCbut has
boundary of the project and originally
had ample time to talk with ,ect andlisrpresent,$andralsof he Ms.speakinghonhas
property that abuts the pro~
b~halt of Ken and Anne Dunlap wtio live next duor. tle stated their concern3
and noise, and that the privacy concern wou]d be handled if
pectain to privacy
the screening for the balconies wus raised to 5-1/2 faet instead o£ 5. e
stated they also discussed a 7-foot block W~~lWithefouceunitstlooking directly
three-story complex next door to his property
into his yard, and ~tated fh~}islpcojectrhaveaindicateditheylwillWC~nstructta
helped, and the builders o
7-foot high wall. He added they are also coovideddjustua tsmallabanana" plant
yreenbelt, and noteQ the adjacent complex p ~
and that is not acceptableu~JHdesstairwaystandgthetonlypconcernw~sldheffer tr-e
privacy ~nd there ace no 0
scr.eening.
Eie added he and the other two neighbors mentioned feel this is a satisfactory
project.
Mr. Crowley stated Whscreeningl~niigwillbwork withfthe homeownersrandetiey have
height of the windo
a landscape Plan ~~ith nice trees propossd•
TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst state~hatfheewould agteeWwith~at7bfoot wallsobut heavier
bi~ger buff.er is needed;
landscaping is needed and also it will have to be re~dvertised. He stlicante
is involved in parking and agcees with what has been said, but the app
is forgetting about the older vehicles and a lot of people who rent apartments
11/25/85
MINUTES. ANAH~zM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, NOVEM6ER 25. 1985 85-667
have older vehicley end the 15-foot p~tking atall with ~ 19-foot station wagon
is not ade~uate. He added he thinke ktie pro~ect ie overbuilt and he would
not vote for iC the way it is.
COMMISSIONER NERBST LECT THE ~1EETING AT 6:25 P.M. AND AID NOT RETURti.
Mr. Crow].eY stated the back-up apace is 25 feet and only 16 apact~s ace
compact. Reaponding to Commisaioner Bouas, he stated they will ~robably have
assigned spaces, based on the ai.ze ~nd type of their vehicle, with one amall
space and one regular space probably being assigned. He ~tated there are 10
guest parking apaces.
Commiasioner MeDucney stal•ed unEortunal•ely fouc oE the parking spaeea are in
the aetback required off La Palma. Mr. Crowley stated they could not find
anything in the Code prohibiting parking in the setback.
Kendra Morries stated staff has talked to rhe developer about permitted
encroachments in the setback an~ parking spaces are not listed as th^ type of
thing typica~ly permitted to encroach in a landsca~ed setback area.
Mr. Crowley stated there was a previous 27-unit project approved for this
property and they are well within the current Code requirements per acre, with
36.3 ~llowed and they are at 31.7.
Kendra Morries stated Variance No. 3482 ~~as approved in Augu~t of this year by
City Council and Planning Commission £or 22 units with a waiver of maximum
height being the only waiver with tu~:k-under parking 50~ below grade.
Commissianer McBucney stated the only economical way to use the land is wi~h
tuck-under parking. Mr. Crowley stated they think they are sati~fying all the
City's requirements an~ he did not interpret the encroachment variance the
same as 3taff and noted they have quite a bit of screeninq.
Kendra Morries stated she thought ~her~ ~as « setback at 9 feet right down the
sr~e~r, similar to the second story balconiQS. She added she did not know of
any instances where the Commission ha~ allowed the parking to encroach into
~he required setback area.
Commissioner Messe stated he thought the enaroachment with parking would be
hazardous. Kendca Morries explained it is a?~o uns:,yhtly.
CY~aicwoman La Claire stated this is an unusual parcel and usually a 20-foot
setback is required from single-family homes and this is a big request and she
would not be willing to gr~nt the waiver for mtnimum st-ructural setback from
the street und she understands the compact car stall re~uest and believes
there are a lot more small cars on the road taday; however, the problem is
with policing who parks where. She stated she could not support the setback
waiver out could support the open parking.
Mr. Crowley stated they would be willing to assign the ir~dividual stalls. He
stated they have utilized every bit of property they could for parking.
Commissioner Messe stated Commissioner Herbst has already indicated that this
project is overbuildi~g the property and agreed.
11/25/$5
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSI~N NOVEMBER 2`. 1985 85!_,66g
Chairwoman La Claire stated they have requested too many varianceo from the
Code and all of them would impact the area, but since this property is
unuaual, and maybe one or two wAfvera would be acceptahle. Commiasionec
Mceurney atated une problem is Che mAximum structural height wuiver And he
could not support that as propoAed and suggesCed ttiat eiL-hec rhe east or west
end af the structure ~hou.ld be developed wiCh tuck-under parking.
Mr. Ccawley stat~d ~hey have analyzed the pceviously approved plan and
determined it could not be built.
Commissionec McBurney stated the Cominission r.an nat conaider economics in
their decision and must look at the pra~~ct on its own merit. Mr. Crowley
stated the height limit~tion is within the guideline3 the Commisaion has
imposed on other project~. tie stated if a va~iance +~~r less pArking could be
approved, then ~hey would not need any other waiver except the hetght
limitation and could elirninate the parking pcoposed en~roaching in the 2Q-foot
lund~caped area. He explained the setback variance is At an average of 35
feet and they did not try to skimp with just the minimum.
Commissioner soua~ stated the Commission could yrant fewer parking spaces if
the petitioner would be w.illiny to eliminate aome of the units.
Mr. Crow.ley sl•~ted they have reduced the number oE units from 22 to 20 and the
cost constraints are very serious on thts project. He stated they will retain
ownership of these units and want this to be a good project that would be
appealing for a long time.
Kendra Morries stated since th~e adoption af the new ordinance in 1983, there
have been no waivers of th~ permitted number of parkinq spaces, compact
parking stalls or the permitted type of ~arking spaces and generally the
Planning Commission and City Council have considered tr~ose standards as
minimums and have not qranted any waivers and this would be the first, if this
is approved and she would anticipake a lot of petit~oners requesting a lot of
~he same waivers.
Chairwoman La Ciaire stated ~~he could not vote in favor of all these waivers
and w~uld nat vote for the mii:imum structura] setback ar the parking waiver
and yhe would not vote for the ~ompact packing stalls because it has been
found they do not work unless they are policed very carefully. She stated
there is a problem along La Palma now and she did not know what the answer is
for thi~ project and thought some waivers are justified, but not all af them.
Commissioner Messe ask~d if a continuance would be appcopriate for the
petitionec to revise the plans because he could not vote for the variances as
r eq~iested .
Hadi Tabatabaee, 15935 San Miguel, La Mirada, architect, explained two parking
spaces can be e~iminated in the front and the average setback is 20 feet and
they could revise the g~ans to include 47 parking spaces and 208 compact
parking spaces with a shortage of 3 parking apaces.
Concerning the setbacks, Kendra :4orries stated Code requires that the setback
average 20 feet with no dimension less than 15 feet, so they could provide one
11~25/85
_ _~
.,, ~ . , . ~_
MINUTES, ANAHF.IM CI'xY PLANNING CQMMI5SION, NOVEMBER 25, 1985 85-6G9
point at 15 feek provided there is a aimilar off-set of 25 feet. Mr. Ccowley
stateci he could not find one restcietion in the Code pcohibiting parking in
the aetback. He aAid they would pcovide a lot of greenery in the project.
Responding to C h aicwoman Ln Claire, Kendca ~~occiea explained the seCback from
single-family r.e sidential on three previously approved projects in the area
were 2-storles w ithin 72 feet and 82 feet and 3-atories within 108 feet and
the last o~e was the second atory balcony ~ppc~ved wilhin 9 feet and anokher
variance at 13 f eet.
Malcolm Slaughte r, Deputy Ciky Attorney, stated Section 18.34.030.Ot7 of the
RM-1200 atandard s providea that yards and setb~ck areas st~all be land~capNd
with lAwna, tree s, shrubo or oth~~r plant materials and shall be p~rmanently
maintainted in a neat and orderly mannec and pedestci~n walkway~ and vehicular
accessways may b e~ermitted in naid areas and those are the only intrusions
permitted.
Annika Santalaht i stated ahe Eelt ther~ war aiie othec proj~ct approvcd at 1Q
feet and ~he tha ught it was the praperty adjacent to sub~ect proper~y and the
neighbors compl a ined about tl~e fence heigh~ as well as the plant materials
which were very minima.l.
Chairwoman La C 1 aire stated the real object of having a landscaped buff.er is
to ecreen ~ut light and visual intruaion and suygested dense landscaping that
will completely screen ttiat area. Mc. Tabatabaee ~tated they picked the treea
v~ry carefully a nd have posted bonds in the past to insure they have done what
they Nromised. He added th~:y are scceening the decks also. He stated r_hey
have mPt with th e nefghbors carlier and are trying to comply with l•heir
wishes. Commiss ionec Messe ~tated Che p=ecedent that would be set is the
problem. Mr. Ta batabaee atated they have studied differpnt dlternatives and
ttiey felt the n u mber of parkinq spaces provided was more important than the
size and a iarg e percentage of people do drive compact car~.
Annika Santa.lah ti stated r~duced parking has virtually no chance of appr~val
before the City Council and the 2-1/2 space ratio has worked out very well and
pointed oSat ther e is no stceet par.king in that area and the small car snaces
are allowed for guesk packing spaces only. She referced tc~ ttie open parking
spaces and an a mendment to Code to reduce the covered requirment to only 1
space per unit a nd requiriny it to be assigned to each tenant has been
discusbed.
Mr. Tabatabaee stated they did not prop~~se subterranean parking because of the
cc.;:. Chairwoma n La Clair= auggested bachelor units in the rear with
tuck-undec pack i ng. Kendra Morries stated bachelor units require 1.5 parking
spaces per unit and one must be caveced. Chairwaman La Claire stated some
tuck-under park i ng could be provided in the rear with 2-skory units in the
rear because th e neighbors have not objected and maybe the number of units
would have to b e reduced~
Mr. Tabatabaee requested a six-week continuance. Kendra Morries stated
revised plans would have to be submitted to stafE tU be reviewed by December
11, 1985.
11/25/85
~a
seconded by Commissioner
ACTION: Commisaioner McBucney offered a motion,
a and MOTiON CARRIED (Commissionore ~rYr Herbst and Lawicki abaenkl that
Mese
cungideration o£ the e~ocP9entioned matter be continued to e
tin of January 6, 198br at khe reguest oE the
regularly-scheduled m lan4.
patitioner in order to aubmit r~~i0~~ p tn inatall a 7-foot wall, the
Kandra Mocries explained eince they arE plann~~9
ter wauld have to be readvectised and pointed out ther.e i.s a$100 Eee for
mat ointed out rhe neighborR requested the
readvertisement. Commi~aioner Bouas p
- oo~ wall arid Annika Santalahti 8tiaeaa 8omepTinorBdPViationshhave been U ces
~ f e~le have ayre -
and on occaaion when p E ublic •:um.
allowed, but that is not done in a p
I,~,~M N~~ lZ gEPORTS ANU 12ECOMMI:NDATIONS:
RLCLASSIFICATION N0. 79-80-9 - Request fcom Hassan 1~•ro°~Tkhelocateda3l•
A.
extengion of tiCe~oulevardasaification Na• 79'80'9~ P p'
500 South tiacbo Cummissioner
offeced a motion, seconded by
AC~~~; Commissioner McBUrney Hecbst and Lariicki absent)
E3ouas and MUTION CARRI~D (CommiCommis~ionrdoes hereby grant a 7-yEar
that the Anaheim CiCy Planning
6_ ear retr.oactive) extension of time fot Reclasaification No• 79'8~' ~
( y 30, 1986.
ta ~xpire on July ~h~~,xwoman
offered a motion, seconded by
Elerbst and
~pJQURNMEN'.P: Commissioner McBurney
La Claire and MOTION CARRIED ~CO besaajournedTy/
Lawicki abcent) that the mee•i~9
The meeting was ad'journed at 7:10 p.m•
Respectfully submit~ed, ^
~ ~~. ~
G~.~'~`r~c.~
E ith L. Harris, Seccetary
A;iaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:lm
11/25/85