Minutes-PC 1988/02/17.~
..
MINUTES
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 17, 1988
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order at 10:00 p.m., February 17, 1988, by the Chairman in the Council
Chambers, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the
items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 p.m.
RECONVENED: 1:30 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Messe
Bouas, Boydstun, Herbst b McBurney
C02•'Q:ISSIONERS ABSENT: Carusillo b Feldhaus
ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti
Joseph W. Fletcher
Arthuz L. Daw
Paul Singer
Debbie Vaqts
Greg Hastings
Leonard McGhee
Eric Harrison
Lucy Yeager
Edith Harris
Zoning Administrator
Deputy City Attorney
Deputy City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Housing Operations Coordinator
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Associate Planner
Senior Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
A~NpA POSTIt7G - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted
at 4:15 p.m., February 11, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer
of the Council Chambers, and also in tho outside display kiosk.
nuhlished: Anaheim Bulletin - February 5, 1988.
pU6LIC INPUT: Chairman N.esse explained that at the end of the scheduled
hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest
which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda
i te,-„s .
~vu47m -88-181 2/17/88
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 1988 88-182
ITEM NO. 1. EIR NO. 257 (PREY. APPROVED); TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11600
(RP,V. No. 2); CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: SPE MEN TREE REMOVAL ?I0. 87-07
(READVERTISED).
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WALT TAMULINAS, 16431 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Yorba
Linda, CA 92686. AGENTS: NORRIS-REPKE, INC., 507 E. First Street, Tustin,
CA 92680. ATTN: Jack Norris. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped
parcel o.f land consisting of approximately 8.3 acres having a frontage of
approximately 590 feet on the east side of Henning Way approximately 1,100
feet south of the centerline of Arboretum Road.
To re-establish a 12-lot RS-HS-22,000(SC) Zone subdivision; and ieiquest for
approval of removal of it specimen trees. Continued from the meeting of
January 4, January 1.8 and February 1, 1988, at the request of the petitioner.
There were seven people indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request.
Walt Tamulinas, owner, sY.ated the concern at the last meeting was Hidden Grove
Road at the bottom of their project, which connects with Trail Drive, and that
they have since comr_ to an agreement with the neighbors on what road improve-
ments will take place. He explained that is not actually part of this
approval, but that he wanted to incorporate it by reference; and that they are
planning to improve Trail Drive to 20 feet from Arboretum to the curve, and
then it will taper to 22 feet on the curve. He stated the existing road has
an asphalt curb on the north and L-hey will maintain that curb and the
agreement, essentially, with the neighbors is that they won't come any closer
to their property with the improved road, which means they will go out of
their easement but the neighbors have agreed to cooperate in creating a new
easement for the new road.
Mr. Tamulinas stated they have made some other commitments in the past and
that he is staring for the public record that they are making a commitment to
follow through on those prior to development.
He stated the only substantial change in the plea is the grading necessary on
each one of the pads, and they plan to do rough grading for the pads at the
same time the road is graded.
Susie Siagel, 6221 Trail Drive, stated they have come to an agreement as far
as the position and width of the two roads in question. She asked if there is
anything in the agreement submitted to the Commission last time, which the
City would not permit.
Chairman Messe responded the Commission did receive that agreement and asked
if the Legal Department had reviewed it and added it is actually an agreement
between the neighbors and the developer.
Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Art.orney, stated he has not reviewed the
agreement in depth, but did look at it last week when it was first rece+.ved.
He asked if the Commission wished to have any of those provisions added ~s
02/17/88
INUTESI_ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1T 1988 88-.183
conditions of approval. He added their office is available to consult, if the
neighbors have any questions, and added he was sure the same is true with
Engineering and Plznning, and they will be able tc help determine if any of
those provisions are contrary to City ordinances or policies.
Susie Siegel stated whether or not the City would disapprove anything has
become a point of contention in that agreement and they are just trying to
protect themselves. She asked how that agreement figures is this action.
Chairman Messe replied that agreement is not a part of this action; however,
the neighbors are welcome to use the City resources to find out if there are
any items is that agreement which would be contrary to codes and ordinances of
the City. He added the neighbors can ask the Commission specifically for any
of the items to be included and if the developer would stipulate to those
items, they could be included in the approval.
Susie Siegel referred to the letter containing twenty items which Mr.
Tamulinas had submitted to the Commission, and asY.ed if those could be
included in the conditions.
Chairman Messe responded some of those items may already be in the staff
recommendations, and some are outside what the Commission would normally
consider. He asked if they have a legal agreement with the developer. Ms.
Siegel responded the developer claims they don't have an agreement, but it was
her understanding at the last hearing, that it was signed; however, the
developer has subsequently said that it is not, and they are left with a
handful of gromises.
Chairman Messe asked if Ms. Siegel would like for the Commission to review
some of those items and incorporate them if the developer agrees. He added he
also had thought these matters had been resolved and the agreement had been
signed.
Ids. Siegel stated the first item~is that the alignment of Hidden Grove Lane at
its intersection with Trail Drive shall be shifted westward to a location
which is mutually satisfactory to the developer, Siegels and Wilsans.
Chairman Messe stated that is part of the plans.
Susie Siegel stated Item No. 2 is that a stop sign shall be installed on
Hidden Grove Lano 3t its intersection with Trail Drive. Chairman Messe
responded he did not think the developer had any objection to that stop sign.
Paul Singer, Traffic Enginaer, stated there is no objectian from the City to z
stop sign and tare applicanC needs to make that a stipulation.
Ms. Siegel stated that the developer is to construct, at his expense, a
vehicle "glance barrier" on the Siegel property opposite tho entrance to
Hidden Grovo Lane and that item is also discussed in the latter sent to them
by Mr. Tamuli.nas.
02/17/88
e
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FESgUAgY 17, 1988 88-184
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated this is a tentative tract map
and the normal conditions are street width improvements and things like
that,which are part of the tract map and the stop sign and the vehicle glance
barrier are not items required with final tract map approval. She stated if
there are capital improvements, typically a requirement is imposed that the
developer post bonds to guarantee the installation with the construction of
the tract. She added some of tho3e items are things the City doesn't get
involved in normally.
Chairman Messe stated if this developer sells these lots as custom lots, many
of these requirements might be put on the individual lot owner.
Annika Santalahti stated the developer takes the obligation on himself and
when he sells, presumably, he would know enough to pass that on to the new
owner; and that the first builder, potentially, would have to make certain
physical improvements which a later developer would not have to do.
Susie Siegel stated they were given a map last night which is the map they
finally agreed on, but it is not the map which is displayed and asked if that
map could be made apart of this tract map approval.
Chairman Messe stated the Commission and City staff have not had the
opportunity to see that map.
Ms. Santalahti stated they did submit a map to staff, but it does not show the
street all the way to Arboretum Drive because it is an off-site street as far
as the tract is concerned.
Chairman Messe stated Mr. Tamulinas did stipulate to the widening to
Arboretum, so that has been resolved.
Ms. Siegel stated Item No. 8 says that the north line of Trail Drive in the
after condition shall not be any further north than the existing north line,
but it has been changed, and it is 3 feet to the Wilson's mailbox; and that
the developer agrees, at his expense, to pave Trail Drive and install curbs
only on the north side of Trail Drive as it is realigned; that Item No. 9 - is
to modify the easements; Item No. 10 - the developer agrees to formally vacate
that portion of the easement for road and utility purposes across the Siegel
and Wilson properties, which is not utilized for the construction of Hidden
Grove Lane and the realigned Trail Drive; Item No. 11 - the developer agrees
to use its best efforts to convince all other property owners holding ingress
and egress easements across the Siegel and Wilson properties, to formally
vacate that portion of their easement which is not utilized for the
construction of Hidden Grove Lane and ttie realigned Trail Drive. She asked
about Item 12, requiring the bond for tY.a road maintenance for any damage that
might be done to that road?
Chairman Messe read from the agreement that the developer agrees to execute a
road maintenance. agreement for the maintenance of Trail Drive and Quintana
Drive from their intersection with Arboretum, to and including the
intersection with Hidden Grove.
02/17/88
,~.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUAR° 17 1988 88-185
Joseph Fletcher stated that is a private road maintenance agreement and
whenever the City gets involved in maintenance and/or bonding for road
improvements, it requires that if the job isn't done, the City does the work
and the purpose of the bond is to give the City the money to have the work
done. He added he thought it would be a tremendous deviation of the City's
current practice to get involved in supervising private street maintenance
agreements.
Ms. Siegel continued that the developer agreed that the grading and
construction process in the Hidden Grove development, the import of soil, the
grading process and the rough grading for each individual pad shall be
scheduled during the same time span so as to minimize the time during which
heavy construction vehicles and dump trunks are required to utilize Trail
Drive.
Chairman DSesse stated the developer has already indicated that would all be
done at the same time.
Susie Siegel stated they are hoping that all of these items will not become a
problem. She stated Item 14 refers again to the bond for road damage and Item
15 says that the developer agrees that all commitments made in this agreement
shall be passed on to future owners of the property.
Gerald Bushore, 548 S. West Street, Anaheim, stated he just got the staff
report and that he thought staff was going to analyze those 20 items and see
which ones could be incorporated in the approval which the developer had
stipulated to; that some were a direct result of the development that was
going to take place and the improvements would be incorporated including the
road at the bottom, which is off-site, and there would be a bond posted for
the improvement in case it was not done, and explained that is what happened
previously. He stated there was a stipulation that there would be no
construction traffic up Henning Way and that there would be a sign posted and
he thought that is something the City gets involved with because it is a
direct result of the improvements that are going to be made and has an impact
upon the surrounding area. He added the conditions and environmental impact
reports are to mitigate the problems that arise.
He stated it was brought out by Ms. Siegel that the map does not conform to
what they agreed to and there is a three foot difference, and also the 20 feet
and then up to 22 feet road is not shown on the exhibit. He added he knows
from past experience that everything is tied to plans and thought all the
grading was to be done at the same time, otherwise, they could do a final map
and bond for it, but if those things are not included here, they would not
have to bond for them. He stated there is a little bit of difference between
the two maps and, also, the pad elevations and the grading plans will have to
go through the Engineering Department and there could be changes, and it
appears questionable that Lots 1 and 2 will work and Lot 12 does not show any
pad elevations or improvements and that is the roughest area there and is
straight down the hill in some areas with as much as a 40 - 50 foot drop, and
he did not know how it could be improved without a tremendous amount of fill
and a retaining wall.
02!17/88
INUTES, AN~iE~M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 1
Mr. Bushore stated originally Henning Way was going to be the secondary way
oat in case of fire and Hidden Grove was going to be the second way out for
the people on Henning and there was going to be a crash gate, but the Fire
Department decided they didn't want the crash gate and it is not included and
that he had asked for the crash gate, and that still has not been addressed.
He stated also the question about utility stubs which were apart of one of
those original maps has not beer. included and there is an easement shown on
the map which the City asked for and no one has explained what it was for and
his original understanding was that the easement was to make sewers available
to the people up the hill because the city is really not interested in more
septic tanks in that area and probably in the future will not be giving any
permits. He stated the developer has tried to work with everyone up there,
but it is really important that the Commission include everything today
because it has to be interpreted by someone else in the future.
Mr. Tamulinas submitted as as exhibit, the agreement with the Siegels and the
Wilsons for the road and stated they do have a map which shows the road and
how the improvement is to be done.
Chairman Messe asked if it is different- than what the Commission has seen.
Mr. Tamulinas responded he did not know shat the Commission has, but their map
is just a blown up version and shows the road is approximately where they
believe the improvement would be and that they do know exactly where the
improvement will be now. He explained the road on that map has been changed
to accommodate the surrounding neighborhood and this request today is not for
the road down below. He added they realize that requires permits and they are
going to have to came back; however, the exhibit is what the homeowners have
asked for. He stated the roads are on different tracts and they are not
asking for approval of that today but he is agreeing to this exhibit.
Joseph Fletcher stated the map should either be a condition as part of the map
and should read that prior to final m&p approval, the construction has to
conform to that plan; or if it is just a matter of being part of the record
and is not a condition of approval, the final map couldn't be withheld pending
compliance with that condition. He stated it could be included as a past of
the record as information that was considered by the commission but the only
way to endorse it is to make it a condition of approval.
Mr. Tamulinas presented the map to the Commission and explained it shows where
Hidden Grove comes down and connects with the old Trail Drive and the 27ew
Trail Drive and it shows xhere the Siegel's driveway and the Wilson's
driveways are in relationship to the road. He pointed out the shaded area is
the new pavement that is going to be added and t2iat they plan to maintain the
northern boundary of the new road at the existing asphalt curb so not to get
nay closer to their properties.
Chairman Messe asked if the Engineering Department would like to review the
map and Ccmmissioner Bouas agreed the Engineering Department should review it.
Concerning the stop sign, Mr. Tamulinas stated they have no problem with that
requirement; end that they have indicated all along that there is no problem
with the glance barrier; that they are going to modify the easements; that
02/17/88
a~-
!INUTE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-187
there is a legal question and they don't have a contract signed yet, but their
attorneys are working with each other. He stated they have come to an
agreement in principle and it is just a matter of what actually has to happen
to vacate the existing easement. He stated they are willing to work with the
neighbors and, basically, their position is that they want him to give up the
entire easement on their property, forever, and that he is willing right now
to give up the same amount of land they are taking to improve this road. He
stated he knows there is going to be a change in the easement; and that they
are in agreement with the bond, but they just don't want to post the bond
until they are ready to start construction and he thought their contract
suggested that they post the bond today. He stated they are willing to post a
bond prior to construction for any damage to the road, and they would like
that to be a similar bond to something the City would approve on the remainder
of the project. He stated the road maintenance agreement is part of the CC6R5
and is beyond the scope of the approval thr'y are asking for today, but they do
intend to participate in the road maintenance agreement.
Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated generally, CC6R5 are received by the
Subdivision Section, and are submitted to the City Attorney's Office for
review and approval and they have to and have the Attorney's approval prior to
approval of the final tract.
Mr. Tamulinas stated that is a condition recommended by staff to which they
agree. He stated the rough grading is no problem and the plan was submitted
today and they do expect a condition of approval to be included that they do
the rough grading for the pads in the same process as the road, so all the
rough grading will be done at once and the neighbors want a minimum amount of
dust and construction traffic and they want to do it because it is
economical.
Mr. Tamulinas stated they agree them will be no construction traffic on
Henning Way and they will be happy to post a sign for no construction vehicles
accessing that area. He added :,ots 1, 2 and 12 will be developed in their
natural state and he did not agree that there is a substantial amount of earth
movement necessary, and they would rather have a home conform to the pad than
making a pad that is either going to make someone in the neighborhood angry
because its too high or because of the economic constraints of bringing in
50,000 yards of dirt. He added the driveways are shown on those lots.
Concerning the sewer stub, he explained Jack Norris, their engineer, indicate
there never was any requirement for the sever to be brought down the utility
easement and they see no practice? reason to bring it down th@ lb7 feet, other
than to accommodate someone who would hook into it. Ne stated the easement is
there so someone in the future can hook into their sewer but they have no
reason to put a sewer up hill for 167 feet to the property boundary, but agree
the surrounding neighbors can take advantage of the system that will be
installed by using that utility easement when they desire to hook up.
Mr. Tamulinas stated years ago the requirement for a crash gate was removed
and they don't know why, but it was for use of emergency vehicles. He added
they have no objection to installing a crash gate and believed it should be
done prior to construction and that they do stipulate to install a crash gate.
02/17/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FFRRiiLRV t7. 1988 88-1
Mr. Tamulinas asked if the public hearing could be closed because they have
had some conversations go on beyond this request and they would like to have
everyone speak their piece before closing the public hearing, so any other
concerns can be addressed now.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bouas asked Mr. Tamulinas to check with the Fire Department
regarding the crash gate.
Commissioner Herbst stated he thought all the questions have been answered and
the people living up there are satisfied. He stated he has no objections to
the development of houses or the grade.
Paul Singer stated his concern is the map which was just presented because
obviously staff did not have adequate time to look at it; however, one thing
does stand out and that is the radius at the intersection of Trial Drive and
Hidden Grove which is only 15 feet and that is a very small radius and he
would like it to be 25 feet.
Commissioner McBurney agreed it is small but thought it was done that way to
stay within that easement area.
Paul finger stated this map does not show the entire Trail Drive and he would
have to see it. Regarding staff comments on this particular map, Mr. Singer
stated he would rather withhold nay cortanents until staff has had a chance to
look at an amended map. He stated he would work with the developer.
Mr. Norris stated the map shows a 15-foot radius oa the west side and a 3-foot
radius on the east and that he spoke with Mark Komoto is the Subdivision
Section and he said the neighbors would like this opening to be as small as
possible and they settled on 15 feet but it would have to be on both sides.
He explained they showed a 3-foot radius on the east side between Trail Drive
and the Siegel's driveway because there is going to be almost no demand for a
right turn coming out of Trail Drive or a left turn off Trail Drive into
Hidden Grove Lane.
Chairman Messe stated the 3 feet is no problem because no one is yoinq to be
turning right, but the 15-foot radius is a concern.
Mr. Norris responded they have had two xeeks to work on this and didn't have
all the ansxers on this until yesterday and Y.urriedly got this information
added to the map and have since clarified some things and added some other
information. He stated he did not see any problem with increasing the radius
on the vest side to more than 15 feet and 25 feet might even be feasible and
responded to Chairman Masse they would stipulate that the radius would be
subject to the Traffic Engineer's approval.
Greg Hastings stated staff has just checked with the Fire Department about the
crash gate and they are not requiring the crash gate because originally the
crash gate was going to be access to the Henning residence but now that access
will be internally in the tract and the Fire Department doesn't need the crash
gate.
02/17/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 $Q-189
Gerald Bushore stated without the crash gate, the question is how to keep the
traffic from intermingling; and that they have an open easement and the
primary purpose was for fire protection. He added without the crash gate the
problem is how to keep traffic off Henning. He explained the easement is an
open space easement and the original intent was for utilities and the crash
gate was going to accomplish a secondary access for everyone and a stub for
the utilities. He stated he understands paying his fair share and there are
going to be utilities across there, and asked if it would it end up being a
paved road? He added right now all the utilities up there are under the
pavement.
Mr. Tamulinas suggested a condition for future purposes, requiring that if
they do sell that lot, that the gate be installed at the time that lot is
improved.
Chairman Messe stated Commission can add that to the conditions.
Mr. Bushore stated something needs to be done with that access from the very
beginning and that he was not interested in having something done when the lot
is improved because that is just going to encourage traffic which is the
secondary concern.
Chairman Messe stated the developer agreed there will be no construction
traffic up Heaaing Way, and they have agreed to the crash gate and the
Commission will add it as a conditio=i.
ACTIO~i: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo and Feldhaus absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent xith the
City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and
based on the petitioner's stipulations at the public hearing to comply with
various conditions agreed to is an AgreemenC identified as Exhibit A betweten
the petitioner and adjacent property owners, and additional conditions agreed
to at the public hearing and does, therefore, approve re-establishment of
Tentative Map of Tract 2IO. 11G00 for a 12-lot, RS-HS-22,OOOSC) Zone
subdivision subject to the following conditions, including modifications and
addition,,
1. That all private streets shall be deer ltd in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Standards for private streets in _he Mohler Drive area. Plans for
the private street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be
submitted to the Building Divisio:i for approval and included with the building
plans prior to the issuance of building permits. (Privtste streets are those
which provide primary access and/or circulation within the project).
2. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
3. That prior to issuance of :, building permit, the appropriate major
thoroughfare and bridge fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in au amount
as specified in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor, as approved by City Council
Resolution No. 85R-423.
02/17/88
ES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-1
4. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation
in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined
by the City Council.
5. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit appropriate easement
agreements for access and utilities purposes between subject property and
Quintana Drive. Said agreements for access shall be submitted to and approved
by both the City Attorney's Office and City Engineer and then shall be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
7. That all public utilities shall be installed is a public or private
roadway adequate to provide vehicular access for maintenance as approved by
the City Engineer.
8. That the owner(s) of suY~ject property shall irrevocably offer to dedicate
a ten (10) foot wide hiking and riding trail across the southerly portio,i of
the tract as reviewed and approved by the Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department. In addition, the owner of subject property shall
execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association of subject
tract to maintain and repair the hiking and equestrian trail. The form of
said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and shall be
recorded concurrently with the final tract map. The owner/developer of the
subject tract shall improve and maintain the hiking and equestrian trail as
required by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department, until
such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore as
hereinabove provided. In addition the owner/developer shall post a bond is an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance
of the owner/developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the
required bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office
prior to approval of the final tract map.
9. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by
the 7oaing Division.
10. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be
installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
11. That no public or private street grades shall exceed 12~ except by prior
approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the Engineering Division.
12. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City 2agineer. If, is the preparation of the site,
sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no grading
shall be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required
off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive
assurance shah. be provided to the City that such drainage facilities will be
completed prior to Octoher 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage
facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have
initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costa of which shall be borer.
02/17/88
M2NfITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 88-191
by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The
required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties through subject property to
ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be
functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the
property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final
building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement
agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their
request.
13. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be
conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm
water originating from or flowing through this project.
14. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the
covenants, condition, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office,
Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said covenants shall
include provision for the shared maintenance of Trail Drive and Quintana Road
(off-site private streets also used by other aroma property owners) from
Arboretum P.oad to and including the intersectio:3 with Hidden Grove Lane. Said
documents, as approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Recorder.
15. That should this subdivision be developed as more than ore subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
16. That prior to rendering of water service, the appropriate fees due for
primary, secondary and fire protection shall be paid to the Water Utility
Division by the owner/developer in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the
Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations.
17. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an agreement
in a form to ba approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete the public
improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's expense. Said
agreement shall be recorded concurrently xith the final tract and is not to be
subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the property.
18. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
19. That all requirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fire
Adminisl:rative Order No. 76-01, shall be met. Such requirements include, but
are not limited to: chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and under floor
openings, Class C or better roofing material and one hour fire resistive
construction of horizontal surfaces if located within 200 feet of adjacent
brushland. All residences sha12 be sprinklered as required by the Fire
Department.
02/17/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISNION, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 88-192
20. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be
hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be
sprinkler and weeded as required to establish a minimw-n of 100 feet of
separation between flammable vegetation and any structure.
21. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the tree preservation
regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the "SC" Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zone.
22. That, as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.84.041.012, no
roof-mounted equipment, whatsoever, shall be permitted.
23. That in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the
City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with
written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing
zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject tract.
24. That the private street shall be posted with signago prohibiting parking
oa both sides of the street.
25. That a stop sign shall be installed on Hidden Grove Lane at the
intersection with Trail Drive.
26. That a "vehicle glance barrier" shall be installed on the property
(Assessor's Parcel No. 356-261-57) opposite the entrance to Hidden Grove Lane.
27. That Hidden Grove Lane shall be twenty nine (29) feet wide at its
intersection with Trail Arive, not including tho corner radii..
28. That the developer shall record a restrictive covenant to prohibit any
future private street, driveway or other vehicular access or usage of the
public utility easement between Fox Glen Drive and the west property line at
Henning Way (an existing private street), and that a "crash gate" or fence
shall be installed to prohibit such vohicular usage, as stipulated to by the
developer of subject tract. (Walter C. Tamulinas, Partner) at the February 17,
1988, Planning Commission public hearing.
29. That the westerly corner radius of the intersection of Hidden Grove Lane
and Trail Drive shall be the smallest radius acceptab.a to th~r City Engineer,
and as shown on a map marked Exhibit "B", and on file with the City of
Anaheim.
30. That the alignment of the intersection of Hidden Grove Lane and Trail
Drive shall. be constructed as shown on a map marked Exhibit "B", on file with
t:ie City of Anaheim.
31. That prior to final tract map approval, the developer shall furnish a
grading plan to the Engineering Department for review and approval showing the
final building pads of all the residential lots and the final grading of
Hidden Grove Lane and Fox Glen Drive.
02/17/88
JTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FERRr.,ARY 17~ 1988 88-1
32. That all construction and grading activities shall be scheduled so as to
minimize the times during which heavy trucks and equipment use Trail Drive.
33. That the developer shall widen and pave Quintana Road and Trail Drive to a
width of twenty (20) feet from Arboretum Road to the east side of the existing
driveway on Assessor's Parcel No. 356-261-57.
34. That the developer shall widen Trail Drive to a widtl ~f twenty-four (24)
feet from the easterly boundary of the intersection of Hidden Grove Lane and
Trail Drive to the east side of the existing driveway Assessor's Parcel No.
356-261-57.
35. That prior t~ final tract map approval, Cundition Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 17,
28, 31 and 37, herein, sha21 be complied with.
36. That prior to final map approval, the requi=ements set forth in Condition
Nos. 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 16, above-mentioned, shall be set forth on the
lace of the final map in a form satisfactory to the City Engineer.
.. ?h~•i condition Nos. 25, 2G, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34, herein- are
::,~~~.,~^.. .f covenants contained in a private agreement betweer• _•r~perty owners
•. referred to as Exhibit "A" on filo xith the City c! aaeim, and,
~.,. ;Ya,_•r :onditious shall be enforceable, to the extent legaiia germissible,
only by said agreement and nothing contained herein or in said agreement shall
place any enforcement obligations on the City of Anaheim xith regard to s~•id
conditions and covenants.
38. That no construction vehicles shall be permitted on Henning Way, and a
sign shall be posted to that effect.
39. That approval of phis application constitui:es approval of the ,proposed
request only to the extent. that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning
Code and nay other applicable City regulations. Approval 3oes not include any
action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any
other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
ACTION ON SPECIMEN TREE REMQV.AL PE MIT N0. 87-07
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo and Feldhaus absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to remove eleven
(11) specimen trees ou an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 8.3 acres having a frontage of approximately 590 feet on the
east side of Henning way, having a maximum depth of approximately 690 feet and
being located agproximately 1,100 feet south of the centerline of Arboretum
Road; 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.
02/17/88
j~IWTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINCz COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-194
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion: seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo and Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby grant Specimen Tree Removal Permit
No. 87-07 to permit the removal of eleven (11) specimen trees in Tentative Map
of Tract No. 11600 (Revision No. 2) on the basis that a reasonable and
practical development of the property on which the trees are located requires
removal of the tree or trees whose removal is sought; and further that any
specimen tree removed shall. be replaced with the planting on the same parcel
of an equal number of trees from the specified list indicated in Section
18.84.038.060 of the Zoning Code.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the xritten right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision regarding the tentative tract within
10 days to the City Council, and within 22 days regarding the specimen tree
removal permit.
ITEM NO 2 CEVA NEGATIVE DFCLARATIQN (REAUVERTISED); WAIVER OF CODE
REQUIREMENT (READVER:'ISED); and CONDIT~~J?j~ U~P~R~SIT id0. 2977
PUBLIC HEARING. OW2dERS: WORLD OIL COMPA27Y, 9302 S. Garfield. South Gate, CA
90280. AGENT: THOMAS J. SHEPOS, 9302 S. Garfield, South Gate, CA 90280.
Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
0.68 acre, located at the northwest corner of Romneya Drive and Harbor
Boulevard, having approximate frontages of 110 feet on the north side of
Romneya Drive and 215 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and further
describen as 1201 N. Harbor Boulevard.
To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine
in conjunction with a 4.000-square foot commercial space and waiver of minimum
number. of parking spaces.
Continued from the meetings of January 18 and February 1, 1988.
There was no one indicating their presence in cpposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not road, it is referred to and made apart
of the minutes.
Commissioner McBurney declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim
amity Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of
Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et
seq., on the basis that this business could have a financial impact oa his
employer, and pursuant to the Provisions of the above Codes, declared to the
Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing is connection with
Canditional Use Permit No. 2977, and would not take part in either the
discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any
member of the Planning Co:mr,;ssion. Thereupon Commissioner McBurney left the
Council Chamber.
Greg Roberts, architect for the applicant, stated the staff report ind'~•3t~s
they need 34 parking spaces; however, their traffic engineers have indicated
only 33, so they are asking for a variance for 2 parking spaces rather than
3. He referred to page 7 of the Staff Report, Condition No. 2, requiring that
they make a cash payment to the City for the cost oY removal of existing
02/17/88
jgjNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIt7G COMMISSION t'EDRUARY 17 1988 68-~
street improvements along Harbor Boulevard and reconstruction of the street
and that they would like to know the amount of that cash payment before they
would agree to it.
Mr. Roberts continued that the owners of the property are proposing to
completely tear down the existing facility which is an old ARCO gas station
and pointed out that there have been some traffic problems and r_hey have
worked with the traffic engineer to come up with what they feel is a good
solution.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Greg Hastings explained the actual nur.~ber of parking spaces is 33-1/2 and that
the planner who did the staff report rounded the figure up rather than down.
Mr. Roberts explained they reduced the square footage of the building which
reduced the parking requirements ai~c; that is what is reflected .in the report
prepared by the traffic engineer.
Commissioner Bouas asked about the operation of this facility and what they
intend to sell.
Tom Shepos, Vice President of Real Estate and Development, World Oil Company,
9302 S. Garfield, South Gate, stated the intended use is a gasoline service
station with a convenience store, with an additional 3,400 square feet of
retail space where they would plan to have another use such as a video store,
dry cleaners, yogurt shop or something like that.
Responding to Commissioner Bouas as to what they would be selling in their
convenience store and if they would have sandwiches in addition to the milk,
beer and wine, etc., Mr. Shepos stated any type of fast food item which they
would be allowed is what they plan to sell.
Commissioner Houas pointed out they are asking for a parking waiver but that
they are really selling more than just convenience foods and have indicated
they plan to sell fast food.
Chairman Messe pointed out they have asked for convenience store parking
requirements and not fast food restaurant parking requirements and that they
plan to have gasoline, fast food sales, and a convenience store.
2dr. Shepos stated they will be Bolling those items which are presently being
sold, such as dairy products, soda, milk, cigarettes, dry goods, hot dogs,
nachos, hamburgers„ etc., and that it would be anything that could be picked
up and taken out. He stated the items are prepared in a convection oven on
the premises. He stated the items are precooked, then frozen and that the
customer heats them up. In response to Commissioner Bouas as to how long it
takes to do something like that, he explained they are frozen in a tray of 12,
already packaged in aluminw~ foil, anti then preheated in a convection oven and
it takes about 7 minutes and :s then put on a warmer and is carried out from
there. He stated they do ncit actually cook the hamburger there such as a fast
food restaurant oa a grill. He responded to Commissioner Boydstun that he
would not compara this operation to McDOnald's or Burger Kinq and explained
02/1'//88
TNC CO I$SIOh rrnalleRY 17. 19Q8 88=~~
MINUTES, Ah hEIM CITY PL1tNtI ~-
they are working with a concept designed by ARCO in cheir AM/PM fast food
section. He stated this is a convenience store, but they have not m"ide a
determination vet whether it would be an AM/PM Market.
Chairman Messe stated there is paxkinq proposed in the rear of the retail
square footage and he di3 not think that would be convenient far the people
who would want to park there. He pointed out thearkin asracessinltheooearet
aside for deliveries and he did not think those p g P
would be used.
Mr. Shepos stated initially their intent was that the building would be
against the alley with the parking totally out front and at the last minute a
question came up regarding an easement and they had to dedicate 15 feet and
that changed the design of their building and some of the parking then had to
go to the rear of the building to accommodate that 15-foot easement in the
front.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated tech::ically those are legal parking
spaces; however, he did not know how accessible or usetul they would be. He
said, obviously, they are not as useful as the ones in front where the public
would have easy access but that the employees could park in the rear. He
stated his main concern with this entire proposal is to the fast food items
that will be sold. He staked a brief st~idy was conducted at another facility
in Anaheim and it was found that a conaCeSefor ihosetpatronslwhonwaithforfthes
should have an additional 5 parking sp
food to heat and those who take it to their car and consume it oa the
premises. £e stated normally trash containers were supplied. However,
patrons do sit in .heir vehic~ouldnnotastaymhotfandeheothought thoreswouldtbey
take it off the premises, it
a severe shortage of parking if ho r. foods are served on the premises.
Chairman Messe pointed out about 1/3 of the parking spaces are located in a
very inconvenient area in the rear and even though they are legal, they are
located where no one would use them.
Mr. Singer responded that he had had a conversation with the architect and had
indicated to him how he could provide more parking oa the site. However, that
does not mean that the parking spaces are convenient; and itrovidemallsparking
they satisfy Cody. He pointed out if they are required to p
up front, there would be an additional loss of parking spaces.
Comaissioner Souas asked the applicant if they would be interested in having
this approved without the right to sell fast foods.
Mr. Roberts responded that the traffic study prepared by Justin Farmer did use
an AM/PM that was serving the same type of food that they are proposing to
serve here and that traffic survey does indicate that most of the people using
this AM/PM facility are also using the gasoline islands; that there would be
some people parking Y.here, however, the parking study a of foodsoto be served
facility with the same square footage and the same typ
as this proposal indicated that at peak times there would only be 3.6 people
utilizing the parking other than those people using the gaso2/17/881ands. He
'~S. ANAHEIM CITY PI,~NNING COAi~SISSION FEPRUARY 17, 1988 88-197
stated they have added 5 additional spaces to the square footage for typical
retail use and the traffic study sloes prove that they do not need more
spaces. He asked if the concern is the fast food parking requirements.
Responding to Chairman Messe, Paul Singer explained the Anaheim Code requires
5-1/2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail. space but that staff is
presently revising the Code to require that any take-out food establishment be
required to add an additional 5 parking spaces.
Chairman Messe asked if they would be required to have 38 parking spaces if
this application came in after the ordinance was changed.
Mr. Roberts asked why the square footage parking is different for convenience
markets than for other regular retail establishments.
Mr. Singer stated they are the same at 5-1/'L parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet. However, if the establishment serves hot food to be consumed on the
premises, the Code amendment would require an additional 5 parY.ing spaces
because much of the food is, in fact, consumed ou the promises as experienced
in the study the City has conducted.
Chairman Messe pointed uut the staff has calculated the requirements Eor this
request, however, at 5-1/2 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Commissioner Herbst stated one of the problems with this type use is that all
of these AM/PM type markets are getting more an3 more into the fast food
business. He asked the difference in parking requirements for fast food
establishments and convenience stores. M:. Singer responded all fast food
restaurants are required to provide 18 pa:•king spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Commissioner F'~ rbst continued that the convenience markets are only providing
5-:./2 spaces per 1,000 square feet and the true fast food businesses are
Having to provide 18 spaces per 1,000 square feet and he thought that is quite
a discrepancy. He pointed out these convenience markets are having patrons
eating right in the building and are actually showing that in their
advertisements on television: and they are serving food inside the facility,
cooking it there and that it takes about 7 minutes to get the hot food. He
stated a fast food restaurant patron is going through faster at about 3
minutes and they are required to have more parking than a convenience store.
He stated he did not see any reason for granting the wa~.vers requested here
because they have plenty of room to provide more parking on the site and are
just putting in too much retail space when they should be required to put- in
more parking spaces. He said he has never voted for convenience markets w1~h
gasoline sale: and the sale of beer anti wine and thought it is a hazard to the
driving public and also that ho did not see a hardship for granting this
request.
ACTIQN: Commissioner Herbst offered a mokion, seconded by Commissioner
Hoydstun and MOTION ''RIED (Commissioners Carusillo and Feldhaus absent) that
the Anaheim City P1 ng Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a
convenience mts~i:et w: gasoline sales and off-sale boor and wine in
conjunction ~:~= a 3,57J square foot commercial center with waiver cf minimum
number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
02/17/88
M7NiJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17. 1988 88-198
of approximately 0.68 acre, located at the northwest corner of Romneya Drive
and Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 1201 N. Harbor 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.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CAP.R:ED (Commissioners Carusillo and Feldha;:s absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby DENY the request for waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces on the basis that the parlcinq waiver will cause an
increase in parking congestion in the immediate vicinity and adversely affect
the adjoining ]and uses and would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner offered Resolution No. PC88-52 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Plannin3 Commission does hereby DENY
Conditional Use Permit No. 2977 oa the basis that the sale of beer and wire in
conjunction with gasoline sales could create a hazard to the driving public
and be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and welfare a: Lhe citizens of
Anaheim.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: SOUAS, BOYDSTUN, HERBST, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MC BURNEY, CARUSILLO, FELDhAUS
Joe Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Commissioner McBurney returned to the meeting.
ITEM N0. 3 CAA NEGATIVE DECLARATION and VARIANCE N0. 3744
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SAVI RANCH ASSOCIATES, 450 Newport Center Dr., No.
304, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 0.54 acre, having a frontage of approximately
114 feet on the north side of Cypress Street, having a maximum depth of
approximately 171 feet sad being located approximately 120 feet east of the
centerline of Evelyn Drive and further describc,i as 1611 and 1817 Cypress
Street.
THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
Waiver of required lot frontage to establish a 5-lot commercial./industrial
subdivision.
Continued from the meetings of January 18 and February 1, 1988.
It was noted the petitioner has requested subject petition be continued to the
February 29, 1988, meeting.
02/17/88
MINUTES AN~H$rM C'rTY PLANNING COMMIS5IONLFEBRUARY 17, 1988 88-1
TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Cazusillo and Feldhaus absent) that
consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-
scheduled meeting of February 29, 1986, at the request of the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 4 _CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION and VARIANCE N0. 3751
PUBLIC HEARING. OWIIERS: VICTOR M. VA2QUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92801. AGENT: HUGO A. VASQUEZ, 2290 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92801. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 9,608 square feet located south and east of the intersection of
the Santa Ana Freeway and Center Street, having a frontage approximately 98
feet on the south side of Center Street, having a maximum depth of
approximately 150 feet and further described as 1310 Center Street.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 3-story apartment
building.
Continued from the meeting of January 18 and February 1, 1988.
It was noted the petitioner has requested subject petition be continued to the
February 29, 1988 meeting.
THE FOLLOWING ACTION AS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo and Feldhaus absent) that
consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly
scheduled meeting of February 29, 1988, in order for the petitioner to submit
revised plans.
ITEM N0. 5 CEOg_NEGATIVE DEC AR Ott, RECLASSIF~ATION NO 87-88-34 ate
VARIANCE N0. 374.E
PUBLiC HEARING. OWtIER5: VIVIAN IDA PAUI.SON G MILDRED M. MOORS, 2517 Hiway
35, Valley Park Manasquan, New Jersey 08736. AGENTS: JEROME R. DRURIN, 1425
E. Lincoln Avenue, Suite Q., Anaheim, CA 92805. Property is a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land ronsistinq of approximately 0.3 acre,
having a frontage of approximately 98 feet on the west side of Harding Avenue,
having a maximum depth of approximately 133 feet and being located
approximately 160 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and further
described as 111 and 115 S. Harding Avenue.
Reclassification from RS-7200 to RM-1200 or a less intense ,.pn•~ with waiver of
maximum structural h~:ight to construct a 2-story, 10-unit apLrt.:~?nt complex.
Continued from the meeting of January 18 and February 1, 1988.
It was noted tho petitioner has requested subject petition be continued to the
February 29, 1988 meeting.
THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKE27 AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
02/17/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 1988 88-200
~TION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTIOlt CARRIED (Comaissioners Carusillo and Feldhaus absent) that
consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly
scheduled meeting of February 29, 1988, at the request of the petitioner, in
order to submit revised plans and for the petition to be readvertised.
ITEM N0. 6 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATI017, RECLAS~IFIC_ATION N0. 87-88-36 and
VARIANCE N0. 3743
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DENI7IS M. STANDROD, et al, GRACE M. BUSH S VIRGINIA
BUSH, 1537 W. Tedmar, Anaheim, Ci: 92807. AGENTS: JEROME DRUKIN, 142 E.
Lincoln Avenue, Suite Q, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property is a rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.54 acre, having a frontage
of approximately 114 feet on the north side of Cypress Street, having a
maximum 3epth of approximately 171 feet and being located approximately 120
feet east of the centerline of Evelyn Drive and further described as 1811 and
1817 Cypress Street.
Reclassifications of subject property from the RS-7200 (Residential,
Single-Family) zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less
intense zone with waivers of required lot frontage, maximum fence height,
minimum building site area per dwelling unit, minimum building width and
maximum site coverage to construct a 10-unit, 1-story, apartment complex.
Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of
Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et
sr_q., in that she is a business associate of the agont and pursuant to the
provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was
withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Reclassification PIO. 87-88-36
and Variance No. 3743, and would not take part is either the discussion or the
voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the
Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Boydstun left the Council Chamber.
There were four people 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.
JERRY DRUKIN, Agent, explained they have revised this project and the main
concept is to provide a low profile development and to establish the complete
closure of Cypress Street as it approaches Evelyn Drive and tha'.. they have
achieved that in what they feel is a suitable manner which will meet as many
of the needs as possible of the homeowners on Evelyn Drive, as well as dovelop
that particular end of the street. He stated the matter was continued from
the last meeting in order to advertise the request for an 8-toot high block
wall which does require a waiver on the westerly and northerly sides and that
they have stipulated to construct that wall.
liUGO VASQUEZ, 619 Live Oak Drive, Anaheim, stated he is speaking in favor of
the project; that he is developing a neighboring property with 27 units on
Cypress Street and also parcels on Coffman Street. He stated the developer
has proposod a vory innovative idea here as it pertains to the street
abandonment which was apart of the approval for his project on Cypress and
02/17/88
t++r_ rnuurgci()N. FF~_B_RUARX~7 188 88-201
N{INUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_~_~ -
Coffman; and that this developer has been able to work with all the department
heads, and get approval as to where the streets would be abandoned and he is
requesting to be relieved of the responsibility of that street closure. He
stated Evelyn Drive which was a condition for their 27 units currently under
construction. He said since they had to wait for 3 months for this hearing
and did not proceed with their work, they would request that this applicant
bear the costs of that closure since he is taking advantage of the real estate
value of the property that the City would a5andon to those property owners.
He explained yesterday at the City Council meeting, the Engineering Department
proposed a temporary street closure and the City Council postponed that
decision for one week since it had not been before the Planning Commission and
asked to gain the Planning Commission's approval prior to their vote and that
a temporary closure permit would allow him to get occupancy permits by
March 11, 1988. He explained Council had asked if he would be willing to wait
for one week and he indicated he would wait. He responded to Commissioner
Bouas that the temporary closure would go in immediately before occupancy and
that it would be a chain where it connects to Evelyn Drive. Concerning the
closure of Center Street, he explained the Center Street closure is tied to
the occupancy of the Coffman property and not to Cypress Street.
Evelyn Clark, 221 Evelyn Drive, stated this is the first time she has heard
anything about Center Street not being closed in conjunction with Cypress
Street and that they had always understood for the past year and one-half that
it would be done at the same time.
Mr. Singer stated he had understood it would be done at the same i:ime also and
that he did not recall the closing of Center being tied to occupancy.
Ms. Clark referred to the petition which had been submitted and Chairman Messe
pointed out he did receive the original of the petition and w>uld offer it
into evidence and noted each Commissioner has a ^opy•
RUTH MOTLEY, 203 Evelyn Drive, stated she is concerned about the closeness of
the garages to tho property line. She stated she understands that this is
being built to Code and that they could have it right st the property line and
that might work great in a commercial or business area, but in a residential
area, it is very unsightly and she felt that should be considered.
RICHARD MEttDENHALL, 1836 East Almond Drive, stated he is concerned because
right now these are all single-family homes and their backyards provide a 20-
foot buffer and that this project is only going to be an average of 5 feet
from the back wall and he did not want to look out his back window and see a
building that is only 5 feet away from the wall.
RICHARD RIVIERA, 1824 East Almond, stated he just got a notice of this hearing
and that he understands that from looking out his window and from his backyard
he would be looking at a building within 5 feet and asked if that is to Code
and how close they can come to the block wall.
Chairman Messe responded that the Commission's policy has been 20 feet. Greg
Hastings explained tho requirement is for a 20-foot landscaped buffer area.
02/17/88
MIN(JTES,_A~EIM CITSt PLA.*INING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-202
Chairman Messe pointed out the petitioner is making this request but that it
has not been granted yet and clarified that Mr. Riviera is in opposition to
the request.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, pointed out Code requires a 5-foot area between
the block wall in this zone and the building at its closest point, and it is
not averaged and appears to be 5 to 8 feet away. He said the Planning
Commission's policy, however, has been a 20-foot buffer.
Mr. Drukin stated they intend to construct a block wall and make the street
improvements for the total closure of Cypress Street at Evelyn Drive. He
stated the street closure does benefit quite a few people and provides a
better solution than the one currently proposed and that pedestrian and
vehicular traffic on Evelyn Drive will be controlled and he felt it is
important for the Planning Commission to look at this from that aspect. He
said they have discussed all the ramifir_ations with the various City
Departments and feel this solution is superior to the one that had been
proposed earlier and would be much more beneficial to the people on Evelyn
Drive.
He stated there are only 2 portions of the building which go within 5 feet of
the property line and that is because the lot tapers and that there are no
doors or windows on that side and it is a single story building, and would
appear to be lower than any of the homes on almond Drive or Evelyn. since all
those homes are on raised foundations. He said their actual structural
heights would be less than the homes on Almond or Evelyn Drive and that there
would be no visual impact from this project. He stated the Planning
Commission's policy concerning the 2U-foot landscaped buffer has been in
conjunction many times with the second story within 50 feet.
Chairman Messe stated the petitioner xas going to find out about the ownership
of the right of way with the closure of Evelyn Stree~ and who actually would
own that property.
Mr. Drukin responded through further research, they determined when the tract
was subdivided, the lot lines are to the centerline of the street and the
people who owned those original tract lots granted a vehicular easement to the
City for a public thoroughfare. He pointed out those tract maps were recorde3
some time ago and the property lines and legal descriptions are to the center
line of the street.
Chairman Messe pointed out that that is an assumption on Mr. Drukin's part
unless he has determined that is absolutely true and that there are some cases
where it does not go to the centerline. Mr. Arukin stated he believed it
would be hard for anyo::e to make a claim on the property. He stated they are
going to create a situation by the closure of the street which will benefit
many people, especially on Evelyn Drive, and it would be hard for anyone to
make a claim on that land in front of their properties. He said they will
obtain a title insurance policy with the parcel map that outlines the
boundaries and that if there is someone who has a claim on the street, they
would be here now. He stated there are no public records recorded at the
County Recorder's Office, otherwise, the property owners would have been
notified of this hearing. He stated that property does belong to his clients
02/17/88
EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-2Q~
and they have valid title reports and policies of title insurance on both
parcels and that one of the conditions of this approval is that they obtain
finalization of an abandonment from the City; and to obtain construction
financing on that property, they will have to have a title insurance policy on
the entire parcel. H: responded to Chairman Messe that he had not had his
title officer find out if 1/2 the street does belong to his clients.
Commissioner 1QcBurney stated he thought that it is very important and that
they are actually using the whole street for the driveway, except for the
easement and if the line went down the middle of Cypress, that half could
belong to the property owner across the street.
Mr. Drukin stated the division of the abandonment will be to the centerline of
the street and that all those property owners will receive their proportion of
the abandonment and that they are all in favor of it, and there has not been
any concern as to the ownership of the street. He stated most people believe
that when they own a piece of property, even though they allow access to the
public across that property, that they at least have some degree of
involvement in ownership gnu pride and maintenance of that particular portion
of the street.
Chairman Messe asked Mr. Drukin if he is using any portion of the other side
of the centerline of ~ypres.s for his proposal. Mr. Drukin stated his clients
have a mutual ag=cement nor reciprocal access for each other's properties for
driveway purposes. Chairman Messe a:,ked if he has as agreement to use the
entire part of the street that is being abandoned. Mr. Drukin responded no,
that he duos not actually have an agreement in place and that he thought the
reciprocal access agreement is 16 feet south of the centerline and 12 feet
north of the centecli•~e and that his clients have agreed to that, but that if
they do not have that agreement signed, they could not abide by the terms of
the plans and he thought they world be willing to make that stipulation
because they are in comalete agreement with what is being done. He stated Mr.
Avado has not indicated any cpposition to the proposal.
Commissioner Herbst stated one of the reasons for the continuance of this
matter previously was to have the developer look at lowering the density on
the property. Mr. Drukin stated they are offering one unit as "affordable"
which is within the guidelines of state requirements and they do not feel this
is a very high density and is what the General Plan calls for after a slight
deduction for the driveway and that the density is just a little less than the
RM-2400.
Chairman Meese stated he is confused because in 1981 the City Council
indicated in a reclassification that this street should only have 15 inits per
acre. Greg Hastings responded that is correct and that was in connection with
the General Plaa Amendment. However, the General Plan has been subsequently
altered to allow 18 units per acre and that is the reason the projects the
Commission has been seeing on Coffman cad Cypress Street have new
reclassifications rather than going back to the old re+:lassificatioas and
amending that condition.
02/17/88
Y" VitTFs ANAHEIM CITY PLANL:ING COMMISSION,_ FEBRUARX 1: 7, 1988 .,, 68-204
Commissioner Herbst stated this plan shows Y1 units per acre which is
considerably higher with Greg Hastings explaining the app.'.~c'as+: could put
approximately 8 units or. ~;;he property at 15 units per ac:.e. Cossrnissioner
Bouas asked about t]?S 20-foot landscape buffer which i.s Plann:c.g C:os+ct•ission
policy.
Mr. Drukin stated he maze :very effort }>ossible to maintain .s a. mush setback
and ~.;pen space as Ihr, could; seeping iu mind that it is a siny.e-story
development. He st;.ted he did. c'.; t feel this is going to impac~ s. `.e
neighborhood ar:d chat the single 'asr+ily code does allow accessor;~ buildings,
and in several i:astances with sis.,gle-family units, a 2-story building could be
built within 5 ftset of the property line and that most of tho homes on Evelyn
and Almond Drive are within 5 feet of each other.
Commissioner Bouas pointed out that per+.: ins to single-family homes where
there is only one family living in the unit, but this project proposes 10
families with a number of children and that puts a lot of people on a small
piece of property close to the property line and that thc~~a is a proposal for
an 8-foot high wal? with the building 5 feet from the wail and that the
children could climb the wall up to the roofs, etc.; whereas, if the project
was further away, it would be much better.
Mr. Drukin responded he felt this is probably the best project that has been
presented on the west side of Coffman and Cypress and it meets the needs of a
lot of the people and that he hay made an effort to do what. is best for the
clients and is doing a lot by providing the t;ntire closure process and is
maintaining a low profile for that area. He stated these bu:.li+ings are
compatible with thry single-family homes; and that there are only a couple of
places where tae pr~;'ect is close to the property line and where it could
impact the ne:gisbors.
Commissioner Herbst scatet he would disagree that this is a good project; that
to him it looks like a black-top jungle; that the parkin4 i:s looking right
into the neighbor's front doors and that the 7 apactments wi].1 look like
barracks. Ha state3 he felt +t 9s overbuilding thse g~nnnr.f to a point where
it is totally unacceptable an.. is too dense far this area and too close to the
property line.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out the Comsuissian has receivc3 a letter from the
school district which indice,tes that students from Kindergarten thrr_ugh 6t:h
Grade who live in this area are likely to be bused to another sci>ool becatssc
the schools are already at capacity. Ha pointed cut this project would
probably attract people with a lot of children; and that there is ao
landscaping proposed and the blacktop goes clear back to tl+e 5th unit. and the
project is surrounded xith an 8-foot high wall; and that driving in the first
thing a person sees is the laundry faci]ities and 2 rows of cars. He stateL
too much of the parking is tandem and teat i;s what is ullo~inq this projecs: to
be this dense.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bouas asked again if he would like to request a
continuance in order to revise the plans, of if ho would like a vote on this
project.
02/17/88
_.INUTES, ANAH)IM CITY PLAYINING COMMISSION, FEBRi)ARY 17,__I988 88-205
fb:r. Drukin stated he won :d like to get n rest?o~::••e from the other Commissioners
and pointed out that there is :andscaping at tP.~ oartzan~c of the project ar:d
along the parking areas next to the b°.ci.".inrs. t:a ~oiuted out they are
providing handicaYped parking spaces a...: 1ar:dscaping and thst landscaping is
provided in as many places as possible along t:rc driveway. Commia~,:.;,+zer
Herbst pointed out the landscaping does rot sho.s on the drawings.
Mr. Drv;cin stated conr_.erni.ng the school .ssue, that he was previously a
teacher and tl!rat there is some overcrowding in the schools gad wh5n they 4irsi:
started closir.;q sch:,n]s. he had recorr~ ended they not be clo•.~d and that h~~ %+as
no sympathy fo: the school district, but that he can symrathize with what ~hc
Commission is saying.
Commissioner Herbst stated he agreed with that statement and that he had sat
on the Citizens Committee when some of the schools were closed and recommo:ded
a,ai~st: it, but there still is a problem and that the school chil9ren will
*~ve to be bused and he thought it is a mistake.. He stated he ro~'iaes the
aeveloper wil'1 be paying a large amount of monvv to the school dzst.rict.
Mr. Drukin sta~.:ed the laundry facilit:~e:: a.i.ll k~e integrt+t 3 into the
architecture or' the huilding lending some rrchitectural relief. He st~Led lie
feels the use of tandem parking s~:~ces is vary beneficial to the land use
providing the needed amount of parking anti Waking good utilization of the
land. He stat~~.i the City does require 2 covered parking spaces per unit and
he felt this cor~:•t is the best, way to handle that situation. He stated he
::an find no n~:~gaL•ive i;nplicatians of tandem parking. Mr. Drukin indicated he
would like to request a •3-wee,k continuance.
ANION: Commissioner Herbr.t o~fered a motion seconded by Commissioner
Mcl3urney and MOTION CARRYE'~ ;Commissioners Carusillo and Feldhaus absent) that
consideration of the afore.menti.orred mater be continued to the
regularly-schedulv.,d meeting of :larch 1Q, 1988, at the request of. the
petitioner in order to rades'_:;.: the project.
Mr. Drukin stated it was not their intention to delay Mr. Vasquez's
developn::,nts and that these thirrys do need to proceed in a timely manner and
they would like to ass5sk in anyway possible in obtaining Commission's review
of the temporary street closure, .+het:ner it r:: a chainlink fence or piires with
chains to effect the cloeuia of traffic ~n Cypress Street.
Mr. Drukin expla:~e~ therR r:as a hearing before the City Council and th.e
r-e^+l,orary closure was brought up by the Engineering Department and he was not
aware of that discussion; and their decision was contlraueo in order for
Planning Commission's review of the temporary closure to eliminate traffic on
Evelyn Dri~•e.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained that issue did come up before the
City Counc~.l yesterday and the Council had questions and the proposal was not
clear to them, so staff is preparing an exhibit or a new plan to show what the
ternpor.ary closure stands fr,r, what the ultima_e ^losure stands fez and that it
does not hold up anyone's project.
COMMI55IONER BOYDSTUN RETUR27ED TO THE MEETING.
02/17/88
~[INUT S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI$,,~ION. FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-206
BEM NO 7 C)QA NN~GATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2981
PUBLIC HEARING. OWDIEP.S: KAEMPFER/WOLFF-LA PALMA, 4 Civic Plaza, Suite 350,
Newport Beach, CA 92663. AGEt?TS: VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, 4854 Main
Street, Suite F, Yorba Linda, CA 92686. Property is an irregularly-shaped
paste: of land consisting of approximately 2.42 acres, having a frontage of
approximately 15 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum
depth of approximately 645 feet and being located approximately 1,100 feet
east of the centerline of Brasher Street and further described as 5464 E. La
Palma Avenue.
1'o permit a church with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
There was no or.• in!licatinq their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the sta~f report was not read, it is referred to and made apart
of the minutes.
BOB FULTON, Pastor of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship, 18901 JJ Lane, Yorba
Linda, CA, explained the proposal is to use this building for a church and
they are caking for a waiver for the minimum number of parking spaces because
the time they use the facility would be different than the other users and
that the people who occupy the premises are not there after 6:00 p.m. and on
weekends.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Co.missioner Herbst asked if trey are aware of the 3-year restriction of using
this fz~cility as a church in an industrial area. Mr. Fulton responded that
they are aware of that and their plans in the future are to move further into
the Cmnycn, but at the present time are seeking a temporary locatian and do
not desire anything permanent. He stated they have been a church for 3 years
r~3 are f:ryinq to aL•cumulate funds to purchase property. He stated their week
day use could be limited to an office use and responded to Commissioner Herbst
tha:c the}• have 240 iu1CS at the prs~3ent time for service and that their
mt~ximun~ sanctuary sn~cc is for 5C0 ,people.
Cha:rm.an Messe stated he 'has no problem with this i:se as long as it is
ur.:lerstood that it is temporary.
~~: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst
anu MOTICi!? CARkIED (Commissioners. Carusillo aad Feldhaus absent) that the
Ana:a:m l~i'cy Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a church
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.42 acres, having a frontage of
approximately 1.5 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, and being located
apgroxi.mately 1,100 feet east of the centerline of Brasher Street. and further
described as 5464 E. La Palma 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
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
02/17/88
INUTFS ANAHEIM riT" PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-207
Commissioner Bouus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo and Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the
basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion
in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and
granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not
be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim; and, on the basis that parking for the Church
takes place when parking for tiie industrial complex is generally not in use.
Commissioner Bonus offered Resolution No. PC88-53 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2981 for a period of 3 years pursuant to Anaheim
Municipal Code Sec:.one 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030 035 and subject to
Interdepartmental Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoii,g resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, HERBST, McBURNEY and MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS
Jce Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
RECESSED et 3:30 p.m•
RECONVENED at 3:45 p.m. (Commissioner McBurney did not return for remainder of
meeting)
rTFM NO 8 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARA1IOt7 and VARIANCE~Q+~Z~
PUBLIC HEARItiG. OWNERS: LOUIS L. NEUMAN & ALICE I. NEJMAN, 526 N. Cit:'oa.
Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: MOHAMMED SASHAANI, 9 Coventry, Newport Beach, CA
92660. Property is as irregularl}•-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.42 acre located souY.h and west of the southwest corner of
Diamund Street and West Street having approximate frontages of 34 feet on the
south side of Diamond Street and 100 feet on the west side of West Street and
further described as 115, 117 and 117 1/2 North West Street.
To construct a 16-unit, 3-story "aff.ordable" apartment building cinder
authority of Government Code Section 6591 with waivers of minimum building
site per dwelling unit and maximum building height.
It was noted petitioner has requested subject petition be continued to the
meeting of February 29, 1988 in order to submie revised plans.
THE FOLL047ING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo and Feldhaus absent) that
consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the
regularly-scheduled meeting of February 29, 1988, at the request of the
petitioner in order to submit revised plans.
02/17/88
MINUTE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBR~RY 17 1988 88-2
ITEM NO 9 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARAT•_ON RECLASSIFICATION NO 87-88-40 and
VARIANCE NO 3756
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ALBERT COHEN, 3301 Barrydell, Los Angeles, CA
90064. AGENTS: HUGO A. VASQUF,2, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805.
Portion A: Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.29 acre having a frontage of approximately 106 feet on the
north side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 145
feet =end being located approximately 1110 feet west of the centerline of
Harbor Boulevard and further described as 719 and 723 West La Palma Avenue;
Portion B: Subject propertl• is a portion of Portion A and is a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.15 acre
having a frontage of approximately 62 feet on the north side of La Palma
Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximate:y 105 feet and being located
approximately 1155 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and further
described as 723 West La Pal:r,a Avenue.
To construct a 12-unit, 3-s~.~ry "affordable" apartment building under
authority of Government Code Section 65915 with waivers of required coverage
of parking spaces, minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum
structural height, maximLUU site coverage and required side yard setback.
There ~•ere three persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request; and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and
made a aart of the minutes.
HUGO VASQ':1E2, 619 South Live Oak Drive, Anaheim, explained this project is on
La Dalma which is a fairly well-traveled street and there is a brand new hotel
adjacent, which was built within the last 8 months and it is behind existing
multiple-family older apartments. He stated this is an irregularly-shaped
parcel wii.h commercial on both sides and with multiple-family on the rear and
that 1 or 2 units will be set aside for "affordable" housing, whichever the
Planning Commission feels is appropriate.
DOROTHY PARSONS., 700 West Juliana, Anaheim, stated she does sot want to go on
record as being against this project, but would like to know about the parking
and pointed out parking is always at a premium in this area. Chairman Messe
pointed out this zpplication does meet Code requirements for parking.
JOE WHITE, 809 W. Broadway, Anaheim, stated he sees no hardship on this
property and that the owner purchased the property knowing the setbacks and
that it seems to be the trend to purchase a property, then try to take
advantage of the "affordable" guidelines. He stated they are requesting
waivers of the covered parking, maximum building site area per dwelling unit,
maximum structural height, maximum site coverage and required side yard
setback and that there is rc hardship, but the developer is trying to force a
hardship on everyone else. He stated the schools are overcrowded and that
this is a single-family residential area and he did not think it is
appropriate to remove single-family homes and rebuild with agartments.
Mr. White stated he is also against 3 stories and that this is going to create
tenemsnts and create another area to be cleaned up like Bluejay Lane. He said
02/17/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-2
if they want to develop it, it should be developed in accordance with the
requirements and if it cannot be built in conformance with the Codes, they
should not have purchased the property.
GURDON YELTON, 2202 W. Falmouth Street, Anaheim, stated he was present on a
different issue but that these all seem to be tied in and that there are
apartment complexes in Anaheim which are not full with a lot of vacancies. He
stated the Planning Commission along with the people of the City of Anaheim
have all worked to set up the specifications for setbacks, parking spaces,
etc., all of which are intended to make the City free and clear and able to
handle the automobiles they generate. He stated everyone today has been
presenting requests for variances and they want to change the rules because of
the price of property, etc., and they knew what the Code specifications were
before they purchased their property and before they had the designs drawn and
that they could reduce the size of their projects and not need these waivers.
Mr. Vasquez stated concerning parking, that they do meet the parking
requirements and concerning the vacancy factor, that there is less than a 3~
vacancy factor in Anaheim, and 3 years ago they would rent a 3-bedroom, 2-bath
unit for 5625 per month and today that figure is 5750 per month which is due
to the :Zemand. Concerning the variances, he explained the project is located
adjacent to an existing motsl that was built on the property line and was not
required to have any setback and that it is an irregularly-shaped parcel. He
stated their only alternative would be to reduce the size of the units and
that they are concerned about the duality of life for those living in those
units. He stated the plans called for the top of the roof to be no higher
than 27 feet 4 inches.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out that the plans before the Commission show a
35-foot high roof.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained the 27-foot 7 inch height is measured
to the ceiling of the top floor which is the Code requirement and that the
building could be 35 feet high.
Mr. Vasquez stated he believed it is their desire to keep the building under
30 feet and the Commission could include a condition of approval requiring
t`at the building be ao higher than 30 feet.
Responding to Commissioner Boydstun, Mr. Vasquez stated he thought the hotel
was probably 30 to 32 feet high.
Chairman Diesse pointed out that it would be under 30 feet if this project was
measured to the ceiling of the tcp floor which is the Code requirement for a
2-story project, but that they are presenting a 3 story project.
Mr. Vasquez stateri they do not xant a 35-foot high building and would stay
under 30 feet and suggested ghat be considered as a condition of approval.
Cormissioner Herbst stated the plans show the roof is 35 feet high to the roof
peak. Mr. Vasquez responded the roof peaks are an architectural featu~t and
not livable space and could be eliminated. He stated if that is a concern on
the Commission's part, he would request a 2-week continuance is order to
remove the roof peaks and that the project would be under 30 feet high.
02/17/88
w ~.
.f
I E ANAHEIM ITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 1986 88-210
Char..i~an Messe asked that Mr. Vasquez respond to the other concerns discussed
by the neighbors such as covered and uncovered parking spaces.
Mr. Vasquez stated he did not think nay of those people who spoke were
neighbors of this project; that all the parking is underneath is the garage
and he did not understand their concern. He stated if there are any exposed
areas for parking, they would be very minimal. Concerning garage doors, he
stated if the City Traffic Engineer approves, they will put in an electronic
door system so that the building is fully secured and that they must meet the
traffic engineer's requirements concerning garage doors so that they do not
clog traffic on the street waiting to pull into the property.
Responding to Commissioner Bouas, he explained the parking is the first level
with the two levels above being a townhouse style project, except for 4 units
in the rear which are stacked units. Commissioner Bouas asked if the
"affordable" units would be those in the rear and Mr. Vasquez responded that
he could not designate which units are for affordable since the Housing
Department makes sure that it is in the ratio provided and that is based on
the floor plans.
Debbie Vaqts, Housing Coordinator, Housing Department, stated it would be nice
for the petitioner to specify right now where the units would be and Mr.
Vasquez stated one would be a townhouse style unit and one would be cne of the
flat units.
Chairman Messe stated they will have a couple of weeks is order to get t;~is
affordable housing agreement s1!~ned and pointed out he thought parking spaces
No. 11 and 30 are really not usable. He pointed out concerning the affordable
housing that if the developer agrees to provide affordable housing, the State
requires that the City grant certain waivers in order to make that possible.
Commissioner Bouas asked where the trash containers are located and if that is
where the gates are located. Mr. Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the gate
has to be set back so the vehicles can wait on the property and not on the
street. Commission Bouas stated she is concerned about the trash location
where it is presently located because it would be unsightly if it was left
open.
Mr. Vasquez explained that on al: of their projects, they put a roof Sine over
the top of the trash enclosure end the gap between the gate and that .oof ling
if about 4 feet and the only way that a person would know that it is the trash
area is because they have to use metal doors.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Vasquez stated they can have the plans
in by Friday of this week since all they need to do is lower the peaks or
remove them and stated he knows for a fact that their roofline will be at 30
feet.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Souas
and MOTION CARRIED (Cc,mmissioners Car•isillo and Feldhaus absent) that
consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued Co the
regularly-scheduled meeting of February 29, 1988, at the request of the
petitioner in order to submit revised plans reducing the roofline to 30 feet
high.
02/17/88
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-
I E Q,. 10 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2
PUBLIC liiEARING. OWNERS: ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, c/O D. A.
Management, Inc., 7777 Center Avenue, Suite 500, Huntington Beach, CA 92697.
AGENTS': FEEDBACK FOUNDATION, INC., VIP ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE CENTER, 1101 S.
Grand, Ste. L 6 M, Santa Ana, CA 92705, ATTN: Shirleen Jo:3es. Property is
an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.7 acres,
located at the northeast corner of Knollwood Circle and woodland Drive, having
approximate frontages of 533 feet on the northeast side of Knollwood Circle
and 449 feet on the northwest side of Woodland Drive and further described as
Woodland Business Park (2627, 2633, 2651 Woodland Drive and 1150, 1154, 1162,
1176.. 1178 Knollwood Circle).
To permit an adult day health care center.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition.
SHIRLEEN JONES, Public Health Nurse, Program Director and Administrator of a
day care center for the elderly in the City of Santa Ana, explained they have
been in operation for 2-1/2 years there and about one year ago the Hoard of
Supervisors awarded them money to start a similar day care facility in Anaheim
to serve north Orange County. She presented a brochure explaining their
project in Santa Ana and stated a great deal has been mentioned at today's
hearings about the parking problems and that she is happy to say that they
will not present any parking problems since their people will arrive by Dial a
Ride, etc. or be brought in by their families and that at their peak they will
probably just have 7 staff members as they currently do in Santa Ana.
Chairman Messe asked if the 7 staff members are to serve the 50 people and Ms.
Jones responded that is true, except they do have part time people who co+ne in
3 days a week for a couple of hours from St. Joseph Hospital in Orange to give
physical therapy, occupational therapy, etc., but there are 7 permanent staff
members.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Messe asked if they serve hot food and Ms. Jones responded that they
do serve hot food and that they are a nonprofit organization. She stated the
sponsor is Feedback Foundation which sponsors the TLC nutrition program for
the elderly and their main office is in Anaheim. She stated Feedback will
bring the food over to the new site and that there will be ao cooking oa the
site, and they will heat the food and serve it.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners McBurney, Feldhaus and Carusillo absent)
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit
an adult day care health center oa an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 3.7 acres located a*_ the southeast corner of
Rnollwoad Circle and Woodland Drive, further described as Woodland Business
Park, 2627, 2633. 2651 Woodland Drive and 1150, 1154, 1162, 1176 and 1178
Knollwood Circle, 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
02/17/88
INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 8_2.12
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 Herb` offer Resolution No. PC88-54 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2983 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 for a maximum of 50 persons and subject to
Interdepartmental ::ommittee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, HERBST, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY
Joe Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Concerning the number of 50 people, Ms. Jones explained they are licensed by
the State Department of Health Services for 50 people and would have to be in
compliance with that number.
~M N0. 11 C.EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATYON and CONDITIONAr rrgE PERMIT N0. 2984
FUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: WOi:SON KIM 6 HAE BOOR RIM, 11443 E. Stapleton Court,
Cerritos, CA 90701. AGENTS: D.W. KYMMEL COAST INC., 747 S. Brea Blvd., Ste.
33, Brea, CA 91621. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.54 acre, having a frontage of approximately 103
feet oa the east side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of
approximately 230 feet and being located approximately 130 foet south of the
centerline of Falmouth Av~Zaue and further described as 1142 North Brookhurst
Street.
To construct a 2-story, 36-unit motel with waivers of maximum structural
height and minimum number of parking spaces.
There were 14 people 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.
Don Rimmel, 747 S. Brea Eoulevard, Brea, Agent, explained they aro proposing a
motel which would be a national franchised motel; however, they have not
actually picked the franchisee yet and that this location was picked basically
because of the off-ramp on Brookhurst so that trrvelers to the business and
industrial area would have easy access and pointed out the owner will occupy
the Manager's unit. He stated the only variance they are requesting is for
the sideyard setback and that the building will be screened from the adjacent
residential area and all openings will be to the south and possibly one window
in the back corner on the north.
Edward O'Brien, 1132 N. Brookhurst, stated Brookhurst is a problem street and
getting in and out of his parking lot is difficult. He stated he has had
02/17/88
~,
MINUTE ANAHEIM ITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1~ 1988 88-21
carry-over parking problems from the adjacent buildings for as long as he has
been there, 12 to 14 years. He stated he thinks this project will make a bad
situation even worse; that Falmouth is offset as it comes into Brookhurst and
that there is an unusual stop light between Circle Seal, Scientology and his
?~uildinq, and it is a little bit south of this Project and that traffic jams
are increased because Brookhurst narrows going north and the result is any
increased use of this type would make that situation worse with people coming
in and out of the motel at odd hours. He stated he has had to have people's
vehicles removed from his parking lot and he is sure there would be a lot of
motel patrons pulling into that lot in the future. He stated Falmouth is a
nice, quiet single-family residential area with fairly decent homes and this
would be putting a large motel immediately adjacent to a number of those homes
and it would have a detrimental effect on that nice neighborhood.
George Arnold, 2178 Falmouth, stated he is opposed to the proposed motel and
that his property backs up to the proposed site. He said this tract of homes
does have 1-story, single-family homes designed with a lot of glass and they
are set back 15 feet from the fence and according to the plans they propose to
erect a 2-story building 10 feet from that fence which puts it within 25 feet
of their actual living space, only 15 feet from his rear property line. He
stated the motel will invade their privacy, block off their air flow and bring
an extreme amount of noise pollution not only from the operation of the motel
itself with the laundry, air conditioning, etc. but at night there would
arrivals and departures. He stated this is not a tourist area and that there
is another hotel on Brookhurst on the south side of the 5 Freeway.
He stated that is an extremely congested intersection and that Brookhurst
narrows right in that vicinity and that the Circle Seal Corporation is
immediately across the street with one access and they do run 3 shifts there
and that intersection is gridlocked at all times. He stated La Palma Avenue
narrows to a 2-lane at that intersection going over the 5 Freeway which is
another cause for traffic congestion. He stated there are 6 traffic signals
at that corner; and that there era on and off ramps to the Freeway at
Brookhurst and it is the sole source of the traffic flow to the Hunk-Wesson
Foods and other Fullerton commercial areas. He stated they cannot exit from
their homes on to Brookhurst because it is totally gridlocked at all hours.
He asked if there are any precautions taken concerning soil testing to see if
there would be any contaminatiea from tare underground gas tank Lhat was
previously there.
Mr. Arnold stated they are also concerned about parking; and that there is a
large commercial building there and they have had a problem with those people
parking their cars on Falmouth, which they have gotten resolved but there is
no parking permitted on Brookhurst Street and very limited parking anywhere
else without going into the residential area.
He stated there is as elementary school on Falmouth and that children from
both sides of Brookhurst attend that school. He stated they currently have a
problem with people wanting Co avoid that congested intersection on La Palma
and Brookhurst and they travel through their tract out on to Romaeya which has
a traffic signal on La Palma and that is going right past the elomentary
school and the traffic is already to a point where the residents have a
difficult time getting out of their driveways.
02/17/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRttAFY 17. 1988 _ 88-214
Barbara Arnold, 2178 Falmouth, stated her property shares a common property
line with the proposed project and their home is single story, single-family
as are all the homes that border that project. She stated a loss of privacy
will occur to all of their backyards which are adjacent to the proposed
2-story, 36-unit motel. She stated due to the curvature, that street in front
of their property is reduced to only 15 feet and the yard is so narrow that
they could not put in a swimming pool and still walk around it. She stated
the 2-story motel would be within 10 feet of that fence. She explained 7
years ago they were denied a variance to construct a 10-foot wide, 15-foot
long covered patio because of the 10-foot easement that exists entirely on
their side of the property line. She stated the proposed motel will look
directly into their backyard, not to mention their bedrooms, bathrooms,
kitchens and dining rooms.
Ms. Arnold stated the safety and welfare of the school children are also at
stake and that the local grade school students living on both sides of
Brookhurst and the children on the west side must cross directly into the
proposed lobby of this motel and that they would be grouping directly in front
of this motel to cross Brookhurst and that the junior high school students
would also have to pass directly in front of the motel and that there are
dangers due to traffic already for the school children and there is more at
stake here than just the use of the property. She presented a petition to the
Commission.
Lawrence Vieira, 2118 W. Falmouth, adjacent to proposed site, stated he works
for a hotel chain which owns a lot of different properties, large and small,
and Y.nows the type of people who patronize the hotels and motels. He stated
in that vicinity there are 5 schools all within walking distance and it would
be hard for the children of the area to avoid the problems that property will
generate. He stated he feels very strongly against someone looking down into
his backyard and felt it would totally eliminate his privacy. He stated
parking on Falmouth is next to impossible and that many times he has to wait
15 minutes to get out of his driveway to make a right or a left turn on
Brookhurst because there is a steady stream of traffic.
Myra Lockabill, 2174 W. Falmouth, stated her property abuts the motel and
several years ago a multi-story office building was built on Brookhurst which
has caused them to expend a considerable amount of money to implement special
wall coverings on the rear of their house; and they are bothered by the lights
that shine 24 hours a day, and there has been an increase of vandalism and
burglaries ;n the neighborhood. She said they want to see things expand for
the City, but are outraged with the proposal for a 2-story motel abutting her
backyard and totally invading her privacy. She stated the plans show at least
three windows that would be overlooking their backyards and she would sugcost
the Planning Commission closely review these plans before approving this
project.
Maz Engel stated he lives oa Catalpa one block from Falmouth, and that people
living in the houses abutting the proposed site are not the aaly ones to be
affected; that a motel on that site xould spell disaster for the entire
neighborhood, marking it as a second class place to live, bringing not only a
diminished quality of life to the single-family residential community, but
will result in an economic loss in the value of their homes. He stated the
02/17/88
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C~+.'!L$SION, FEBRUARY 17t 14~@_. ~6-215
view looking north on Srookhurst is presently one of pure residential
character with the homes showing pride of ownership; that the residences are
being well-kept up and improved with corresponding continuing rise in property
tar evaluations, but this trend will reverse if this request is approved. He
stated he could not understand why the Planning Commission would not just
reject this applicaL•ion as being a blatant violation of the basic
single-family residential. planning principals.
Norman Noss, 2137 Shelley Street, Placentia, Personnel Director at Circle Seal
Controls, which is located at the corner of Srookhurst and La Palma at the
intersection of Falmouth, stated that for a number of years they have fought
with the traffic problems for their employees' to safely and efficiently enter
and exit their property. He stated they do only have one driveway entry into
their facility and that years ago they went to the expense of having a traffic
guard to provide safety for their employees and about 4 years ago entered into
the purchase of a traffic signal for that driveway and even though that has
helped, because of the close proximity of the traffic signal to the Falmouth
intersection, there are occasions when they have great difficulty getting
through because the traffic does not clear the driveway and he thought a motel
in that area will bring additional traffic causing additional problems for
them and additional safety problems.
Mitch Coakling, 1127 Lotus Street, Anaheim, stated he lives directly behind
the 3-story building and is concerned about the types of people who would be
in the motel and the trash that would be thrown behind his fence. He stated
he is against this motel because it will bring a lot of crime to the area and
that when the 3-story building was put in next to his property he had a lot of
dair~age from dirt and dust and that he now has 60-foot high Cypress trees
hiding the wall and that a 30-unit apartment project was not allowed to go in.
Antonio Go, Jr., 1131 Lotus Street, stated his backyard faces the motel and
referred to a liquor store which is existing not too far away where he can
hear car radios blasting from the parking lot where people are drinking in
their cars disturbing the peace and he felt this proposed motel would add
traffic congestion to the area and pointed out that north of Braokhurst k.here
is a large company with a lot of employees which creates traffic and this
would add to that congestion.
Mr. Kimmel stated the neighbors main objection seems to be that the motel will
look down into their backyards and that there are only 2 to 3 windows proposed
on that side which they would be willing to remove and that could be required
as a condition and there are no other openings into the rear yards and no air
conditioners in the rear. He stated all doors and windows would face into the
court yard and that they are providing 30 required parking spaces and that a
typical use would be in late afternoons and evenings and during the day the
parking lot is always empty. He stated they do not feel they would be adding
any more to the congestion that is already there and they would be providing a
bond for the street widening and traffic signals and this is a commercial zone
use on the General Plan and they feel they are within the General Plan
guidelines.
Concerning the gasoline tanks, he explained they were romoved under the EPA
and Fire Dep9rtment guidelines and also that this would be a family owned and
operated motel and the owner would live there with his wife and two children.
02/17/88
,n
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-21
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ^LOSED.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out that the Planning Commission does not initiate
these public hearings; that every property owner has the right to a public
hearing and, if they ask, the Planning Commission has to hear their request.
He stated, however, he thought this particular application does interfere with
the health, safety and welfare of the people in that area; that the property
is commercially zoned but the site is 20~ feet long and backs up to those
people's properties and would create a problem with the enjoyment of their
property and he did not believe it should be that close to their backyards and
is the wrong place for a motel.
Commissioners Bouas and Chairman Messe agreed; Chairman Messe stated the uses
on that street are mostly CL and the General Plan says it is designated for CL
uses but that is mostly small office buildings and that this would be an
intrusion on the privacy on the residents to the north and that the building
against their property within 10 feet would hurt their property values.
Commissioner Bouas pointed out it would add to the traffic and that that is a
bad traffic area and it would be an intrusion of their privacy.
Commission Herbst stated it is a commercial piece of property and one day
something will be built there but he thought it should be a small use of some
type which would be more suitable with the single-family homes.
~TION Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo, Feldhaus and McBuraey absent)
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to
construct a 2-story, 36-unit motel with waiver of maximum structural height
and minimum number of parking spaces (deleted) on an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 0.54 acre, liaviny a frontage of
approximately 103 feat on the east side of Brookhurst Street and further
described as 1142 North Brookhurst Street, 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
(Commissioners Carusillo, Feldhaus and McBuraey being absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hr,,.reby deny the requested waiver of mazimum
structural height on the basis that on the basis that there are no 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 Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-SS and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 2984 oa the bass that it would be an intrusion on
the single-family re~sideatial neighborhood to the north and would be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens in the
area.
02/17/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI N FEBR ARY 17 1 8-217
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol3awing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, HERBST, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY,
3oe Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO 12 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION,. RE~,~A_S~SIFLCATION N0. 87-88-3~gS~
VARIANCE N0. 3754
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ALBERT LEVINSON, et al, 222 E. Manville, Compton,
CA 90220. AGENTS: ECONOLITE CONTROL PRODUCT;, iNC., 3360 E. La Palma,
Anaheim, CA 92806. Property is as irregularly-shaped parcel of Sand
consisting of approximately 12.5 acres, having a frontage of approximately 458
feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of
approximately 1226 feet and being located approxilmately 250 feet west of the
centerline of Miller Street and further described as 3360 East La Palma Avenue.
To establish a 2-parcel industrial subdivision with waivers oI minimum number
of parking spaces, maximum number of small csr stal'.ls and requir~6d lot
frontage.
Chairman Messe explained that he needs to declare a conflict of interest on
this item; however, Commissionor McBurney has been called away from the
meeting and he did not think this matter could be held since there would not
be a quorum.
Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, explained in oz~der to conduct a public
hearing, a quorum of four would be required and suggested that this matter be
continued in order for another Commissioner to be present.
Chairman Messe apologized and stated he did not know earlier that Commissioner
McBurney would be leaving the meeting.
~TION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo, Feldhaus and McBurney)
absent, that the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled
meeting of February 29, 1988 due to lack of quorum.
~T_~M NO 13 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2986.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DWIGHT D. HASTINGS, INSILCO FINA27CIAL REALTY CORP.,
6100 S. Garfield Avenue, Lot Angeles, ^A 90040. AGENTS: ERNEST RAMIREZ,
JIFFY LURE INTERNATIONAL INC., 12161 Mill Creek Road, 8100, Laguna Hills, CA
92653. Property is an irregularly-shaped ~narcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.32 acre located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Manchester Avenue, having approximate frontages of 180 feet on the northeast
side of Manchester Avenue and 180 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and
further described as 1940 West Lincoln Avenue.
To permit an automotive lubricating facility.
02/17/88
INUTES._ANAHEIM ITY P ANNIN I I N FEBRUARY 17, 19,8 88-21~'
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.
Ernest Ramirez, Agent representing Jiffy Lube International, was present to
answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
A TI tI: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo, Feldhaus and McBurney
absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to
permit an automotive lubricating facility on an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 0.32 acre located at the southeast corner of
Lincoln Avenue and Manchester Avenue and further described as 1440 west
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 firdinq on the basis of
the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial
evidence that the project xill have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-56 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2486 pursuant to Anaheim Municigal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
Chairman Messe asked if the applicant had read all the conditions and if they
were acceptable. Mr. Ramirez responded he had one qu3stion concerning the
engineering costs and fees and whether those fees would be determined by the
Engineering Department.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the street light fees are S6 per front
foot and he thought the tree fees were 51.40 per frontage foot.
Mr. Ramirez stated their biggest concern would be Condition No. 3 and whether
or not they could post a bond or have to pay cash up front.
Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer, explained that condition would have to be
completed prior to the occupancy of the building and it would be necessary for
them to obtain the services of a civil engineer to prepare construction plans
that would be submitted to the City for approval and after approval, thay
would have to have a contractor to do the work; and it would have to be done
before the building is occupied.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out this particular site does come to a point with
two street frontages and he thought it was requiring a lot for one developer
to pay for the street lighting on both streets. He stated this is a very
uausunl site anc; needs to be developed and he did not like to see this much
requirement placed on one developer. Art Daw explained the condition refers
to the frontage on Lincoln and does not cover both streets and that the street
trees would be for both streets.
02/17/88
~-
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLA2+-pIINC COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 ~'.~--4
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated those are ordinanceublic
requirements and anyone could request 3 waiver and qo through the p
hearing procedure like they would for a variance.
Chairman Messe stated he thought it was fair that they pay the 56 for the 180
feet. Greg Has:.ings said it was ar. error requiring it on both streets.
Mr. Ramirez stated they would pay for the trees andtlmahtnatbbe costheffective
going to have to improve the street at this time, Y
to develop that site, considering that Caltrans hLe aired thaththeytwidenhthe
could include this property. He stated if it is q
street at the time of development, they would need to know what kind of costs
they are going to incur and then it may not be worthwhile to continue with
this proposal.
Mr. Daw stated relocation would have to be done as a part of the process as a
Code requirement and without. making a detailed analysis of the site, it would
be difficult to determine the cost, but thaw he would guess they are looking
somewhere in the neighborhood of 520,000.
Mr. Ramirez stated him concern was they wou]d be looking at more like 5100,000
because of the median which would have to be taken into consideration. Mr.
Singer stated he did not: believe that there is a median to be reconsaru~~ed
an3 that the ordinance rierely states that they can :zither widen or p y
cost of widening.
Chairman Messe pointed out in order not to waste the time of the Planning
Commission and add to t:he length of this public hearing, the Commission could
theadeveloperacan meethwithnthelstaffuto determinetwhetheronodin tntolpcoceednd
with the project.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, HERBST, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY,
Joe Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N^ ]4 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READY ~ GENERAT PLAN AMENDMENT NQ.
e 32 (PEA.DV ) and V~ATnu~E N0. 3738
~~{READY ) RCLASSIFICATION NO 87 8
R ADV
PUBLIC HEARih:._ OWtIERS: SANTOA BECERRA and ROSA BEC£RRA, 1014 E. North
Street, Anaheim, CA 92805; DOlIALD K. SMALLEY and JERI M. SMALLEY, 1020 E.
North Street, Anaheim, CA 92801; JAMES R. NEEDHAM and SHIRLEY A. IiEEDHAM,
128 E. North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, "000 MacArthur
Blvd., p680, Newport Beach, CA roximately 1Q07yacres,rhavinguaafrontageeof
parcel of land consisting of app
approximately 21D feet on the south side of North Street, hoZii9/BAmaximum
~-
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-22
depth of approximately 226 feet and being located approximately 190 feet west
of the centerline of zast Street and further described as 1014, 1020 and 1028
East North Street.
To construct a 19-unit, 1-story "affordable" apartment complex under authority
of Government Code Section 65915 with waivers of minimum building site area
per dwelling unit, maximum site coverage and maximum fence height.
There were three persons iadicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to aad made
a part of the minutes.
Al N'arshall, Newport Pacific Development Company, stated he has a slide
presentation and asked if t2ie Commission would like to discuss the General
Plan first or the site coverage. Chairman Messe explained everything is tied
together and should all be taken at once.
Mr. Marshall stated they have worked on this project quite a while and have
had seven meetings with the neighborhood and were finally able to come up with
a solution which they feel is excellent and it has been designed by ttie
neighbors themselves; that the property is three lots on North Street and is
adjoined on the side and rear by single-family homes. He stated it is
adjoined on the corner of North and East Streets by two RM-1200 duplexes. He
stated this is a better design than what they were able to do with the input
from the neighbors. However, a number of waivers wire created with their
proposal ,'pertaining to site coverage due to the new access that takes a great
deal of land away from the project, and an 8-foot high block wall across the
rear which was specifically requested by the neighbors. He stated, however,
this would require a driveway within the 20-foot setback on the west and south
side of the property and explained again those were requested specifically by
the neighbors.
He explained they have requested affordable units because of the change in
this plan and it is a 1-story project and with the access, as proposed, it
would take a lot of the square footage from the property and requires them to
request the affordable consideration. He stated the project affords ao views
to the aeighbors and is completely enclosed and private and that he does have
photograghs of the neighborhood if needed for referral.
Magdy Hanna, Newport Pacific, 4000 MacArthu¢ Blvd., Newport Beach, stated they
have come up with a project that suits the neighbor2ood and is a single-story
groject for 19 units and because of the design with the driveway on the
western boundary and parking in the rear, the square footage has been reduced
and requires that they have affordable units in the project.
Lloyd Lassley, 738 N. Rose Street, stated his property backs right up to North
Street and that he preferred to have an 8-foot wall at the rear rather than
doors of apartments right up against his property line. He stated they really
do not want apartments on that property, but if they must be there, then this
is a design that they would rather have because they are single story and no
oae would be overlooking his yard aad pool and there is an 8-foot wall at that
portion of the property.
02/17/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANYING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 17, 1968 88-221
Chairman Messe asked if the other person on the cul-de-sac was in agreement
with this proposal. Mr. Lassley stated he did talk to Mr. Baca and he was in
agreement and was going to be present but is not here.
Trent Wilson, 1011 E. North Street, across the street from the property,
stated this is a nice plan for 19 single-story apartments on 1.7 acres.
However, their first plan requested no waivers. He stated he would like to
see the garages across the back to protect the homes on Rose and a
rearrangement of the plan to provide the playground area away from the street
and the fencing and entry rearrangement across the front would aid the
residents in exiting on North Street; and a revised plan for landscaping and
the driveway across the front would simply look better.
Mr. Wilson stated the neighbors are being put in a position of ha~~ing to
support waivers and to say that Mr. Hanna's plan is a nice plan, but that his
endorsement goes no further than that and he would only approve the plan
within the context of losing the broader, more important war against any
apartments on North Street, Vine, Bush, East or Wilhelmina, and this is only
the lessor of two evils.
Thomaa Gelker, 1025 E. North, stated they }lave a bad traffic situation on
North Street and this will make it worse because of the close proximity of
2lorth and La Palma on East Street; that traffic backs up from Sycamore when
the 1zght changes and when traffic moves up, you cannot cut into the line and
it is a dangerous situation. He stated this project would have to exit on
North Street and that renters have no incentive to expend the energy and costs
it takes to keep up a good facility and, consequently, the facility
deteriorates. He stated the developer proposes to sell this project shortly
after they get it built and whoever buys it has made no commitm-ants or
promises to keep it nice.
He Said this :s now a single-family area and is a pretty nice area and this
would destroy it and that Mr. Hanna has given the impression that the
neighbors are all in favor of this but that is not really true. He suggested
the Planning Commission examine ;:he petition presented when this first came up
to see that there are 115 names in opposition.
Trent Wilson stated the neighborhood will have 50 more cars at the
intersection at North and East Street and they are told that that is progress
to have 70 more people live in a space where there are now only 12; and they
are told it will increase the value of their property, and they were told by
Commissioner Bouas that something will be built there and a nice complex might
be better than some of the houses; and that they were asked to work things out
with the developer, and pointed out he is quoting that from page 38 of the
January 4 minutes. He stated they were told the City xill use its powers of
eminent domain if they keep resisting and there is plenty of evidence on
Lincoln and Anaheim Boulevard of that and he has been before the Planning
Co.~unission 10 times since September and has seen the shift from a 7-0 vote to
a 4-3 vote and that one more Commissioner siding with the Newport Pacific
Developers against the Anaheim residents is all it will take and they will be
overcrowded.
02/17/88
INUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 88-222
He stated the Traffic Engineer says there will be no problem with another 50
cars on North, 50 on East and soon another 1,000 or gore apartments are forced
upon them. He stated in the past 10 meetings, the neighbors have submitted
many petitions containing from 80 to more than 150 resident's signatures
representing extremely close to 100 of the homeowners in opposition stating
that it would impact their environment and degrade their quality of. life and
that tripling or quadrupling the density, crime, tt•affic, trash, and
overbuilding, and the intimidation of being told something is going to be
built there, is something he will continue to protest.
^'im Foster, 710 N. Bush, stated the Planning Commission knows tha problems
they have now and he hoped they can see the problem and help them try to keep
their neighborhood and clean it up, which they are trying to do and that the
easiest way to do that is for the Planning Commission to vote NO to these
requests for apartments.
Mr. Hanna stated the per_ition that was submitted was circulated earlier and
that since the last meeting they have met with the neighbors to develop a
one-story project in the RM-2400 guidelines and this is what they have come up
with. He stated this project will improve tYie neighborhood by providing a
newer apartment with a maximum of four people in each unit and that it is a
quality project and that they have managed to satisfy most of the neighLors
concerns.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated he thought this is a bad design with all the units
across the front and no access to the recreational area. He stated he is also
disappointed with the density and thought it should be less. He stated every
developer has been hanging their criteria on affordable units and that he
realizes affordable units are needed, but not at the expense of the rest of
the people in the area where they would be crowding more traffic into the area
and that it is getting to be a problem because it is creating gridlock all
over the City. He stated density is something that needs to be looked at
seriously all over Anaheim and it should be reduced. He stated these units
are not very big and this is not a very good design. He stated all units
should have access to the recreation area and he did not like to have cars
backing up to other people's yards with an 8-foot wall backing up to the
yards. He stated he thought the project could be drastically improved; that
North Street is heavily traveled and one of the worst corners in Anaheim; and
that this is just too much on too little and on a street that cannot carry the
circulation.
Mr. Singer stated he has never said that that corner was not a problem, but
from an overall traffic impact, apartments do not have that much of an
impact. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Singer stated that North Street
would probably not ever be opened again.
Mr. Hanna stated they could request a continuance to redesign the project with
no waivers, but they were trying to satisfy the neighbors with this design.
He stated they could provide 19 units in the RM-240 zone with no affordable
units and put the driveway in such a manner that it does not subtract from the
project.
02/17/88
~. ~
Ii•
INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANt7ING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-22
Cha~.rman Messe asked if the 20-foot setback to the west could be maintained
and bi:'. Hanna responded it could and they had done that for the 26-unit
project. Chairman Messe stated he thought the changes made are positive but
he did not understand the driveway to the west side. Mr. Hanna stated that is
what the neighbors wanted. Commissioner Herbst asked if the neighbors
understand that they are going to have cars coming in and out of that area in
back of their homes all day long.
Mr. Marshall stated they had designed a 19-unit 1-story project, with
parking and a landscaped area all around and when they presented it to the
neighbors, they said they did not like the plan and that there were no waivers
or variances being requested. He stated the neighbors have created this
design, requiring the waivers that are being requested. He stated the parking
is not all tandem; and there are 2.5 required parking spaces per unit with
tandem being the 2 per unit. He stated this is not the design they would have
presented to the Commission because they know the Commission's response.
Commissioner Herbst stated L•here are 4-1/'[ homes along the driveway with no
buffer at all and just a block wall and asked if those 4 homeowners were at
the meetings and if they had agreed. Mr. Marshall responded that a couple of
the people were at the meeting. He stated if the Commission would grant a
continuance, they would go back to the original design and present it to the
Commission without any waivers.
Commissioner Herbst stated he is looking for less density. Mr. Marshall
stated this project is for the RN.-2400 zone and asked if that is the correct
zone. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission is looking at a General Plan
Amendment and this has not been redesignated for RM-2400 as yet. He stated he
reccignes that they are RS-7200 now and that they are almost twice as deep as
anyone else's, but he has to look at the neighborhood itself and felt going
from RS-7200 to RM-2400 was not reasonable and it should not be 3 to 4 times
as dense. He stated this property can be developed with more units on it th;:n
it is presently zoned for, but he did not like 19 units because it is just too
heavy for the street.
Commissioner Bouas asked how many single-family homes could be developed there
with a col-de-sac. Mr. Marshall responded with a col-de-sac, there could be
very few because of the radius.
Mr. Hanna stated the question is whether or not the Planning Commission would
like to see a development in this area or not. He stated if they would not
like to see a development in this area, he would withdraw the application.
However, he did try to come up with a project that would satisfy the City and
the neighborhood; and that if it can be developed under RM-2400 standards, he
would come back with 19 units with no waivers. He stated that is the least
amount he could put on the property to make it profitable; and that right now
the project is at a point where it could go either way.
Chairman Messe stated it seems a shame that they are so close to what could be
an acceptable plan and that he would like to see single story without the
waivers and would like to see revised plans.
02/17/88
na
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEHRUARY 17 1988 88-224
Commissioner Herbst stated he felt this is overbuilding the property and he
did not know how the other Commissioners felt, but that he did live in that
area for a number of years and knows what is happening there.
Mr. Y.anna responded they do have plans for a 1-story with no waivers and with
a 2-week continuance, they would bring those plans in for review.
Chairman Messe asked if they would be putting the 8-foot fence in the rear and
Mr. Hanna responded they are willing to do that. Commissioner Houas stated
the neighbors really do not want to see apartments there at all.
Chairman Messe stated he also has not made up his mind and was not sure that
single-family homes could be built there, across the street from a 7-Eleven
convenience store.
TI N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motiot,, seconded by Commissioner
Hoydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo, Feldhaus and McHurney
absent and Commissioner Herbst voting no) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
February 29, 1988, at the request of the petitioner.
Mr. Hanna resgonded to Greg Hastings that they could have their plans in by
tomorrow.
Trent Wilson said he would object to a continuance and Chairman Messe said he
understood their feelings about the continuance, but the Planning Commission
is trying to see that this project is done right. Mr. Wilson asked if the
Commission undorstands the neighbors feelings about apartments in general and
that they are here again and in another two weeks they will be back to see an
even worse plan which may meet codes but would be worse. He stated Mr. Hanna
says he has approval of the neighbors, but that is not true and that 150
people will sign a new petition and will be ready to present it. He stated it
is an interesting comment to say the lots are a little too big for the
families that live there, as if they are hoarding their land.
Chairman Messe stated he would urge the neighbors and the developer to work
together and if the neighbors are still in opposition to the request they
should get together their petition and come back. He stated he is sorry that
they have to come back, but that Mr. Hanna has to come back too.
Mr. Wilson pointed out the Commission had the chance to deny the request and
that he wondered when that is going tc happen.
Tim Foster asked if the petitions makes any difference; that at every meeting
they have been to, they have had petitions, but they do not seem to make any
difference. He stated he walked down the street getting signatures and nearly
every owner there has signed in opposition, but that it has not seemed to make
a difference.
Commissioner Bouas pointed out the project has not been approved as yet and
Mr. Foster responded it does not seem to be gettirg any better and they seem
to be losing more and more to the City Council.
02/17/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 88-225
Chairman Messe stated that the Commission appreciates the neighbors coming to
these meetings so they can hear if they are for or against a project and it
helps the Commission to know what is going on in the neighborhood and he would
suggest they continue to do that and he thought the petitions do help.
ITEM 15 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 2855 (READVERTISED).
OWNERS: RICHARD G. SAXLOR S BARBARA L. SAYLOR, 804 West Broadway, Anaheim,
CA 92805. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.32 acre, located at the southwest corner of Broadway and
Citron Street, and further described as 804 Wes Y. Broadway.
Request deletion of a condition of approval.
There was one person indicating his presence in favor of subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a ptnrt of
the minutes.
Richard Saylor, 804 W. Broadway, Owner, stated they are requesting the
deletion of a condition pertaining to the improvement of the right of way
which was a requirement for a small business, but in November the City Council
passed Ordinance No. 4878 and they no longer fall under that requirement. He
stated they dedicated the property for tl~e right of way when they got the
conditional use permit, but were told at the time that they should go ahead
and put up the money to widen the street. He stated the curbs and sidewalks
on their corner were put is about 20 years ago and they are in good condition
and the corner does not need to be relocated and since they do not fall under
the present ordnance, they would like to have a deletion and the monier
.involved returned to the owner.
Chairman Messe pointed out at the time the conditional use permit was granted,
they agreed to the conditions and stipulations. Mr. Saylor responded that
that is correct, but that they no longer fall under that requirement.
Chairman Meese stated they did at the time and he assumed at the time it was
agreeable since they agreed to all the conditions and the plans for the City
have been made accordingly.
Commissioner P,ouas pointed out they do have a bed and breakfast business there
and they are rperating. Mr. Saylor stated they have had their license since
June; and stated this is a small business but that the ordinance exempts small
businesses when the square footage of all the buildings on the property being
expanded is less than a 1,000-square foot. He stated he was putting in two
bathrooms and a wall in a guest house and is not expanding the exterior and is
covering the balcony. He stated the balcony is partially enclosed but the
square footage of the house •will not change.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the issue here is that the Conditional
Use Permit was granted subject to Condition No. 3 and that the use has been
exercised and a building permit has been issued subject to Condition No. 3 and
it is up to the applicant to satisfy that condition. He stated the condition
was placed oa this development because of increased traffic as a result of
02/17/88
INUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-22
operating a lodging facility and that the curb should be set back to be
configured similarly to the facilities that are directly east of this property
at the apartment complex.
He stated there is a letter to the Planning Commission from the Summerhill
Development Company and that they have relocated the traffic signals in order
to save this applicant having to fund for those. He stated due to the
intensification of development along Broadway, it is required that the curbs
be set back at this bed and breakfast facility and that the situation has not
changed since the time the applicant made the original application.
Chairman Messe stated that conditional use permit was approved is November of
1986 and the condition required that the work had to be accomplished within 6
months and yet the applicant has indicated he has opened a business and has
not met the conditions. Mr. Singer stated that was done in order to
accommodate him because Summerhill was going to be moving the signal and
saving him that amount of money. He said he could understand postponing the
project but not deleting it, and he did not understand this request.
Joe White, 809 W. Broadway, said he has lived across the street from this
property for 35 years and is speaking in favor of the applicant and against
widening of the street. He stated he sees no need to widen the street and
feels there are no traffic problems in that area and that a left turn lane is
not needed.
Mr. Saylor pointed out the condition of this conditional use permit requires
security be posted with the City prior to beginning the activity authorized by
the conditional use permit to guarantee construction of the above-required
improvements within 6 months. He stated this security was posted and he has
complied with that condition and he has already dedicated the 5 feet required
to widen the street. Commissioner Herbst pointed out the condition requires
that he guarantee construction an3 that he had to post the bond within 6
months. Commissioner Herbst asked when the City would be doing the widening.
Mr. Singer responded the condition requires posting the bond to guarantee
construction within 6 months.
Joe Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated the bond had to be posted before
the work was commenced and the bond had to guarantee that the work would be
completed within 6 months after he exercised the rights of the conditional use
permit.
Mr. Saylor asked the Planning Commission to review Item No. 4 on today's
agenda and pointed out that is xhat the Planning Department has told him all
along. Chairman Messe stated all Item 4 says is that a condition was
fulfilled by posting of the bond on April 16th, then on November 17th, City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 4878 and he failed to see what that ordinance
adoption has to do with this application. Mr. Saylor stated he no longer
falls under that ordinance and he did not see why he should have to be bonded.
Commissioner Herbst stated Council passed the ordinance and it has put the
Commission in the middle and he thought t is matter should be passed on to the
City Council for their decision. He stated the Commission would not have the
authority to give the bond back anyway.
02/17/88
MT**UTE~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-'l27
Greg Hastings pointed out there was no Council action on the original
conditional use permit. He stated as a matter of law at the time, the
applicant was required to do the work by Code and the condition coulfi have
been recommended to be imposed for different reasons and that the Traffic
Engineer is saying at the time the conditional use permit was before the
Commission, that Code existed and he would have recommended the same thing as
a condition of the conditional use Permit. Chairman Messe pointed out this
applicant has been relieved of a lot of the cost. Mr. Saylor responded he was
not under the condition to put up traffic signals.
Mr. Singer pointed out that if improvements are moved, they also have to move
the street fixtures which include the traffic signals, and in order not to
have to relocate the signal twice, the Traffic Engineer's office contacted
Summerhill and requested that they design and replace the traffic signal at
the location where it will b~ in the future when the curb is relocated. He
stated Mr. Saylor had the option to go with that contractor in relocating the
curb and join with them to reduce his costs substantially.
Chairman Messe stated this was imposed with the conditional use permit,
originally and that the applicant knew at the time and made a business
judgment based on that information. He said he agreed with Commissioner
Herbst that this probably should be resolved by the City Council. Greg
Hastings stated this would go on the Council's consent calendar; however, the
Planning Commission could make a motion requesting Council to review it.
ASTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo, Feldhaus and McBurney absent) that
the Anaheim City Plauniag Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that they review the request for deletion of the condition for improvements on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2855 on the basis of the new ordinance and
indicating concern for the retroactive effect of deleting this condition.
ITEM NO 16 - REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1218 - Request from Eric Heiden for review of
proposed uses (4 wheel drive repair), property located at 3051 La Jolla
Street, Suite A. Continued from the meeting of February 1, 1988.
Steve Benveniste, agent, explained the square footage use for each unit in
this project was not available.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would recommend that this applicant apply
for a Conditional Use Permit for this particular use, is order to get the
input carom the people in the area.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Messe
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo, Feldhaus and Mc Burney
absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that a
conditional use permit is required for this proposed use since automotive
repair uses were not specifically referenced as a proposed use in the
original conditional use permit application.
02/17/88
~NUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FES'RUARY 17. 1988 88-228
OTHER DISCUSSION:
Ernest Ramirez indicated he had been the applicant for Item l:o. 13. and
that the Commission approved his request, subject to conditions, and asked
if the Engineering Department has the full authority to eliminate some of
the conditions without coming back to the Planning Commission. Chairman
Messe stated they can do that within the ordinances and Joseph Fletcher,
Deputy City Attorney, pointed out the ordinances should define to what
extent the Engineering Department is delegated to delete those
conditions. Mr. Ramirez asked if it would be possible to meet with the
engineer this evening, or tomorrow morning, because he has a deadline of
tomorrow for purchasing this property and would like to resolve the
situation. Chairman Messe pointed out he could meet with the Engineering
Department tomorrow morning at about 9:00 a.m., as indicated by Mr. Daw.
8. EVALUATION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM'S DEFINITIONS AND PARKING REOUIREMENT&
~ THEY RELATE TO RE TA RANTS AN~•~FNI R CITIZENS' PROJECTS AND
EXAMINATION OF ELEVATOR REQUIREM h~'T~_AS IT RELATES TO SENIOR CIT ZEN '
APARTMENT PROJECT
Lucy Yeager, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and explained the
concerns were the definition of a convenience market pertaining to an
accessory use of fast food service and suggested associated parking
requirements; and the parking requirements as related to the active vs.
inactive senior citizen type projects. She stated essentially there are
four recommended code amendments being suggested to the Planning
Commission, one pertaining to the definition for convenience markets with
accessory sales of fast food service; and one to provide a new parking
requirement for commercial establishments with take-out food or meal
service; and an amendment to the code relating to the parking requirements
for retirement dwellings and convalescent homes to increase the
requirements as suggested by the Traffic Engineer; and the fourth would be
pertaining to elevators to allox for senior citizen apartment projects,
requiring any proposal for a senior citizen apartment building exceeding
one story in height and/or including below-grade parking garages shall
include one or more elevators so that each apartment entrance is located
no more than i50 feet from an elevator. She pointed out there is no
requirement that the parking parking for retirement facilities be covered.
Commissioner Bouas pointed out when the code was established, the
Committee for Senior Citizens had said they preferred that it not be
covered, for better observation and safety.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out it would also be more costs effective.
Concerning elevators, he stated anything over 30 units would require an
elevator if it is two stories or more.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Feldhaus, Carusillo and McBurney absent) that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby instruct staff to
initiate the ordinances required, according to the staff report,
concerning parking requirements gad and elevators for senior citizens'
projects.
02/17/88
~~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITv arnxNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17 1988 88-229
C. TRACT NO 8520 - ~,DT$ 4 THRO"GH 91 - Request by Salkia Engineering
Corporation that they be granted a waiver of the requirement of the City
of Anaheim Hillside Grading Ordinance as it relates to the location of lot
lines at the top of slopes with Tract Ho. 8520 for Lots 4 through 9,
inclusive.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo, Feldhaus and McBurney absent)
that the Anaheim City Planning Co:rrnission does hereby recommend the City
Council approve the request for waiver of Hillside and Grading Ordinance
as it relates to the location of lot lines at the top of slopes within
Tract 8520 for Lots 4 through 9, inclusive, as suggested by the
Engineering Department.
D. ORANGE COUNTY EMA - Request to determine conformance wits the General Plan
- for the reconstruction of t.*•e East Richfield Channel facility, located
between the Santa Aaa River and Orangethorpe Avenue.
~I~N: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-57 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby find that the proposed channel reconstruction is in conformance
with the adopted Anaheim General Plan.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, HERBST, MESS£
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: C1.RUSILLO, FELDHAUS, S MCBURNEY
ADJODRNMENT:
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED that the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Respectfully sub/m~itted,
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
p0047m
02/17/88