Minutes-PC 1987/04/13REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman McBurney at 10:00 a.m., April 13, 1987,
in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission
reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENED: 1:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman: McBurney
Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Herbst,
Lawicki, La Claire, Messe
Commissioner La Claire arrived at 1:50 p.m.
ALSO PRESENT:
Annika Santalahti Zoning Administrator
Joel Fick Planning Director
Malcolm Slaughter Ueputy City Attorney
Jay Titus Office Engineer
Paul Singer Traffic Engineer
Debbie Vagts Leasing Supervisor
Pablo Rodriquez Water. Engineer
Ron Evans Assistant Fire Chief
Dick Mayer Packs Planner
Mary McCloskey Senior Planner
Janet Habel Associate Planner
Karen Freeman Assistant Planner
Greg Hastings Senior Planner
Edith Harris Planning Commission Secretary
AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted
at 8:45 a.m., April 3 and at 5:00 a.m. on April 10, 1987, inside the foyer
windows and in the display case located in the lobby of the Council Chamber.
PUBLIC INPUT_ - Chairman McBurney explained at the end of the agenda any member
of the public would be allowed to discuss any matter of interest within the
jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, or any agenda item.
MINUTES FUR APPROVAL - Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby amend previously approved minutes
of February 28, 1987, Page 114, Paragraph, 6 changing the approval to
disapproval of the I~~agative Declaration in connection with Conditional Use
Permit No. 2881.
87-231
MINUTES1 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 87-23.2
ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GEN_ERAL__PLAN_ AMENDMEN'P N0. 224
PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, 200 S.
Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as in the vicinity
of Weir Canyon Road and Monte Vista Road.
To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing
the designation of a police station.
Continued from the meetings of February 18 and Macch 1.6, 198?.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, explained the Police Department originally
initiated this General Plan Amendment request, but now indicat•.e they have
reached an agreement with representatives of the Wallace Ranrh to incorporate
this site into their plan and they are requesting that this general Plan
Amendment be withdrawn and readvertised when the Wallace R~t~ch is considered.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner eouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec La Claire absents that: consideration of the
General Plan Amendment No. 224 be WI'PIIDRAWN as reques=ed by the petitioner.
I'PEM N0. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER taF CURE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2891
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PARR-BOHN BOWI;:, LTU., 721 Santa Monica Boulevard,
Santa Monica, CA 90401. AGENT: WEST COAST POWER, 1324 S. Allec Street,
Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.78 acre, 1324 South Allec Street.
To permit a fire equipment repair facility with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was iot read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Thomas Moffatt, agent, 9662 Katella, Anaheim, asked about Condition No. 1
requiring reconstruction of the driveway to accommodate a 10-foot radius and
explained his driveway is shared with his neighbor. He also asked about the
traffic signal assessment fee.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the driveway condition should not have
been included because Allec is not an arterial strQet. He further explained
the traffic signal assessment fees are required by ordinance and every
property owner pays the same amount and that is based on the number of
vehicular trips and the fees are collected, permitting the City to install
traffic signals, etc. as needed.
THE PUBLIC H.:ARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Singer stated he is concerned about parking on this property, but doesn't
see a problem as long as the use remains as a fire equipment repair facility
and suggested that restriction be placed on the permit.
4/13/87
MINUTEST ANAHtIM CI'CY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13 1987 87^233
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the conditional use permit is for r, fire
equipment repair facility.
Malcolm Slaughter explained the Code covers a broader range of automotive type
uses, and a condition limiting the use should be added.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim Citr+
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a fire eyuipment
repair facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.78 acre,
having a frontage of approximately 94 feet on the northeasterly side of Allec
Street, approximately 1890 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue and
further described as 1324 South Allec StceetJ and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
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
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the waiver of Code
requirement be granted on basis that '_he parkiny waiver will not causF an
increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect
any adjoining land uses and grantiry of the pa_Iing waiver under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the rity of Anaheim.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-82 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2891 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee
recommendations including a condition that the use of the property shall be
limited to a fire equipment repair facility, and that Condition No. 1 be
eliminated.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, PRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
commissioner La Claire arrived at 1:50 p.m.
Item No. 3 was heard following the discussion and action on Item No. 14-E -
since the request far Code amendment to allow repair and sales of mobilE
telephones as a permitted use in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone related to
this request.
4;'13/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'PING OF APRIL 13 1987 87-234
2896
ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COyDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0 ._
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMES A. SHAG, ET AL, 2545 WPSt Woodland Drive,
Anaheim, CA 92801. Property is described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of
.land consisting of approximately 1 acre located at the northeast corner of
Stanford Court and Anaheim Boulevard, 1980 South Anaheim Boulevard (Global
Telecommunications Corporation).
To permit sales, inskallation and repair of cellular car phones and two-way
radios in the ML Zone.
Continued from the meetings of March 2 and March 16, 1987.
James Evans, attorney, 445 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, stated before this
request is heard, he would like to be sure the Commission is aware that the
City Council assuc~,d this applicant that the application for the conditional
use permit of the granting or denial will not prejudice thou a decision in
anyway. He staked they object to tt~e con~fition requiring L•hat covenant be
recorded guaranteeing that the applicant will not contest the formation of any
assessment district. He stated they feel that violates the First Amendment of
the U.S. Corstitution. He referred to previous discussions that a formula
might be used to calculate the assessment Eor that operation based on just a
portion of the facility being i.~sed for other than industrial purposes for
which this permit is required.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Annika Santalahti stated in the past, the traffic signal assessment fee has
been calculated on the difference between the industrial and the more intense
use for that portion of the property for which the conditional use permit is
sought. She asked Commission to clarify which portion of the facility would
be used if this is approved.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the applicant should have paid the traffic signal
assessment fees for industrial uses for the entire facility when building
permits were issued; however, it is his under~atarrding that the uselandnthatll
be using only one half of the building for the commercial-typ
the traff~~ signal assessment fee would be based on one-half of the total
square footage. He added he understands that the second portion of the
building is currently vacant.
Commissioner Bouas noted the traffic signal assessment tee would be based on
the total section being used for the cellular phone business and not just a
portion that is considered retail.
Commissioner Fry stated the issue of the infringement of rights should be
handled in a court of law acid not before the Planning Commission. Malcolm
Slaughter explained the condition requiring the covenant has been imposed on
every developer since the City entered into an agreement with the Anaheim
Stadium Associates for the development of the Stadium property.
Commissioner Bouas pointed out the Commission does not have the right to waive
that requirement. Malcolm Slaughter added he thought the Commission could
refuse to impose the condition.
4/13/87
4
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OE APRIL 13, 1987 _87-235
Annika Santalahti stated the staff report indicates the square footage of the
various uses in the building as shown on khe developer's ~lan4 submitted and
that could possibly be used to determine the fee.
Commissioner i,a Claire stated she thought that would be a fair solution to the
situation, even though she rerilizes everyone developing in that area has been
ct~aryed the entire fee, but normally this misinterpretation does not. occur and
the fees should only be calculated on the garage and storage. Stie stated if
this had not occurred, she would expect him to pa,y the entire fee.
Malcolm Slaughter states' Mr. Shab had received a letter from Annika Santalahti
which basically indicat .. that the use he was proposing would be a permitted
use in that zone. He asked i.f Mr. Shab had read the zoning ordinance prior to
receiving that letter. Mr. Shab responded he was aware that a fee was to be
imposed on a non-industrial use and that he had requested an answer as to
whether or not this use would qe considered as a permitted use. Mr. Slaughter
asked if Mr.. Shab read the portion of the zoning ordinance relating to the
permitted uses prior to requesting the letter of clarification. Mr. Evans
stated Mr. Shab was aware of the special assessment distric~: and because of
the vagueness of the Code, he wrote to the Planning Com,;,ission asking Eor
clarification. Commissioner. La Claire responded that ;:he developer did not
write to the Planning Commission, but to the Planning Department staff.
Mr. Slaughter stated Mr. Shab is asking for special consideration and the
obligation is upon the person who will he subject to the Code requirement to
determine what the Code means and Mr. Shab has ~,~t told the Commission whether
oc not he has even read the Codes. He stated the burden is on the property
owner to know the laws, and to interpret the Zoning requirements.
Commissioner La Claire stated legally the Commission could impose the entire
fee on this proper~~y, but in the interest of fairness in this situation, she
is attempting to find a way to assess the fee just on that portion of the
building being used for retail purposes.
Annika Santalahti stated the applicant got the letter before the escrow
actually closed and the matter was brought to the attention of the staff
during the building permit process and the applicant was informed by letter
that he would subject to the fees and he wanted to go ahead, but he was aware
that there was a problem.
Mr. Shab ~:tated at that time, the escrow was open and the 20,000 fees were
not refundable and the letter he received indicated the use would be permitted
and the building plans were developed at a ncn-refundable cost of 30,000.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the Stadium Area Development fee is 4.12 per square
foot of gross floor area and those uses permitted in the industrial zone are
exempted from that fee. He stated he has no problem with the interpretation
that the fee would not be required for the portion of the building net being
used for permitted industrial uses. He added it is the portion of the
business relating to the installation of car telephones which requires this
conditional use permit.
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 0_ F ARIL 13, 1987 87-236
Commissioner La Claire pointed out this developer owns the entire building and
she would recommend he pay the fees on that portion of the building being used
for installation. Mr. Evans stated they would be happy to provide information
as to the portions of the building not being used for industrial purposes.
Chair. man McBurney suggested that determination be made by staff.
Commissioner Messe asked if this action could be opening a "Pandora's Box" for
future requests. Malcolm Slaughter stated this is the first time the City has
been faced with this issue and the Code does address the assessment of the fee
based on the gross square footage. He stated the question pertains to the
interpretation and he was not sure that interpretation will ultimately be
adopked by the City Council. He stated he does have a problem with taking a
portion of the building for which this conditional use permit is required
because it is no longer considered an industrial use and is not exempted and
the combined retail and industrial installation areas require a conditional
use permit and because it does require a conditional use permit, it is no
longer a permitted use and is not exempted from the fee and the entire area
would be subject to the 4.12 per square foot Eee and the other portion of the
building may or may not be exempted, depending ~~n the plans submitted.
Mr. Evans stated there are two sepacaL•e portions of this business, one being
the manufacL•ure and assembly and the other being the installation and retail
sales of cellular telephones.
Malcolm Slaughter stated that is an erroneous assumption and a conditional use
permit is required for the enL•ire cellular telephone operation and as soon as
a conditional use permit is required, the use is no longer a permitted use
under the industrial zone regulations.
Commissioner La Claire stated if sort~eone was manufacturing the phones by
assembling them and not installing them at this facility, there would be no
problem. She asked if putting the phones together could be considered
manufacturing. Mr. Slaughter responded he would have to do research to answer
that question.
Commissioner La Claire stated it is the Planning Commission's role to make an
interpretation of the ordinance because everything that might be brought
before the Planning Commission cannot be spelled out in the ordinance. She
suggested the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council that under
the circumstances in this case, the petitioner and staff get together and work
out a formula to use to assess the fees.
ACTIOtd: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to permit sales, installation and repair of cellular car
phones and two-way radios in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acre .located
at the northeast corner of Stanton Court and Anaheim Boulevard and further
described as 1980 South Anaheim Boulevard; and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
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
significant effect on the environment.
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 0:` APRIL 13, 1987 87-23 7
Commissioner La Claire oEEeced Resolution No. PC87-83 and moved for ite
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2896 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Intecdepartment ail
Committee recommendations including a recommendation that assessment Eees b e
based on the portion of the bullding being used Eor other than (ndustrial
purposes, as determined by staff.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONL•'
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
~:he Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE_HE(~UIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2898
PUBLIC NEARING. OWtJERS: IRINE:O YUVIENCO AND CELES'IINA YUVIE;NGO, 1941 E.
Center Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: GENE ICASIANO, 3460 Wilshire
B.lvd., X1015, Los Angeles, CA 90010, CHRISTIAN R. QUIMPO, 2555 E. Chapman,
Suite 712, Fullerton, CA 9?.631. Property described as an ircE;ularly-shaped
parcel of lanc9 consisting of approximately 0.63 acre, 1941 East Center Street
(Hacienda Christian Rest home).
To expand a rest home Erom a maximum capacity ~~f 32 persona to 46 persons with
waivers of permitted location of parking spaces, minimum number of parking
spaces and minimum rear yard setback.
Continued from the meeting of March 16, 1987.
it was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Law icki
and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of May 11, 1987, in order for the
petitioner to submit revised plans, including floor plans of the existing
facility as well as the proposed expansion, and to submit a parking demand
study to substantiate the requested parking waiver and to correct outstan a ing
Fire Code violations for the existing facility.
ITEM iJU. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (RF.AV.) AND CONDI'PIONAL USE PERMIT NO .
2853 (READY.)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; ADA I. HIGDON, WEi,LS FARGO BANK NA TRUSTEES, 9600
Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. AGENTS: TED AND CHRIST Y
NGOY, 221 N. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57 acre . 221
North Beach Boulevard (Angela's).
To permit a drive-in, drive-through restaurant with car hops.
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APitIL 13_,_1987 87-238
There were three persona indicating their prosence in opposition to subject
regueat and although the staff r sport was not read, it .is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Christy Ngoy, applicant, explained her husband purchased this buslneas for her
to operate and that they did not realize they faced such a big problem, but
are willing to cooperate and work with the City and the neighbors.
Ted Ngoy, petitioner, stated h e wished to thank the neighbors, and the City
staff, especially John i~oole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, for working with
them ~-~ solve the problems at both the State College and Beach Boulevard
locations. He explained they eliminated cruise night on the first Friday
nights of March and April at l,o th locations ar-d they have removed al.l the
video games and Meer bottles from the ceiling, painted the Facilities and
changed the uniforms of the car hops at the 4each Boulevard location. He added
the drive-through window will b e brought into conformance with Code.
''tchell Shook stated they hav a really made an effort to find the source of
ant: problems and have addresser? those by removing the obstacles and by
eliminating the cruise night which is when most of the problems occurred.
James Gotses, representing the company which own the master lease of the
recreational vehicle park next door and Angela's, stated they have owned the
property for about three weeks and before they purchased the leasehold on the
Angela's operati~rn, he was highly opposed because it was damaging to their
busi .ss and besausc of the noise and other problems, there were more problems
than revenues yenerated; however, he is present today to speak in favor of
allowing the new owner the opportunity to prove he can operate the business
without the previous problems, subject to very strict regulations so that it
does not disturb the neighbors. He stated he Eelt as long as they continue to
patrol the parking lot and have security guards on site, the problems wuulc~
not be as severe. kIe added h P is not in favor of a 24-hour a day operation
and he would agree with staff's recommendation to continue the matter for two
months in order to study it or if approved today; a probation period included.
Betty Lockabaugh, 311 N. Beach Boulevard, stated she has been to all the
meetings regarding Angela's a n d they are just requesting the same thing that
the previous owner requested. She stated these new owners are very nice
people and she has talked to t hem, but things have not changed and she is
opposed to the use and still feels a drive-through restaurant at this location
on Beach Boulevard would be a traffic problem. She stated she discussed
improvements to Beach Boulevard with Lisa Mills of the Orange County
Transportation Commission and she explained the widening will involve 14 feet
on one side of Beach eoulevar d or 7 feet on both sides, depending on the
studies and she did not see how a drive-through restaurant could work on that
property if Beach Boulevard i s widened because they would not have enough
space to get in and out of the driveway and would cause more hazardous traffic
on Beach. She stated in the summer they have bumper to bumper traffic going
to the beaches and also, there are added visitors to Knotts Berry Farm, etc.
She stated it has been much q uteter recently, but there have been a couple of
incidences of noise. She added she did not see how taking down the beer
bottles would help the problems to the neighborhood, and it only helps their
4/13/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMtSSION MEETING OF APRIL, 13, 198'1 87-239
own environment. She stated this new buyer has indicated he purchased the
property not knowing of. the problems and she thought any buyer would have
looked into the history of the property before purchasiny property and does
not like hearing all these excuseA. She added Ahe is opposed to the drive-in,
drive-through restaurant at this location.
Responding to Chairman McBurney, Ms. Lockabaugh :~tated the noise has really
been a lot less recently, but they Ati11 do have some noise occasionally. She
added closing ttie restaurant on Friday night does not have an effect on this
location because their bi.g problem nights were on Sunday and Ahe did not think
closing for two winter months would show what the situation would be in t:he
summer months.
Mrs. McShea stated she is a resident. at 311 North Eeach and has attended all
these meetings. She stated they still hear occasional noise, even though it
is not constant and it happened last Tuesday night. She added she overheard
them telling the car hops to flay down the passing cars on beach and the girls
do slow down the traffic and s,~e did not think that is good.
Jerry Wheeler stated he has worked for the new owner Eor approximately two
months and worked under the previous owner and their approach wan to attack
tt~e problems, but the new owner's approach is to resolve the problems before
they turn into something big. He s~~ted if there is a problem, one of the
managers or employees will see that it i.s taken care of, such as going across
the street to tell t•hre~ truck owners not to congregate on the property across
the street. He added traffic is almost 508 less in their parking lot because
of the actions they ace taking. He stated they continually patrol the parking
lot.
Mitchell Shook pointed out they are not requesting a wa_~er pertaining to the
drive-through lane and the Traffic Engineer has been very helpful in showing
them how to conform to Code and there will ae enough room Eor vehicles to line
up between tt~e ordering device and pick•-up window. He stated packing adjacent
to the RV park will be for those customers coming inside tree restaurant so
they will not be sitting in their cars and playing radios, and the rear
parking lot will be for employees, and the patrons desiring car hop service
will be parking adjacent to the Giant Supermarket 6~rking lot and alsu parking
is restricted to 30 minutes.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated the applicant has made every effort to bring this
operation up to Code without any arguments. He stated the Code Enforcement
Supervisor has recommended this be continued for a period of two months in
order to determine what the effects will be when the cruise night is
ce-established. He asked if the petitioner would agree to a 30-day
continuance. He stated if this is approved today and the previous problems
reoccur, the permit would have to be revoked.
Mr. Shook stated the police officers and Mr. Poole can testify that the
traffic appeared to be normal on those two cruise nights when they were
closed. Commissioner Messe stated it is not known what will happer. when the
cruise nights are re-established and that is the reason for the request for a
30-day continuance.
x/13/$7
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF ~'RIL 13. 1987 87-240
Mr. Shook stated they are sincerely working with the neighbors to prevent that
kind of problem and are making a comm.ttment that if that problem does reoccur,
they would close the business ko stop the problem.
Commissioner Ner.bat asked if. the 24-hour operation is critical. to this
establishment. Mr. Shook responded it is not very critical and they are
willing to c.lo3e at a reasonable time and suggested hours from 10:00 a.m. to
midnight.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated continuing the matter Eor 30
days would give staff an opportunity to see what is going to happen whF~n they
allow cruise night again. He stated there have been no complaints recently,
but it would be easier to review the matter beEare it is granted than to have
to go through the process of revocation if there are problems.
Malcolm Slaughter stated since the public hearing has been closed, the
Planning Commission has 40 days to make its decision and if they cannot make a
decision in that 40 days, the ,natter would automatically go on to City
c;ouncil. 1?e added Commission i:an act nn it before tha end of the 40 days
based on the testimony presented today and the petitioners would not have to
come back. He stated, ho~dever, he is quite concerned about the inEormati.on he
has heard concerniny the allegation that the waitresses are out flagging down
tFie traffic on Beach Boulevard and suggested a condition be included to limit
the car hop service to the purtion of the property behind the front of the
building and also thar_ the parking restrictions should be added to the
cor:dition~ of approval if this is granted.
Commissioner La Claire asked if a 30-day continuance would be a real hardship
on the applicant. Mr. Shook stated they are Feeling a real sense of urgency
to bring the operation up to Code and stated he did not think it will be
practical to do all the remodeling without the final approval.
Commissioner La Claire asked if the use can be approved, except the cruise
night and Mr. Poole stated the cruise night is a promotional type event and is
not a part of thf.s conditional use permit request.
Chairman Mceurney stated he felt the new owners have gone that extra mile to
clean up the problems.
AC'PION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that t;~e Anaheim City Planning Commission has
r~;iewed the proposal to permit a drive-in, drive-through restaurant with car
hops on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57
acre, having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the west side of Beach
Boulevard and fur. the: dtacribed as 221 North Beach Boulevard (Angelo's); and
does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon find~omments received during
considered the Negative Declaration together with any
the public review process and further finding on the bads of the Initial
Study and any comments received that there is pnvironmenttaandvfurthertontthee
project will have a significant effect on the
basis that the actions taken to guarantee the elimination of traffic and
congestion problems caused by the first Friday night cruise promotional event
and parking lot noise and traffic congestion problems will be continued.
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF' APRIL 13, 1987 8~ 7-241
Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution N o. PC87-84 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2853 subject to the petitioner's stipulation
to close the facility i f cruise night traffic problems reoccur and to comply
with the stipulation thrst parking will be restricted to employee parking on
the west, sit-down customer par Y.ina on the north and drive-in car hop service
patrons on the south and subject to Interde partmental Committee
recommendations.
Prior to voting, Commis gionec La Claire explained she voted in favor of the
negative declaration because at this time with the changes that have been
made, there is not an adverse traffic impact.
Malcolm Slaughter point ed out the hours of operation and the ~:~+r.king
restrictions should be included in the conditions of approval. Greg Hastings
aeked that Condition N o . 11 be modified to include the south property line
when the wall would be maintained,
On roll call, the f.oreg oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUASr FRY, H E RBST, GA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MES5E
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commissio n's decision within 22 days to the city Council.
RECESSF,D: 3 : 03 p . m,
RECONVENED: 3 : 15 p . m.
ITEM NO. 6 EIR NEGAT Z VE DECLARATION (READY.) WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 288J. (READY.)
P~IBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FIRST NATIONAL. BANK OF ORF.NGE COUNTY, M.J. GILKAY,
770 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90017 AND EILEEN G. HERTFELDER, TRUSTEE
STEINBRINK TRUST, 511 S. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENTS:
TED AND CHRISTY NGOY, 511 S. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806.
Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 3.9 arc e s located south and west of the southwest cornet of
Santa Ana Street and Mats College Boulevard, 511 South State College
Boulevard (Angelo's) .
To permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed outdoor patio area in
conjunction with an existing drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum
landscape requirement -
There was no one ind i rating 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.
Ted Ngoy, applicant, explained they were closed March 6th and April 3rd to
eliminate the cruise night problems and presented a letter signed by 40
resicents and business owners, supporting this request. He stated they have
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 87-242
resolved most of the problems and are requesting a permit to use the patio at
this location.
Mitchell Shook read the letter of support and added he thought they had
resolved all the problems and would like to get approval of this request
today. He stated L•he State College location had a lot more cruise night
problems than Beach Boulevard and that khe neighbors have had their fill of
all the problems associated with that activity, but the steps they have taken
seem to have solved the problems. He stated they would like to begin the
operation legally and use the outdoor patio area and they do not think there
is going to be a problem.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bouas asked the hours of operation. Mr. Mitchell responded they
would like to stay open until at least 1:U0 a.m. on Friday and Saturday and
pointed out they are currently opened until 2:00 a.m.
Commissioner Bouas asked if they would really like to keep the Beach Boulevard
location opened until 2:00 a.m. Malcolm Slaughter pointed out he did not
think the Commission could change the Beach Boulevard hours since anyone who
would have been present in opposition would have left the meeting thinking the
hours of operation were until midnight. ire added the petitioner could appeal
that decision to the City Council and request the time be changed to that time.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed outdoor
patio area in conjunction with an existing drive-through restaurant with
waiver of minimum landscaped setback on a irregular~y-shaped parcel of land
cons.tsting of approximately 3.9 acres located south and west of the southwest
corner of Santa Ana Street and State College Boulevard and further described
as 511 South State College; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration
upon finding that it has considered the Negative 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 significant effect on the
environment.
Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the request is minima'1 and on the
basis on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do
not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that
strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the
vicinity.
Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-84 and moved acs
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does ,.ereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2881 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987_ 87-243
Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.O;IO.OiS and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommendations and subject to hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to
midnight.
Jim Smith, manager of the State College facility, explained they have beer-
operating until 2:00 a.m. and have not had any problems and would like to stay
open until 2:00 a.m.t and that they do a fair amount of business between 1:00
and 2:00 a.m. He sL•ated they do not plan to close for cruise night in the
future, but will continue to use security. He responded to Commissioner Bouas
that they would close cruise night if there is a problem.
Commissioner La Claire added that the hours of operation should be 10:00 a.m.
to 2:00 a.m., on Friday and Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to midnight, Sunday
through Thursday and that the use is granted subject to the stipulation that
if there is a problem caused by cruise night activities, the operator will
close the business on that night,
Greg Hastings explained this is not an application for a drive-in restaurant.
Mr. Shook explained the next step is to contact the Building Department
regarding the driveway.
Commissioner La Claire complimented the managers and new owners for
eliminating the problems which have cost the City and taxpayers a lot of money.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERESY, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy Cil•y Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2901
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROSE C. FUKUDA, ET AL, X32 Peralta Hills Dr.,
Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: RAY OR EVELYN BARBEE, 309 W. Berry Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92805. ProperL•y described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.19 acre located at the northeast intersection of
Lincoln Avenue and Center Skreet, 1905 East Lincoln Avenue (Ray's Automobile
Agency).
To permit an automobile repair facility.
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.
Evelyn Barbee, 309 W. Berry, explained this business has been in this location
for the past five years; and that it was a service station and the tanks had
to be removed.
4/13/37
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIT_Y_PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'PING OF APRIL 13, 1987 87-244
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner eouas asked about the traffic when Coffman Street !s developed
and Center Street is closed. Paul Singer, TcaEEic Engineer, responded this
will not Interfere with that traffic and explained that street will be closed
at Evelyn Drive.
Commissioner Messe pointed out Cor;dition to 7 requires that no outdoor Storage
or work be done on vehicles. Ms. Barbee stated they have read the conditions
and the business has been ttrere Eor Eive years and they have not worked
outside nor had any outdoor storage and she did not see any problem complying
with that condition.
ACTION: Commissioner. Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La
Claire and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to permit an automobile repair facility on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.19 acre
located at the northeast intersecL•ion of Lincoln Avenue and Center Street and
further described as .1905 East Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
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 ti~at there is no substantial evidence chat the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire offered tesolution No. PC87-86 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2901 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 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, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2902
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RONALD W. ROGERS, 2691 E. Taft Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92806. AGENT: K.J.D. PROPERTIES, 2691 E. Taft Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806,
ATTN: KEN MARS. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 2.5 acres, 1420 South Allec Street.
To permit a contractor's storage yard and maintenance facility with waiver of
required enclosure of outdoor uses.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
4/13/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13 1987 87-245
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Ken Maas, 2691 E. Taft Avenue, Anaheim, explained this is an equipment repair
yard and not a contractor's storage yard. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner,
explained the use was advertised as a contractor's storage yard to include
storage of contractor's equipment, not necessarily equipment.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Mc3urney asked the length of the lease. Mr. Maas responded he is
purchasing the property. Chairman McBUr.ney asked if this waiver has been
granted on this property before.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would not have a problem as long as the agent is
purchasing the property and it is going to be there for a long time and is not
visible.
Mr. Maas stated thie is a flag lot and has been considered by the Commission
in the past.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to permit a contractor's storage yard and maintenance facility with
waiver of required enclosure of outdoor uses on an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 2.5 acres, having a maximum width of
approximately 203 feet and further described as 1420 South Allec Street; and
does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon findiny that it has
considered the Negative 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 significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION
CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of
Code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity,
Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC37-87 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2902 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
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, PRY, HRRBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
4,/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C~~MMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 19b7 b7-246
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, preae:~ted the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2904
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: CHRIST05 PANAGIU'PIS TSACHPINIS AND TASSOULA
TSACHPINIS, 15G Calle Diaz, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.51 acre
located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Dale Avenue, 2790 West
Lincoln Avenue (Christo's Restaurant).
To permit a drive-through restaurant with waivers of m+nimum number of parking
spaces and required landscaped setback.
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.
Christos Tsachpinis, owner., was present to answer. any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bouas stated she is concerned about the driveway down the side so
close to the sidewalk and would like to see something to divide it since there
is no landscaping. Chairman McBurney suggested a 12-inch high curb along the
sidewalk. Mr. Tsachpinis stated the curb is 10 inches Nigh. Commissioner La
Claire stated it appears access will be very awkward coming in from Dale into
the drive-through lane.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stared there is a specific problem at this
location with the drive-through and pointed out the pick-up window will be on
the passenger's side of the vehicle and the space for maneuvering is very
small and it is most impracticable to enter from Dale. Mr. Singer stated his
recommendation was that the driveway be narrowed to 16 feet one way in from
Lincoln enforced with tire busters to prevent tr.afEic exiting onto Lincoln.
He stated he did make that recommendation at the Interdepartmental Committee
meeting and noted this is a very small property with an awkward drive-through
area. Commissioner La Claire stated having to slid across the seat is very
unusual and she did not. think it would work. Commissioner Bouas stated sloe
did not like to see fire busters installed. Mr. Singer stated the situation
would not work without tire busters. He stated the only other way would be to
completely relocate the drive-through lane and make a 20-foot wide drive
aisle. He pointed out his recommendation on the plan. He stated there is
another option and that is to move a portion of the drive-through lane
westerly to permit a 20-foot wide aisle for two way traffic and relocating the
trash location. chairman McBurney agreed that would be the best solution and
explained there would still be two driveways, and thought the trash enclosure
should be moved making the driveway entrance wider so that back-up space from
the parking spaces is wider.
Commissioner La Claire asked if the applicant had reviewed every design for
this property in order to provide a drive-through window on the driver's side
4/13/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13 1987 87-247
of the vehicle. r~~. Tsachpinis responded he did not know of any other way to
design it. Paul Singer stated this proposal is the best that can be done
without relocating the building.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to permit a drive-through restaurant with waivers of minim~im number
of parking spaces and required landscaped setback on a rectangularly-shaped
rarcel of land consisting of approximately 0.51 ac r. e, located at the southeast
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Dale Avenue and further descrrove the2Ne0ative
Lincoln Avenue (Christo s Restaurant): and does hereby app 9
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process and
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments receive-j
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will. have a significant
effect nn the environment..
Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MO'PION
CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby granL• waiver (e)
on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic
congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land
uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any,
wi1.1 not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and granting waiver (b) on the basis that
there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size,
shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other
identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application
of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity.
Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-88 and moved Eor its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby Conditional Use
Permit No. 2904 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030
through 18.03.030.035 and subject ro the petitioner submitting a revised plan
showing the entrance to the drive-through lane being relocaL•ed westerly to
provide a 20-foot wide drive-aisle to accommodate two-way traffic subject to
the Traffic Engineer's approval and that the curb shall be increased to
12-inches high along the sidewalk and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations with portion (a) of Condition Nu. 2 being deleted.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS. FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
I'PEM N0. 10 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLAS5-5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3651
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KWOK BELL LEE AND SIUMAY LEE, 201 S. Hampton Street,
Anaheim, CA 92804. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 5,000 square feet, 201 5oath Hampton Street.
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13 1987 87-248
To construct a family-room addition to a singlo-family residence with waiver
of maximum lot coverage.
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.
Mr. Lee, son of the owner, was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Gee stated the neighbor knows about the
request and did not indicate any opposition.
it was noted the Planning Director or his authori2ed representative has
determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact
Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst effPred Resolution No. PC87-89 and moved fac its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Variance No. 3651 on the basis that there are spec; al circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and
surroundings which do not apply tc other identically zoned property in tha
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to 'Interdepartmental Committee
recommendar,ions.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLATRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner Fry stated this is the first time he remembers granting a
variance for 50~ lot coverage, but in this case, did not feel it would
encroach on the neighbors, and Chairman McBurney added there is al~~ ~n
existing patio.
Malcolm laughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3652
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GENERAL FOODS, INC., 1724 Fifth Avenue, Bayshore,
L.I. N.Y. 11706, ATTN: THOMAS OTERO. AGENTS: SHOOK BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.,
2055 S. Baker Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761. Property described as an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 16.8 acres, 1515
East Katella Avenue (General Food).
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMIS, SIGN MEE'PING OF APRIL_13,__1987 87-249
Waiver of required lot frontace to establlsh a two-parcel industrial
subdivision.
There was no ono indicating their pre3ence in opposition to subject request
and althoragh the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Baines Adair, agent, 8125 Hillside Road, Alta Loma, was present to answer any
questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Messe asked if the railroad spurs behind L•he property will. be
removed. Mr. Adair inciicated they do have a permit from the railroad company
and one spur will be removed, and they will be crossing one spur.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Cornmis$inner
Bouas and MO'PION CARRIED that tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to establish a two-parcel subdivision with waiver of
r.eyuired lot frontage on a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately consisting of approximately 16.8 acres, havlnq a frontage of
approximately 590 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and further
described as 1515 East Katella tGeneral Poods)j and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
Declaration. together with any comments received during the public review
process and further Eindirrg on the basis ~f the initial Study and any comments
received that these is no ,fubatantial evide'~ce that the project will have a
si~]nificant effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-90 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Variance No. 3652 on the basis that there are special circumstances
applicable to the property such as sLze, shape, topography, location and
Lurroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity: and that strict application of the zoning Code deprives ttre
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: GOUAS, FRY, HERGST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
AGSF.NT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 12 EIR NEGA'PIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3653
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: YAKUB A. VALI AND LURA L. VALI, 1210 N. Jefferson
Street, Suite F, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,730 square
feet, 119 East Water Street.
4/13/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 87-250
To construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment building with waivers of (a) maximum
structural height, (b) minimum sideyard setback and (c) permitted access to
parking spaces.
Thece was no one indicating theic 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.
Bill Phelps, 1259 N. Batavia, Orange, was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst asked if the residential portion of the structure above
the park:iny garage is set back further from the property line. Mr. Phelps
responded that just the parking structure adjacent to the property line with
the residential portion set back.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner eouas
and MC'iION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal. to construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment. building with waivers of (a)
maximum structural height, (b) minimum sideyard setback and (c) permitted
access to parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of. approximately 5,730 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 51 feet
on the north side of watec Street and further described as 119 East Water
Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it
has considered t',~e Negative 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 significant effect on the environment.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, asked that Condition No. 4 be deleted since
this is not an arterial street.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-91 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3653 on the basis that there are special ~~~cumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right tc appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRII~ 13, 1987 R7-251
ITEM N0. 13 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPURT N0. 273 (SUPPLEMENTAL), SPECIFIC PLAN
N0. 87-1 (INCLUDING A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN), SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND FISCAL IMPACT ANALY5IS
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: SO. PAC PROPERTIES, INC., 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite
800, Pasadena, CA 91101, ATTN: JOHN JAMESON. AGENT: ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES,
INC., 1151 Dove Street, Suite 130, Newport Beach, CA 92660, AT'PN: FRANK
ELFEND. Property describ:ad as approximately 816 acres located north of Canyon
Rim Road, east of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the north by East Hills Planned
Community (Bauer Ranch), east by Wallace Ranch and Oak Hills Ranch, and
southeast by Irvine Company property.
Request adoption of a Specific Plan including Zoning a~~.l Development
Standards, a Public Facilities Plan and a Fiscal Impa .Analysis for the
proposed Flighlands at Anaheim Hil.la to provide for the development of up to
2,147 residential units, A acres of commercial uses, 284.7 acres of open
space, a 5-acre pack site, and a 15.:3-acre elementary school site.
Continued from March 16, 1987.
There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and male a tart
of the minutes.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, referred to Pages .13-b and 13-pp of the staff
report with references to City staff estimates of the negativa fiscal impact
to the City of674,000 and $674,142 which should be revised to ~62b,000.
He stated Condition No. 38 should be revised to read; "That prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map for Development Areas 11 and 12, the
owner/developer shall provide the City with evidence of compliance with the
Orange County Sanitation District Ma:~ter Plan; and that all requirements of
the O~..nge County Sanitation District, including annexation (as deemed
necescacy by the Orange County Sanitation District) have been complied with".
Mr. Fick stated since the March 30th meeting, staff has had a number of
meetings with the consultants and substantial modifications have been made to
the technical aspects of the conditions and that all the department staff
representatives are present to answer any questions. He stated while
substantial modifications have been made to several conditions, the applicant
requested modification to several others and they were not revised by staff
and it was felt by the interdepartmental staff that those modificiations were
nct in the best intere3t of the City.
He recommended the Commission consider the issues of development standards and
gradir.3, and added no new information has been submitted regarding yracling;
the negative impact to the City and the phasing issue and it pertains to the
Fire Department issues. Ete stated one significant issue which needs to be
discussed is the Fire Department's recommendations and that the Fire Chief is
present to answer any questions.
Responding to Frank Elf end, Chairman McBurney stated he would have an
opportunity for rebuttal after the remarks have been concluded.
4/13/87
MINU'CES~ ANANF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION__M_E_ETING OF APRIL 13y 1987 87-252
Mr. Elfend stated they still have some concerns about some of the conditions
and would like to discuss the memorandum received from the Parka Department
regarding the previsions of the in-lieu Lees Eor the on-site park.
,Joe]. Fick suggested the public hearing be re-opened in order Eor the developer
and the City staff to respond to questions.
Chairman McBurney re-opened the public hearing.
Mr. Elfend referred to Condition No. 2 and stated they have met with staff to
determine exactly what is meant by "establishing a mechanism to provide
on-going monitoring and submittal oC information concerning :iscal impacts"p
and that they have been told by staff that they would amend that condition to
include wording that a letter could be sent along with the maps indicating
that the project is conslstent with the assumptions of the fiscal impact
report.
Joel Fick stated certain assumptions wore made by the consultant and developer
concerning pciccas in each development area, anticlpated revenues, etc. and
depending on whether or not the development is consistent with what has been
submitted would determine what is required and if there are changes which
would affect arose fiscal impacts, the City needs to know what impact these
changes wnirld have on the Fiscal Impack Analysis. Mr. Elfend stated he wants
to be sure that a letter would be acceptable a:r long as there are no changes.
Mr. Elfend stated Condition No. 31 involves reimbursement to Kaufman & Broad
and L•hey would suggest that l-hat condition be modified so they will be
responsible to reimburse t'ie City and not a third party since the City is
administering the Reimbursement Agreement and L•hey did not think one developer
should be expected to deal with another developer.
Responding to Commissioner La Claire, Malcolm Slaughter stated it is his
opinion that the city is betker off not to handle someone else's money.
Commissioner La Claire asked if Kaufman & Broad had entered into an agreement
with the City. Mc. Slaughter stated he was not sure, but this condition would
take care of the City's obligations. Commiasic:,er La Claire stated she did
not like that answer and asked if the figures have been established for that
Reimbt,rsement Agreement. Mr. Slaughter responded those figures were
established and are included in the agreement.
Mr. Elfend stated his concern is that he did not think property owners would
want to deal with a third party and would prefer L•a deal directly with the
City. Commissioner Fry agreed that condition should be changed.
Mr. Elfend stayed Cor~ition No. 32 deals with the street maintenance facility
and the April l.,th staff report prepared for the Oak Hills Ranch property
shows the Maintenance Division warita that station on Oak Hills property and if
it is not feasible on the Oak Hills property, other alternatives would be
considered and he would suggest that the site be specifically tder.tified on
the Oak Hills property.
John Roche, D..e for of Maintenance, stated this is to be a street sweeper
transfer station and Highlands is not really the best location for that site,
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAH.IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 __ 87-253
and they need a site located more to the eaatt however, that station would be
serving highlands and they should contribute their. fair share, but the actual
site probably should nut be on their property.
Joel Fick stated the Public Facilities Plan submitted for the Highlands
project indicc~':ed that they are to ne involved in the reimbursement and if
that is acceptable to the Maintenance Director, it can be inccrporated into
the conditions of approval and the Public Facilities Plan.
Chairmar; McBurney asked what would be the decision 1E this development
proceeds and the Oak Hills ranch does not develop. Mr.. Roche stated if the
other ranch development does not proceed, they would re-evaluate the sites,
but they do need a site some place.
Commissioner Herbst stated Condition No. 32 should be modified to include that
the developer will contribute to the reimbursement of that transfer station".
Mr. Elfend stated Condition No. 36 is awkwardly worded, and he would like to
see it changed to read: "Thar, prior to the approval of the first final map',
rather than the "first tentative map", and add to the end that they shall
provide for a financial mechanism..
Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated when the first tentative map is ready for
submittal, that information as to identification and location should be
available and should be presented to the planning Comm~.ssion, and the
mechanism for maintenance could be provided prior to final approval.
Malcolm Slaughter stated conditions must be imposed on the tentative map
approval because the developer is entitled to proceed with the development
once the tentative map is approved and if this information is needed, i*_
should be required at that time.
Commissioner Bouas pointed out the development will occur in phases. Jay
Titus stated even if it is phased, any access through off-sits property should
be known b~Eore they start phasing. Mr. Elfend asked what is expected in
terms of 'identifying the location".
Jay Titus stated if they have to take access through Deer Canyon north .o
Santa Ana Canyon Road or through Wallace Ranch, that needs ro be identified.
Mr. Elfend stated that condition is in numerous places and the problem is
associated with the tentative map if it is closa to Serrano and Canyon Rim and
not having it show on the map as access.
Jay Titus stated they would have that information available when the tentative
is submitted and he thought the Planning Commission should have it for
consideration. Mr. Elfend responded to Commissioner Fry that the concern
would be that he has to submit engineering drawings for access in the Deer
Canyon open space corridor when the tentative map is submitted. Jay Titus
responded that he is not erpecting engineered drawings, but just a map showing
the identification. Mr. Elfend stated they could provide that in the Specific
Plan proposal.
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 _ 87-254
Mr. Elf.end referred to Condition No. 43 pertaining to the park dedication and
improvements and a memorandum received today from ,lack Kudron, Packs
Superintendent, .indicating the formulas for the park requirement. I'.e stated
they are required to dedicate 5 acres, pay for improvements and pay In-lieu
fees, and he would like to have wording added to Condition No. 43 that the
amounts shown are based on the existing park dedication ordinance. He stated
the new ordinance proposed by the Packs Department provides that every
subdivlder shall irrevocably offer to dedicate and pay for the development
overall, and in the existing ordinance there is no mention that the subdivider
must also develop the above-ground improvements and it was his feeling the
memorandum really reEP~s to the proposed park ordinance and not the e~;isr.ing
one. He stated they ~~ ~ suggesting they be given credit for the above-ground
improvements to be applied towards the remainder in-lieu park fees. He
indicated he has a copy of the existing ordinance and L•he proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Fry asked if the dollar amounts referred to are i.n accordance
with the new proposed ordinance. Mr. ElEend responded there is a variety of
methods used, but the a,~~tter before r_he Planning Commission today is whether
or not the developer is going to be r_redited for the above-ground
improvements, or if they are going to be required to provide .hose exclusive
of the grading.
Jack Kudron, Park Superintende~it, stated the ordinance Mr. Elfend is
discussing as anew proposed ordinance is not being proposed at this time and
is just a draft they have been working on and the language in that draft is
intended to clear up any misconceptions. He stated more importantly, they
have been working with this developer with regard to satisfying the park
deaication requirements for this property and have attempted to come to an
agreement which the developer and City can live with. He stated he
understands the developer would like to get credit for park dedication and
improvement on the five- acre site towards the remaining seven acre requirement
on which they have indicar.ed they would be willing to take in-lieu fees rathCr
than acreage dedication. He stated the five-acre park site amounts to a
credit of 157,000 in park dedication and that is only related to the
five-acre site, but that this development has a twelve acre requirement and
the developer is trying to satisfy that requirement by utilizing a credit
against the seven acre requirement for the development of the five acre site,
and, in his opinion, that does not meet the intent of the existing park
dedication ordinance.
CY~airman NcF3urney asked if the eombinakion of both figures as shown in the
staff report would be the developer's total park dedication and improvements
fee. Jack Kudron responded two options have been shown and explained if the
developer derided to just dedicate the five-acre park site and grads it flat
and not develop it, he would still be required to pay 157,581 in lieu fees on
the five acre site.
Chairman Mct3urney stated he thought they were required to either dedicate or
imcrove, but not do bc•.h. Commissioner La Claire stated the Code only says
that every subdivider who subdivides land, shall dedicate a portion of such
land, pay a fee, or do both, but it does not say that he has to develop the
park.
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 R7-255
Malcolm Slaughter stated the fees being discussed apparently have been in
effect since 1976 and they may be self-adjusting and it may be they will be
even higher than being discussed. He stated, however, that sRCtion of the
Code being discussed governs subdivisions and there is no subdivision of land
in this request but this is an overall development plan. Commissioner La
Claire stated she just wants to know if the City can require this developer to
dedicate and pay for the cost of improvements. Mr. Elfend stated the
condition should be dropped if it does not apply in this situation, since
there is no subdivision.
Commissioner Herbst stated he understands the developer is being required to
dedicate the land Eor the fiv a-acre park site and he has to E~ay a Eee for
every unit being proposed and asked if the developer would be credited for
that if he develops the park, Mr. Kudron responded he would. Mc. Elfend
stated he is concerned th~~ City is requiring an additional 157,581 Eor
development. Jack Kudron stated it is more im~~ortant for the Commission to
consider that for a development of. this size, a twelve-acre park is required
and that the city would prefer to have the twelve acres and the residents
could use the twelve acres, but he has been working with this developer to
find some mutual ground and thought they had found it. fie pointed out the
City cuu.ld be requiring t~relve flat acres, but is willing to accept the
five-acre site. Mr. Elfend suggested the Commission move forward and he could
discuss tYiis with the Parks Department. Commissioner Herbst pointed out he
would like to have it discussed now before the Commission. Commissioner Bouas
asked if they would still have to build the park improvements if they dedicate
the full twelve acres. Mr. Kudron stated they have based ~-^^ir judgment on
City Council ,;olicy that new developments in that area wou.~ have to pay their
own way and not be a burden to other taxpayers in Anaheim and that the
developer will either have t o develop the park or pay the in-lieu fees.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst and Mr. Elfend, Jack Kudron stated it is his
understanding that the City Council has asked that all new developments coming
in, be self-supporting and they have based their judgements on that criteria.
Commissioner. Bouas asked if the improvements would be to the Parks
Department's standards or just r_he minimums. Mr. Kudron stated it could be
the minim~im amount in the terms of a neighborhood or community park and this
developer would certainly not be expected to construct a community building or
anything of that nature in the park.
Joel Fick stated when the General Plan Amendment was approved i~ 1980 these
same requirements were included by the City Council and one specific condition
was that a Public Facilities Plan be submitted documenting that the
development would not be putting a burden on existing taxpayers in the City.
He stated the Commission is considering a Specific Plan and Public Facilities
Plan which lets the Planning Commission and City Council know specifically
what capital improvements are required to serve the residents generated by
this development.
Commissioner La Claire stated she has had a problem with the in-lieu fees for
a long time and when the General Plan Amendment came before the Planning
Commission in 1980, she asked the Parks Department Director, at that time, if
+.t would not be better to :lave the developer put in the park and develop it,
rather than to collect in-1 ieu fees and she was informed that the Parks
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIT'i pi.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AFRIG 13 1987 87-256
Department would not want the park devel~~Fed because they would not know what
they wanted on top of the ground at that time and would rather do it
themselves. She stated more money is needed to maintain the parks in the
whole City and there is really no way to finance it and she would want to make
sure that the in-lieu fees are not used to maintain parks in other parts of
the City, but are used to develop parks in that area and to make sure the City
is not just "double-dipping" and are not asking the developers in the Canyon
area to pay for the maintenance for parks throughout the City. She stated
evidently the Parks Department's opinion has changed and now they want the
dedication, the development and in-lieu fees, and that disturbs her.
Commissioner Bouas stated things change and that Parks Director is no longer
with the City and that creates a problem.
Commissioner La Claire stated it is a different picture, but she would like to
know just how much we are really socking it to the developers for these kinds
of things. She stated she wants them to pay their own way, but not everybody
else's too, because that means each new property owner would be paying.
Mr. Elfend stated they are required to pay i~~ excess of 46,000,000 in terms
of reimbursements and other fees. He stated the question is whether it is the
desire of the City to have the above-ground improvements, in addition to the
dedication and grading of the site. He stated even if they dedicated the full
12 acres and there was not adequate In lieu funds, the position is that they
would improve it as well.
Jack Kudron stated L•he in-lieu fees are collected and held in the Parks and
Park Sites Eund and are not used for maintenance, but only for capital
improvement development and, secondly, that they do make a conscience effort
to be sure that the in-lieu fees collected are spent in the area of the City
where they are collected. He added the fees have not been adjusted since 1977
and parks are being constructed in 1987 with 1977 dollars and that is
impossible and the estimates in the staff report reflect those 1977 costs and
the actual costs to develop a park in 1987 are substantially higher than the
fees.
Commissioner La Claire stated the developers should dedicate the park and
develop it, but not pay fees and everything else. She added she was told by
Mr. Jarivi that these fees do not necessarily stay in the area collected.
Chairman McBurney stated the memorandum indicates the total obligation is
$1,04^>,699, as indicated in the fiscal Impact Report. Jack Kudron responded
that ~s correct and that is acceptable.
Frank Elfend stated Condition No. 68 relates to the storm drain improvements
and they would like wording added that if the natural channel system far Deer
Canyon is determined feasible, the City shall contribute maintenance funds
equivalent to a closed conduit. He stated this condition indicates that the
developer shall provide for some type of maintenance mechanism if it is an
open channel and if it is closed, the City would provide for the maintenance,
and they would say as it relates to Deer Canyon, since the City would provide
for that maintenance if it was closed, they should consider providing
matching funds if it is left open.
4/13/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 87-257
Joel Fick stated Mr. Elfend is proposing something different than the City
proposes and that the costs associated with a clawed storm drain are very
certain and the City knows what is involved in the maintenance of that closed
drain and their position is that if the developer wants to propose an open
channel, he should maintain it.
Mr. Elfend stated the City knows exactly what the cost is to maintain a closed
channel and he felt they should provide Eor. that matching fund and anything
above and beyond that should be provided by the developer through a special
maintenance district.
Malcolm Slaughter stated !t seems that discussion would be appropriate when
thE~ establishment of such a reimbursement or maintenance district is
considered. Commissioner r^ry agreed and Mr. Elfend responded that would be
fine.
Mr. Elfend referred to Condition No. 69 concerning the Fire Department and
stated they would like to respond to some comments that will be made later by
the Fire Chief. He stated since the last meeting, they have met with the Eire
Chief and attempted to resolve this matter, but gave not been successful and
the only difference is L•hat at one time it was their understanding that if the
road that is proposed in the second phase down to Santa Ana Canyon Road was
provided, it would sufEicient..ly mitigate the needs to service that area;
however, they have been informed recently that that would nor_ be enough to
sufficiently serve the Fire Department's purposes.
Jeff Bowman, Fire Chief., stated he was appointed Fire Chief in December 1986
and shortly thereafter was asked a question regarding the eventual location of
Firs Station No. 9; and that he has reviewed the Anaheim Bills area, East
Hills area and future developments up to and including the Highlands project,
on an overall fire protection basis. He staled when the Highlands project
first came before the Planning Commission, it was suggested that the Fire
Department's position would be to have the Fire Station at the top of the
hill, at Nohl Ranch Road and Serrano. He stated there ar.e three primary
issues about which they disagree, and one is the location of the fire station
and he would prefer to leave it in its present location.
He presented slides showing time and distance of response fur every fire
station in the City of Anaheim and also an area which resembled the entire
Anaheim Hills vicinity. 'fhe slides showed the location of Fire Station No, 9
currently and Stations 8 (green) and 10 (blue). He explained in its current
location, Fire Station 9 cannot reach the entire Anaheim Hills area and there
is a shortcoming in the area of Serrano and Canyon Rim Road which they cannot
get to currently within a five-minute time period. He stated there are many
areas around the City of Anaheim which they cannot reach from one station to
another. He stated it is their primary goal to try and site every station
within five minutes of every area of the City. A slide was also shown of the
areas of overrun between Stations 8, 9 and 10.
He presented slides showing that if they move the fire station to the proposed
location on Serrano and Nohl Ranch Road, the overall protected area is greatly
diminished; that Station 9 is a paramedic company and moving it to the top of
the hill will help in the Serrano and Canyon Rim areas, but reduces
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM OI'L'Y PLANNING CU_MMISSIOIt ME'a'1'ING OF APRIL 13 1987 87-258
significantly the area in which that engine can travel in a five-minute
period. He pointed aut the overlap between Stations 8 and 9, but explained
the ar~aa at the Riverside Freeway and La Palma area is a heavy industrial area
requiring multiple-units for any fire incident and that is where most of the
medical aid calls are centralized in the hills area. Ne stated the coverage
with Station 9 in its current location is quite Adequate.
Chief Bowman stated he understands each department has its own issues and tt~e
developer feels each department has its own specific needs, but that it is
very imperative that the City Planning Commission and eventually, the City
Council look at •11 the developments and try to encourage cuoperation among
the three r]evelopers so that .9evelopment happens in unison.
He staked the primary issue relating to the Fire Uepartmenc's concerns is the
proposed connection from Serrano to Weir Cac~yon Road and >i. that connection is
made, there is a tremendous difference in fire protection, not just Eor Fire
Station .10's first due response area, but if Serrano and Weir Canyon go
through to the existing Serrano Avenue, it will encompass the entire hill and
canyon area. tle stated base fire protection is not based on units c:ominy from
any one particular station. He added iE Station 9 was placed at the top of
the hill and Serrano is not put through, and they were down in the Station 8
area on a medical aid call, the distance from Station 10 tr.aveling back down
Weir Canyon to Santa Ana Canyon Road up to Fairmont and Canyon Rim to Area B,
is 5 minutes and 45 seconds, and from the existing Station 9, it is 8 minutes
and 16 seconds and that is just driving time. E#e stated if Unit 9 was out of
the station and the unit was dispatched from Station 10, without the road
going through, there would be a significant delay in Eire safety service.
He stated as the City's Fire Chief tie has concerns not just for medical aid,
but Eoc potential fires in any wild lane#~~nnditions which we have in the hills
and we need as many units as possible to ~c» area. He added without that road
going through, it physically takes at+out 8 minutes and 16 seconds to get up
the hill and provide first due protection; however, if the road is constructed
Through, the area is easily accessible within the 5-minute acceptable range
Eor fire protection.
Chief. Bowman showed a slide of the area where units from Station No. 5 on
Kraemer and from Station 10 would almost meet to provide truck oc aerial
ladder service which would be required for any str~,cture fire and if there is
a structural fire of any kind in the area shown, the Anaheim Hills area would
be left uncovered and it has been that way for many years, and it is a very
critical situation in need of an immediate change. He stated with the
proposed Serrano/Weir Canyon tie-in, the 5-minute range is enhanced for truck
service to Anaheim Hills and within 7 or 8 minutes they would have truck
service to the entire hills area, but without that connection the truck
service is extremely slow to that area.
Chief Bowman stated his preference i.s to keep the station where it is
presently located because he feels it best serves the citizens of the
community and that he realizes that is a change in past practice, but that is
the safest place to have the fire station for all the community. He stated if
that road connection is not required as a mitigation measure between Serrano
and Weir Canyon, the level of fire protection for both medical aid and fire
would be significantly reduced.
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEFTIyG OF APRIL l3, 1987 d7-259
Commissioner Herbst stated that f. ire station being moved to the top of the
hill has always been shown on maps, but from looking at this information
today, it appears that would be taking protection from one area to service
another area. Chief Bowman responded that is Correct, and it would be taken
away from the area where moat of the incidents take place in the Imperial,
La Palma and Riverside Freeway area, Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim F1111s Road
and Weir Canyon Road.
Commissioner Herbst stated in reality, until Serrano is put through, the
Highlands area and the most eastern part of Anaheim Hills are not properly
protected. Chief Bowman stated that is correct and it has heen the Eire
nepartment's position for. many years that they do need to upgrade Eire
protection in that area. Chief Bowman stated there is no medical personnel at
Station 8. He stated Anaheim, in his opinion, has the best paramedic coverage
in the nation; that we have 10 fire stations and 8 of those stations have
paramedic engines and the two without paramedics are Station 8 on Riverdale
and Station 10. He stated the County Emergency Cace Committee dictates when a
paramedic engine can be put into a station and currently the number of calls
cannot justify paramedics for those two areas, but it is their goal to have
paramedic units in every station.
Commissioner Herbst asked if the area can be properly serviced with fire
protection f.or the first 400 homes if the Serrano connection is not made to
Weir Canyon. Chief Bowman stated currently it takes 5 minutes and 45 seconds
driving time from Fire Station 9 t•.o the corner of Serrano and Canyon Rim, and
from Station 10 without the connection, it takes 8 minutes 16 seconds and that
is unacceptable. Commissioner Herbst asked what the response time would be if
the Planning Commission and City Council approve~j the plan as presented for
the first 400 homes. Chief Bowman stated ft would be at least 5 minutes and
45 seconds to the corner and based on what he ;gees, it would probably be
another minute and 15 seconds to get the Highlands. Commissioner Herbst
stated if Station 9 remains where it is currently located, response time from
Station 10 would be close to 10 minutes.
Commissioner Messe asked how the blue area shown on the exhibit is served for
medical calls. Chief Bowman responded there is a significant delay of
paramedic service to that area which comes from Station 9 and they have to go
down NohJ. Ranch Road to Anaheim Hills Road to Santa Ana Canyon Road and east
to that area.
Commissioner Messe clarified if Serrano was in, that delay would be reduced.
Chief Bowman stated there would still be a lengthy response, but it would be
quicker than going down the hill and back up. He stated if it takes 5
minutes, 45 seconds to get to Serrano and Canyon Rim, the time would be
doubled to the East Hills area. He stated because of the lack of incidents in
this area, they currently have Station 10 responding first due arrival before
paramedics. He explained paramedics respond on every medical incident and if
it is a significant distance away, the Captain has the right to cancel and
transfer by ambulance or wain for paramedics.
Chief Bowman responded to Commissioner Messe that those areas to the east,
either developed or about to be developed, have not participated in the cost
of Fire Station 9's build out.
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAL}EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 87-260
Frank Elfend stated obviously they are confused on several issues, but from
the standpoint of paramedic service, with oc without the connection of Serrano
and Weir Canyon, there would be no effect on the project because pararrredics
would mill come Erom Station 9. rhieE Bowman stated first due response would
definitely be from Station 10, even with paramedic service. He explained if.
there was an incident at the E}ighlands, Station 10 would be the first due and
dispatched with Station 9. He stated the paramedic service comes Erom Station
9 and the first due engine dispatched and Highlands would be from Station 10
and they would be dispatched first on every medical aid call.
Mr. Elfend stated it has been the posikion of the Fire Department for many
years that the station would be relocated to the corner of: Serrano and Nohl
Ranch Road and he c]oes not understand the exhibits and indications that moving
the station up the hill r.edures protection to another area. t1e stated
cooperation between developers is not a consideration; that the developers to
the area }gave different schedules and are at different stages of development
and the question is not that they will not provide for the connection, but is
just a matter of timing. Ho stated the connection of Serrano and Weir Canyon
Road may be several years off, given the nature of other development areas;
whereas, the first phase of this development would be much, much ahead of.
that. He stated there is a variety of different opinions about the response
time; however, in the past in discussing this matter with the Fire Department,
and in correspondence, they have been told that the response time Erom Station
9 in its current location is within 5 minutes and that is in a letter provided
August 8, 1986. tie stated there was a plan to relocate it and it has been
that way for many years and that the response time Erom the current station,
as they were informed in the past, would be within the 5 minutes.
Commissioner Messe stated previously there was discussion of Serrano being
stubbed out before it reaches the next development. Mr. Singer stated that
was discussed and the ~~urpose of that was to prevent earth-moving equipment,
and construction trucks from using the intersection of. Canyon Rim Road and
Serrano to service that area and before they move earth, there should be
access via Weir Canyon Road and Serrano, rather than going over the hill and
down into the are He stated that has nothing to do with providing emergency
service.
Commissioner Herb;3t asked if the developer could provide another temporary
fire station at the top of the hill leaving the current station in its present
location until Serrano is connect~l. Chief Bowman responded that would be an
acceptable solution. He stated the problem he sees is with budgeting and
explained it costs700,000 to man a four-man station and that would not be an
acceptable alternative to the current City Manager staff and he does not have
money in his budget Eor that, so it would appear to be extremely costly.
Chief Bowman stated Mr. Elfend seems to be confused about the letter of August
1986; that Fire Marshall Mike Doty wrote the letter in 1986 stating there
would be a 3 to 5-minute re~aponae time and that was assuming that when the
Highlands project was developed, Fire Station 9 was to be at the top of the
hill; and that it was not until December 1986 be given the option and that is
when that decision was changed. He stated he choose to stay in the current
location because it appeared to him and his staff that the most logical place
for Station 9 would be in its current location. Commissioner Fry asked how
4/13/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY BLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 87-261
the option was given in December. Chief Bowman stated that was worn he waa
appointed Eire Chief and was asked by the City Manager in a meeting attended
by the Planning Director, Joel Fick and Maintenance Director John Roche, where
khe best location would be for Station 9 to provide adequate fire protection
in Anaheim Hills.
Commissioner Bouas asked if it would be an altecnati~~: to have Station No. 9
up the hill temporarily until the road is connected, with the idea that the
permanent station will be built in its current location eventually. Chief
3owman stated all those ideas certainly have merit, but in looking at total
fire protection for the hills, if Fire Station 9 is on call and they are
frequently on call because they are a paramedic station, first due protection
would be from Station 10. He stated if Fire Unit 9 is uut of the area, then
Station 10 would be di.spalched to the Highlands first 400 units for a workiny
fire or a heart attack victim, and the response time is 10 minutes or longer,
and based on information he has given to these developers, if they do not put
tt~e road through, he would be back before the City Council addressing some
citizen who moved into thosE homes assuming the Fire Department had taken a
stand to provide them with adequate fire protection, explaining wt~y he had
allowed this situation to happen. He stated these are his recommendations and
there needs to be an overall encompassing fiee protection sysl-em for the
entire hills area.
Commissioner Bouas asked if Mr. Elfend would want to issue a statement to
those affected homebuyers that they did not have adequate fire protection.
Mr. Elfend stated he did not think that is really the issue; that he is just a
little bit angry moving forward on a plan which they gave been working on fur
several years and now two weeks before the first Planning Commission heariny,
they are told that the Fice Department is not going to relocate the Eire
Station, and even Mould serviceritlwithinnaocectain r~sponsettimeatandAnowst
8, 1986, that they
that is no longer applicable.
Commissioner Bouas stated Mr. Elfend really believes that the response time is
within the 5-minute range because he had been told that previously. Mr.
Elfend stated things have not changed significantly in the Anaheim Hills area
which would suddenly change the findings of a particular department in the
City and there are major developers who have been working in that area with a
set of plans which included plans to move that Eire Station to the top of the
hilt and that was a major issue when they were working with the City of Orange
and had to have that site deleted from the development plans for the purpose
of the fire station. He stated they have moved forward on that commitment and
and in addition are not told that at Eire Station 9 is outside the service
area, but they are still having to participate with $400,000 to rebuild it.
Chief Bowman stated these issues have been discussed between both parties and
the letter of August 8th very clearly states in the opening paragraph that
presently this area is served by Anaheim's hire Station No. 10 and it clearly
states that the second response to the area comes from Station 9 and there was
never any dcu'~t, nor should there be any doubt in this developers' mind that
the closest fire station to this development is pto. 10. He stated the Anaheim
taxpayers need to know that if Fire Station 9 is relocated to Serrano and Nohl
Ranch Road, probably in the future, 30 to 40$ of the responses out of Station
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 87-262
~~
9 will end up in the City of orange, due to Automatic Aid Agreements and
anytime a fire station is placed on a boundary of the City limits, chances are
they will be responding to that City and if Serrano goes through to the City
of Orange, the City of Orange will be looking to the City of. Anaheim for an
Automatic Aid Agreement.
Commissioner Bouas asked if Orange is planning a fire station down the trill.
Chief Bowman stated he unde[stands there is a station at the bottom of the
hill. Mr. Elfend stated it is at the other end of this propecl•y and in
conjunction with processing development plans with Orange, they have provided
for a Fire Station on that site at the bottom of Serrano which is not a
tremendous distance from that area.
Chief Bowman stated that just gives mote credence leaving the fire station in
its current location. He stated he did not know when and if paramedics would
be added to Sl•ation 10, but based on the hi>3tory of the Emergency Medical Care
Committee and on the fact that paramedics in this county have increased very
rapidly, which has overtaxed the capacity of the presently used radio system,
further units could not he tolerated. He stated there has to be a certain
level of calls to maintain the skill levels of paramedics and that currently
the Station 10 area is not close to meeting the minimum number of calls to
qualify to have the paramedics.
Commissioner Bouas stated if the population increases, the number of calls
would increase, thereby, necessitating the need for paramedics. Chief Bowman
stated it is his goal to have a paramedic unit in every station. Mr. Elfend
asked how the areas shown in white are served. Chief. Bowman stated those are
the areas outside the 5-minute response zone and it would probably take 5-1/2
minutes to get to those areas currently and there are many areas around the
City with overlapping fire stations where they cannot provide first due
response within that S-minute limit.
Chairman McBurney asked the estimated time as to when Serrano does go
through. Mr. Elfend stated he does not have a time estimate and that the
projects are all at different stages of processing and their first 400 units
would be an interim one as it relates to that consideration.
Commissioner Lawicki asked the cost estimate to make that street connection.
Mr. Elfend stated the connection the Fire Department is referring to is the
one that takes Serrano all the way through, and it is a lengthy connection and
he did not have the cost estimates and pointed out it goes thrcugh the Oak
Hills and Wallace Ranch properties.
Commissioner Messe left the meeting at 5:20 p.,n. and did not return.
Mr. Elfend stated there are a variety of development issues which involve the
surrounding properties and that is why they feel an interim 400 units would be
a reasonable plan, given the subsequent timing that takes place for the other
ranches. Commissioner Bouas clarified that the 400 units would be the only
units constructed until the road is constructed.
Mr. Elfend responded to Commissioner Messe that he felt looking at a lot of
factors and the maps displayed and understanding the City's services in
4/13/87
MINUTEST ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13,_1987___ 87-263
general, that there are many areas in the City which now are beyond the 5-1/2
minute limit for fire protection. He stated that condition runs hand in hand
with Condition No. 78 and they are still required tv pay f.or Station No. 9 at
the discretion of the Fire Chief.
Commissioner Herbst stated over the years that he has been on the Commission,
the station was planned at the top of the hill and that was the previous
recommendations of the Fire Department, but now he can see the actual figures
involved showing that response time would not be safe to this particular
project anc9 that. is a concern and he could not see the City Council going
against the Fire Chief's recommendation that he does not recommend they move
the station because protection would be taken away from one area and given to
another. He stated he did would not vote for approval of this project with
the response time beyond 5 minutes. HA atnted the alternative appears to be
that the three ranch developers get together and work out the concerns of the
roads to the satisfaction of everyone.
Chairman McBurney stated Condition No. 78 requires participation of their fair
share for the construction of permanent Fire Station 9 and askFd if there was
money reyuired from the Highlands for Station 1.0. Chief Bowman responded
there was. IJe explained as part of the discussions that took place in
December, he learned that there was an intent or at least discussions
involving an intent by Anaheim Hil].s, Inc. to donate the site at Serrano and
Nohl Ranch Road for 0.7 acre and it was discussed that instead of putting the
fire station at the top of the hill, the Highlands developer should provide a
reimbursement of the value of. the 0.7 acre site at Serrano and Nohl Ranch
Road. Mr. Elf end was sent a letter informing him of that decision, estimating
that the actual cost of that site would be around 323,000 and that they
should provide those funds towards the reconstruction of temporary Fire
Station 9, rather than donating the site and that would be in addition L-o
their reimbursement Eor Station 10.
Commissioner Bouas stated they would be better ofE to put fire sprinklers in
the homes. Chairman McBurney stated he thought they should spend that money
to put the road through and then the area could be se[viced from Station 10
which they are required to help finance.
Chief Bowman stated the road is his preference and is imperative. Chairman
McBurney stated he did not think anything has been resolved on this issue.
Mr. Elf end referred to Condition No. 84 and explained they would like that
condition modified to read rather than "prior to submittal" to:
"...concurrently with the submittal", so that any tentative tract maps which
are submitted can be done at the same time.
Joel Fick stated the only question there is that staff knows what "prior to"
means, but not know necessarily what "concurrently with" means. He stated
staff has no problem with them filing on the same day or prior to.
Mr. Elfend referred to Conoiti.on No. 9]. and stated they understood they would
be required to provide bonding for the remainder of Serrano ro the eastern
property boundary and they would like to see the letter of credit or cash
estimated since bonding would be the method preferred. Paul Singer stated he
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1987 87-264
would recommend the wording stay as is because it does provide Eor bonding ae
a choice. Chairman McBurney agreed. Mr. Elfend stated that would be fine as
long as it is understood that it is their option and it would be their intent
to provide the bonding.
Commissioner Herbst stated the Traffic Engineer has been concerned about this
road and he thought it would be cheaper when developing L•he road to take it
all the way to the property line, and then L•he equipment is there, it becomes
cheaper to continue thar• '.o come back down and continue on with il• in the
Future.
Mr. Elfend stated that would depend on a variety of considerations such as
grading. Chairman Mc6urnry stated this particular item could also alleviate
part of Condition No. 69 and '18 regarding the fire response time and maybe
something corlld be worked out so that the money being requested for Fire
Station 9, amounting to 300,000, could be used to gel• the road ttrrough to
provide a reasonable ti.rne Erom Station 10. Mr. Elfend stated the area being
discussed is the area t~etween an internal road on the project and the eastern
boundary.
Mr. Elfend referred to Condition No. 99 and stated that is a new condition and
the last sentence requires the developer to participate in the City's TSM
Program to include financial participation based on the trip generation impact
of 1.00 per trip end to finance the City's TSM Coordinator position. He
stated they had ay rend in the past to do a study, but not to provide in excess
of 30,000 for a City position.
Paul Singer stated the Environmental Impact Report includes a condition
requiring them to comply with the City TSM program, but nothing ever happens
and he felt it is about time the City starts doing something effective about
TSM measures and it is proposed the developers participate in this effort,
rather than just making it an issue in every environmental impact report and
then nothing is done about it. He stated this is not a very expensive program
and they propose to provide the Commission with an ordinance that will require
the payment of 1.00 per trip end from every development in this City. He
stated that will ensure a cohesive TSM proQ{~'-m for the City. He responded to
Commissioner La Claire that the TSM Managem~.rt Program is getting people out
of their vehicles in getting more passengers into each car, rather than single
occupants, and this has to be done cooperatively. He explained he had this
particular position .in the proposed budget and the budget was severely cut and
that position is still vital and everyone recognizes the need for
Transportation Systems Management. He explained at the present time,
'pransportation System Authority has been established in the Northeast
Industrial Area and ir. is encouraging industrial users and businesses to share
and pool their information regarding car pooling, van pooling, ride sharing,
etc. because no one cc,;~pany could undertake such a program. He stated they
have seen successful results from Rockwell and some of the other companies in
that neighborhood to coordinate their systems, but the City has no staff
person to do that and one is needed.
Chairman McBurney asked why we are doing this only in the residential area and
thought it should be done through commercial and industrial users. Mr. Singer
stated it is not just for residential development, but this just happens to be
4/13/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY Pi~ANNING !:()MMISS[ON MEF'fING OP APRIL 13, 1987 81-265
the f irs~ '. -!e coming along and he wants to ctrinht the ordinance and start doing
it properly. Chairman McBurney Ktated thle i.s the F.icat petitioner. he I~as
seen today who has had to comp un with this fee. Mr. Singer stated this is
the first one and pointed our., this is a !tuhstan~ial development.
Chairman McBurney stated everytime Eeea are added to these developments, it
means the price of housing goes up. Mr.. Singer stated this particular
development iH yoing rv coat the Clty a lot of money. Malcolm Slaughter
stared tha fee is based on pvr trip end and there is some commercial area
included in the calculations. Chair. man McBurney stated this is the first
developer. being asked to pay that fee and he is beginning t.o wonder why we are
requiring a residential developer to pay it when those fees could be picked up
from some place else. Mr. Singer sl.•ated the environmental impact report
addresses the need Eor TSM measures and this condition ~~ruuld relieve that
r':eveloper of any rer!ponsibility to comply with any o-:h~r. TSM measures included
:n the conditions. Commissivr!er i,zwicki stated whether or not this is a
significant development, if t!~e fee is going to be charged, it should be
charged to everyone. Mc. Sinyer stated there is a definite need Cor tl!is type
program and that this parr.icular development and the Oak Hills developer have
addressed the 'fSM measures in their env~.ronmental impact :spores.
Commissioner Lawicki stated until our streets are definitely gridlocked,
Southern Californians will eat chanye their driving habits. fIe stated
creating an additional layer would do thing. Mr. 5inger stated we need to
start giving something other than lip service to the 'f:iM program so that when
w~ do get transportation systems, one will he in place.
Commissioner Herbst stated the problem concerns the whole r_ity and the whole
City should help pay f:or it. Mr. Sinyer stated the whole City will help pay
fur. it and pointed nut that was an issue exprer;sed in tl~e Vision 2000
presentation and h~'+:; a very high priority, but tt~er~~ are no funds to pay for
it. Commissioner Herbst stated if it is that. important, the City Council
should address it on a City-w;de basis and comp up with funds, rather than
having it imposed on one individual tract.
Mr. Glfend stated this really works for businr_ ;4~;:, ~-ommercia] areas or
industrial users and it would not seem logica~. to pace the condition on a
residential development. Mr. Singer stated this :!ould be a one time fee per
unit when building permits or occupancy permitR are issued and the fee would
be ~1.OC er trip end and would depend on the size of the units, but it would
be about ~10.0u per unit.
Comrissioner La Claire stated there are some problems financing all the
services nee~3ed in i:he City and someday that really should be addressed, but
she would prefer to see the ordinance adopted first-. Mr. Singer stated he is
working on th? ordinance, but did not want to drop the ball on this one
development. Commissioner La Claire stared we should just provide a service,
rather than do a stud; and Mr. Singer responded he does not need another study.
Commissioner Bouas asked what the cost would be for one year. Paul Singer
responded between ~50,G00 and ~55;000 and explained after the ordinance goes
into place, every developer would be required to pay the fee and that will
automatically keep the position funded. Commissioner La Claire asked if this
4!13/81