Minutes-PC 1987/02/02REGUT,AR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The regular meeting of khe Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order. by Chairman McBurney at 10:00 a.m., February 2, 1987,
in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission
reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 1].:30 a.m.
RECONVENE D: 1:33 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman:
Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti
Joel Fick
Malcolm Slaughter
,Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Debbie Vagt:s
Mary McCloskey
Greg Eiastings
Leonard McGhee
Edith Hacr.is
McBurney
Bouas, Fry, Herbst,
La Claire, Meese
Lawicki
Commissioner La Claire arrived
following Item No. 3
?.oning Administrator
Planning Director
Deputy City Attorney
Office Engineer.
Traffic Engineer
Leasing Supervisor.
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Associake Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy of. the Planniny Commission agenda was posted
at 8:30 a.m., January 30, 1987, inside the Council Chamber toyer windows and
in the display case in the lobby.
PUBLIC INPUT - Chairman McBurney explained at t:he end of the agenda any member
of the public would be allowed to discuss ar-y matter of interest within the
jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, or any agenda item.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Commissioner Fry offered a motson, seconded by
Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners La Claire and Lawicki
absent) that the minukes of tt~e meeting of January 19, 1987, be approved as
submitted.
ITEM N0. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC'P REPORT N0. 274 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.
214-I, ?T AND_III
PUBLIC HEARING. INI'PIATEI) BY 'PHE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL, 200 S. Anaheim
Boulevard, Anahei-m, CA 92805.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 214-I - To consider an Amendment to the Land U:.~e
Element of the General Plan to establish a new designation tentatively
i.denti.fied as "Business Office/Service" to include a portion of the area
bounded by the Southern California Edison Easement on the north; the Anaheim
pity limits on the south; the Santa Ana River Channel on the east; and, the
Santa Ana Freeway on the west. Land use designation proposals changing the
current General Industrial, Commercial Professional, General Commercial and
Commercial Recreation designations to the Business Office/Service designation
with varying levels of intensity will be considered.
87-51
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2, 19$7 87-52
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 214-II - To c ~sider Amendments to the General Plan
Circulation Klement text and map to r.ede~ignate the following arterial
highways:
STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD - Between Ball Road and southern City limits from
a Primary to Major Arterial Highway;
ORANGEWOOD AVENUE - Between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard from
a Secondary to Primar}• Arterial Highwayr
PACIFICO AVENUE - Between Hasler Street and State College Boulevard from
a Secondary ko Primary Arterie+l Highway=
CERRITOS AVENUE - Between Anaheim Boulevard and Sunkist Street from a
Secondary t.o Primary Arterial Highway;
LEWIS STREET - Between Katella and Ball Road from a Secondary to Primary
Arterial Highway; and,
LEWTS STREET - Detwcen Katella Avenue and Pacifico Avenue from a Local.
Street to Primacy Arterial Hiyhway.
Realign Lewis Street to connect with East Street in the vicinity of. Ball
Roads and, to designate the following as Critical Intersections which may
require the dedication of additional right-of-way on both sides of the
Arterial Highway Eor a distance of up to G00 feet from the Arterial
Intersection.
Anaheim Boulevard/Ball. Road
Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue
Lewis Street/Ball Road
Lewis Street/Katella Avenue
State College Boulevard/Ball Road
State College Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue
Stake College Boulevard/Katella Avenue
State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue
Katella Avenue/Howell Avenue
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 214-III - to consider an amendment to the Safety
and Seismic Safety Element text and map to designate a fire station in the
general location of Pacifico Avenue between the Santa Ana Freeway and State
College Boulevard.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, exolai.ned in October 1985, City Council directed
Planning staff to commence this General Plan Amendment Study following the
completion of the Anaheim Stadium Area Study which produced a Land Use
Strategy Plan providing direction for future actions to guide and direct
growkh in the Stadium Area. He stated approval of this General Plan Amendment
does not authorize any new construction or development and subsequent zoning
approvals would be required and in this case, a recommendation is made that a
specific plan be prFpared by staff.
Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, explcii.ned this General Plan Amendment consists
of three components - the Land Use, Circulation and Seismic Safety Elements;
that the study area originally encompassed approximately 1,291 acres which
included much of the Stadium Industrial Area north to Ball Road, but it has
been further defined to the 807 acre area bordered to the north by the
Southern California easement. She stated the area in which the
intensification of land use i_s anti.cipated is known as the Anaheim Stadium
2/2/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 1987 87-53
Business Center or "Plati.num Triangle" and the area tieing recommended for
amendment contains approximately 582 acres and the Stadium facility and those
properties located on the north side of Orangewood Avenue eastecly to State
Callege are recommended to remain commercial recreational because of the
present and proposed recreational facilities located there. She stated the
area is predominately zoned ML (Industrial, Limited) with some CO, CL, CR, CH
and RS-A-43,000 Zonings and that this is a City Council initiated General Plan
Amendment to change the current general industrial, commercial professional,
general commercial, and commercial recreation to a new designation to be
identified as Business Office/Service; and also that the text of the Land Use
Element would need to be amended to reflect r_he proposed change. She stated
if this amendment is adopted, staff will be bringing a recommendation to the
Planning Commi.ssi.on for amendment to the CO Zone to further define the
setback, landscaping, design and uses within this Anaheim Stadium Center.
Ms. McCloskey stated five levels of intensification are being presented and
bevels 1 through A were developed and analyzed in conjunction with the
previously presented Anaheim Stadium Area Study and Level 5 was developed in
conjunction with this General Plan Amendment study process and was also
considered as the project for the EIR Analysis. She explained approximately
115 acres under the City and County of Orange's jurisdiction located directly
south of the City limits was project.ad to include 5, 267,000 square feet of
commercial office uses and the City of Ocange has requested that that projer.}
be revised to 7 million square feet. She reviewed the changes necessary to
the Land Use Element text.
Ms. McCloskey explained the new Business Office/Service designation would
permi.k medium to high-rise officer buildings and that would be implemented
through the CL Zone and that designation would reflect the emecging character
of that area and define the boundaries and establish the level of
intensificatian to be implemented and would be compatible with the surrounding
land use designations in Anaheim and Orange.
She stated staff feels the level of intensity should be established in
conjunction with the Land Use and Level 4 was developed on the basis of the
anticipated market and the interim fee program for the Anaheim Stadium
Business Center was based on this level, howevec, it is not considered as cost
effective to implement as Level 5; and that Level 5 was developed during this
study process and projects growth which is beyond that projected by tie market
demand analysis and incorporates the latest approvals and proposed projects
and reflects significant land use changes which have occurred recently in the
Stadium Area. She added in the opinion of Planning staff, Level 5 is the most
realistic level of growth for long range planning purposes, but it would
require extensive m9tigation as identified i.n EIR No. 274 and it is felt the
miti.gati.on measuces may not be feasible to implement in the near future and
that concepts such as fly-ovecs would be needed to mitigate traff:i.c.
She stated additional studies are needed in conjunction with the specific plan
process in order to define the distribution, location and extent of growth
within the business center and in lighk of that, staff would recommend Level
of Intensity 5 be identified as the ultimate projected square footage for the
Anaheim Stadium Center with the amount of development to be approved not
exceed Level of intensity No. 4 while further studies are underway i.n ord~c to
2/2/87
t
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY NI~ANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2~ 1987 87-54
maintain a balance between growth and the availability of infraskructure/
services needed to accommodate the growth. She stated the City Council and
City Engineer reviewed t:he TraEEic Analysis recommendation and recommended
that intensity Level 5 circulation improvements, excluding flyovers along
State College, he implemented with f.t~e Level of Intensity 4 square footage
projections. She stated in utilizing this approach, the City would be
projecting a long-term growth while insuring that near term development. occurs
in a orderly controlled fashion, thereby maintaining the balance between new
growth and City infra3tructurc/service needs.
Concerr-ing the amendment ko the Circulation Element, Ms. McCloskey explained
Exhibit 11-A would designate Lewis Street as a secondary arterial highway and
Levels 4 and 5 which staff is recommending would require redesignation of
State College Boulevard, Orangewood, Pacifica, Cerritos and Lewis Street with
Lewis Street having to be realigned to connect with East Street in the
vicinity of Hall Roadj and this would involve the ~9esignation of Wino critical
intersections and there would also be a number of text amendments. She stated
critical intersections must accommodate higher kraf.fic volume and turning
movements than normally anticipated by standard intersectionst and stated
several projects within that area have already been conditioned to dedicate
additional right-of-way to accommodate those standards.
Regacdi.ng the Safety and Seismic Element., she pointed out a designation of a
fire station is shown on Exhibit lA and that tine Fire Department has
determined that Pecifico Avenue between Santa Ana Freeway and State College
Boulevard would be the must suitable location for that fire station site and
that the text would also have to be amended.
Regarding the Environmental Impact Report, she stated staff would recommend
that EIR N0. 274 be Certified with the Statement of Overriding Consideration
as discussed in the staff report. She stated staff would also recommend
Exhibits lA, amending the General Plan Land Use map to designate the study
area to Business Office/Service reflecting Level of Intensity 5 projections
and further designating an upper. limit of development for purposes of project
approvals reflective of Level of Intensity 4 projections, subject to further
studies; and that Exhibit lA will reflect the fire station location and also,
staff would recommend associated text ar~endments be adopted.
Regarding the Cir.culatioa Element Amendment, she stated staff would recommend
approval of Exhibit 2B and the associated text amendments, and also that staff
be directed to continue to pursue that Specific Plan process and Title 18
Zoning Code actions needed.
Ms. McCloskey explained members of various City departments are present to
answer any questions.
Joel Fick stated a letter was received from the City Manager of the City of
Orange, commenting on thi3 request just before today's meeting.
Jeze Murphy, City of Orange, Planning/Development Services Department,
apologized for delivering the City Manager's letter late, but explained they
ace attempting to respond to the staff report which was not available until
Friday. He stated they wanted to thank staff for their cooperation in working
2/2/87
MINUTES- ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 1987 87-55
with them on the development of this area between the City of Orange and the
City of Anaheim; that the City of Orange has expressed concern with regard to
the proposed development• and the possible adverse impacts on their city's
businesses and residences; and the Eact that the infrastructure improvements
needed by the developments proposed in both cities need to be implemented in a
t.i.mely manner; and that realistic fundiny sources need to be identified,
particularly with the involvement to a substantial degree of the Department of
Transportation, and that the put~lic improvements, particularly those that
would be provided by the City of Orange and Anaheim need to be prorated on a
.pare basis with those improvements needed by Anaheim provided by Anaheim and
those improvements needed by Orange provided by Orange. He stated the City of
Orange does support the st:aff's recommendation for Alternative IV for level of
development and would ask that if there are proposals to excaed that maximum,
additional public heArings be provided with notice to the City of Orange in
advance so they can discuss the concept and concerns for t}~e higher level of
development. He stated the City of Orange also asks that alony with the
General Plan Amendment approval, the Planning Commission direct staff to
prepare a Specific Plan and Infrastructure Study. He state' the City of
Orange does have concerns with the lack of specificity in the infrastructure
studies that have been developed to date.
Joel Fick explained there seems to he tour points of concern by the City of
Orange, one is the adverse impacts on their. businesses and residents and
certainly it. is not the City of Anahei.m's intention to adversely affect anyone
in the City of orange or anywhere else.
THE FIRE ALARM SOUNDEn AT 1:55 P.M. AND EVERYONE LEFT 'PHE COUNCIL CHAMBER AND
THEN RETURNED TO THE MEETING AT 2:08 P.M.
,Joel Fick continued tY~at Oranye's second concern related to the infrastructure
improvements and funding sources and that. the City of Anaheim staff has been
working with the City of Orange staff for quite a long time and have entered
into some joint engineering studies. He stated immediately following the
General Plan Amendment and the growth policy is identified, staff will proceed
with infrastructure timingiphasing studies to identify precisely what
improvements will be needed.
He stated the letter mentions several other points and one is that the General
Plan Amendment would effectively usurp all the market demands for the next
five years and explained Alternative IV was really a 20-year p?an and
Alternative V goes beyond that and staff is really looking at a long range
policy direction. He stated the City of Orange does recommend that level of
development be examined and Alternative 4 i.s what staff i.s recommending and
Anahei.m's staff is recommending Alternative 5 from a long range standpoint and
for the traffic improvements, with the growth capped at Alternative 4 pending
specific project studies. He stated the City or Orange does recommend that
specific plan and infrastructure studies be undertaken.
Commissioner Fry asked if this General Plan Amendment i.s adopted and an
existing industrial developer within this triangle wants to put up an
industrial building in the future, would that development be affected by this
~3eneral Plan Amendment.
2/2/a7
IM CITY_PLANNIN
87 __ 87.56
Mr. Fick responded this change i.n designation would nHe sfate~i thassisial
development of existing industrial property owners.
long-range plan of phat,e~l 'jecificaPlantproceas~f,Heistatedoindustria.ltusecsd
be incorporated into the Sp
are not subject toot;ndustcial usersronetheaareahandiayce~tainllevelhofe a
commitment level p General Plan. He stated the Stadium Ai<~a
service was planned based on th..
study was undertaken because of tl~a new growth and change in the land use
which generated a dithateareaito accommodateethe growth.by the City, and n
plan was needed f:or
Chairman McBurney s*_at°d thPwwideningrand thetfloorhspacekbY~at wouldebetputt
system would accommodat:c
into that sees.
Joel Fick skated specific t•irowth iseknownmwillstri99ertthetspeciflcrlistsof4
completed and the level of g
improvements and staPlanlwhichowilaeidentifydwhereekhepemprovementsawill be
Improvement Phasing
and what items have priority.
Paul Singer, T >':(ic Engineer, stated this amendment as shown as Exhibit II-B
will have to bF imp]emen~eofa~hesspecificiimprovementserequareded He statedine
scheduling and the exten.
some of the funding sources have been identified in the origi;ial study an
they include P.edC`lelipisacaompanyoeachtdevelopment andcthere willibe funzs
f~
improvements ~ h
coming into this pro}ect at the same time khe improvements wild. be ma e.
stated there is also andetheaCitypafnAnaheimfwSlaltrYftosav°i duthatmandVeould3
generally lag behind
have additional studies which will probably an~jwer some of those questions
There was one person indicating her desire to speak.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WA: F•.••Op::NED.
June McIntyre, 917 W. Sycamore, owner of property at 515 S. Elarbor, stated she
is all for *.he "Platinium Triangle', but wanted to know if the City is turning
all its thoughts to that area and foreietting the Gold Triangle downtown; that
there is quite a bit of investment in the downtown area with the Freedman
Forum and al?. the beauti auwnichlwi.llsallowaiteto~ eclipseetheadowntown agea~.g
to be changed i.n one are
Chairman McBurney stated hernent the PlanningyCommissionaiswzeroing gineonithis
techni.call.y, but at this mo
particular area, but is nut forgetting the downtown area.
THE PUBLIC HEARING 4,'AS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst inat~.heh.industrial'ndesi.gnati.oneandrredesignatingethe
designation eliminat g
area to Business Offild/thinkcindustrialuuses~areonot alloweduanymore.t He
future and people wou
2/2/87
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2. 1987 87-57
added he dial not like that designation and pcevi.ous studies indicated there
would be a dual use of the area and thought the name ~:~ould reflect that and
auc,~ested the term "industrial" be added.
Joel Fick stated that is certainly an option and attempting to come up with a
name, staff tried to think of a name that would not be conf.usi.ngt however, the
name is subject to change. He stated in the Specific Plan study and the
Zoning Code changes, staff ~,lans to .incorporat.e languaye making it very clear
as to what is permitted in the zone.
Commissioner Fry agreed and asked that the word industrial be added in front
of the term so khe designation reads "industrial/Ausines9 Office/Service"
~, ich would retain t,ie industrial designation.
~ oel Fick stated that could be included in the recommendation.
Commissioner Bouas asked if the people who own property in the area of those
critical intersecti~~ns were notified. Mary McCloskey stated everyone within
G00 feet of the critical intersections were notified and 300 feet would he the
distance widened. Joel Fick stated all property owners ,~ithin the entire
General Plan area were notified. Comrnissioner Messe stated he hoped notic;•:s
were sent to the residential area to the northea:.t because those people were
certainly interested when t:he jail was being proposed and new they are not
here today.
Joel Fick responded they were notified.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners La Claire and Lawicki absenti that after
considering Envirc.nrnental Impact Report No. 274 for this General Plan
Amendment. No. 214 (i, II, and III), and reviewing evidence, both writken and
oral, presented to supplement draft EIFi No. 274, the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council that EI'•t No. 274 is in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act any'. the City and State CEQA Guidelines;
and that EIR No. 27~ identifies the follc:~ing impacts which are considered to
be both unavoidable and adverse in nature and net fully mitigated to an
acceptable level should ultimate projected development occur: a) the t~coject
will incrementally intensify the urban r.haracter of the area and will result
i.n increased traffic, Hoist and air pollutant emissions within the immediate
vicinity; b) the projer_t will result i.n approximately 80,800 additional
employees. Wlrile it can be assumed that a major portion of the employees will
be provided through the local labor market, a certain portion will be drawn
from outside and will thus increase the demand for housing, partially within
the "affor_lable" range; c) *he tntal number of peak hour trip ends increases
from the existing condi.ti.on possibly resulting in temporary congestion in the
immediate area; d) project implementation will add to the cumulative demand
for finite resources such as energy and water; e) development may also have
long-term impacts on existing water quality. With the increased number and
frequency of automobiles expected i.n the Study Area, additional auto-related
contaminants (e.g., oil, grease and heavy metals) may be generated; f) visual
features and views of the proposed GPA Area and va.ews from surrounding uses
will be altered; g) this project, along with other growth in the County will
cumul3tfvely impact the County's trEatment plant facilities; and that the
2/2/87
MI~~UTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION FEBRUARY ?. 1987 67-58
Plann.i.ng Commission finds and recommends to the City Council that economic,
social and physical conaiderationa make it infeasible to kotally eliminate all
of the significant environmental impacts of. the project which have been
identified in Final EIR No. 274; however, the benefits of the project have
been balanced against the unavoidable environmental impacts and pursuant to
the provisions of Section 15093 of the Stake CEQA Guidelines, the occurrence
of the significant environmental effects identified in Final EIR No. 274 ani
as set forth above may be permitted without further mitigation due ko the
following overriding conaiderationa:
(1) Such environmental impacts will b~ reduced by compliance with City,
State and Federal codes, policias and procedures;
(2) The project will bring s~yhstankiai benefits to the citizens of
Anaheim by providing additional employment and permitting the
development of a high-quality commerr,ial business complca;
(3) The projeck will provide a balanced development which i~ compatible
with and complement.acy to the ac'jacent Industrial and Commercial
Recreation Areas as well as revelopment occurring in the City of
Orange south of the GPA Area;
(4) The proposed project will enhance the aesthetic qualities of the
Area;
(5) The proposed General Plan Amendment gill allow f.or intensification
of land uses consistent wikh the emerging CommercialJOffice
character of the area, rather than on a piecemeal basis;
(6) The proposed project will allow for the generation of large revenues
to the City of Anaheim as .~usinessea, services and potential new
employees locate in this aces and as a result of the demand far new
goods and services (i.e., furnishings, equipment ar~d maintenance);
and,
(7) Mi+i9ation measures contained i.n the Final EIR state that developers
in the proposed GPA Atka will be rEqui.red to provide
transportation/circulation, public utilities an~ infr.~structurP
improvements necessitated by their projects. A fi.nanci.nq program
will b2 implemented to fund areawi.de improvements wherein developers
will be required to pay development fees to offset their project's
contribution to the cost of such improvements. Further,
establishment of a redevelopment project is currently underway.
(d) ~11.tigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
reduce the environmental impact to :zn acceptable level.
Therefore, the Planning Commission Hereby recommends certification of FIR No.
274 i:or the Anaheim Stadium Business Center Proposed General Plan Amendment
No. 214 and adoption of this Statement of Overcidi.ng Considerations.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC8%-28 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planni.ny Commission does hereby adopt and
2/2/e7
87 -59
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 1987
214-I, Exhi.bi.t 1-A, amending
r^eommend approval of General Plan Amendment No.
the General Plan Land Use Map t.o redesignate the area from the current general
~ndu:atrial, commercial professional, general commercial and commerc i. al
recreation designations to the Industria]./Business office/Service d esignati.on
reflecting Level of Intensity V projections as ultimate prnject growth and
further designating an upper limit of development of intensity for purposes of
project approvals reflective of Level of intensity IV projects, sub sect to
further study and to indicate a fire station designation on Pacific o Avenue
between the Santa Ana Fre*~way and State College Boulevard and to ad opt
amendments t.o the Land i~se text as necessary.
On roll call, the foreyoing re~~olution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BfiUAS, FRY, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
A,JSENT: LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI
Commi.saioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-29 and moved for i to passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby adopt and
recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 214-II, Circulation Element,
Exhibit II-B, amending the circulation map to reflect amendments necessary to
accommodate both Levels of Intensity 4 and 5 projections anc: to amend the
Circulation Element text: as necessary.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-30 and moved for its patsand
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby ad op
recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 214-IIT., safety and Seismic
Safety Element and to amend th Safety and Seismic Safety text to reflect a
fire station designation on Pacifico Avenue between the Santa Ana Freeway and
State College Boulevard as shown on Exhibit i-A..
On roll call, khe foregoing resolution was passed by the followin q vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNE'l, MESS E
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioners La Claire and Lawick; absent) that the An aheim City
Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to continue to pursue Specific
Plan and Title 18 Zoning Code actions in connection with this General Plan
Amendment as necessarY•
Joel Fick explained these items are recommendations to the City Council and a
public hearing will be held before the City Council and will be scheduled in
the f~.`.ure.
2/2/87
i
r
87-60
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 1987
i si.oner Fry arked how to guarantee that the City of Orange will be
Comm s
notified of the hearings as requested. Joel Fick skated Orange has been very
accommodating to the City of Anaheim and have been courtesy notifying us of
any developments in cificaPlanawallealsolbedaddressing thatgconcern~nge and,
in addition, the Spe
Malcolm Slaughter stated he wanted to be sure ttte Commission intended to
include khtaltImoactkRepoOrterrComm9ssiooneasrHerbsk andtFcyrresponded khathwas
Environmen P
their inter::ion.
ITEM N~. 2 Etlt/?.RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT tvu. 281 GENERAL P':.AN AMENDMENT N0.
223, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-r17-19 ANA PUBLIC FACTLITIES AND FISCAL IMPACT
ANALYSIS
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PL EtJTERt~RISES, LTD., 1535 E. Orangewood, {1219,
Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: JIM DENNEHY. Approximately 59A arses loc3eCdionland
m'les southeast of the Weir Canyon Road and Itivtrside Fr..eway inter
bounded on khe north by the Wallace Ranct~rroeertb~(oak Hi1lsiRanch)s property,
and soukh and east by the Irvine Company p p Y
GPA - To consider amendmenk to khe Land Use Element of the General Plan with
proposals including but not l.i rni red to lei llsi de low density residential,
hillside low medium density residential, hillside medium densi l:~, rasidenti.al,
general commercial and geleImlackeAnalyses and the OakcHillsgRanchidevelopment.
Faciliki.es Plan and Fiaca p
OS(SC) to PC(SC) or a less intense zone to provide for khe d.: .•el.opment of 2111
residenkial units (30 acres of commercial use, 6.3 acres of oven space , a
18.6-acre park site and a 6-acre elementary school site.
There were six persons indi.cati.ng their pre:;ence in opposition to subject
request and although the staft report was not read, it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Jerrad Ikeda, Planning Cortsult.ant, EDA Ir~c., and Jim Dennehy, Managing General
Partner, Oak Hills Ltd., preserved slides showing khe project and tt~e area.
Mr. Ikeda explained the area is approximately 600 acres in the Santa Ana
Canyon just south of the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and the freeway,
just south of khe K5B East H'•lls project, and i.s di.vided i.nko two main areas
by a drainage channel with a large flat area to khe southwest, He stated the
plan does coordinate with khe General Flan of Streets and Roadways and Weir
Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue run through the project. He explained there
are yak trees which dot the hillsides and are i.n khe drainage area and that is
part of the area they would ankici.pate being preserved as part of the pack and
sch ool site.
Mr. Ikeda stated a General Plan Amendment was bought before khe Planning
Commission and City Council and adopted in October 1984, and it called for
2,188 dwelling units on khe 600 acres, with t,illside estake density, hillside
low and hillside medium densities, but since then khey have done more dekailed
studies and arCommunit*iZone.reHesstatedethe detailednstudiesndetecminedithat
for a Planned Y
2/2/87
MINU'T'ES, ANAHEIM CTTY Pt.ANNING COMMISSION, FFHRUARY 2 ~1.9E; ) 87-61
certain m~~dificutions should be made to relieve difficulties in ;riding which
resulted in moving Weir Canyon Road about. 200 feet to the west enabling them
to use the fill as a buttress for the adjacent slide areas; and Also Serrano
Avenue was realigned 5U feet to the went. He stated the land use changed and
this Genecal Plan Amendment calls for hillside low density, hillsidF~
low-medium density and hillside medium land uses and there are 360 acres of
r.esidentia.l development bei~~i propo:~ed in the 600 acres and there were 305
acres in the original Genr'ral P1An Amendments and that this reduce3 the open
apace area and approxirr.ately 408 of the property was previously desl.lnated as
open space and now t he open sp~~ce i s about: 28-308.
Mr. Ikeda stated they have tried to design a plan that would be sui}able for a
~~lanned Community Zone sand it is designed with specific types of units and
size of lags that are in conformance with the City's current Zoning Codes. He
presented an illustrative Man showing the Planned Community and pointed out
the northwest portion of the property would be designated f.or single-family
detached Iota of: 5,000 square feet in conformance with the RS-5000 zoning and
r.here is a summit that would have lager L0,000 square foot loks in
conformance with RS-[i-10,000 zone requirements. He added they envisioned this
area to be a upscaled community with guarded gates and prlval:e roadways.
Mr. Ikeda skated there is a commercial retail center area consisting of
approximately 3U acres at the intersection of Oak Hills Drive and Weir Canyon
Road and is substantially in conformance with the concept established kwa
years, however, some of the lots have been shifted to conform more with the
alignment of Weir Canyon Road. H• stated there is a series of three likes
adjacent to the retail area and originally they had anticipated leaving that
as a natural ope~ aces, but the geotechnical. consultant indicated there is a
substantial landslide area just to the west of that particular canyon and
recommen~3ed Eill be impocted, so they have tried with this plan ko use the
fill Erom creating the three lakes to make the project. more attractive and
they have kalked to the Depactment of Pish & Game about their con:errr5
regarding the drainage areas and they are working with them to establish
riparian rehabilitation of *.his area.
He said another area of concern was the coordination of a school and pa[k site
at the boundary of the Wallace and Oak Ei{lls Ranches, and *_hat. they have put
together a number of alternatives but one of the ~iifEiculties has been
coordinating different s~:hedules with Planning and the Wallace Ranch
representakives; and that certain information they were able to develop was
not at an equal .level with the other two ranches, and some of the planning
decisions they Crave made were on khe basis of assumptions and one has been the
integrati.c~n of a school and park site. He stated they have worked on several
alternatives and they are willing to enter into an agreement and try to come
to a solution acceptable to the Wallace Ranch, the School District and
themselves.
He stated another concern is the roadway system; that Weir Canyon Road is
designated as a Scenic Expressway and they have tried to incorporate those
requirements into the plan and have added an additional 30-foot landscaped
setback on both sides of Weir Canyon Road and a 25-fcot setback on Serrano.
ETe stated the project will have private roads which will conform to the City
o~ Anahei.m's requirements and will be maintained by their homeowner's
assoc i at i or..
2/2/87
NNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 2r 1987-__ 8~-bZ
h1iNUTESr ANAHetM CiTY_ PGF. -
Hs poi.n`.ed our. the natura]. open space areas and the areas that would be graded
and planted and noted those would also be maintained by the homeowner's
associ.ati.on. He stated there are areas which will have private recreational
facilities such as the area along the lakes; and that the high-density
townhouse communities would have their own private recreational facilities.
He stated they have studied the market for this type of community and have
looked at the fiscal impact to the City and rind .hat by providing a high
quality community .;uch as this, they can balance the fiscal impacts and have
changed the plans from two years ago to provide a more quality and less dense
community and have gone from an overall density of ')..: dwelling units per acre
to an average of 5.9 dwellinn~ per acre.
Joel Fick, Planning Dirertoc, stated there is a large number of staff members
present who have worked closely on this proposal to answer anY questions.
,Jeff Race, Orange County Environmental Management Agency/Parks & Recreation,
explained he is presenk to seek the Planning Commission's support in creating
the Weir Canyon Regional Park, which could become one of the finest natural
parks in Orange County, that in the 591-acre Oak Hills Ranch proposal there is
a 45-acre parcel identified by the Weir Canyon Park and itoad Study as a
portion of the future Weir Canyon Regional Pack and that study was adopted by
the County Board of Supervisors in 1984. He stated t•he study was made in
cooperation with the Cities ~f Anaheim and Orange, citizens and environmental
groups, and each of the land owner: in the area, and that Mr. Dennehy was also
a member of the advisory group. tie stated the 45-acre parcel constitutes only
7-1/2 percent of the entire site and was completely ignored in r.he proposed
development. He pointed out Parcel D on the County's park exhibit displayed,
and explained that is the bare minimum needed to capture the prime vista point
in the park, prevent the visual intrusion of residential development and to
maintain the continuity of watershed in the canyon, and was specifically drawn
to minimize the econ~~mi.c impact of the applicant. He stated the project
proposed by this developer shows absolutely no park dedication and eliminates
the prime vista point overlooking Weir Canyon, Santa Ana Canyon and much of
Anaheim Hills, and places individual residences to the very boundary of other
park dedication parcels.
He stated this has a potential of impacting khe viewshed of the entire upper
half of the park and dumps a 36-inch storm drain directly into the park. He
added khe County responded ko the propcaal in subsequent correspondence and
He
meetings requesting the dedication of Parcel D and did expect coopecati.on.
stated that each and every development since the adoption of the Weir Canyon
Park and Road Study has made provisions for the fee dedication of the park
parcels identified by the stu.iy, with no development in the park area except
for three tracts approved prior to its adopt:i.on. He stated, however, Mr.
Dennehy steadfastly refused to dedicate Parcel D or any portion thereof and
wh.n it became clear there was an impasse and no agreement could be reached,
County staff informed the environmental consultant of the lack of dedication
of Parcel D which constitutes a significant impact on the County's park
planning programs and must be addressed in the EIR. However, tt~e impacts to
*_hP County's planning programs, the loss of a prime vista point, development
to the boundary of other park dedication parcels, the accompanying visual
impacts, the impact of urban runoff and the disruption of the continuity of
the watershed were not adequately addressed or mitigated. He stated the only
2/2/87
87-63
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 1987
mitiga inn relative ko the park pcovi.ded fur a Visual Impact Analysis and
Hydcol~gy Study prior to final grading plans, and the purpose of an
environmenkal impact report is to rovedzandmphetsipeihasrbepnor.oughagraded,
and after development has been app
the option of protecting and creating a park have been lost and these measures
proposed would come toa late to have any real theeenvironmentalpampactdcepork
affect the park layout and, must importankly,
fails to address Parcel ~'s elimination from the park. He staked Orange
County Parks and arkrhaveobeeneadequatelyPanalyzedanc mitigatedi.acks to Weir
Canyon Regional P
Mr. Race requested the Commission to condition the applicant to dedicate
Parcel U towards khe implemenkation of the Weir Canyon Regional Park ande
[equine adequate edge treatment. along the PaionalvPa~kmestaigoalfwhech all
skated implemen~.akion of then tiandaonenwhich should reflect khe City of
parties involved should supp
Anaheim's commitmenk ~°tizPnsao.E AnaheimsandoalleofsOcangenC~~unt.yre~ which are
so beneficial to khe
Mr. Race stated the Harbors, eeach~s, and Parks Commission fully intend and
wi~l opecat2 khe We~ryorbaoRegeonala>'ackrnnds hecSanta,AnaCRiver transaction
as it currently do
Sally White, 809oranBeoCounty Harbors~,t8eaches and PacksiCommission,esaid she
chairman of the 9
concurs with everything Mr.o i~ionatdshpnga,~fsh~eaasoviewedtthisssikeo r.
Talley concerning kheir opp ..
personally and there was a unanimous concurrence o~ '•hP'r NorthsOrangehCounty,
was the last chance to have significank regional park
and urged the Commission to make sure they get ade~7uate dedication necessary
to continue the Weir Canyon Regional Park.
Fern Cohen, immediate past. presidenk of Sea and sage Aud~~bon Society, stated
the local chapter of the National Aiidobon Society has been interested in
preserving Weir Canyon Eor 18 years and have had a very ~cti.ve educational
program and participated in khe planning process to achie'e Wedrkheyyhave
She stA
Regi.or.al Park and are still fighting for that park.
established a group called khe Friends of Weir Canyon and 9t ha:. almost 1,000
members, and they have walk-alongs on the ridge and i.n the riding and hiking
trail easements, and have published brochures, and nensWeireCanyon, andehave a
and currently ace conducting a breeding bird survey
speaker and slide program which has been presented all over the County and to
many school children and that ma~iy school children use the trails to learn
about the natural resources and cultural historical significance of Weir
Canyon.
Ms. Cohan stated in khis development-oriented County, wandri.trislimpcrtantdt~.
with mountains, the sea, canyons, meadows and valleys,
preser~~e these for future generakions and Weir Canyon is one oE' those areas
which is a unique ecosystem and should be preserved. She asked the
Commission's s~ port to knsisededicatedcby DhewOakhHi.llsndeveloper.part of the
Weir Canyon Re~;.onal Par ,
2/x/87
MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION `h EBRUARY 2, 1987 87-64
Virginia Chester stated sloe lives in Villa Park Had presented pictures taken
in Weir Canyon .last Saturday showing a good example of the area being
discussed. She referred to a copy of their comments presenked t.o the
Commission and a letter addressing their concerns and stated they are trying
to preserve this for the future and believe the pities that touch the
foothills of the Santa Ana mountains have an ,ligation to sef: aside and
preserve some very large parcels of land for public parks and to recognize and
protect the most valuably and ecological ynificant. area Erom the
encroachment of developmenk. She stated 'he issue of saving land Ecom the
bulldozer is more critical with each pa ping year and the ultimata buildout. of
Orange County may well come in the li~~t.ime of some of ttte people present, and
it may be found that the parks set as: de now are the only places lEft, for
free-flying hawks, meadow mice, wuo~,~ecke[s and uuL,:ats, and It is vitally
important to save areas large enoug~i to su:;kar~c ,. ,:emselves, with enough trees
for cover and nesting, enough grassland for fnrning and hu~~ing, enough clean
water to maintain plant. and animal life and en..~gh seclur~inn t.o accommodate
the leas bold animals, as well as it iQ iur those .. ~J~~ comfortable with
pec?ple.
Ms. Chester urye~l t:he Commission to look at Weic Canyon as a large wilderness
pack fur the future and if acyui~ed as a complete unit with all 2,200 acres
of its watershed, it will continue to be a i?iologically balanced area that can
sustain a broad selection of birds, animals and native plants and provide th«~
citizens with an inviting place for recreation. She stated as a
decision-tusking body in matters of zoning and planning, the Planning
Commission has the power to ensure that. this unique and valuable area is
protected from intrusion and destructive impacts of neighboring developers,
and the most destructive of these impacts would he the massive grading of
ridgelines and filling of gullies and canyons and tine water course altered.
She said they urge the Commission to deny this request. until or unless they
agree to refrain Ecom such destructive activities along the border of Weir
Canyon.
t~;dith Hasse, 730 ta, Lemon, Anaheim, stated every time these big developments
are done, human beings are intruding on the animals' area. She stated
mountain lions and t~obcats have lived in this area for a long time and
affecting their habitat could be creating another problem like we have in the
south county with people seeing mountain lions; and that we are the ones
interfering in their environment and builaing houses further and Further into
their area, and urged the Commission to think about what has been said and
consider not reducing ttie open space.
Leonard tlcCane, Brea, representing the 3rd District of Orange County Harbors,
Beaches and Parks Commission in which the Weir Canyon Regional Pack is
located, stated Mr. Race defined the problems very clearly and that he would
like to emphasize by hi.s prdsence their Commission's concerns; and that it is
very important. f.or any par!: like this to be acquired through the dedication
process; that he has been with the Commission since 1976 and they would be
hard-pressed to have any regional parks if they could not use the dedication
process. He stated he would hope the ~ommissi.on would delay any approval for
this pro~~ct until they can resolve h the develop~~ this issue relating to
the park a 'cati.on.
2/2/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOti FEBRUARY 2 1987 87-65
Chars Jarvi., Director of Parks and Recreati~~n and Community Services, City of
Anaheim, stated he is going t:o discuss 1or_al parks rather than regional parks;
that he has the responsibility for making sure that. the park dedication
ordinance Eor the City of Anaheim is properly enforced and the ordinance
requires two acres of local parks to be developed Eor every 1,000 people
introduced into the suhdivision; and that by that standard, approximately 12.8
acres are required as pact of this development.
Mr. Jarvi stated 3 to 4 years ago, because developers were not sure what type
of land was being required for park purposes, a set of local park site
criteria was developed1 and presented to the Commission as part of the Parks
and Recreation packet earlier, and that outlined what they would like to have
to develop local park sakes in khe City of Anaheim to insure uniformity and
conformity i.n the type of parcels dedicated. lie stated basically they need
flat land suitable for neighborhood and community park usage and do look at
sites close to schools to make maximum use of public apen space and look for
trying ko tie developments together such as the Bauer, Oaks Hills, Wallace and
Highlands project to make sure there is no duplication of services thcough~.:+.
the city.
lie stated they looked very closely at this Oak Hills project for a park and
kh~ developer has proposed 18.16 gross acres, or 12.8 net arrest and that he
has sit through extensive discussions with the developer and i~as made a site
visitation and reviewed the slope analysis and his rationale for rejection is
that the flat. land is largely not contiguous and is spread out amongst a
variety of un-uniform sites and is split and not conducive to the des+qn of a
local park. He added there are some slopes on the site which will cause some
significant problems; and that there is also a large creek which Elows through
the site and from their experience on the golf course, etc., they know that
creakes problems in terms of future development and maintenance and they know
there will be high maintenar.~- costs on this site. He stated another problem
is vehicle access to the site which is still unresolve~a any it must be brought
through the Wallace Ranch; and that they will have poor user access to the
site once it i~ developed because of the creek, and they are not sure how the
Wallace and Uak Hi11s sites will be linked. He added they expect to get a
park dedication prom the Wallace Ranch that would be contiguous to tt..s site
ar-d it appears the access would be split by an access road right through the
center of the park; and that he sees high liability problems and high
construction costs because of the nature of the terrain; and that they also
have an unresolved school/park relati.on:~ip and do not know where the school
district stands regarding this site.
Mr. Jarvi stated they also have an unresolved issue as to the Wallace Ranch
and also are not sure when they will get the park site; and that they have
sent a letter ~o the developer saying that under the current circumstances,
they would reject the site proposed; and that the Parks and Recreation
Commission h,~s revi.ewed the proposed site and rejected it on January 20. He
stated he is willing to work with the developer to try and find a satisfactory
solution.
Gordan Ruser, 1221 S. Sycamore Street, Santa Ana, stated he i.s ;peaking ~n
behalf of the Orange County Foothills Subcommittee of the Angeles Chapter of
the Sierra Club which has 7,000 members in Orangr and Los Angeles County;
2/2.ia7
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2~ 1907 __87-66
that the representatives have been involved with the ~leir Canyon issues since
198Q and they kare involved when the Orange Counr.y Board of Supervisors
authorized the Weir Canyon Park and Road Study and the Sierra Cluh
representatives participated in that autdy and are i.nter~3ted in the future of
Weis Canyon. He stated the Oak Hi?ls Planned Communiky :IR No. 281 Exhibit
III - Land Use Parcelization Plan, revesls that Parcel A at the south end of
Oak Hills Ranh ~aould be divided into 321 lots and most of thor~e lots would be
within the SVeir Canyon watershed and viewsheds that within Parcel A two
picturesque mounds and a beautiful meadow with a spring would be graded to
create useful building lots with adjacent streets. He stated development of
Parcel A as planned would be a seric+us and subs;.anti al physical intrusion into
the future Weir Canyon Regional Park; that the Weir Canyon Park and Road Study
identified the northern tip of: the watershed as Parcel D an.t that parcel
covers most of the watershed acreage that is part of the Oak Hills Ranch
property.
he stated they recommend that ttte Planning Commission deny ~.hia request as
presented because the Weir Canyon watershed and viewshed are visually and
physically impacted and would recommend that no structural development,
grading, view modification or wildl:f~ habitat alteration be permitted at the
north end of Weir Canyon and recommend that the entire :•~uth end of the Oak
Hills Ranch property be acquired unimpaired by the Coun~y of Orange for
inclusion in the future Weir Canyon Regional Park and cooperate with the
acquisition process.
Frank Elfend, Elfend Associates, 1151 Dove Street, Suite 130, Newport Beach,
stated they are not here to oppose the project, but to raise some questions
and clarifications on some of the items in the stafi` report; that they are
representing the Highlands project and the Wal:ace Ranch. Regarding the
Highlands project which is locateu west of Oak Hills Ranch, he skated they
have reviewed the staff report and there is a condition in the repor,.
indir•~~tng that the water issue will be resolved during future joint.
sat ]uent dotailed engineering studies and they would concur with staff and
be cede that is a reasonable condition. He stated there is a lot of
discussion concerning phasi.ny and they would like to ine'icate that in te•cros of
moving for.~aard with the Highlands project, khey are working with E:gineecing
and Planning Department staff +n deve:opi.ng a Phase ~ i.mflemmntaticn program
which will provide information to the City so they will have t}•at information
at the time of project approval.
Concerning the Wallace Ranch, i~1r. Elfend explained *.`at property i.s located
directly north of this site and they are preparinU specific plan on that
project consistent with r.he goals and policies of .e General Plan. He ~cated
one concern relates to the park site and access, and referred to Page 2-qq
which discusses the Oak Hills developer has proposed access to the park site
from the Wallace Ranch a~,~] ,.hat i s not acaep~cable for several reasons -
topography, drainage (pointi.ng out a bridge would be required), circulation,
etc.
Mr. Elfend stated the land plan for the Wallace ranch provides for a park site
consistent, with the general Plan and they have met with the Parks and
Recreation Deparc~aent and indicated they would provide a park site consistent
with Code requirements concerning lucati.on and acreage, and they are not
2/2/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI T1 PL~ ANNING COMMISSION, FEHR_UARY 2~ 1987 _ 87-67
providing access to that location. He stated they do not propose to provide
access to another ranch, especially when it is going to degrade the
environment of an area.
Mr. E.if.end stated regarding tt-e school site, they have been working with the
School District fcr several years regarding the location of their facilities
in the graater Anaheim bills area and would agree with staff's Condition No.
30 on page 2-hh which indicates there will be a future resolution of this
particular issue. He stated anther concern is the schoal location ~~~~ '
have had di.scusaions with the School District regarding exactly wh«.
elementary school site irr ~;hown and the most recent. information they does
not show a school site on ttre Wallace Ranch. Fie stated the third concern is
phasing and since they are preparing a specific plan for. tha Wallace Ranch
which is a far more detailed document than is normally considered, they will
have detailed phasing on that. as well. He stated the next issue is wat.erthat
di9tribution and they ar.e comfortable with Condition No. 25 on page 2-gg
ir. wi'1 -'~ resolved with future detailed studies of the area.
Mr. Glfend stated the documentation on the Oak Hills Ranch ukilized an
incorrect. project. descripkion and information shout the Wallace Ranch; that
ttrere was a time in past when the a was some consideration to possibly
developing the ranch differently than currently proposed; however, as
rndi.cated by staff, the Wallace project is not as described in the Oak Hills
proposal.
ent F3arnes, Director of Planning Services, Orange Unified S~•hocl District,
.ated the only point he wishes ko make that it is the:~r intention that the
school site he shared by both thr. Wallace and Oak Hills projects and there is
no final agreement on a school site at this time.
Mr. 'Ikeda stated there were three issues discussed - the regional park, the
local neighborhood park and the school site and the coordination with the
Wallace Ranch. He stated regarding a regional park, they are certainly
supportive of a regional park and they have tried to look at the site and
identify what is the most environmerrkally sensitive and least environmentally
sensitive areas and that the Oaks trees were what they considered the prime
most environmentally sensitive area and wanted to develop a plan to preserve
those areas and link to the Weir Canyon Regional Park.
He stated the drainage through the middle of their property is not the
drainage for Weir Canyon; and that Weir Canyon drains southerly and the area
proposed as Weir Canyon Regional. Park is off their property and khe one area
of concern to the county was 45 acres at the surnmit which includes an area
which is flat with vistas in both directions, and for them ir. was an ideal
area for development. He stated they hired the best environmental biologist
available and had surveys by qualified archeologists and those consultants
indicated the environmentally sensitive area is where the drainage areas flow
northward; and that the flat area does provide some outstanding views and they
have tried to develop a plan that takes advantage of those views.
He stated they knew Weir Canyon Regional Park would be developed off site and
tried to create come miki.gation measures t:tat would screen or buffer the
residential development from the park. He stated the grading plan is
2/2/87
8'I_r~g
MINUTES ANAFFEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEHRUARY 2 1987
designed in such a way that much of the drainagh f~~e~etostflowointo then park,
into the parks howAver, because of tl~~e tnpograP y stem that does not alter the
buk their engineers have designed a sA°kmandathegytried to leave that a
amount of. water and runoff into ..he P -
natural condition.
cars aao and they indicated t.nat they
He stated this plan was ciscussed two Y" ark into conaiderakion. He stated
would try to take the potential for the P
they have not seen a plan for the ea~an ontand notwattrthersummitenand without
Sensitivity is at the bottom of th yintends to 90, they cannot really try
a real understanding of what the County
and give away 45 acres.
t~ incorporate something
the local park, he stated they tried to select a site that Is very
Regarding f flat areas because the creek
attractive and it. does have some discontinuity o in fields
flows through it, but it is not aatucal that' woulddacsommodatetplay agd they
envision the park as being very n
as well as some very natural areas with t e
in the areas that. were 9r~a`]MYePa remaining. He stated they do have some
existing Oaks and Sycamore ro oyed to
alternatives and presented slides showing how the site is being P P
tha Parks Department.
e to try and develol• a plan
Mr. Ikeda stated there are a nusbePlo~ndithey hopdpsign alternatives emse:ves.
developing the Park and school the school district and th
that meets the be teianalysi ynhowingithe flat area being provided and stated
tie presented a slop
all the parcels combined do i„eet the andathatgareami st not sui table. foHeastate
the slopes are adjacent to the creeery
but is certarnly attractive because of the (1ak trees.
playground area, which provides
He added they have looflataground,tforaa~totaltofmsevenraares of flat land
are open to working with the Parks
an additional ar.~re of with a
within the entire 12 acres. Fie stated they and come up
Department and the Wallace Ranch representatives to tryand they dial speak with
good solution, but the problem has been the scheduling
i hlands project developers about 6
the Wallace Ranch representatives and the H gals were discussed and it was
to 8 months aqo and at that time r.hese prop wasn't an objection
the past six months,
clear that the:~~: were workable solutions and there real Y b::t
1:rom the other two ranrh~^. He sta~ndthevpartlofdthenother two ranches,
there has been additional plannbody else has completed al]. their detailed
they could not wait until every
studies. He stated they would ill;ntOtopworkdwi.thtthe Cikyito understande
City's objectives now and are w 9
their direction.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman McBurney stated i.t appears tdeany wasnsureutneeCountyphas something
the County as diligently as they coul
the could have looked at and they must know where the 45 acres are located
Y He stated also in looking at the local4omebody
and where the boundaries are. ~rK si1•e with access through
site, it appears thAy are dedicating a ~.
else's property.
2/2/87
MINUTrS, ANAFIEIM CIT`1 PLANN.~NG COMIdISSION, FEBRUARY 2, 1987 87-69
Mr. Ikeda staked the 45 acres has been determined by the waker.shed line and it
is within the watershed of Weir Canyons however, they have not seen a specific
pack development plan to '.now what the County wants t.o do wikh that pre,perky,
so they had to work with no plan and try to i~ientiPy the sensitivity of the
land and alt they could find our is that it is a great view site into the
park, but it is also a great view site for homes.
F.egar~^,ing access into the neighborhood park, he stated khey have talked t:o the
sctrocl district and got very clear direction that they did not want: access
into the school Erom Weir Canyon Road bc~~ause of khe heavy traffic on Weir
Canyon Road and making kurns cut of the ,ire would not be acceptable and they
prefer t.o have an access from a local ~}treet.
Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Race when the County expects to have Weic Canyon
Regional Park, recognizing they are having t:o ask Eor donations and
dedications of properky. Mr. Race responded they are currently in the process
,~f ac:quiring some 150 acres Er.om the ]iighl,ands properky owner. kawards
implementation of the park and according to the Hart~ors and tlavigat:ion Code,
the;r cannot spend any funds on a regional park until they have acquired at
least a porn.on of that. park and the FFighlands portion would be the first
portion and then they can hold a Harbors and Navigation Code hearing and make
the park an official proieck of the Harbors, Beaches and Parks District.
Ha responded to Commissioner Meese that they do not own any lan<9 for the park
at khis kime; however, there ar~~ proposed dedications. He presented an
exhibit showing the 1.50 acres to be dedicated from the Anaheim Flighlands
project developer, and pointed out Parcel D is within Oak Hills Ranch. He
explained the bulk of the park will be dedicated by the Irvine Company and
ney have indicated their willingness to dedicate. He stated khey ace
~.,.rrently negotiating park dedicakion for Peters Canyon Regional Park in that
vicinity with the Irvine Company and they are very cooperative in dedicating
regional parks.
Mr. Race stated he thought there is some question about which area is more
sensitive - those Eew Oaks fn the drainage area or protection of the 2135-acre
regional park which contains the largest Oak woodland in the county. He
seated certainly the knoll at the tap of Parcel D provides o~itstardi.ng views
for residential development. but it also provides outrageous views of
residential development From within the park. He staked water discharge
coming out of Oak Hills Ranch is not a natural condition and will discharge
urban pollukants into the park including asbestos, heavy metal and petroleum
products and it would be greatly impacted by the houses and drainage from that
knu.ll. He staked the boundaries of the park are designed to capture khe bare
minimum of watershed and keep view impacts out of the park and he did not
believe the consultant had responded to their concerns regarding impacts to
the planning programs of the County which under CEQA is their responsi.bi.lity.
He staked i.k is his personal belief summit would be the prime viewpoint of the
park overlooking Santa Ana Canyon, Weir Canyon and Anaheim Hill:;.
Commissioner Meese asked if khere is any way to protect thak viewshed without
the developer dedicating the 45 acres. Mr. Race skated he did not believe it
could be done because the developer has proposed to grade off the top of the
knoll and there is no way khat would not visually .impact the park and i.t would
be too late to determine what the view ampzct wo~~ld be if they have a viewshed
analysis done after the fact.
2/2/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NEBRUARY I. 1°87 87-70
Commissioner eouas stated it appears the regional park hinges on the Irvine
Company and asked how soon they feel they would have an agreement with the
Irvine Company. Mr. Race stated they are constrained by khe pace of
development and have to acquire park parcels from the iligh.l.ands, oak Hills,
etc. as they develop, and cannot yek anything Erom the Irvine Company until
He stated in other areas where the
they propose development in the area.
irvi.ne Company has proposed development, they have complied with the Master
Plan of Regional Parks in full and dedicated those areas specified on the plan.
Respondiny to Commissioner Messe, Mr. Race stated Irvine Company participated
in the Advisory Group of the Weir Canyon Regional Pack Study ~~hich was
completed in 1984.
Commissioner IlerbsL• stated this developer has the 'cart before i:he horse' and
khere are many problems with thn property; that it is an isolated parcel and
he did not believe this proposal should even he before the Plannirg Commission
until there are some agceemt:nts between the Wallace Ranch, Bauer Ranch and
Highlands because there are road access, school access and park access
problems and all interested parties must packicipate and come before the
Commission with something more realistic, rather than a plan nobtheyfwill bees
can agree with. He stated from reading the reoorts, it appea r
grading 08B of the property and he thought that just proves what a bulldozer
r_an do to the hill and canyon area.
Jim Dennehy, 1535 Orangewood, Suite 219, Anaheim, stated the road system
causes the malveska lotteftgradangganddthere aalotnofoareas thatchave highway"
and that invo
hillsides which have to be buttressed.
Concerning khe park, Mr. Dennehy stated he participated in the Weir Canyon
Park and Road Study, and two years ago presented a General Plan Amendment *v
the Planning Commission and got approval Eor up to 2168 units which showed
development exackly in that area; and that he was in those meetings for khe
Weir Canyon Road and Park Study, and told them that there would be development
in those areas and that they would be very very sensitive to the park and try
to do whatever they could, and that he never got any feedback ?n those
30 to 45 days and
meetings. He stated this all has happened within the lasHe stated they have
their plans hove been public information for two years.
to try and balance economics with sensitivity to environment and he dial try to
schedule a meeting for the Planning Commissioners t~ view the property because
that would demonstrate how they all come together. He stated in hi.s opinion,
thscmbetsixtyr100eyearlold Oaksiin that areal;ahoweveragtheyacouldacuttdowe
mu
some of those trees.
Commissioner Herbst stated the Genccal Plan Amendment approved 0 to 2200 units
and they may only be able to get 1500 unless tosedrto gradi.ngedownathenhillst
has been the problem i.n the past and he is opp
and putting houses on them. He stated from looking at the grading plan, i.t
appears they will grade a lot of the hills.
Mr. Dennehy stated he would be happy to take the Commissioners out to the site
with the ^radi.ng plan and see how the property comes together and a large part
of the grading will happen anyway for the road system. 2/2/87
~~
,t ,'
MINUTES,_ ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRIiAWK 2,_ 1987 87-71
Commissioner Herbst stated he realizes the developer has spent a lot of time
working on this project, but i t cannot be hui It without roads, file school site
and park site and the Commissron needs to have something presenr_ed that is
workabler and that he thought representatives of the schools, parka, and other
ranches should all g~:t together to work out the problems, pointing orit they do
not even have a road to get to the property at this time.
Mr. Dennehy stated he would agree, and added it has been frustrating because
many of these issues ace regional and not unique to their property and their
hands are tied because when the issues transcend property lines, he ic,ses
control, but will commit to sit down with the city and other property owners
and work out these problems. He stated he hac9 requested r.hat he done before
th•~y yet to this meeking, but for one reason or another, the other property
owners were not ready. He skated they would like ko move ahead with their
project and realize there are things that have to be addressed, but thought
they could get this project approved contingent upon those things happening.
Commissioner Messe asked if they have an agreement with the Fouc Corners
Pi peline.
Mr. Dennehy stated they have talked to the Four Corne[s Pipeline, but could
nok come to an agreement until they have specific dates and they have an
agreement to move the pipeline out of the park and into the roadway syste,n
where possible and have met with them twice. He stated they have spent a lot
oi° time with staff trying to get these things resolved.
Commissioner Messe asked how approval today would put this developer ahead o[
everything because he would still have to sit down and meet with the others
and get agreements. He stated there seems to be so many contingencies and
there i s also phasing proposed. Mr. Dennehy responded approval of thi s
request would give them tangibility and if they have a plan the Commission
feels comfortable with contingent upon those things happening, it will be a
different story. Fie stated he believes approval from the Planning Commission
would help start pushing the issues by saying this development is acceptablet
buk that regional issues regarding the school s1te, park site, and roadways
have to be worked out.
Commissioner Bouas asked Mr. Elfend i f there is a possibi li ty these problems
can be worked out. Mr. Elfend responded he is involved .from two different
ranches and there isn't anything that, needs to be resolved from the Highlands
a speck, and they have spent a lot of time with Mc. Dennehy trying to resolve
the other issues concerning the Wallace Ranch. He added they are comfortable
with the City's condition regarding the water issue.
Commissioner Bouas asked i.f they are willing to dedicate the park site. Mr.
Elfend responded there i.s no park sire r~lati.onship concarni.ng their Highlands
project, but with the Wallace Ranch property, they are putting a park on the
si.t° plan consistent with the City's General Plan and it has been discussed
with the Packs Department. He added access seems to ae the question, with one
developer wanting to access their park site through another property and a
bridge would be necessary, etc. He responded to Commissioner Herbst that the
Highland projeck provides for a dedi.catior- to the County of 150 acres of open
space area currently shown on the City's General Plan for resi.denti.al
2/2/87
MINUTEST ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEl3RUARY 2, 1987 _ _ 81-72
development and that i.s a major ridgeline visible from the community of
Anaheim Hi.:lls and the developer thought i.t was reasonable plan to dedicate
that area to the County.
Comma ssi over Herbsk poi nt:ed out where Serrano Avenue comes into the area does
affect the Highlands project and felt it would behoove them to get together to
work out a solution. Mr. Elfend stated they understand and that is why khe
Highlands project provides for a road connection that takes it off the
ex+sting Anaheim dills Planned Community roadways and given the need for
drainage i.n Santa Ana Canyon, consequently, a road was provided for the intent
of n~~- putting additional traffic on the existing roadway system.
Commissioner Herbst stated he feels it i.s important for the owners to work
together with the school district, parks representatives, etc. Mr. Elfend
agreed anti stated they are willing t•o work together.
Commissioner Herbst stated this project cannot be accomplished without khe
other ranch owners help and the other ranches wi 11 not be able to develop
their properties withou'- this developer's help.
Mr. Elfend stated there are also other issues which are not antra-ranch issues
which they have no control over. He stated in tt~e last 30 days they Crave
presented detailed plans to the City on the Wallace Ranch and are available tc
sit down and discuss them.
Commissioner Herbst asked why the estate density was eliminated from this
plan. Mr. Dennehy stated it re.latea try macketabili.ty and they want to prowade
a private community, semi.-estate with large lots, where there is not a .lot of
traffic and estate density would he hard to market.
Commissioner Herbst stated there are i~orse trails in the area and there is
RS-7200 zoning which eli.mi.nates horses and it does not appear they have the
proper density mi.x. He stated there are others areas with RS-22,000 2oni ng
and these types of development live together comfortably. Mr. Dennehy st.at ed
this is not a real intense use and the lots are rather large and they are all
flat. He stated the RS-5000 lots will be on the northern portions of the
property. Commissioner Herbst stated by eli.minati.ng all the estate densi.t~ ,
the project does not have a proper balance of zoning which would be expected.
Commissioner Messe asked how long a continuance they would require.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated a lot of time has been spent looking at
the park and antra-ranch issues and the Commi.ssi.on is very familiar with t2~e
project but wanted to point out that in addition to the antra-ranch issues ,
there are some ei.ty issues which need to he resolved, specifically the fiscal
impacts, and it is staff's preference to bring the Commission some solutions
and answers rather than just identify the issues.
Jim Dennehy stated if they can get together wi.thi.n one week, he thought most
of the issues could be resolved very quickly and he would like a two-week
continuance. Commissioner Messe stated he did not think that would be
reasonable because they would have to coordinate with the other ranch owners
and the City staff and suggested a 6-week continuance.
2/2/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2, 19t37 87-73
Mr. Dennehy asked for a four-week continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner ME•sse offered a motion, seconded ty Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARR ZED (Commissioners I,a Claire and Lawicki absent) that
consi.decation of the aforementioned matter be continued t o the
regularly-scheduled meet'?ng of March 2, 1987, at the petitioner's request.
Joel Fick stated should the Oak Hill's developer make a d et.ermination that
they wish to consider the County's request for dedication, the staff would be
looktng for a r evised Pub:'.ic Facilities and Fiscal Impact Analysis and plans
that reflect whatever the changes are.
Chairman Mceurney stated h~~ thought the ceveloper is well aware that one thing
he touches will affect fivca or six different issues and al.l of those have to
be addressed.
Malcolm Slaugh t Pr, Deputy City A;t_orr:ey, stated staff would need two weeks to
re-analyze all the information and a 4-week continuance means information for
a ce-submittal would have t<~ be in in ? creeks.
Mr. Dennehy stated sll these issues havc~ been di.acussed a lot and it is now
yetting close t o decision-making time and suggested if they cannot make the
meeting in four weeks, they could cequer;t an additional continuance.
Mr. Fick stated staff will. be~ looking for a minimum of two weeks to provide a
comprehensive r evi.ew for input to the Commission, but the deadline is two
weeks from today to be prepared for the Commission meeting in four weeks.
Mr. Dennehy stated the parties are all present who have t o meet and he has no
problem i n asking staff to sel: up a meeting for all the people today.
Commissioner Herbt directed st.af.f to call all the parties toget!~er i.n a
reasonable period of time, including the representatives of the three ranches,
and possibly t he Bauer Ranch should be represented, Packs and Recreation for
the County and City of Anaheim, etc. Commissioner Bouas s!aggested
establishing a meeting while everyone i.s present,
RECESS: 4:05 p.m.
RECONVENE: 4:20 p.m.
ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAi2ATI0N~ RECLASSIE'ICATION N O. 86-87-21 ANU
VARIANCE N0. 3 534
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPEI AND LOIS CLARP,, 1234 Dale Street, Anaheim, CA
92804. AGENT: MADGY HANNA, 4(100 MacArthur Boulevard, $ 580, Newport Beach, CA
92660. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 1.12 acres, 1234 Dale Street.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a le:,s intense zone.
Waivers of (a'1 maximum wall height, (b) minimum sire area per dwelling unit,
(c) maximum structural height, (d) maximum site coverage and (e) minimum
structural set back to construct. a 49 unit affordable apartment complex.
2/2/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2, 1987 87-74
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Magdy Hanna, agent, stated the sucroundi.ng land uses are compatible with this
proposed project. and they were very sensitive about the privacy of the single
family homes located on the south in the City of Stanton and are proposing a
12-1/2-foot h~lgh block wa11t and that thE+ two-story portion of the project
will be facing the interior of the project with no windows or doors facing
those homes to the south. He stated affordable housing is needed in Anaheim
and these units will be for the very low income families.
Peter Talason stated he .lives in Stanton and dial write a letter requesting a
continuance and did not receive a response to that r2yuest. Chairman McBurney
explained he received that letter requeat.i.ng a continuance, but that the
Commission normally yrants continuances only at the request of the petitioner.
Mr. Talson continued that many other people in the neighborhood were concerned
about this development, but could nor. attend this meeting; that he did talk to
his neighbors and about 25 of the property owners, nut of 31, object to this
request primarily because of the density and the variances requested. He
staked the General Plan designates subject property for medium density
allowing 36.3 units per acres and this developer is requesting q0 units per
acre and would be designating only four units as affordable. He stated he
felt the developer would be maximizing on the affordable designation by
getting approval of so many variances; and that the wall height at 12-1/2 feet
on the north and south would make this look like a prison.
He stated he i.s concerned about the utilities easement on the south side,
which means that property would not have access unless they get it at the
expense of property owners on the south. He s*_atr.~d they feel even with units
at 1200 square feet, there could be a lot of people living in a unit and that
would be overcrowding, and this developer .is requesting a decrease i.n unit
size to 980 square feet and in view of the health and safety hazards, they
feel that would be a problem.
He stated there i.s no access route fer emergency vehicles such as a fire truck
in case of a fi.ce to the south or north of the property. He stated the
aujo.ini.ng units in Anaheim and Stanton are all one story and they dial not see
a reason to allow three stories. He stated the developer wanks a SOa increase
in site coverage from 55$ to 77~ and this would create a tenement or barrio.
He stated they are concerned about safety, especially earthquakes, fires and
other emergencies. He added ~~his area is right on the San Andreas fault, as
far as he can determine; and thst this will also add to overcrowded schools,
depending on age and number of persons occupying the units, and decreased
property values, increased crime rate, and drainage are also concerns. He
pointed out there 3s already a serious drainage problem, and with removal of
t}re heavy foliage, there is additional danger of seepage under the walls; and
there is the problem of noise and dirt creatad during construction and also
they have trees there which are apparently over l0U years old. He stated
there are no practical difficulties and no hardships on the developer
resulting from compliance with the zoning codes, and this would be destroying
2/2/e7
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEDRUARY 2, 1987 _____ 87-75
a nice waoded area which would more appropriately be a park.
Pat McClain, Key Realty, stated he represents both parties in this
transaction= and that Mr. and Mr3. Clark could not be present today because
Mr. Clark is rather ill and they are selling the property because he can no
longer maintain tt~e sit:e and noted they have lived there for more than 30
years.
Lola Joshlyn, 8652 Lola Avenue, Stanton, stated the people in thr_ whole area
object to this project becausr, it is currenkly zoned RS-A-43,000 which is
agricultural and Mr. Clark, whom tre has know personally for some time,
objected to any units beiny hunt arcund him for years, and Pverything in that
area hay been built single-story and the City Code stat.en there will be no
structure above one story within 150 Eeet of resident.tal, and they are asking
;or a structure at about. 40 feet. He stated they are requested an awfully
high density for this area and in order. to improve their property and make it
more valuable t•.o them and less valuable to t.hc, people In the area, they are
requesting all these variances, and he did not think they should have to look
out their back door. and stare at a 12-foor. high wall and then above that. a
3-story building when everything else is one story. FIe stated this developer
has no interest. other than profit and doesn't care what happens to the
neighbors. Fie stu':ed Eor Eouc low income units, the developer wants the
neighbors to have to live with all these waivers, and very Eew will benefit,
and a lot of people who have lived there for 30 years will suffer.
i!en Hartley stated he is representing t-is mother who lives at 850 J. Lola and
she i» concerned with basically the same concerns and also they have not heard
enough comments regarding the EIR and feel with schools in the area and the
children going to and fro,n schools, there could be some problems. He stated
they have counted about. 713 apartment units in that area all south of Ball
Road and the ones immediately around subject property are all basically one
story. He stated his mother has lived there 25 years and does not like the
idea of having to see apartment units.
Mr.. Hanna stated they chose to provide thc~ four units of affordable housing to
the very low incomer however, could actually provide nine units to the
moderate income families; and that the site coverage is actually calculated
from the subterranean packing, but the open space and walkways are all between
the units, with the green area araunu the units. He stated there is only one
story above the garage on the south and the elevation on their side is
act:ualiy six feet, but on the other side, it probably looks like as 12-foot
high wall because of the different grade. He stated they will pay the school
fees which will enable them to open more schools; and that they have mek al.l
t..he handicapped requirements.
THE PUBLIC FFEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Fry stated there has to be a hardship shown in order to approve a
variance and i.t has to be something ot;.er than economic >7ecause the Planning
Commission is not permitted to consider economic ;~acdshios :~:~'. there are no
hardships here. He added he thought this is a good site, but }~
project too heavily impacts the property.
2/2/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2, 1987 87-76
Commissioner Herbst stated he would not like for someone to put a 12-foot high
wall behind his house and then put a 3-stocy building behind that wall and
thought this project i.s impact.ing the area too much. He stated this is
another case of designating units for affordable housing and impacting the
area where people have been living Eor year. s. He stated low cost housing i.s
needed but not at the expense of the neighbors or neighborhood and the
neighbors were there first and deserve someth.i.ng that does not impact theic
homes. He stated this developer is asking for too many variances and they
need to develop something compatible with the area, and this project would
stand out like a "sore thumb`. He asked if the developer would like a
continuance in order to redesign the project.
Mr.. Hanna stated possibly he could meet. with the neighbors and work out a
compromise and redesign the project in a way that. would meet their
requirements.
ACTION: Commissioner tiPrbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner 5ouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners La Claire and Lawicki. absent) that
consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-
schaduled meeting of March 16, 1986, in order for the applicant to completely
redesign the project to be more compatible with the area.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out to the neighbors that this property is general
planned for apartments and is presently zoned RS-A-43,000 which is a holding
zone only for agricultural purposes.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated this matter will not be
readvertised unless there are significant changes.
ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-22 AND
VARTANCE N0. 3636
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: tiARTMAN CORP., 536 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92805. AGENT: BFNCO DEVELQPMENT GROUP, 4201 Long Beech, Suite 403, Long
Beach, CA 90807. Property is an irregularly-shaped p;ircel of land consisting
of approximately 286 acres located south and eases of :he southeast corner of
Kat.~lla Avenue and State Coilege Boulevard.
ML to CL or a less intense zone.
Waivers of (a) minimum number of required parking spaces, (b) maximum number
of freestanding signs, (c) permitted location of freestanding signs and (d)
minimum distance between freestanding signs to construct a commercial center.
It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance t~ the meeting of
February 18, 1987, in order to submit additional information.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe
and MOTIOti CARRIED (~~~mr,,:ssioners La Claire and Lawicki absent) that
consideration of the abovementioned item be continued to the
re3ularly-Rcheduled meeting of February 18, 1987, at the request of the
petitioner.
2/2/87
MINUTES! ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2, 1987 87-17
ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITTONAh USE PERMTT_N0. 2883.
pUBi.IC BEARING. OWNERS: t1ARTMAN CORP., 536 W. T.incoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92805. AGENT: BENCO UEVELOPt1ENT GROUP, 42(11 Lang Beach, Suite 403, Luny
peach, CA 90807. Property deRCribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately C .86 acres located south and east of the southeast
corner of Kat.ella Avenue and State College poulevard.
To construct a drive-through restaurant. with waiver of minimum number cif
required parking space9.
it was Hated thc~ petitioner has requested a continuance to the meeting of
February 18, 1987, in order to submit additional information.
ACTION: Commissioner Mr~si;e offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst
and MO'I'IUN CARTU:ED (Commilasioners La Claire and Lawicki absent) that
conr3ideration of the aforementioned item be continued t.o t.hcr
regularly-scheduled mr:eting rE February 18, 1987, at the request of the
petitioner.
ITEM NU. 6 EIR NEGA,TTVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL U;iE F.~ERl4IT N0. 2867
PUBLIC HEARING. O'~4Nt:RS: TERF•NCF P.. HILL, c/o PEACH Pi20FESSIONAL BUILDING,
LTD., 408 S. Tieac'~i poulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: ED tiUDSUN, c/o
GUT,DEN STATE EMPT.,~YER SERVICE, 408 S. [leach poulevacd, Anaheim, CA 92804.
Property describ•.~d as an irr.egularly~-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 2 :icr.es, 408 South Beach poulr_vard.
To permit a vo~~ational training center with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
There was no ~~ne indicating their presence i;~ opposition to subject request.
and a.ithough the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pact
of the minutes.
Ed Miller, Director, explained they are req~aest.ing a waiver of the parking
cequiremen"sT and that they have a small vocational school and at. any one time
would have 50 to 60 students present and probably 1.1 instructors and staff
members. He explained they have conducted a traE.fic stu~~! and there i.s a
maximum of no more than 69$ of the available 171 parking spaces used. He
stated alley have been there shout a year and, in fact, most of their students
do not even drive.
THE PUT3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Mess:, Mr. Miller stated they occupy 5 c.lassr`ooms
with three sessions per day, with room for 23 students in each classroom, and
each of the 23 stations in *he classroom has a solde.ing iron and magnifying
glass and other small equipment available, end they also have one classroom
with 10 personal computers.
2/2/87
M:[NUTES, ANAHEIM_CIT't PLANNING COMMI5STON, E'`EBRUARY 2, 1987 __~-_~, E'7,,,_78
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bauas and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheia: City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a vocational r_;;aining cE~ntCr
with waiver of mir;imam number of parking spaces on an .irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.0 acres, having a frontage of
approximately 325 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard, and further
described as 408 South Beach Boulevards and does hereby a~~prov~ !:hr. Negative
Declaration upon findiny i:hat it has considered the Negative De~clara':ian
together with ar~y comments received during the public r!:view process and
further finding on the 'oasis of the Initial Study and rang r_omments received
that there i.s no subatai~tial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the ~~nviranmen`.
Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Cvm;nissi~aner 8ouas anti MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim r„sty Planning
Commission does hereby grant waiver of code requirement on r..ne basis that the
packing waiver will not cause an increase in tr.affio congestion in the
immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting
of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC 87-31 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2867, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 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: LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wr.i.tten right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision wi.kh:n 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2878
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD S. AND LINDA E. ASHLEY, 6549 Northvi.ew,
Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described ::.s an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 5280 square feet, 4504 East La Palma Avenue.
To construct an industrial related real estate office.
There was no one indicating their presence f.n oppositi.on to subject. request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Richard Ashley, owner, was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
2/2/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOiJ FEARUARY 2 1987 87-79
Responding to Commissioner La Claire, Mr. Ashley stated they would primarily
have industrially-related real estate for sale at this location and st.at.ed he
did not plan to adver.kise the residential property fro[n this location and
would conform to City requirements Eor signs. He Mated there will probably
be an attorney and mortgage broker on these Premises and they do not.
anticipatr a large oCerat.ion from this site.
Commissioner La Claire asked if the mortgage broker would only take care of
industrially relater9 real estate. Mr. Ashley responded the broker would be
handling some of the r.esid~~ntial real estate traiaactions, but clients would
not be coming to the Site. tle added he will be keeping his present office.
tie explained the attorney they presently use is located in Huntington Beach
and it would be convenient t:o have him in the same building and it wlll
probably be a~out one year before he moves into this site.
Commissioner Herbst stated t:M s is probably on r. of the smallest. lots +n the
industrial area and it is a).no on one of the busiest corners in that area.
Mr. Ashley stated their hours arr_ Erom about 4 to 7 and there will not be a
lot of traffic.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would be concerned about the signing,
recognizing this is Probably a good uae Eor the property, and any office uses
must service the industrial community.
Mr. Ashley responded he underRtood and has discussed purchasing a portion of
the redevelopment property between this site and Lakeview and tie is nat.
opposed t:o doing that and thought this would be the best use of the property.
Commissioner Meese noted the staff report indicates the Redevelopment
Commission recommended denial based on inconsistency with the Redevelopment
plan.
Leonard McGhee stated it was the Redevelopment Commission's feeling that the
use was not compatible and would not service the industrial area and that it
was not compatible with the Project Alpha Plan.
ACTION _ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit the construction of an
industrially-related real estate office on an irregularly-Shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 5280 square Eeet, having a frontage of
approximately 66 feet. on the south side of La Palma Avenue, and further
described as 4504 East La Palma Avenues and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that i.t has considered the NE~gative Declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process and
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a si.gnifi.cant
effect on tt:e environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-32 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby Grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2878, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section
2/2/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2, 1987 87_____80
18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035 subject to Interdepartmental Commi.tt~
Recommendat.i.ons, including a condition that all uses must be related to
servicing the .industrial community, and that any advertising on subject
premises be restricted to industrial properties and not resi4ential properties.
Mr. Ashley stated tie would not advertise on this site, but if a client did
stop by, he would like to be able to refer tham to their office on Lincoln in
Tustin.
Leonard McGhee asked that Condition No. 4 be amended to read: "That sidewalks
shall be installed", with tt~e word "repair.ed" deleted.
Mr. Ashley stated he understood that l.2 feet of La Palma has to be dedicated
for street widening and asked if. sidewalks exist anywhere else on that street.
Commissioner Herbst responded that the Engineering Department is insisting
that sidewalks be inst.a.l.led along La Palma because it is going to be a more
heavily traveled street with a public transportation system. Commissioner La
Claire added si.dPwa.lks are also necessary because i.t is on that corner with an
industrial office complex across the street and they have sidewalks.
Commissioner Fry stated since the City owns that parcel on the corner, they
should install sidewalks on Lakeview.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, t4ESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the writtei; righ~: to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Caunci.l.
ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-23
PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY 7F ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, 200 S.
Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as 14.7 acres
located between La Palma Avenue and North Street, having frontages on both
sides of Lemon Street and between North Street and Wilhelmi.na St~•eet, having
frontages on both sides of Lemon and Zeyn Streets, and located o~ the west
side of Zeyn Street, approximately 410 feet north of the centerline of North
street.
RM-1200 and PD-C to (a) RM-2400 or (b) CL and RPi-2400 or a less intense zone
to bring subject properties into conformance with the City of Anaheim General
Plan.
There were approximately 35 persons indicating their presence i.n favor to
subject request and although the staff. report was not read, i.t i.s referred to
and made a part of the minutes.
Keith Pepper, 817 N. Lemon, stated unfortunately he has to make a statement on
the advice of Counsel that Hugo Vazquez was issued building permits for t.wo
fourplexes at 818 and 322 N. Lemon and while his project is in conformance
2/2/R7
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 1987 87-81
with the Zoning at the time, the project is not in conformance wish the
General Plan as amended on December 16, 198G.
Mr. Pepper stated since their last meetiny on November 24th, 1986, the number
of property owners he representn increased from 68 to 73 and they feel the
iss,ie before the Commission today is what the ~~operty owners want Ear their
neighborhood and they have not changed their position and continue r,o maintain
that RM-2400 is the classification which they want foe their neighborhood.
TFIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Fry stated this has been outstanding neighborhood project and
congratulated the property owners.
Commissioner Herbst stated he is bothered that Hugo Vazquez did yet building
permits because that was one of the things that prompted this action by the
property owners.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated he had responded to a letter
from Mr. Pepper ghat basically as long as the law permitted what the permit
was seeking, the City had to issur_ the permits, if the project met all the
requirements and apparently, it did, and unless there was a moratorium in
effect at the time.
Commissioner La Claire stated she is really happy to see this and this action
does accomplish what the people in the area want and there are still some
other areas to look at in the central city.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent.) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property
from RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) and PD-C (Packing District-
Commercial) to (a) RM-2400 (iZesidenti.al, Multiple-Family) or a less intense
none or (b) CL (Commercial, Limited) and RM-?.400 or a less intense zone to
bring subject properties into conformance with the City of Anaheim General
Plan on property consisting of approximately i4.7 acres located between
La Palma Avenue and North Street, having frontages on both sides of Lemon
Street and between North Street. and Wilhelmf.nu Street, having frontages on
both sides of Lemon and Zeyn Streets, and located on the west side of Zeyn
Street, approximately 410 feet north of the centerline of. North Street; and
dces hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
considered t:he Negative Declaration together with any comments received duri.n~
the public review process and further finding on the oasis of the initial
Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commi.ssionec La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-•33 and moved fir its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Reclassification No. 86-87-23 subject to .nterdepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
2/2/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2, ].987 ____ 87-82
On roll callr the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: DOUAS, PRY, HERHST, LA CLAIRE, MC FURNEY, MF.SSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, prpsent.ed the written right to appeal
the Planning Commis~-ion's decision within t2 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANn CONDITIONAL USF. PERMIT NO. 2884
PUBLIC HEARINr,. UWNERS: LUTHER ALKIiASEH, 242 W. Main Street, X104, Tustin,
CA 92680 and IRIS ANAHEIM LIMITED, ABCO GROUP, INC. GENERAL PARTNER, 2535
Maricopa Street, Torrance, CA 90503. AGENT: ALVAND LAND DEVELOPMENT CO.,
ATTN: WIC,LIAM E. SWANK, SR., 242 W. Main Street, A104, Tustin, CA 92680 and
ROBERT D. MICKEI.SOtI, 328 N. Glasell Stmt, Orange, CA 92666. Property
described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of. land consisting of approximately
7.19 acres .located at the southeast corner of Freedm~in Way and Clementine
Street.
To permit a 200-unit r~asidence motel (The Residence Inn) with all units
containing kitchen facilities.
There was no onr, indicating their presence in opposition ko r~ubject request
and although the staff report was not read, ik is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Bob Mickelson, 328 N. Glassell, Orange, agent, explained this concept is 10+
years old and they have 88 of these projects completed across the nation and
13 of them are in California, with 17 additional under construction. He
stated this is a hotel that. caters to the guest who is going to stay between 7
and 30 days, as opposed to the one that is going to stay one or two days in
the normal hotel; that it does nor. have all the facilities expected in a
normal hotel like a ballroom, restaurant or convention center, and it is
designed for the executive who is here on special assi.ynment, or during a
transition. He stated the hotel is owned 50't by Holiday inn Corporation and
5u8 by Residence Inn. He stated he thought they had alleviated staff's
concern regarding narking.
Dale Anthony, Resident Inn Manager, stated he has ~~oened two Residence ~nnQ,
one i.n Manhattan Beach and one in Costa Mesa and i.n both instances they had a
ratio of 1:1 for parking and even during heaviest occupancies of 100, never
experienced a parking problem.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated he is concerned about the Farking at .8. Mr.
Mickelson responded they are proposing 1.1 which is above the m.i.nimum
requirement for a hotel or motel and is above the nation~~l avErage, and
explained they are proposing 'L 20 spaces for 200 units.
Commissioner La Claire stated she has stayed in hotels like this and they are
ideal Eor traveling business people and in this location, it is going to be
ideal for people visiting for conventions i.n the Disneyland area and for
executives he[e an longer stays. She stated she has no problem with this
project and thought the parking at 1.1 should be adequate.
MINUTES ` ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 2L 1987 87-$3,
Commissioner Herbst stated he is still concerned about parking and asked what
they would do i.f there is a parking problem in the future, pointing out public
transportation in Orange County is not very good, and that people would
pro'~ably be coming to this hotel by vehicle or will rent a car while they are
hers. }ie pointed out these units actually meet the requirements for
apartments, except parking.
Mc. Mickelson stated even if the guests rented one car per unit, there would
be adequate spaces and noted this establishment has a track record and there
are facilities nearby which the Commission can review. He stated these units
are designed to have the comforts of an apartment but they are not rented as
an apartment and they are confident there will not be a problem. He stated
there are areas on the property where some additional parking spaces could be
added.
Commissianer Herbst stated there is also the possibility that these units
could be rented as apartments in the future. Mr. Mickelson stated the City
does not want apartments and neither to they and it is not economically
feasible, pointing out the units will rent at ~80 to 100 a night, but if they
are forced to provide apartment parking requirements, it would be easy to
convert them to apartments.
Commissioner Meese stated there is a discount if a guest stays longer than six
nights or over 29 nights, and asked if that would promote an apartment type of
usage. Mc. Mickelson stated that just. promotes Lhe executive on an extended
business trip.
Mr. Anthony stated maybe 5 or o8 of guests would stay over 30 days, and they
have found it i.s not desi.ra~le for over 30 days, and pointed out there is
almost no closet space in the units and they are quite small for any type of
extended stay and they feel the market is for the 7 to 30 day stay and the
average length of stay is about 14 days. He stated th!y offer the discounked
rates based on length of stay jus*_ as a discount would be offered to a large
company.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorne:, stated the Code prohi.bi.ts renting
hotel or motel rooms for more than a 7-day period of time; and the Code
further permits as many successive 7 day stays as desired, but i.t would be a
violation for a person to rent a unit for 30 days and sign a 30-day lease.
Commissioner La Claire stated she really sees no problem and there will be 220
parking spaces for 200 units, and it not a facility where tha husband and wife
will each have a car, but it is for the businessman who would rent only one
car. She slated a guestion i.n town for a convention in this area may be .in
town for a week; and i.n the future, she thought there will be better public
transportation.Chai.rman La Claire stated she has stayed in hotels like this
and there has never been a parking problem and there is a definite need and
maybe Anaheim has been shortsighted by not allowing this type of hotel
development.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated should there be a parking shortage,
additional parking could be provided in a structure in the southeast corner of
the property. He added from what tha studies indicate, the property has
2/2/87
s7-
AHEIM CITY PLANNING (:OMMISSION PEE3RUARY 2 1987
~rovi~9ed it is usr_d as indicated by the applicant, and
adequate parking, i
should t_hQ property be used for residential purposes in nny farm, there wou.
be a problem.
Commissioner Messe clarifiis hoteliwould eliminate thateuseeofetherproperty•s
housing was pr.opased su th
Commissioner i.a Claire aalcolmfSlaughternstateddifethegpropeotyewerecto be use
to a residence hotel. M
used for residential purposes in violation of the Zoning Conehistjudgement~a
cc.i.minal offense and could be prosecuted, and a covenani~ stated the use of.
would not really help from an enforcement staaepoYnCAn be enforced in any
the property could be enforce just as easily
other hotel in khe City, and the same kind ~f conversion problems being
discussed, could occur in any hotel, andint thAnunitsoWn anythotel,eandhkhec'e
tenancy is and the type of. people occupy g , time. He added, however, the
could be a parking problem at any hotel at any
appearance of this project. looks a little more like a apartment than a normal
hotel.
Commissioner Mereeinsthe eventPthevparkingwislnottadequatet.o construct a
packing strucku
Bill swank, President. of the development. company, stated he would have no
problem with that stipulation so long as they can have an agreement. to provide
the parking if it becomes a burden in the area. He added the Residence Inn is
a hotel and it would be a very expensive apartment cWePlaandtthe 13efacilities
a nat.3ona1 reservation system which is working very
currently operating in California have no parking problems, and they have less
than proposed here. He stated th~~ property is 6.25 net acres and they are
probably underdeveloping it and i.t will be very important asset to Hee
community because there ace no facilities like this in that. area.
explained their business is hotel development only and w011otakeecareuofntheic
will come from the business community. He skated they
guest's vehicle intwhnecessaryyandctheyrarenwillingdto makerthatfstipulation.
parking structure f
Annika Santalahti, Zoni.s9todcP000dreovenantstindicatingpkhattif wpthinsthreeas
required property owner they have been
years after the occupancy, i.t is found there is a parking need,
wi.lliny to provide additional packing, which may or may not be a structure.
Mr. Swant stated the f~tstonhthe addtbona1040ni'nitsaif parkingedstae^roblem
hold the building perm and stated the burden of proof
and they will utilize that land igra~equate/as proposed.
will be on them to show parking
He stated they would like to build the additional 40 units as soon as they
can, but dial not think they will be allowed to by the Holiday Inn for an
additional two years.
Malcolm slaughter stated Condition No. 14 requires the property to be
developed substantially in accordance with plans and the plans show 200 units
2/2/87
87-85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS~,ION- NEBRUARY 2, 19.87 -
and i f they are only bus ldi ng 160 unite, that. i s not substant + ally i n
accordancet and secondly, khe condition limitr~ the kitchenett es to 25~ of the
uni ta.
Annika Santalahti5gtaofedhehunitstshouldohave been deleted andetheretshouldAbe
kitchenettos to 1
no restriction on the kitchenettes.
Jay Ti tus r "~nE accardanceewi thr plnnsCandi specs f i cat i ons~ron f i 1 ems ndthewoEf i oe
addition,
of. the City Engineer,".
ACTION: Comrnissiover L.~ C]ai re offered n motion, seronded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTIUN CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission hag reviewed the proposal t.o permit a 200-unit residence
hotel (the Residence Inn) with all unite containingroximatelya7i 19tucresn an
irregularly-shaped parcel of lanrr consisting of app
located at the southeast corner of Freedman Way and Clementine Street, having
approximate Frontages uE 447 feet. on the south side of Freedman Way and 585
Feet on the east. side of Clementine Strret.i and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that. i t has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received dur i r~i the public review
process and fu~te~p isnnonsubstantialsevldencteAthattthe proiectnwillyhavemants
received that h
significant eE Eect on the environment .
Commissioner LaClaire offered Resolution No. PC 87-34 and moved for its
passage and adoption t trat the Anaheim City P lass 1 ng Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2884 pursuant t.o Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.03.030 .030 through 18.03 .030.035 and subject to Znterdepartmenkal
Committee Recommendations, i nrludi ng an addition to Condi t i vir No. 3 and a
deletion to Condition No. 14 as discussed.
Malcolm Slaughter suggested Condition No. 14 be modified to show that only ].GO
units will be bkslttheiCitylTrafficrEngineersshallecondiuct~aireviewmtos for
the last 40 un ,
determine if the parking is adequate.
On roil call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followsng vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRYr HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
AGSENT: LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaughter- Depu`y City Attorney, presented the wri tten right. to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the C i.ty Council.
ITEM N0. 10 EIR NEGATIVF: DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 363 2
PUGLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FLORENCE E. HAMMOND, 13202 Crestline Drive, Santa
Ana, CA 92705. AGENT: SKIP REESE, c/o LEE & ASSOCIATES, 18401 Von Kashaned
Avenue, X110, Irvine, CA 92715• razinatelyd3s75i acaes9 1730rSouthaAnahei.mp
parcel of land consisting of app
Boulevard. 2/2/87
MINUTEST ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,L'EHRUARY 2, 1987 87'86
..__..r.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish a truck rental, sales,
storage and maintenance facility.
Chairman McBurney left the Council Chamber temporarily. chairman Pro Temr~ore
Meese assumed the chair.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition r.o subjeck request.
and although the staff report was not read, i.t is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Roger Webster, agent, stated they ar.e requesting a variance Eor reduction i.n
the number of parking spaces because they will only have 11 employees at any
given ,ime on the premises and anticipate no more than 5 or 6 customers at any
one time and they have provided 21 spaces. He stated a traffic study was done
and it was found that parking was adequate. He added the staff report
indicates 19 parking spaces proposed, but they have 21 since twc, were moved by
the display area when the street dedication as made. He questioned the
dedication requested in the conditions.
Jay Titus, Office Engineer, expl<,ined the total required is 50 feet a,~.d if 40
have been dedicated, 10 additional feet would be required.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cornmi ssi oner Meese asked where a customers vehi c.~ .:~!1~' ~e parked i f they
leave it there while they have a rented truck. Mr. WP".~~er responded the
cust.omer's vehicle would be parked in the fenced area where the truck was
parked.
Jay Titus asked that Condition No.4 be modified to read as follows:
"That the owner/deve.loper ot- subject property shall make a cash payment
to the City of Anaheim for the cost of the removal of existing street
improvements along Anaheim Boulevard and reconstruction/constructi.on of
full street improvemen~~s at the ultimate location. Said payment shall be
made prior to issuance of building permits."
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commf.ssioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Lawicki and McBurney absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a
truck rental, sales, storage and maintenance facility with waiver of mi.ni.mum
number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 3.75 acres, having a frontage of approximately 126 feet on the
east side of Anaheim Boulevard, and further described as 1730 South Anaheim
Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that
it has :onsi.dered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
durino, the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
2/2/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 1987 87-87
Mr. Webster stated Paragraph lA refers to findings before the Planning
Commission grants any conditional use permit and they are requesting ,n
variance. It was pointed out that. is another standard paragraph which should
he deleted.
Commi.asi.oner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-35 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3632 on the basis that the parking variance will not cause an
increase in traffic conyestian in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect.
any adjoining land usesr and that the granting of the packing variance under
the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and subject
top Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI, MC GURNEY
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wrltten right to appeal
the Planning Commi.ssi.on's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 11
A. VARIANCE N0. 3035 - Request for termination from Dennis ~. Fo~:k for
termination of Variance NOo 3035 on property located at 923 Chippewa
Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-36 and moved for
i.ts passage and adoption that the Anaheim City P1~nning Commission 9oee
hereby terminate al: proceedings in connection with Variance No. 3035.
On roll ca:.i, tha toregoing ~eaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERB.°i'i~ ~A CLAIRE, MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES' NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaughter., Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commissi.on's decision within 22 days to the City
Council.
e. VARIANCE N0. 1022 - Request from Bavji H. Patel for termination of
Variance No. 1022 for property located at 871 South Harbor Boulevard.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-37 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. 1022.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC GURNEY, MESSE
HOES: NONE
1-BSENT: LA'AICKI
2/2/8?
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 1987 87-88
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy Ci.t.y Attorney, presented the written right. to
appeal r.he Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City
Counci 1.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 290 AND 1329 - Rec;uest for termination from
Shell Oi.l Company f~c termi.nation of Conditional Uae Permit No. 290 and
1329 on property located at 201 South State Col.leye Boulevard.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-38 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Cundi.tional Use
Permik Nos. 't9U and 1329.
On roll call, the Foregoing resolution was passed by the Following vote:
,~~
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal thF Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City
Council.
D. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1186 - Request fur termination from
Dunford Properties, inc. on property located at 2130 State College
Boulevard.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-39 and moved for
i.ts passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use
Permit Nos. 1186.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
'BSENT: LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commi.sston's decision within 22 days to the City
Council.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PER::IT ti0. 2667 - Request for termination from Carl
Karcher Enterprises for property located at 1200 North Harbor Boulevard.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-40 and moved for
it ssage and adoption that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use
Fermi.*. Nos. 2667.
On rci:: call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
'~~'HS: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE
•.?•d3: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI
2/2/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY Pi,11NNI_NG COMMISSIONy FEBRUARY 2, 1987 87-89
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Comrn.ission's decision wlthin 22 days to the City
Council.
F. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-3, VARIANCE_ N0. 3529 - Request for termination
from D & D Development, Inc. for property located on the south side of.
Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 118'l feet and
being located approximately 1340 feet east of the centerl•lne of Ri.o Vista
Streek.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-41 and moved for
its passage and adoption that. tiie Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby kermin?te all proceedings in connection with Reclassification No.
85-86-3 and Variance No. 3529.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City
Council.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki. absent} that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does Yiereby terminate all proceedings in connection
with Tentative Map of Tract No. 1?.617.
G. PROPOSED REVISION TO ZONING APPLICATION t'ORMS - Request from the Zoning
Administrator for approval of the proposed revisions to be made to the
existing Conditional Use Permit and Variance application forms and
Supplement to the Conditional Use Permit and Variances forms.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby approve revised zoning application
forms.
PUBLIC INPUT•
There was no onE- :,,9icating a desire to speak to the Planning Commission cn
any other subject.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seco~~ced by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION
CARRRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the meeting be adjourned to 9:00
a.m. February 18, 1987, to Oak Hills. Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Resp_e~o, cfn- ugly s~mit
/ -~K.
Edath L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:lm
0242m