Minutes-PC 1988/06/06~ '
RE I~LLAR?~~.'~_..9~TH~ AN~EIM rTTY PLANNING COMMISSION
~h,na 6. 1988
The re9titlar m^eting of the i,nibinZim City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chai:nan Messe at :~t:00 a.m., June 6, 1988, in the Civic Center
Council Chambers, a quorum being present, and the Planning Commission reviewed
the plans of the items on +_oday's agenda.
RECESS: 11:45 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m•
CGMMI~SIONERS PR~SL&T: Chairman: Messe
Commissioners: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo,
reldhaus, He~bst, McBurney.
(~>mmissioaer Feldhaus arrived
1:45 p.m.)
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
ALSO PRESENT: Joseph W. Flet•:~her Deputy City Attorney
Paul Singer City Traffic Engineer
Arthur L. Daw Deputy City Engineer
Greg Hastings Senior Planner
Mary McCloskey Senior Planner
Debbie Vagts Housing Operations coordinator
Linda Rios Assistant ~'?anner
Edith Harris Planning C9:a;n:ssion Secretary
~ENDA POSTING: :. complete copy of rha Planning CommissioL agenda was posted
at 9:15 a.m., June 3, 1988, '!side the display case located ir3 the foyer of
the Council Chambers, and also is the outside siisplay kiosk.
Published: Anaheim Bu?letin - May 27, 1988.
PUBL'_:~f INPUT: Chairman Masse explained that at the end of the scheduled
hearings, members of the oublic will. be allowed to speak on items of iatezeat
which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda
items.
O100m 88-757 06/06/88
mm
~,~
S
s
e'
,'.
~.
..._... __...:._..~ ,. ....v.....<,<x sin.acu.,,az::e:ccei~xs.=~!a+.r+uvr85~,x~t~Yee!19sF`~:LH~ lal~':~:"~ u.."'F:~~CF.~r"F.4is
., .>.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 6, 1988 88-758
ITEM NJ. 1. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: VARIANCE NO. 3790.
Item No. 1 was heard following Item No. 4.
~BLIC HEARING: OWNEk: Joseph M. Urias, 1224 E. Katella Avenue, Orange, CA
92667. Property is located at 213 South Ohio Street.
Request: Waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit and (b)
maximum structural height to construct a 3-story, 6-unit apartment building.
Continued from meeting of May 9, 1988 and May 23, 1988, for the petitioner to
submit revised plans.
TY,ere were four (4) people indicating their presence in oppos,'r.ioa to subject
request and although the staff report was not read, it is re:•;~:red to and made
a part of the minutes.
Joseph M. Urias, 1224 E. Katella Avenue, Orange, CA 92667, stated he is
proposing a 6-unit project at 213 South Ohio Street. He stated after the last
meeting, and after hearing the concerns of the neighbors, he revised the plans
according to the objections, and that the south facing balconies will be
enclosed to eliminate intrusion into the neighbor's back yard. He str•ted they
had expanded the recreation area to 1902 square feet, which includes a
650-plus square foot recreational area for children downstairs. He noted they
had done away with the one-bedroom unit and created a den to maintain basic
amenities for the prospective tenants; and that the proposed project will
consist of 1192 square feet per unit and the code requires 1200 which is a
difference of only 8 feet per unit. He stated the density applied for is 36.6
units per acre and the code allows 36; and that they have kept the variations
from the code to a minimum; however, they had to maintain the economics and
architectural integrity of the project.
OPPOSITION•
Susan Kocsis, 206 S. Ohio Street, indicated her property was not listed as one
of the surrounding properties although it should be. She submitted a petition
from people who were unable to attend, stating they were not in favor of
granting variances. She stated she was grateful for the applicant having
moved the south facing patios; and that her house is a one-story single-family
residence and she xas not in favor of a three-story building in the area. She
added she is also grateful the applicant is not applying for low-income
housing. She noted one of the changes made was from five three-bedroom units
to five two-bedroom and den unit; however, that did not seem to decrease the
density. She asked if he would be permitted to rent to no more than two
persons per bedroom, excluding children under the age of two. She wanted to
know if there would be four people to each unit instead of six. She stated
the 1200 square feet was established as a minimum, and not a guideline for the
developer to go above or under a little, if needed. She stated the 8 foot
difference wouldn't be that objectionable, but she would object to a number of
other things, including the three-story building. She stated the site
coverage is 748, and 55~ is permitted and that is a difference of 21cb, which
she felt is substantial. Ms. Kocsis +~^.ted the recreation area is nice but she
felt it is still inadequate, and that they did not need more kids playing out
06/06/88
': ~~
s
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION niNE 6 1988 88-7
in tha street. Sbe noted the 24-unit project next to this site and directly
opposite her house has changed the neighborhood drastically and they now have
a substantial drug problem, crime problems and a tremendous noise problem and
they do not want it made worse.
Michael Kowalski, 825 W. Broadway, stated the petition submitted to the
Commission by Susan Rocsis has 18 signatures of people who completely surround
the project who have overwhelmingly said "no" to the variances being requested
by the applicant. He stated he considered the existing codes fair and they
provide ample room for property owners to develop the site and he felt this
property is no exception, and they are not financially restricted in any way.
He stated the ezistin~ codes do not place any hardship on the developer
concerning this part~sular property; however, granting these variances would
be a hardship placed on the residents and homeowners is the area and the
tenants who would move into the facility because of the lack of recreation
area specifically. He stated he is opposed to any of the variances, and that
the property would be overbuilt and the structure too tall for the surrounding
neighborhood.
Joe White, 809 W. Broadway, stated he is opposed to every request for variance
or waiver in the neighborhood; and that the neighborhood has bees inundated
with the granting of waivers and variances. He stated he felt rhea developers
buy property they should get a building permit and build oa the property
according to code and without variances, unless they have a real hardship, and
that applies to this project and anything else that comes up in his
neighborhood.
Marianne Harvey, 212 S. Illinois, stated her property is immediately west
across the alley from the proposed building site. She stated she is opposed
to the project, as she was to the complex that was built immediately north of
the proposed project. She stated at the rear of her property, there is a
50-foot wide, 25-foct deep vacant piece of land which has become a parking lot
where questionable activities qo on and every morning she goes out and cleans
up a mess. She stated the problem had bees compounded by the properties
developed is the last year. She stated she views the current proposal merely
as as extension of the 24 units just bui:t. She stated there are cars parked
on her property every week, despite her "no parking" signs. She noted
frequently cars are parked there which are inoperable and belong to the
tenants across the alley, and they are left there for several days. She
stated once she contacted the police about having one car towed away, and the
:~ezt morning one of her automobiles parked in a carport on her property had a
can of paint dumped on it, and she felt it was is retribution for having
contacted the police and haviny the car towed away. She stated she had had
saveral instances of vandalism on her property which she felt was due to those
tenants across the alley. She noted the tenants there are very transient and
often leave furniture and other trash on hor property when they move out. She
stated that is the kind of tenant these multiple-story projects attract and
that is her biggest complaint, other than noise. She ststad she also objects
to the lack of ade4.~ate space f,~r children to play.
06/06/88
,-~
t~ _ .
INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLt:dNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-760
REHUTTAL•
Mr. Urias stated the concerns of the neighbors seemed to be primarily that
they would like to have a safe neighborhood and ultimately maintain the
density of the neighborhood to a minimum. Ho stated he could appreciate that
and that one of the reasons for submitting this project was to alleviate some
of those same concerns which also affect his property, and that he is as
concerned as the rest of the residents. He indicated this project will create
more parking to take some of the cars off the street. He said the variance is
to maintain as much open area far children as possible, and noted this is only
a six-unit project being proposed which is not a lot. He said he believes the
neighbors xere concerned that the area would attract a criminal element and
that was precisely why he is proposing these larger size units which will be
rented at a price that would not attract a criminal element.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Chairman Messe asked what were the hardships involved in asking for these
variances.
Mr. Urias stated regarding the density, that the neighbors feel the code is
fair and he agrees with that, and he is only asking for as $-foot difference.
Commisafoaer Bouas asked if the occupancy could be limited to four people by
having a txo-bedroom and den unit, or would it be possible to use the den as a
third 'bedroom.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, replied it would be difficult to enforce
occupancy limits in this situation.
Mr. Urias indicated he would be willing to stipulate that the den xould not be
used as a bedroom, but Commissioner Bouas informed him that the City would not
be able to enforce occupancy limits and that there was the possibility of the
den being used as a third bedroom.
Commissioner Carusillo stated at the May 9th Commission meeting, the
Commission felt the project xas too dense for the location and lot size and
also, the structure is moo high. He stated other than just a few cosmetic
changes, he did nat see any difference in the project; therefore, he felt ao
differently than before. He stated he believed the project is too dense for
the lot and that the height is not compatible with the area.
Mr. Urias again stated that he believed the density was under other projects.
He stated he does not see that one bedroom would make that much difference to
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he agreed with Commissioner Carusillo, and that
the applicant was asking Commission to consider economics in their decision
for the variance request and the Commission cannot consider economics in their
decisions. He stated the applicant is still asking for a 21i increase in site
coverage and he did not see any change in what was presented before.
06/06/88
r^
MINUTES ANA$EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 6 1988 88-761
Mr. Urias stated if he submitted five units instead of siz, the property would
be penalized in that he would be building under what code would allow.
Commissioner Messe interjected that the code is the mazimum. Mr. Urias stated
he was tryi,nq to reach a compromise by increasing the recreational area and is
only asking for an 8-foot density variance.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated if the applicant was building according to code,
he would not need to be here.
Commissioner Herbst stated the revised plans raised one wall, took off a door
to a den, made the barbecue area into a recreation area for children which was
already there and hardly anything in the plans had changed. He stated
Commission had asked the applicant to reduce the density and that was not
done. He stated the xhole project should be denied, and that he would not
even vote for another continuance because the applicant had the opportunity to
revise the drawings but he brought back basically the same drawings xith a few
lines changed.
Mr. Urias stated he believed he was answering the complaints of the
neighborhood.
Chairman Messe noted one of the concerns was density gad that had not changed,
and Commissioner Feldhaus stated he had asked that the applicant be given the
additional time to mitigate the problems, including density.
Commissioner Bouas asked Mr. Urias if he had spoken with the neighbors at all
and Mr. Urias stated he had not met with them personally and did not know
their addresses or phone numbers.
g~TION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to permit construction of a 3-story, 6-unit apartment building on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 0.16 acre,
having a frontage of 46 feet oa the west side of Ohio Street, and being
located approzimately 220 feet north of the centerline of Broadway and further
described as 273 South Ohio 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 pz'oject will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-140 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY
Variance No. 3790 on the basis that the proposed project is too dense for the
area, and t7:at there are no special circumstances applicable to the property
such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply
to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict
application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by othez• properties is identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
06/06/88
` ~.
MINUTES ANAi(EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION vUNE 6, 1988 88-762
On roll c~:all, the foregoing resolution xas passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Depu~y City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO 2 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3006.
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Paul J. Marasco and Fannie J. Marasco, 2285 N. Via
Puerto, Laguna Hills, CA 92653; AGENT: Dhirendra S)iah, 13144 Cara•rel Street,
Cerritos CA 90701; LOCATION: 212 South Beach Bou':evard.
Request: Waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) permitted
encroachments into front side and rear yards to permit a 2-story, 196-room
motel including as enclosed restaurant. Continued from meeting of May 23,
1988.
THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING:
a;TION: Commissioner McBuraey offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that consideratio» of
the aforementioned matter be continued to the regular meeting of June 20,
1988, at the applicant's request.
ITEM N0. 3. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-52
(READVERTISED): VARIANCE N0. 3782.
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Mohammad Riafar and Parvin Riafar, 300 North Tustin
Avenue, M201, Santa Aaa, CA 92705; LOCATION: Property is approzimately 0.33
acre located at the southeast corner of LaPalma D.veaue and Anaa Drive.
Request: CL to RM-1200 or a less intense zone; Waivers of (a) minimum
building site area per dxelling unit, (b) mazinrum structural height, (c)
mazimum siY.e coverage and (d) permitted encroa<:hmeats to construct a 14-unit,
3-story, affordable apartment complez.
There xas ao one indicating their presence in opposition to subject req~•as~
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made .• pt:rt
of the minutes.
Chairman Messe noted this item had b,^en previously considered by the Planning
Commission, but due to advertising error it had been readvertised and reopened
the public hearing.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
06/06/88
INUTES ANABEIMSITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JLRiE 6 1988 ,~~
Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission should rescind
the resolution previously granted and and then adopt a new resolution.
A TI N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBuraey and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the CL (Commercial,
Limited) Zoae to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone and to
construct a 14-unit, 3-story, "affordable" apartment complex on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.33 acre
located at the southeast corner of LaPalma Avenue and Anna Drive, having
approximate frontages of 100 feet on the south side of LaPalma Avenue and 145
feet on the east side olE Anna Drive; and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration
together with any commerats 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 oa the environment.
Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-141 rescinding Resolution
Nos. PC88-130 and PC88-131, on the basis that the subject request was
previously approved by the Anaheim City Planning Commission oa May 23, 1988,
(6 - 0) vote and subsequently it was discovered that the project had not been
properly advertised.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: HOURS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDNAUS, AE.iiST,
MC HURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-142 and moved for its
passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Reclassification No. 87-88-52, subject t.o Tnterdepartmeatal Committee
Recommendations.
Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, FiERHST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-143 and moved for its
passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Variance No. 3782 under authority of State Government Code Section
65915, on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do
not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that
strict application of the Zoning code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the
vicinity, subject to interdepartmental Committee recocamendations.
06/06/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TT^TY 5 1986 88-764
Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARi75ILL0, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: 'NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 4 WAS HEARD AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
I EM NO 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 281 AND ADDENDUM (PREVIQUSLY
~ERTIFIED• TENTATIVE TRACT NOS 13268 1492 13493 13494 13495 13535.
izSZF 13537, 13511, 13533, 1zceY 13540 and 1354 AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT NO 88-07 PUBLIC HEARING:
OWNERS: Baldwin Building Company, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714;
AGENT: Diana Hoard, Vice-President, The Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale Avenue,
Irvine, CA 92714. Property consists of 13 Tentative Tracts totaling
approximately 135.79 acres located on the south and north sides of Oak Hills
Drive within the xestern portion of the previously-approved The Summit of
Anaheim Hills Planned Community, bounded on the north by Sycamore Canyon, and
on the south by Irvine Company property, and further designated as Development
Area Nos. 103, 104, and 105 on The Summit General Plan of Development
(Amendment No. 1). (Development Area Nos. 103, and 104 are subject to
RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone
standards and Development Area No. 105 is subject to RS-5000(SC) (Residential,
Single-Family, Scenic Corridor Overlay) 2oae standards per The Summit PC(SC)
Planned Community 2oae designations.)
Request: For the removal of 146 specimen trees and the approval of the
following Tentative Tract Maps:
Tract No. 13268 - To establish a RM-3000 (SC) Zoae, 4.02-acre, 34-lot
single-family attached residential subdivision.
Tract No. 13493 - To establish a RM-3000 (SC) Zone, 3.28-acre, 32-lot
single-family attached residential subdivision.
Tract No. 13492 - To establish a RM-3000 (SC) Zone, 8.33-acre, 30-lot
(plus one open space lot) single-family attached
residential subdivision.
Tract No. 13494 - To establish a RM-3000 (SC) Zone. 2.72-acre, 26-lot
single-family attached residential subdivision.
Tract No. 13495 - To establish a RM-3000 (SC) 8.29 acre, 26-lot (plus
one open space lot) single-family attached residential
subdivision.
Tract No. 13535 - To establish a RM-3000 (SC) Zone, 3.3-acre, 20-lot
single-family attached residential subdivision.
Tract No. 13536 - To establish a RM-3000 (SC) Zone, 3.94-acre, 32-lot
single-family attached residential subdivision.
Tract No. 13537 - To establish a RM-3000 (SC) Zoae, 7.62-acre, 58-lot
single-family attached residential subdivision.
06!06188
-"
._
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-765
Tract No. 13511 - To establish a RS-5000 (SC) Zone, 7.8 acre, 29-lot
(plus one open space lot) single-family detached
residential subdivision.
Tract No. 13533 - To establish a RS-5000(SC) 2oae, 17.3 acre,
37-lot(plus two open space lots and one reservoir site
lot) single-family detached residential subdivision.
Tract No. 13534 - To establish a RS-5000 (SC) Zone, 35.5-acre, 35-lot
(plus two open space lts) single-family detached
residential subdivision.
Tract No. 13540 - To establish a RS-5000 (SC) zone, 10.6-acre, 40-lot
(Plus one open space lot) single-family detached
residential subdivision.
Tract No. 13541 - To establish a RS-5000 (SC) 2oae, 6.0-acre, 27-lot
single-family detached residential subdivision.
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.
PRESENTATION•
City Traffic Engineer Paul Singer responded to Chairman Messe that a traffic
study analysis at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon
road was required by condition, and the capacity shown in the study indicates
a level of service "E", which is 91e of ultimate capacity, and that is really
just a minor 1~ deficiency and considering that neither the Taubman Center,
nor The Highlands or Wallace Ranch have been developed, this particular
discrepancy is so minor, it will probably not have any plus or minus effect on
the capacity at this time. He recommended that be considered as satisfying
the needs for the capacity at this intersection.
Diana Hoard, Vice-president, The Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine,
indicated these tract maps are almost the total extent of their west side and
they are consistent with the Planned Community Amendment which was recently
before the Commission and represents a slight reduction over the previously
approved plan. She stated it does allow for 5,000-square foot lots and places
homes oa smaller lots averaging about 34 feet in widtr. She noted that these
tracts did have a requirement of a site specific traffic study and that study
was prepared, and it assumed everything in the entire Anaheim Hills area had
been built out to capacity with the ezception of this ranch, so it assumes far
beyond what exists today. She stated they represent 5i of the actual volumne
in the area versus as ezisting condition which is 91i. Ms. Hoard stated the
development will occur at the same time as the completion of the Eastern
Transportation Corridor; and that they are required, as with other
developments in the area, to pay the mitigation fee towards the financial
support of the Eastern Corridor, and that will occur with each permit.
Commissioner Feldhaus arrived at 1:45 p.m.
Ms. Hoard stated their plan also includes the Specimen Tree Removal Permit
which does have the overall mitigation plan which they had discussed before
and also they will be recreating an oak woodland as a result of those trees
05/05/88
.. ... ,..... ._..... ......, a,w~.....s..,-r ..a...•a.r„a ., er, ..~~r. vir se'sr~.~:• .. .."7'^."... k:.~~,tM'!k'.1.'w^G.
a
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COh4fISSION, JUNE 6, 1988 88-766
that axe removed. She noted although she knew it was not an item in front of
Commission now, they will be coming in with a Specific Plan for the eastern
half of the property. She stated, however, this plan will be reducing their
overall traffic impact well below what would have occured if the originally
approved project had gone forward.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Chairman Messe, Ms. Hoard stated she had seen the condition
regarding the trees.
Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Fletcher stated the Commission should make a
finding if they approve this request that Che traffic has been adequately
mitigated and will not be a substantial impact on the intersection.
Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, pointed out the Commission needs to make a
finding that the tracts are consistent with the General Plan. She explained
General Plan Amendment No. 242 and the Reclassification, which were approved
by the Planning Commission to redesignate the land uses and zoning for this
area, will be considered by the City Council on June 14, so the motion should
include that the tentative tracts are in compliance with the General Plan
pending that approval by the City Council. She stated the tracts have been
conditioned so that they can be granted subject to approval of GPA 242 and
Reclassification No. 86-87-19, Amendment No. 1, by the City Council.
ACTION Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBuraey and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal for Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 13268, 13492, 13493,
13494, 13495, 13535, 13536, 13537, 13511, 13533, 13534, 13540 and 13541 and
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 88-07 and does hereby determine that
Environmental Im~2act Report No. 281 and Addendum (previously certified) for
The Summit of Anahim Hills Planned Community (Reclassification Na. 86-87-19)
is adequate to serve as the required environmental docuomentation for the
above-mentioned tracts and specimen tree removal.
ACTION ON THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS:
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey and
MOTION CARRIED that pursuant to Government Code, Section 66473.5, the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision
together with its design and improvement is consistent xith the City's General
Plan, subject to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and
amendment to Reclassification No. 86-87-19, and does hereby approve Tentative
Tract No. 13268 to establish a RM-3000 (SC) Zone, 4.02-acre, 34-lot
single-family attached residential subdivision, (D.A. 103); Tentative Tract
No. 13492, to establish a RM 3000 (SC) Zone, 8.33-acre, 30-lot (plus one open
space lot) single-family attached residential subdivision, (D.A. 103);
Tentative Tract No. 13493, to establish a RM 3000 (SC) Zone, 3.28-acre, 32-lot
single-family attached residential subdivision, (D.A. 103); Tentative Tract
No. 13494, to establish a RM 3000 (SC) Zoae, 2.72-acre, 26-lot single-family
attached residential subdivision, (D.A. 103); Tentative Tract No. 13495, to
establish a RM 3000 (SC) Zone, 8.29-acre, 26-lot (plus one open space)
06/06/88
a
4
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE 6. 1988 88-767
single-family attached residential subdivision, (D.A. 103); Tentative Tract
No. 13535, to establish a RM 3000 (SC) Zone, 3.3-acre, 20-lot single-family
attached residential subdivision, (D.A. 104); Tentative Tract No. 13536, to
establish a RM 3000(SC) Zone, 3.94-acre, 32-lot single-family attached
residential subdivision, (D.A. 104); Tentative Tract No. 13537, to establish
a RM 3000(SC) Zone, 7.62-acre, 58-lot single-family attached residential
subdivision, (D.A. 109); Tentative Tract No. 13511, to establish a RM
3000(SC) Zone, 7.8-acre, 29-lot (plus one open spaces lot) single-family
detached residential subdivision, (D.A. 105); Tentative Tract No. 13533, to
establish a RM 3000 (SC) Zone, 17.3-acre, 37-lot (plus two open space lots and
one reservoir site lot) siaglr-family detached residential subdivision, (D.A.
105); Tentative Tract No. 13534, to establish a RM 3000 (SC) Zone, 35.5-acre,
35-lot (plus two open space lots) single-family detached residential
subdivision, (D.A.105); Tentative Tract No. 13540, to establish a RM 3000 (SC)
Zone, 10.6-acre, 40-lot (plus one open space lot) single-family detached
residential subdivision, (D.A. 105); Tentative Tract No. 13541, to establish
a RM 3a00(SC) Zone, b.0-acre, 27-lot single-family detached residential
subdivision, (D.A. 105), subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING-RELATED
1. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for
implementation of all applicable stipulations stated in Exhibit B (Revision
No. 1) (the document titled Public Facilities Plan for The Summit of Anaheim
Hills Planned Community). (C1)
2. That the ordinances reclassifying The Summit Planned Community shall be
adopted as each parcel is ready to comply with the conditions pertaining to
such parcel; provided, however, that the word "parcel" shall mean presently
ezistinq parcels of record and any parcel approved for subdivision by the City
Council. (p2)
3. That prior to introduction of ordinances rezoning each portion of
subject property as shoxn on Ezhibit 5 is the document titled Planned
Community Zone Amendment No. 1, for The Summit of Anaheim Hills Development
and dated May 23, 1988 (labeled Ezhibit A, Amendment No. 1}, and in accordance
xith the provisions of Chapter 18.85 (the Planned Community Zoae), the
property owner/developer shall submit final specific plans of development for
each portion to the City Planning Commission for review and approval. Final
specific plans shall include, but may not be limited to, the following:
(a) Location map - drawn to the same scale as the maps in Ezhibit A
(Revision No. 1) and relating the area to be rezoned to the overall Summit
Planned Community. Said location map shall include a legal description of the
giro-y~rti upon which the final specific plan is being filed.
(b) Topographic map.
(c) Site plans, floor plans and elevations - showing the placement of
all buildings and structures; the front, side and rear elevations; the roof
plans; and the ezterior building materials including roofing.
06/06/88
~,
;~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY ^L 'i"°'.^t' ^^'p ~ ~ Ogg 88-7Sz8
(d) Lot dimensions and pad sizes - of all lots sufficient to indicate
the relationship of the proposal to the nature and extent of the cut and fill
earthwork involved.
(e) Landscaping places - indicating the extent sad type of proposed
landscaping and including any existing vegetation which is to be retained.
(f.) Vehicular circulation and parking plan - indicating the nature and
extent of public and private streets, alleys and other public accessways for
vehicular circulation, off-street parking, and vehicular storage.
(q) Fence and wall plans - indicating the type of fencing along any
lot line of a site abutting a street, creek, lake or open storm drain. The
specific fence or wall location shall be shown in addition to the color,
material and height. Any fencing located in a manner which may obstruct the
view from a public right-of-way shall consist of decorative open-work
materials.
(h) Sigainq plans - indicating the proposed signing program and
including, but not limited to, any identification, business or other signs;
sad specifying the size, height, location, color, material and lighting of
such signs. The developer shall provide signs to identify the Eastern
Transportation Corridor area within one-half (1/2) mile of the corridor. In
addition, signs shall be provided to identify proposed future land uses, such
as the commercial site, future park/school site, and residential land uses,
etc. All signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City
Traffic Engineer for vehicular and pedestrian visibility. (/3)
4. That all development including grading and landscape plans shall comply
with the requirements of the "Scenic Corridor Overlay Zoae" as outlined is
Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (N4)
5. That any specimen tree removal shall comply with the tree preservation
regulations in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.84 "Scenic Corridor Overlay
Zone"'. (N6)
6. That in accordance xih the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of
Aaahiem Plaaning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written
information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning xithin
three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of sujbect tract. (i7)
7. That as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.84.041.012 and
18.84.062.032, ao roo'f-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted. (/8)
WATER
8. That prior to the approval of the first tentative tract or parcel map,
with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, said map shall show the location
of the terminal storage reservoir and prior to the approval of the final tract
or parcel map, with the e:zception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the property
owner/developer shall eager into a written agreement with the Water
Engineering Division as to the exact placement of the terminal water storage
facility. (C12)
06/06/88
r
Tt. TTFC AN7~~.EIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~$rnu rttuc F i ong 88-769
9. That all water supply planning for the project shall be closely
coordinated with, and be subject to review and final approval by, the City of
Anaheim Public Utilities Department. (N14)
10. That the water supply system for The Summit development sha21 be
designed is accordance with the Water Utility's Master Plan fo,r Special
Facilities District No. 1. (A15)
ll. That the water mains and water storage reservoirs shall be designers
as part of the City's Master Water System ultimately serving areawide
development. (N16)
12. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that the property
owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for implem~entatioa of the
water system to the City is conjunction with streets, and through. easements at
the time of final tract or parcel map recordation. The reservoir sites shall
be dedicated with the final maps, or when required by the City. (N17)
13. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that bonding for
construction of the required water aystem improvements shall be furnished in
conjunction with each final map. (N18)
14. That t)se water supply system shall be funded and constructed in
accordance with the following Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations:
(a) the property developer/owner shall install the secondary system
improvements; (b) funds for construction of the pump stations and reservoirs
shall be advanced by the developer through the payment of special facilities
fees as provided for in Rule 15-5; {c) primary mains shall be installed by
the City with funds provided by the property owner/developer in the form of
primary acreage fees as provided for is Rule 15-A; (d) the necessary financial
arrangements for construction of the special facilities and required primary
main fees shall be made prior to final tract or pa3tel map approval with the
ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (N19)
~jtAFFIC
15. That with the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer
shall, in cooperation with the City of Anaheim and Orange County Trsasit
District, prepare a coordinated study to ezamine methods of implementing a
Transportation Systems Management program with specific guidelines indicating
strategies to reduce the amount of trips and increase the amount of
non-vehicular transportation. Strategies may include transit service, park
and ride turnouts, carpool and vanpool facilities, bikeways, and other
transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development
site. (N21)
6/6/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE b 1988 88 770
16. The following conditions apply to the construction of the Serrano
Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection between Canyon Rim Road and the Sauer Ranch.
(a) The owner/developer of The Summit shall post security in an
amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee construction of
Serrano Avenue within The Summit as well as for one-half of the construction
of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the Sycamore Canyon
prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project,
or the commencement of grading on The Summit, whichever comes first. The
owner/developer of the Highlands Praject shall post similar security is an
amount and form aoproved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of
Serrano Avenue xithin their property as well as for one-half of the
construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the
Sycamore Canyon Ranch within the same time frame as set forth above.
(b) In the event the Highlands Project fails to post security as
set forth in (a) above, the owner/developer of The Summit may post security is
en amount and form approved by the City prior to the commencement of grading
on The Summit to guarantee the ccastruction of Serrano Avenue within The
Summit as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within
the Highlands Project prior to the placement of combustibles on The Summit, or
commencement of grading oa the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, whichever comes first,
provided that the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts similar
security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to commencement of
grading on The Summit to guarantee the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir
Canyon Road within their property as well as for one-half of the construction
of Serrano Avenue within the Highlands Project within the same time frame as
net forth above.
(c) In the event that neither the owner/developer of the Highlands
Project nor the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts the
security as provided is (a) and (b) above, the property owner/developer of The
Summit shall, prior to commencement of grading on The Summit, post a security
in as amount and form approved by the City to guarantee the construction of
Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road from the ezisting terminus of Serrano Avenue
at Canyon Rim Road to the ezisting terminus of Weir Canyon Road at the
southern boundary of the Sauer Ranch prior to placement of combustible
materials oa The Summit.
To the ezteat permitted by law, the City Council sha13 establisi:
reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to The
Summit and either the Highlands Project or t1:e Sycamore Canyon Ranch for the
cost of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above.
Costs associated with the establishment of such districts shall be at the
ezpense of The Summit owner/developer. (N24)
6/6/SE
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION nJNE 6 1988 88-771
17. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
provide the City of Anaheim with proof of as arterial highway right-of-way
across the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby permitting the property
owner/developer to eztend Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue through L`he
Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby providing access to The Summit; and, further,
proof of an arterial highway right-of-way across the Highlands property to
provide for the eztensioa of Serrano Avenue. (N26)
18. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning !ny
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall agree to
construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the Orange County Transit District
and the City Traffic Engineer, at no cost to the City. Written proof of said
agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department. (N28)
19. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall submit a
phasing plan for both traffic signalization and roadway construction in The
Summit to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. (N29)
20. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
coordinate the construction schedule, alignment and developer responsibilities
for any road construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate
property owner. (N30)
21. That prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise deemed
necessary by the Traffic Engineer, the precise location and phasing of any
required aignals shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic
Engineer. All aignals shall be interconnected with the City system. (N31)
22. That the groperty owner/developer shall pay the Bridge Thoroughfare
Fee for the Eastern Traaspo~tatioa Corridor in compliance with City Council
Resolution No. 85-R-423. (N32)
23. That no residential front-ons along arterial highways shall be
included in The Summit development (N33)
2A. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be
submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department. (N37)
25. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be
installed if permandent street name signs have not been installed. (N38)
26. That nu public or private street grades shall ezceed l0i ezcept by
prior approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the Engineering
Division. (N39)
6; 6/88
MZNUTES A~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE 6 1988 88-772
27. That dates shall not be installed across any driveway or private
street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the
adjacent public street(s). Installation of any gates shall conform to
Engineering Standard Plan No. 402 and their location shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to the approval of each
tentative tract or parcel map with the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363.
(f40)
28. That any on- or off-site roads shall be constructed is accordance
with all applicable Circulation Element and Engineering standards. (~4T)
29. That the property owner/developer shall dedicate the land for 'the
public street system for public use with the recordation of each final tract
map for each individual residential area. (N42)
30. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the general alignment of The Summit
road system including residential and local street alignments, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City, and prior to !approval of each
final tract or parcel map with the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the
engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer. (b43)
31. That bonding for oa-site roadways sad traffic signals shall be
furnished as part of is-tract improvements. (i44)
32. That the property owner/developer shall be financially responsible
for the following: (a) design and construction of the public and private road
system; (b) design and construction associated with landscaping of the
parkways adjacent to public sad private roads; (c) acquiring any permits for
any on- and off-site roadways sad any subsequent environmental assessments
deemed necesuary; (d) maintenance of the private street system and all public
and private street parkways, unless maintained by another financial mechanism
approved by the City. (p45)
33. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the
approval of the first final traces or parcel map, the developer shall pay for
sad the City shall be responsible for conducting a study to determine a
financial plan for circulation improvements listed below. Said study shall
determine the cost of the improvements and assign those costs among the
Highlands, The Summit and Sycamore Canyon Ranches; nay undeveloped parcels of
land located within the study area from Imperial Highway to Weir Canyon Road
and from the southerly City limits to Orangethorpe Avenuo, and including all
of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch and The Summit; and, the City. The findings of
the study, showing proportionate share of cost distribution, shall become
binding upon the developments and shall be pr..id for at the time of issuance of
building permits. Proportionate share will be determined based on impact on
Santa Ana Canyon Road:
6/6/88
:-~. w
~.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-773
(a) Widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate sir-lane
configuration between Imperial Highway and the Bauer Ranch improvements.
(b) Restripe the eastbound off-ramp from the 91 Freeway at Weir
Canyon Road to provide one right-turn lane and one optional left-turn and
right-turn lane. (#46)
STREET MAINTENANCE
34. As required by Condition No. 138 of Resolution No. 88R-144, the
street maintenance facility shall be irrevocably offered for dedication prior
to recordation of Parcel Map No. 87-363. Said facility shall be located
adjacent to the proposed park or school site and shall be approved by the
Director of Maintenance. In conjunction with approval of the first final
tract or parcel map, with the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the precise
configuration of the street maintenance facility shall be approved by the
Director of Maintenance. If the configuration of the site is different from
the site offered for dedication per Parcel Map No. 87-363, the owner/developer
shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate said modified site.
Furthermore, prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map with the
ezceptioa of Parcel Map H0. 87-363, the property owner/developer shall enter
into an agreement with the Maintenance Department to provide its proportionate
share of the costs to the City for provision of the street maintenance
facil.'.ty to serve the easterly portion of the City as determined by the
Director of Maintenance. Written praof of said agreement shall be furnished
to the Planning Department and the Maintenance Department and shall be subject
to approval by the Maintenance Department and City Attorney's Office. (#47)
35. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, "2::~ parking for
street sweeping" signs shall be installed as required by the Department of
Maintenance and in accordance with specifications on file with said
department. (#48)
36. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
recordation of each tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
record a covenant requiring the seller to provide the purchaser of each
residential dwelling with written information concerning Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 14.32.500 pertaining to "Parking restricted to facilitate street
sweeping". Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street
parking is prohibited sad the penalty for violation. (#49)
6/6/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 58-774
37. With the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, tLat prior to
introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any portion of subject property
or prior to approval of the first final tract of parcel map, whichever occurs
first, the property owner/developer shall post a bond to secure reimbursement
to the City of Anaheim for The Summit proportionate share of the cost for
providing public facilities and utilities (including afire station,
electrical and water facilities, and drainage facilities), which 'facilities
and utilities are located in the Hauer Ranch but will also serve The Summit
which proportionate share of cost will be paid by property owner prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or use for the first unit in The
Summit. Said funds shall be used to reimburse Kaufman and Broad (the
developer of the Bauer Ranch) for The Summit's proportionate share of said
facilities and utilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement
agreements administered by the city. (151)
FIRE
38. with the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that in coajimction
with submittal of the first final tract or parcel map, the property
owner/developer shr.ll submit plans delineating roadway access to The Summit
from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue or some other acceptable route;
and, Fire Station No. 10 via a new weir Canyon/Serrano connection or some
other acceptable route. Such pleas shall be Co the satisfaction of the City
Fire Chief and City Traffic Engineer. (152)
39. That prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/
developer shall submit detailed design plans fur accessibility of emergency
fire equipment, fire hydrant location and other construction features to the
Fire Marshal for review and approval. Prior to the placement of building
materials on the building site, as all weather driving surface must be
provided from the roadway system to and oa the construction site. Every
building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The
width and radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section
10.207(a) of the Uniform Pire Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim. (153)
40. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be
designed to provide sufficient fireflow pressure and storage in accordance
with Fire Department requirements. (154)
41. That prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or
lot, accessible fire hydrants shall be installed and charged vithia one
hundred fifty (150) feet of all portions of the ezterior walls of the first
floor of each building, in conformance with City standards. Specific
information on the design and implementation of the required hydrant system
network for The Sunmtit may be obtained from the Fire Department. (155)
6/6/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C01~2dISSION JUNE 6 1988 86-775
42. That prior to any construction on any parcel on The Summir_, access,
as approved per Condition No. 52, from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue
or other acceptable route and Fire Station No. 10 via a nex Weir
Canyon/Serrano connection or other acceptable route, shall be provided is
accordance with Fire Department policies and requirements for fire fighting
equipment and emergency evacuation only. Said access would not be used for
general traffic circulation. (N56)
43. That buildings shalA be constructed in conformance with the fire
safety provisions of the Uniform Building Code. This includes the use of fire
resistant roofing and construction materials as required by the City of
Anaheim for Fire Zone 4 (Fire Administrative Order No. 76-01). Such further
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 when located
within two hundred (200) feet of adjacent brushlaad. Built-in fire prc ~ctioa
such as sprinkler systems shall also be provided where applicable in
accordance with City standards for commercial and/or residential buildings.
(N57)
44. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department. (N58)
45. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed residences shall be
landscaped with a low-fuel combustible seed miz. Such slopes shall be
sprinklered sad weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (100)
feet of separation between flammable vegetation and nay structure. (N59)
46. That prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the
property owner/developer shall provide its fair share of the cost of the
construction of permanent Fire Station No. 9 as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. (N61)
ERRS
47. With the exception of Parcel Map Ho. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract oz parcel map for any portion of subject property,
the property owner/developer shall enter into a written agreement with the
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department specifying the timing and
dollar amount of the property owner/developer's responsibility for park
facility construction. Said agreement shall include the following: (a)
identification of the physical boundaries of the park site, as agreed to by
The Summit property owner/developer and the Parks, Recreation sad Community
Services Department; (b) plans for vehicular and pedestrian access to the park
site, including any necessary agreements with adjacent property owners as
approved by the Parks, Recreation sad Community Services Department and by the
City Traffic Engineer. (N62)
6/6/88
4` ~/
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COh'2~lISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-776
48. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department. (/63)
49. That the payment of is-lieu fees for additional park dedication
obligation requirements shall be made in accordance with City requirements and
the Subdivision Map Act rhea determined appropriate by the Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Department. (A663
50. That County trails shall be maintained by the County or through a
Special Maintenance District or other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City, and shall be established at the ezpense of the property
oxaer/developer, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
({67)
51. That the park dedication requirement shall be for the full 12-acre
requirement (based upon current population projections); hoxever, adjustments
may be made xith the first tentative tract map submittals should less than the
anticipated population. is the development actually be realised. Final site
acceptance requires the approval of the Department of Parks, Recreation b
Community Services with the submittal of the first final tract map. (N69)
52. That a grading feasibility study of the park site must be submitted
and approved by the,Departmeat of Parks, Recreation sad Community Services and
the Engineering Department to determine the average slope of the site and
insure that the graded areas for The Summit park and future Sycamore Canyon
Ranch park dedication can be provided consistent with Condition No. 68 of
Resolution No. 88R-144. This grading feasibi~,ity study must be provided with
the first final tract approval. Final grading plans for the park must be
approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Servicos and
Engineering Department and be in conformance xith the previously-approved
grading feasibility study. (/70)
6/b/88
i .'
MINUTES AIiAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, X488 88-777
53. a. That the owner/developer complete the park construction within
one (1) year from the issuance of the 970th building permit or the issuance of
the first building permit for Parcel 202 of Area D, whichever comes first.
b. That The Summit shall begin construction of their parksite
within thirty (30) days of the commencement of any construction required of
the Sycamore Canyon Ranch owner/developer is their parksite located contiguous
to The Summit property, regardless of the number of building permits issued
for The Summit.
c. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, containing the 970th unit
the owner/developer will post a bond or other appropriate security in an
amount and form approved by the City, to ensure the parksite design and
construction (including all weather vehicular access approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Traffic
Engineer) are completed as required in items a and/or b as indicated
above. (077)
j~ILITIES - GENERAL
54. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map N0. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property ownerldeve~opez shall
provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition
of easements for any public facility (including, but not limited to water,
electrical, sewers, drainage) that will be necessary to cross the Highlands
property or Sycamore Canyon Ranch, in order to serve the needs of The Summit,
as required by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager.
Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the sole
ezpense of the property owner/developer. (078)
55. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, newer, water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and
approval by the Public Utilities Department ao that Utilities' Facilities
Plans are coordinated with site development. (079)
LIBRARY
56. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-3631 that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map for any portion of subject property,
the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Anaheim Library Department to provide The Summit proportionate share of costs
for provision of a library facility to be located oa the Bauer Ranch. Written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and
shall be subject to approval by the Library Director and City Attorney's
Office. (080)
6/6/88
t~ ' "_
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 8~$
gQ~.I CE
57. With the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Police Department to provide
its proportionate share of costs to the City for provision of an off-site
satellite police facility to serve the easterly portion of the City. Written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and
Police Department and shall be subject to approval by the Police Department
and City Attorney's Office. (~B1)
SCHOOLS
58. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property Owner/developer shall provide the
Planning Department with a letter indicating The Summit and the Orange Unified
School District, have come to a conceptual agreement on the location and size
of the elementary school site; and that prior to the issuance of the first
building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide the department
with proof of a written agreement between The Summit and the Orange Unified
School District agreeing on the actual location and size of the elementary
school site as well as specified timing of dedication, construction, grading
of the site and any further obligations benefiting the area ranches as to
their proportionate share of cost for the school facility. is addition, the
agreement shall provide for The Summit proportionate share in providing
off-site elementary and secondary school facilities to meet the needs of The
S-~umnit. (q82)
SANITARY SEWERS
59. With the ezception of Parcel Mnp N0. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final tract or parcel map. the property owner/developer shall submit
plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer systems xithin the
tract parcel or boundaries, for review and approval by the City Engineer. The
sewer system for the project shall be funded, constructed and maintained in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering
Department. (k83)
60. With the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the location, phasing, bonding and
details of the sewer facilities shall be determined by sheet configurations,
lot layouts, gravity flow and a subsequent sewer study performed by the
property owner/developer and to be submitted to and approved by Lhe City
Engineer. (M84)
6/6/88
~' . l
MINUTES A2tAHEIM CITY PLANNING,COMMISSIO`~ JUNE 5 1988 88-779
61. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall be financially
responsible for the following sanitary sewer-related items: (a) the
acquisition of any required permits and environmental assessments; (b) the
design and construction of all local sewer line eztensions and related
facilities as part of the improvements for each tract or parcel map with the
exception of Parcel Map NQ. 87-363, as approved by the City Engineer; (c) a
Special Maintenance District, or other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City of Anaheim, for maintenance of the lift station, force
main and sewer lines is private streets which shall be established at the
ezpense of the property owner/developer. (085)
HYDROLOGY
62. With the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, a feasibility study of the property
owner/developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted to address
the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium and environmental concerns,
including the optimum level of high level flow for satisfying both hydrology
and natural vegetation needs within the drainage basin. This study shall also
address these effects on the proposed park site. Ia addition, the study shall
address the maintenance costs associated with the facilities. Said study
shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of
construction and final design, including erosion control measures shall be in
conformance with the findings of said study. Said study shall be approved by
the City Engineer and reviewed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, California Department of Fish and Game sad the County
Environmental Management Agency. Furthermore, precise alignments of drainage
improvements in the northern portion of the major drainageway on-site shall be
located to preserve significant steads of oak trees to the mazimum eztent
feasible. The property owner/developer shall submit results of a mapping
survey of oak trees is that area to the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department, indicating which trees will be preserved, at the time the
drainage system plans are reviewed by the City Engineer. (686)
63. With ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval of
each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
sizing requirements for storm drain systems within the tract or parcel
boundaries, as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. (687)
64. That the design and installation of project drainage facilities
shall be in accordance with the flow criteria, design standards and
construction requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. (689)
6/6/88
- `,
a r
MIhJT°S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-780
65. That erosion control measures shall be incorporated into the final
grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in short-term
erosion and sediment transport both on-site and downstream. Such measures
will be provided in accordance with City requirements, including timely
seeding of graded slopes and the use of temporary control devices, e.q.
sediment traps, desiltinq basins, berms and perimeter sandbagging. (i90)
66. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall be financially
responsible for the following items: (a) advancement of funds for and the
construction of the Master Plan drainage facilities; (b) the construction of
in-tract and local storm drain system improvement; (c) any permits and any
subsequent environmental assessment deemed necessary by the City of Anaheim.
(i91)
67. That bonding for the Master Plan drainage facilities shall be
provided in conjunction with the various phases that may be approved. Bonding
for in-tract improvements shall occur with tract approvals. (i92)
68. That the phasing of in-tract drainage improvements shall occur as
final tract maps are approved for all development areas. (i93)
69. That local storm drains shall be constructed as part of the
improvements for each tract. (i94)
70. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, a special maintenance district or
other funding mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City shall be
established at the ezpense of the property owner/developer for the maintenance
of all open or natural channel storm drain facilities both on- and off-site
necessitated by The Summit development. (i95)
71. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site,
sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no grading
work shall be permitted betreen Oc*_ober 15th and April 15th unless all
off-site drainage facilities as required by the drainage feasibility study
have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provide
to the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to Octobor
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 costs of which shall be borne by the property
own-*/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
6/6/88
MINUTES AtIAHEIM !`":'._^,^' ,~Ytc;~,.;~.j~_~~SION JUNE 6 1988 BB-781
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be
functional throughout the tract or parcel and from the doxastream boundary of
the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of the
first final building inspection or occupancy permit. To the eztent the
property oxner/developer may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or
other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for the
establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs
associated xith the establishment of any such districts shall be at the
azpense of the property oxner/developer. (N96)
TRADING/SOIL/LANDSCAPI7~S
72. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property oxner/developer shall submit a
final grading glan prepared by a civil engineer based oa recommendations of a
soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of
detailed soils and geologic investigt~tioas for each subdivision map area.
Site-specific geotechnical studies s!~,all provide specific feasible
recommendations for mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization,
liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate drains and
subdrains in each area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer
and shall be sul;ject to a grading permit: (a) Furthermore, that grading
operations in the vicinity of the Four Corners Pipeline shall include
procedures proposed by the property oxner/developer to ensure that pipeline
operation is not interrupted or jeopardized. Said procedures shall be
reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City
Engineer prior to approval of any grading plan that could possibly affect said
pipeline. These procedures may include avoiding placement of fill over the
pipeline, providing bridging or support to the pipe, and providing temporary
stabilization oa slopes as required; (b) that grading plans shall include an
erosion, siltation, and dust control plan to be approved Dy the City
Engineer. The plan shall include provisions for measures such as immediate
planting of vegetation on all ezposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins
and sandbagging, if necessary, and a xateriag and compaction program. The
plan shall ensure that discharge of surface runoff from tl^a~~ project during
construction activities shall not result in increased erosion of siltation
doxnstream. (q97)
73. That any grading or development of the site shall conform to the
general recommendations presented in the geotechnical studies (Loxnes Geologic
Services, dated 1983; Leighton and Associates, dated August 1986, and May
1985) referred to in EIR No. 281. Said recommendations shall include
specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and
fill, slope stability, soils engineering, sad surface and subsurface drainage,
and recorvnendatioas for further study. (M98)
6/6/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CIT).' PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 6 1988 88-782
74. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide information showing that the overall
shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in
accordance with City Council Policy No. 211. (1199)
75. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
identify the location of slopes adjacent to roadways which provide access to
The Summit (and which roadways may be located in the Sycamore Canyon Ranch or
Highlands development), and furthermore shall, prior to approval of the first
final tract or parcel map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363,
provide for a maintenance mechanism for said slopes acceptable to the City
Engineer. (N100)
ELECTRICAL
76. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and
approval by the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' facilities
plans are designed and coordinated with site development. (101)
77. That the property owner/developer shall have the financial
responsibility for the installation of underground conduit, substructures,
retaining walls and for street lighting installations on nll streets, public
and private, at ao cost to the City in accordance with the City of Anaheim
Rates, Rules and Regulations. (p102)
78. That the property owner/developer ahall provide and construct for
the City all accessary trenches, backfill, conduits, manholes, vaults,
handholes and pull boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations.
The scheduling and funding for the backbone system utility costs shall be
determined during the preparation and prior to improvement plan(s) approvals.
The property owner/developer shall also advance this fee to the City to
complete the backbone system upon billing by the City. (0103)
79. With the exception of Parcel Map N0. 87-363, that prior to final
tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall advance a
non-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department.
(#104)
80. That the electrical system and related improvements shall be
installed as development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical
facilities shall be provided in accordance with City codes. (/105)
6/6/88
~.
~.
,~I' ^'°S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt+44ISSInx T-tNE 6 1988 88-783
81. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that all facilities
shall be located within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated with the
recordation of final maps. The conduit system with associated concrete
manholes and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or
capacitors shall be in metal cabinets mounted above-ground on concrete pads.
(p106)
f~NDSCAPING
82. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide landscape plans specifying an
Irrigation Management Program for the oa-site landscaped areas, said plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The system shall ensure
that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of leca.l soils and that
the application of fertilizers and pesticides does not exceed appropriate
levels and frequencies. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify
methods for monitoring the irrigation system, and shall be designed by an
irrigation engineer. (p107)
83. That prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review and
approval, a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape
architect to integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the
proposed grading and construction schedule. It shall provide visual screening
of urban uses (residential, commercial, school, water tank) from open space
areas on- and off-site. Prior to occuprncy of any structure, the licensed
landscape architect shall certify to the City of Anaheim Planning Department
that the landscaping has been installed for the individual development area in
accordance with the prepared plan. The plan shall include heavy emphasis on
drought resistant and fire retardant vegetation and be in conformance with
City requirements and standards. (p108)
84. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall
be designed, financed and installed by the property owner/developer in the
uncemented portions of the parkways along nay arterial highway. The
responsibility for maintenance of acid landscaping shall be financed through a
special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and
approved by the City of Anaheim and shall be established at the expense of the
property owner/developer prior to the approval of the first final tract or
parcel map with the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (p109)
85. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the first
final tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall make
provision, acceptabl:> to the City of Anaheim, for landscaping and maintenance
of the slopes within sad/or created by the development of this property.
(p110)
x,,/6/88
~:
t~I ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-784
86. That if landscape maintenance is to be financed through a
Homeowner's Association, which Association has been found to be acceptable to
the City of Anaheim, the property owner/developer of subject property shall
execute and record a covenant obligating the !iomeowaers Association to (1)
maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any arterial street parkways
adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common areas, and all median
islands installed in conjunctiva with said subdivision, ezcept those located
within Weir Canyon Road; (2) indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless
for damages resulting therefrom; and (3) maintain liability insurance for said
parkways and median islands naming the City as an additional insured. The
form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and
shall be recorded concurrently with the first final tract or parcel map, with
the ezception of Parcel Map No. 8?-363. The property owner/developer of each
tract or parcel shall improve and maintain the hereinabove described parkways
and median islands, including providing the above specified insurance, until
such time as the Homeowners kssociation becomes legally obligated therefore as
hereinabove provided. The property owner/developer shall post a bond is an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance
of the property owner/develoger's obligations herein described. Evidence of
the required insurance sad bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final .~, t or parcel map,
with the ezception of Parcel Map No. 8T-363. (1111)
RISE
87. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building
Inspector that each portion of the proposed project is in conformance with
Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" sad with
Noise insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code,
Title 25, ezcept when preservation of the vievshed is involved. (1113)
88. That construction activities shall be limited to normal daytime
hours is accordance with the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. Construction
equipment shall be equipped with effective muffling devices to further reduce
the project's short-term construction noise effects. (1114}
ENERGY CONSERVATION
89. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall confer with the Southern Califorait; Gas Company and the
City of Anaheim Building Division during the building design phases for the
purposes of including further methods of energy conservation to the eztent
feasible. (1115)
6/6/88
~: ~.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1986 88-785
g0. That all building construction shall comply with the California
Energy Commission conservation requirements and the standards outlined under
Title 24 of the Cali~Eornia Administrative Code. (N116)
91. That subdivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for the
project shall promote, to the eztent possible, opportunities for mazimiziaq
solar eaposure, shading and natural cooling (prevailing breezes), and: solar
hot water heating either directly with system installation or indirectly with
provisions for accommodating future retrofitting. (N117)
~0*ID WASTE (REFUSE)
92. That project solid waste handling provisions shall be in accordance
with City codes for the screening of trash receptacle areas and access for
trash pickup. (N118)
AIR QUALITY
g3. That the property owner/developer shill implement regular ground
watering and other forms of construction dust control in accordance with City
standards. (N119)
~t'rgRAL RESOURCE
94. That a certified paleontologist shall be retained during grading
operations to provide a monitoring program for bedrock grading activities. If
sufficient concentrations of significant fossils are encountered during
monitoring, salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the
property owner/developer and grading contractor as determined appropriate by
the consulting paleontologist. Should grading of the site ezpose subsurface
archaeological remains, development shall cease until a qualified
archaeologist has been contacted and appropriate mitigation measures are
undertaken. (N120)
~7crFLLA37E0US
95. That prior to the approval of each grading plan, the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department shall have the opportunity to
review an oak tree/riparian preservation and management program which
incorporates development criteria necessary to mazimize the protection and
preservation of on-site woodland resources within ungraded areas containing
oaks (see Environmental Impact Report No. 281). (N124)
g6. With the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract map or parcel map for The Summit project, the
owner/developer will enter into an agreement with the City to form as
assessment district to assure the. project generates revenues to meet the
6/6/88
nraE 6 1988 88-786
~TNtJTES ANax ~, CTTS[ PLANNING COMMISSION
assigned cost of City services on a year-by-year basis. Such assessment
district shall be formed prior to approval of roved1bstthenCityrCouncilPaandl
map, or at such other later time as may be app Y
initial assessment implemented prior to issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for The gummit. The City shall have the right to monitor said
revenues and costs. Annuearlssdifferencevbetweenhcostsoassociatednwithusaid
necessary to offset the y Y
project and the revenues generated therefrom; and when revenues reach
equilibrium with allocated costs and recovery of any prior unfunded costs for
two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The
costs to establish the financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the
owner/developer by mean=ovalrormatrsuchnothertlaterttimel as maytbe approvednby
tract or parcel map app
the City Council. (N128)
97, That all Special Maintenance Districts or other financial mechanisms
referenced in previous conditions shall be established at the expense of the
property owner/developer. (p130)
9g. That the property owner/developer shall construct and dedicate to
the City of Anaheim all. cable facilities necessary to implement the City's
cable television network system. (x131)
HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
g9. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall provide a
Resource Management Program, approved by the State Department of Fish and Game
and in accordance with the Draft EIR tio. 281 and Response to Comments, for
review and approval by the Planning and Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Departments. (8134)
i THE' yTCrpi.i ANEOUS
100. YThe obligations of tT:e developer as set forth in Condition loos. 12,
28, 29, 47, 62, 77, 80 and 81 of Resolution No. 88R-144 shall be secured ley a
performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in enrovednt and
form approved by the City. Said security shall be provided and app
thereof by the City required contemporaneous with the approval of any
agreement creating such obligation or at the time such obligation otherwise is
established. (N136)
101. Any decision or action required of the Planning Commission by any of
the above conditions shall be subject to appeal to or review by the City
Council within twenty-two (22) days following the date of such decision or
action. (d~137)
102. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall ba conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any
silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Aaa River by
storm water originating from or flowing through this project.
6/6/88
r
MrtnrrES ANAHEIM ~ T'~'~' rr ANNING COMMI ION mNE 6 1988 88-787
103. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, aach subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
104. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an
agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete
the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's
mapeand•issnot torbemsuliordinateetoeanydrecordedrencumbrance agaiastatheract
property.
105. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of
the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing record~~tion thereof, shall be submitted
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office,
approvedtlshallsthenabemfilednandnrecordedg n1thelOfficeaof the Orange County
Recorder.
lOb. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map
within the boundaries of The Summit project, the owner/developer shall
irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, the 78-foot wide
right-of-way required for the construction of Serrano Aveaue from the
Highlands boundary to the Sycamore Canyon Boundary.
107. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and .in
conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 86-87-19 (The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Communit}' -
Resolution No. 88R-144.
108. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
109. That street lighting facilities along all public streets shall be
installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with
specifications on fire in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that
security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or
cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the
above-meationed improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of
Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements
shall be installed prior to occupancy.
6/6/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-788
110. That construction traffic or equipment access shall be provided from
another source than the existing Serrano Avenue or Canyon Rim Road.
111. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed
request only to the extent that it complies xith the Anaheim Municipal Zoning
Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval does not include any
action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any
other aplicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
112. That a tract map to record the division of subject property shall be
submitted to and agproved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the
Office of the Orange County Recorder.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13268
113. That the vehicular access rights to Serrano Avenue, except at street
and/or alley openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
114. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
~nnrTroxAL CONDITIONS TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13492
113. That the vehicular access rights to Serrano Avenue and Oak Hills Drive,
except at street and/or alley openings, shall be dedicated to the City of
Anaheim.
114. That subject property shall be developed substantially is accordance
with plans and specificiations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
115. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13493
113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
114. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13494
113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiations oa file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
06/06/88
W.,
I'+INv"'l EJ AN' ^T'^~ or r, vrxrur_ r~n/.f1.tTCCT(1N_ .Ti1t7R fi. lOAA 88-789
114. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13495
113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiatioas on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
114. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS - TEN~TIVE TRACT N0. 13535
113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiations on file with the Ci~y of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
114. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT HO 13536
113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in mccordance
with plans and specificiations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Ezhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
114. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
~nniTiONaL CONDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13537
113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiatioas on file with the City of Anaheim marked Ezhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
114. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plaa Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
*~DITIONAL CONDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT NO X3.53?
113. That the vehicular access rights to Serrano Avenue, except at street
and /or alley openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
114. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 sad 2.
06/06/88
~~. 3
:~~ '~,-
M'
cctON. u'U1t,~ E ' 988 88-790
MINUTES A_NA~'It~ CITY PLANNING COMMI-
115. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
ADDITIONAL CONpITTnxC - TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13533
113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Ezhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
114. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS -_TENTATIVE TRACT NO. X3534
113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiations oa file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
114. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
~DITIONAL CONDITIONS TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13594.
113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
114. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
ADDITIONAL CO'^•'TIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13541
113. That the vehicular access rights to Serrano Avenue, except at street
and/or alley openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
114. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specificiations oa file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
115. That the approval of the tentative tract map is granted subject to City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 242 and Reclassification No.
86-87-19 (Amendment No. 1).
A4TION ON SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO 88-07:
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No-88-07 on the basis that principles of good
06/06/88
r°°.:
~ .R
€;
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS~QN. JUNE 6. 1988 88-791
forest management will best be served by the proposed removal and that a
reasonable and practical development of the property oa which the trees are
located requires removal of the tree or trees whose removal is sought; and
that the character ~~f the immediate neighborhood in respect of forestation
will not be materially affected by the proposed removal and further that each
tree designated for removal xill be replaced by trees on a two-to-one ratio in
conformance with 2oninq Code Section No. 18.84.034.060, as stipulated to by
the developer.; and said Specimen Tree Removal Permit is subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the removed trees shall be replaced with the planting of two (2)
minimum 15-gallon trees (from the specified list in Section 18.84.038 (Scenic
Corridor Overlay 2oae) of the Anaheim Municipal Code) for every one specimen
tree removed in accordance with The Summit Tree Removal Plan (Exhibit No. 1).
2. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 1,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right of
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council within 10
days on the tentative tract maps and 22 days on the specimen tree removal
permit.
ITEM N0. 5. - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 273 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED);
REQUEST TO AMEND THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 87-1) ZONING
AND DEVELOPMENT STANAARD PERTAINING TO OPEN SPACE AND COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR DEVELOPMENT AREAS 2. 5, and 9.
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: Presley of Southern California, 17991 Mitchell South,
Irvine, CA 92714; AGENT: Frank Elfend and Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court,
Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: Property is an irreqularly-
shaped parcel of land cansistinq of approzimately 816 acres located north of
Canyon Rim Road and east of Serrano Avenue bounded on the north by East Hills
Planned Community, on the east by Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim
Hills, on the southeast by Irvine Company property, on the west by the
original Anaheim Hills Planned Community and further described as The
Highlands at Anaheim Hills.
Request: To amend The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP 87-1)
zoning and development standard pertaining to open space and coverage
requirements for Development Areas 2, 5, and 9.
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.
Frank Elfend, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, stated he had
presented an earlier similar request to the Commission fcr the Sycamore Canyon
project, at which time they requested the Planning Commission to clarify lot
coverage and open space requirements for the RS-5000 Zone for the Sycamore
Canyon project. He noted that in both Specific Plans they included this
development standard for lot coverage and open space to insure larger
06/06/88
+'
M.a ~i c ~va,arrv rr~rv yr t~xN7Nf COt.4dISSION ri^n' 6 1988 88-792
single-family homes, complimentary to those homes in the surrounding area; and
that both Specific Plans contained increased lot coverage within certain
development areas. He stated the intent to provide larger, better quality
single-family homes was supported by local residents during recent on-site
meetings held by the Anaheim Hills Coalition. He stated at those meetings the
most important. consideration to existing homeowners was the size of the
proposed homes and corresponding sales price.
He stated the Commission adopted Resolution No. PC88-82 which clarified the
standards for open space and lot coverage for both Sycamore Canyon and The
Highlands projects and, i.n fact, this request was already an approved
development standard for Development Areas 3, 4 and 10 of The Highland's
Specific Plan and more recently the Commission reaffirmed this intent by
granting a similar request by the Baldwin Company for The Summit.
Ms. Elfend stated consistent with past actions and their intent to insure the
provision of larger quality homes, he would ask that Commission approve their
request which would increase the maximum lot coverage to 40i and waive the
bedroom requiremeak for Development Areas 2, 5 and 9. He pointed out that is
mAay of these plans, Chat is not as additional bedroom, but the Anaheim
Municipal Code defines bedrooms to include a den or retreat, which are also
p.rovi.ded in many of these units.
Chairman Masse stated the Commission received a letter from Sally Smith, 7370
E. Rite Drive, requesting that the Commission deny the amendment, and that all
Commissioners received it just before the meeting started.
Mr. Elfend stated Ms. Smith was at the on-site meetings and that he wanted to
give some general information about the lot sizes included in this project.
He stated during the original hearings regarding the Specific Plaa,
Commissioner Herbst expressed concerns regarding lot sizes and that he is
pleased to indicate that in Phase 2, the lots which were to be 5000 square
feet, now average 10,255 square feet, which is a 105 increase. He stated he
believed they have met the intent of the Specific Plan and Ms. Smith's
comments expressed in the letter, and that they had met those concerns by
increasing lot sizes for those development areas.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McBurney stated he had a concern with changing the number of
bedrooms and not increasing the Iot size, and wanted to make sure the
tentative maps would conform to the what was previously discussed, and that
being larger than these 5000-square foot lots as outlined. He stated he
wanted to be comfortable is going along with this proposal and not have
something happen whereby the applicant loses track of this particular item and
reduces the lots down to 5000 square feet and does a complete redesign because
they have the capacity to do so. He stated he wanted to go on record stating
the Commission wants to keep those lots the same size.
Mr. Elfend stated he understood and the lot sizes average 8000 square feet for
Phase Oae and 10,000 square feet for Phase Two and that if there was to be any
change, the item would have to come before the Planning Commission and
Commissioner McBurney's comments would be well taken at that point.
06/06/88
~4.: `~
_7
Commissioner Herbst stated he would agree with Commissioner McBurney because
he has seen those changes in the Anaheim Hills area where one thing is planned
and then something else is developed.
Commissioner Bouas stated she felt the enlargement of the houses was of
tremendous benefit out there and would help. Commissioner McBurney agreed and
added this has been granted to others as well.
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that Environmental Impact Report No. 273 (previously
certified) for the Highlands at Anaheim Hills is adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for the amendment to the Highlands at
Anaheim Hills Specific Plaa (SP87-1) 2oninq and Development Standard
pertaining to Open Space and Coverage requirements for Development Areas 2, 5
and 9.
Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC 88-144 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissioner does hereby
GRANT the request to amend The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan
(SP87-1) Zoning and Development Standard pertaining to Open Space and Coverage
requirements for Development Areas 2, 5, and 9, on the basis that the property
proposed for the specific plan has unique site characteristics such as
topography, location or surroundings which are enhanced by special land use
and development standards; and that the specific plan results in development
of desirable character which will be compatible with ezistinq and proposed
development in the surrounding neighborhood.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloxinq vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Following the vote, Commissioner Herbst stated this approval is with the
understanding that the average lot size would be larger than 5,000 square feet.
Commissioner McBurney added that is on the record and Chairman Messe agreed
the applicant had made that stipulation.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right t~o
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
06/06/88
ITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-794
T'r~ ?1n ~ CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE NO 3801• ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO 283 (PREY C~RTIFIED)• SITE PLAN APPROVAL (REVISION N0. 1)
PUBLYC HEARING: OWNERS: Woodcrest Development, James Highland, 17911
Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714; AGENT: Frank Elfend and Associates, 4675
MacArthur Court, Suite 600 Newpart Seach, CA 92660; LOCATION: Property is
approzimately 37.1 acres located within the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan
(SP88-1 zone) development area, bounded oa the north by the future Canyon
Creek Road, on the east by the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue,
on the south by The Summit of Anaheim Hills and on the west by the Highlands
at Anaheim Hills, and further described as previously-approved Tentative Tract
No. 12994.
Request: Waivers of (a) type of parking spaces and (b) location and type of
walls to construct a 451-unit apartment complez.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
anti although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Frank Elfend, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Seach, CA,
stated the first request is to eliminate the required 6-foot wall along the
southerly boundary adjacenC to the single-family homes at The Summit. He
noted the revised plan would be less dense just by the configuration of the
building units. He stated there is a slope right now between the Sycamore
Canyon project and The Summit project which in some locations is in ezcess of
70 feet, and that normally there would be a wall at the bottom of the slope,
and he is requesting this wall be eliminated since there is to be a wall at
the top of the slope on The Summit, so it would not be necessary to have a
wall at the toe of slope oa the Sycamore Canyon project. Mr. Elfend said the
privacy concern would not be resolved by a o-foot wall, but the height between
the two developments would resolve it. He responded to Chairman Messe that
there would be a four-foot wide equestrian trail.
Mr. Elfend stated the second part of the request is for a revised site plan,
which provides an enhanced circulation pattern and building configuration, and
that they have revised the circulation plan, xhich has been supported by Paul
Singer, Traffic Engineer, and he 3elieved it provides improved intersection
placement and the revised site plan also creates a courtyard effect which will
enhance the openness of the site as well. He stated the revised circulation
plan will also provide enhanced Fire Department access.
Mr. Elfend stated the last item is a request to provide one covered and one
uncovered parking space, rather than two covered parking spaces for all
one-bedroom and larger units; and the request does not reduce the total number
of parking spaces and is supported by Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. He added
this will enhance the openness of the parking area permitting increased
landscaping within the medians and islands where carports would have been
provided earlier; and leaving one covered space reduces the opportunity to use
the garage parking for storage, which actually would reduce parking.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
06/06/88
~J
Y'
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE 6. 1988 88-795
Commissioner Bouas asked if all the units would have one enclosed garage space
and Mr. Elfend replied shat they would, and that the carports will be out in
different areas. Commissioner Bouas asked if there were any two-car garages
before and Mr. Elfend stated there were some but after discussion with Paul
Siaqer, is many instances where there are two-car garages for one unit, people
will use one for storage.
Chairman Messe asked that Mr. Elfend stipulate t.~at the covered parking will
be garage parking. Mr. Elfend replied that it would be tuck-under parking.
Commissioner Carusillo questioned the width of the median and Linda Rios,
Assistant Planner, stated the plan shows sir feet. Commissioner Carusillo
stated he also had a concern about quest parking and designated parking, and
whether or not designated parking would be marked. Mr. Elfend stated he
assumed that would be the intent of the developer.
Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Elfend about signs for the apartments. Mr.
Elfend stated he did not have as answer, but that is a site design issue that
would be addressed by the builder of the project at the time the final pleas
are submitted to the City.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the Code states that 25~ of open parking
may be small car parking; however, he did not believe that the 25i should
apply to the entire open space parking but should be restricted to 25~ of all
guest parking. He stated he noticed on the plans, which he had discussed with
Mr. Elfend, that they had just proposed too many small car parking spaces.
Mr. Elfend stated he concurred with Mr. Singer and the request is reasonable,
and the intent is not to make the spaces any smaller, and, is fact, as
indicated by Mr. Highland this morning, a lot of the spaces have been made
larger. Chairman Messe noted the spaces had been made longer but not wider.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if there is a condition requiring that the
si:-foot wide median separating the car spaces be landscaped, and added he
felt that it should have sprinklers, etc., and stated often the renderings are
not reflective of the actual product.
Mr. Elfend stated he assumes that if tho developer is proposing to landscape
those areas, they will have sprinklers for maintenance purposes.
Commissioner Herbst noted that just recently Commission had recommended to
staff that developers of all apartment complexes now submit landscaping plans
along with their plans. Mr. Elfend stated they would submit a detailed
landscape plan with the specific plan.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if there would be a four-foot high split rail
fence for the equestrian trail. He stated a lot of the equestrian trail is
not maintained and wanted to know if there would be an association that would
maintain the trail and fencing. Mr. Elfend said the whole trail system would
be maintained as a condition of approval on this specific plan, and it would
be up to the owner or some assessment district, and added they are currently
working xith the City on that issue.
O6/06!88
s- , i~.
d.
.,,.Q~r.. rTmv oTaxxrxr rnMMrcc2oN JUNE 6 1988 88-796
~11,U1 J
Chairman Messe asked Mr. Elfend to stipulate that no more than 25~ of the
approved guest parking would be for small cars. Mr. Elfend stated Mr. Singer
had indicated that changing the covered to non-covered would not affect the
code requirement and he would agree to that.
Paul Singer stated that 25~ of .5 per unit would be for small cars, and no
more than that and Mr. Elfend stated he would make that stipulation.
Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, stated Condition No. 33 should read "Revision
No. 1 of Ezhibit Nos. 5 - 12 and 16 - 21."
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBuraey and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to canstruct a 451-unit apartment complez with waivers
of required type of parking spaces and required location and type of walls on
approzimately 37.1 acres located within the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan
(SP88-1 Zone) development area, bounded on the north by the future Canyon
Creek Road, on the east by the future northerly eztension of Serrano Avenue,
on the south by The Summit of Anaheim Hills and on the zest by the Higalands
at Anaheim Hills, and further described as previously-approved Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 12994; 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 Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-145 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3801 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings,
which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and
that strict application of the 2oninq Code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity
and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey and
MOTION CARRIED, that Environmental Impact Report No. 283 ;previously
certified) by the City Council on February 9, 1988, for Sycamore Canyon
Specific Plan (SP88-1) is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12994 Site Plan approval
(Revision No. 1}.
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Site Plan (Revision No. 1) for Tentative Tract Map No. 12994 on the basis that
with the ezception of those waivers from the site development standards
requested as part of Variance No. 3801, the plan is consistent with the
Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan and with the Sycamore Canyon SP88-1 zoning and
development standards.
n>
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-797
ITE 7 - RAL PLAN NDME N 24 A NE AT DE I
gFrLASSIFICATION NO 87-88-49• VARIANCE N0. 37 R3.
~LIC HEARING: OWNERS: Johnnie J. Turek 6 Shurla B. Turek, 1234 S. Western
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804; Rudolph L. Edward Dolezal, 1226 S. Western Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92804; Austell Smith, 1238 S. Western Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804;
John Lloyd McGolazi~k, Jr., S Linda Jean McGoldrick, 3159 Lanerose Drive,
Anaheim, CA 92804; AGENT: Andrew Aomes, Inc., 4000 MacArthur Boulevard,
N680, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: 1226, 1234, 1238 S. Western Avenue
and 3159 W. Lanerose Avenue.
Request: Petitioner requests amendment to the Land Use Element of the General
Plan proposing a redesignation from the current Low-Medium Density Residential
designation to a Medium Density Residential designat•ioa; RS-A-43,000 to
RM-1200 or a less intense zone with waivers of (a) minimum building site are
per d•.relling unit, (b) maximum structural height and (c) maximum site coverage
to construct a 2 and 3-story, 66-unit "affordable" apartment complex.
Property is approximately 1.6 acres located at the northeast corner of
Lanerose Avenue and Western Avenue.
Chairman Messe noted that the petitioner had requested a continuance to the
meeting of July 6, 1988; and that there were several people indicating their
presence in opposition to the subject request.
THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING:
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBuraey and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regular meeting of July 6, 1988, at the applicant's request.
ITEM NO 8 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• RECLASSIFICATION NO 87-88-54;
rONDITIONAL_USE PERMIT N0. 3016.
P3LB~i~ F{E~~RING: OWNER: George F. Hexter, 55 S. Market Street, 51500, San
Jose, CA 95113; AGENT: Wayne Banks, Wayne Banks and Associates, Inc., 19100
Von Barman, Suite 260, Irvine, CA 92715, and Mr. T. Fuller, M.S. Partnership,
1634 E. Adams Avenue, Orange, CA 92715; LOCATION: 2201 W. Lincoln Avenue.
Request: RS-A-43,000 to CL or a less intense zone, to permit a 6,259
square-foot, 5-unit commercial retail center.
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.
Wayne Banks, 19100 Von Barman, Suite 260, Irvine, agent, stated he had worked
with Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, and Lori Duci of Planning to try and
comply xith all requirements for the reclassification and conditional use
permit and this is a request to permit 6,259-square foot retail center to be
subdivided into five units.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
06/05/88
z
~~ ~:
MrN[~TES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-798
Chairman Messe asked Mr. Banks if he was aware of the condition that there be
no restaurants, fast food operations, or convenience markets that would sell
fast food. Mr. Banks stated he was aware of that and had read and agreed with
all the conditions. He added he thought they had one parking space more than
required and that during the Interdepartmental Committee meeting, it was
requested that they relocate the trash enclosure or delete one of the stalls
adjacent to the trash enclosure, and that they would be happy to comply with
that request.
Mr. Banks referred to Condition No. 11 and noted that signage was not a part
of this request and that they have indicated the genera] location for signs
and the type of signs they would be proposing. He stated perhaps that
condition relates to a separate sign permit or application.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the requirement is that they just comply
with the CL sign code, and that it was staff's intention to let the Commission
know that there are no waivers being requested for signage.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000
(Residential, Agricultural) 2oae to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone and to
permit a 6,259-square-foot, 5-unit commercial retail center on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 0.44 acre
located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Hrookhurst Street and
further described as 2201 West Lincoln Avenue; and dues 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 oa the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect oa the environment.
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-146 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 87-88-54 subject to I~terdepartmeatal Committee
Recommendations.
Commissioner McBurney asked if this is one of the "critical" intersections and
Mr. Singer stated that it was not.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST,
MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
06/06/88
~~ ~.
~w
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 6, 1988 88-799
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-147 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 3016 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES; BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ASSENT: NONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO. 9. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-55:
VARIANCE N0. 3800
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: Henry Louis Foucher and Evelyn Margaret Foucher, 514
N. Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA 92805; AGENT: Philip H. Case, 1249-A East
Imperial Highway, Placentia, CA 92670; LOCATION: Southwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Westchester Drive.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the address is 3320 W. Lincoln and
Chairman Mease stated the property is at the corner of Lincoln and Westchester
and consists of 3 lots.
Request: CL and RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone with waivers of
mazimum structural height and maximum site coverage to construct a 3-story,
66-unit apartment complez.
There were three persons indicating their presence is opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Philip Case, 1249 East imperial Highway, Placentia, referred to a rendering on
the wall depicting a 66-unit project, which is similar to sir other projects
they have built in the City, and which meets all the code requirements, ezcept
two. He stated regarding the height definition, that they are dropping the
parking down about four and one half feet below grade, and it is all
underground parking, but they do have to accept this as 3-story according to
the code. He stated the secon3 variance is the site coverage, and that
definition has been changed; however, where the people live, the coverage is
about 336, with a 556 mazimum allowed.
OPPOSITION•
Nicholas Kallia's, attorney, representing the owners of the Westchester Square
Apartments located at 145 S. Westchester Drive, stated their property is
located across the street and they are concerned about the density of this
proposal. He stated currently in the immediate area, there are close to 1,200
06/06/88
s .
:~
MINUTF,g °°I" ^ITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-800
units and, notwithstanding the fact that there is almost a 29~ vacancy factor,
there is still major overcrowding in the area. He stated there is a big crime
problem in that area due to the overcrowding, and from review of the site
plan, there is no green area or recreation area other than the pool area. He
stated the Westchester Square has a very large open space area and he was
concerned that the residents from these proposed units would be using their
open space, which would lead to a management problem for their complez and
that they already have those problems.
Sharon Jackson, Manager of Westchester Square Apartments, stated she manages
this property consisting of 424 units, and that their units are centered
around a courtyard which is about half the size of the proposed project; and
that there is a tremendous number of children in the area from surrounding
completes who come to play at their complez because they have no where else to
play.
Ms. Jackson stated she had some statistics prepared concerning the area and at
this time there are 1,159 units located from Rnott oa the west to Western on
the east, Lincoln on the north and Orange oa the south. She stated they also
have three schools in their area, and that she had talked with the school
representatives and there are over 2,925 children, and half of them cross
through her property every day, and she felt if more children are added to
this area, they would end up with a nightmare.
Ms. Jackson stated there is no area for the children to play in this proposed
project and that she has been before the Council previously regarding the
problems in that area, caused by some of the local tavoias, games facilities,
etc., transients, children, and gangs which are active in the area and with
people drinking and coming through their property. She stated there is no way
to close any portion of the property to foot traffic and with the three
schools be.~.nq directly behind her property, everyone comes through there to
get to school. She noted another 66 units could mean at least another 1.5
children per unit, or another 80 children coming through her property. She
stated a high concentration of children will attract more children and cause
more vandalism.
Ms. Jackson stated they have limited parking at their 424-apartment complex,
and her residents usually have two cars and with the restriction of two people
per bedroom, not including the children under two, there will be up to four
adults, and most of them work, and there is not sufficient parking.
Ms. Jackson indicated there is a park located at the corner of Orange and
Western which is 27.2 acres and with the school aged children, that means
about 106 children per square acre. She stated she felt there is no way to
put that many children in a park and that they have to cross Orange Avenue.
She stated a place is needed for the children to go, but that we should not
take away any open area and put in more units and still not give children a
place to go because that causes the rest of the completes a real problem.
Ms. Jackson responded to Commissioner McBurney that there are 424 units, with
424 garages in their project, and an additional 4 parking spaces por building
times 23 Chairman Messe noted that is well below today"s parking code
requirements.
06/06/88
,.
,~ `~>
M7NiiTFS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-801
REBUTTAL•
Mr. Case indicated he appreciated the neighbor's problems and the crime issue
was precisely why the building was designed in this manner and that it does
limit access to the building. He noted it has a closed pedestrian access, as
well as a closed vehicle access. He stated he doubted his tenants would use
the open space of other projects since all of the access to his property is
off Lincoln Avenue. He stated they have their own pool and Jacuzzi, and they
are only 33~ covered with the buildings, therefore, he felt they would have
more open space than any building in the area.
Mr. Case indicated he understood Ms. Jackson's problems, and that before the
State mandated that they must allow children, they did not take children. He
stated this building is 33 2-bedroom, 2-bath units and 33 2-bedroom, 1-bath
units and the building across the street is a 60-unit building and he only has
six children there. He stated even though they must accept the children, he
does not seek them out and. that they are very restrictive with them as to how
they must act on the premises. He added, therefore, he did not feel he would
be adding to Ms. Jackson's particular problems.
Mr. Case stated he agreed with Ms. Jackson about the park situation and
mentioned that with the recent increase they would be paying a little over
51800 per dwelling unit to 2selp the City provide more parks, and that he
believed, if anything, this project would help that situation.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Messe asked about the proposed pool which is shows oa top of the deck.
Mr. Case replied that it is proposed on the deck and that it wan a little bit
of a trick; that there was enough open space immediately is the area to
depress t2:e deck enough to use a poured-in-place concrete pool in the
depressed l:ortion of the deck; and they will have a clean-out sump pump so
very little water ever gets down there. He stated he had been working on this
with his structural engineer, and it is something they think they can do sad
it would be the first one. He stated the water level works out to be about
four feet above the deck and the deepest part of the pool is 5 Loot 6 inches
and will cause the depression in the slab of about 18 inches. Fla stated he
believed they have worked out all their design conditions and that he felt it
would be a big addition to this type of building.
Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Case stated the shape of the pool in the
rendering is what they would be trying to build.
Chairman Messe asked Mr. Case what the composition of the deck itself would be
and Mr. Case state3 it is a MerCoat product, a tradename, similar to
Dex-a-tea, and it is put over marine, waterproof plywood, which is the same
material used oa the walking decks above. He stated this is immediately
adjacent to the coping, and then there is a planter retainer wall which forms
the structural support for the plywood deckin5 between tho pool and the
planter area.
06/06/88
~,,.
INUTES ANAfiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 68-802
Commissioner Bouas stated she believed this looks like a terrific project, and
is what the Commission has been wanting to see with the landscaping, the pool
area and open space and with the parking underneath. She stated requiring the
landscape plan does tie the developer into the landscaping and Commission does
want to see those plans because there have been apartments developed which
were not landscaped.
Mr. Case concurred with Commissioner Bouas and stated they wou13 definitely
take issue with some of the things that have been done and they xelcome
anyone's inspection with what they have done, or are doing. He stated he
applauds Commission's efforts to clean up the act because it is needed. Mr.
Case noted that he does build and keep his projects.
Commissioner Feldhaus inquired if the apartments would have smoke alarms, and
Mr. Case stated they had a complete Pamphlet 13 Fire Sprinkler System, which
is the most comprehensive and is the type used for high rise hotels, etc., amd
it is throughout both the dwelling and parking units.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to permit construction of a 3-story, 66-unit apartment
complex with waivers of maximum structural height and mazimum site coverage on
a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 1.8 acres
located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Westchester Drive; and
does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with nay comments received during
the public review process and furtYier 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 oa the environment.
Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated he wanted to clarify that one of
the conditions of approval is that the project be built in conformance with
Exhibits 1 through 9, and Exhibit 9 is the "conceptual" landscape plan. He
stated he wanted to make it clear that staff would be looking at that
particular plan as the landscaping plan and would be looking for conformance
almost tree by tree and bush by bush. Chairman Messe stated the Commission
understands, but he was not sure if Mr. Case did. Mr. Fletcher stated his
concern was about the word "conceptual" on the drawing.
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-148 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
Reclassification No. 87-88-55 subject to Zntordepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, BERHST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
06/06/88
~. ~ ~~,.
MINU'S'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 6 1988 88-803
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-149 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
Variance No. 3800 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the proper~.y of
privileges enjoyed by other properties is the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
RECESS: 3:10 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:25 p.m.
ITEM_NQs 10. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION,• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3011.
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Madhubala Rameshbhai Patel and Ramesh Narottambhai
Patel, et. al., Attention: Ramesh N. Patel, 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805; LOCATION: 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard.
Request: To permit a 64-unit motel.
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.
Rzunesh N. Patel, 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard, stated he was proposing a
64-unit franchise motel, and will be demolishing the existing 36-unit motel.
He stated he has a few questions about the staff report, which he received on
Saturday.
Chairman Messe inquired if Mr. Patel would like to question the Conditions oa
Page 6. Mr. Patel said those are the main conditons and the ones he would
like to ask questions about. He stated Condition No. 18 requires their fair
share contribution of the $36,000,000 shortfall for funding area-wide
infrastructure/service improvements within the Anaheim Stadium Business
Center, and states "that unless an alternative funding mechanism is
implemented prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall pay to the
City of Anaheim a fee in the amount of $3.55 per gross square foot of building
area as a fair share contribution to the Anaheim Stadium Business Center
infrastructure funding shortfall. Said fee shall be collected and adjusted in
the same manner as the interim development fees for the Anaheim Stadium
Business Center a:; provided is Chapter 17.30 of Title 17 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code."
06/06/88
,~ ~-,
tr
Maw~a ° avaaa7u rTmv Pf nxrrT NC COMMISSION JUNE 1988 88-804
Mr. Patel asked Chairman Messe to explain Condition No. 18.
.airman Messe informed Mr. Patel that this fee would be his fair share amount
cor the Anaheim Staai•_T Business Center Infrastructure Shortfall, and asked
staff to explain the details of the 53.55 per foot charge.
Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, informed Mr. Patel that a year or more
ago the City adopted the Interim Stadium Business Center fee to generate funds
to do a lot of infrastructure and improvements around the stadium to
accommodate the new high rise office development in that area. At the time
the fee was adopted, it was also assumed there would be a redevelopment area
which would generate t~ certain amount of tax increment revenue to participate
in the funding of the infrastructure. He stated with the loss of the Ratella
Redevelopment Area, the City round up with a shortfall in anticipated revenues
t~~ fund the improvements planned, therefore, they came up with the additional
shortfall fee to generate the additional revenues and it still is based upon a
pro rata share of the cost based upon the change to higher densities and
changed uses in the stadium area.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that a similar condition was placed on
the Benco and Hanover Projects.
Chairman Messe stated developers of all the nex structures which were approved
for that area have agreed to either the fee or off-site improvements. Paul
Singer stated there are no off-site improvements at this location, so the fee
is required.
Mr. Patel asked if the Roll Center was charged the fee and Mr. Singer stated
the Roll Center is located is the City of Orange and that the City of Orange
has, with their redevelopment project, taken on the responsibility for
off-site improvements.
Commissioner Feldhaus remarked that this fee is an additional 53.55 fee. Mr.
Singer stated that there is 54.12 interim fee for everything. He stated there
is a 536,000,000 shortfall on infrastructure improvements and the 53.55 is to
make up the shortfall. He explained Condition No. 12 refers to the
development fee :or the Business Center and Condition No. 18 refers to the
"shortfall" fee.
Mr. Patel stated he believed that fee was tao much and it would be 25~ of his
approximate construction costs. Chairman Messe informed Mr. Patel that the
City has a problem in that area and anyone that contributes to the impacts in
the area is required to pay their fair share.
06/06/88
u .~
MATES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6. 1
Mr. Patel asked how he would benefit and it was pointed out the fees would
help pay for sewers, electricity, water, etc. Chairman Messe stated the fees
are required by ordinance.
Mr. Patel asked about contesting the fees, because he felt it was too much
money and asked what the fees had to do with the covenant referred to in
Condition No. 11.
Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated the covenant is required
pursuant to the Development Agreement which the City signed with Anaheim
Stadium Associate Developers for the office park on the stadium property. He
noted part of that condition involves the potential formation of an assessment
district to reimburse the developer who is going to do additional of£-site
improvements pursuant to the Development Agreement, so there is not a district
to fund these fees and they are related to that Development Agreecneat.
Mr. Patel asked for a continuance to the next meeting so that he might consult
an attorney.
Chairman Messe stated perhaps he could also get a better definition from staff
during that time as to what these fees are. Mr. Patel stated it seemed to be
a way to stop him from building. Chairman Messe assured him that it was not.
Mr. Patel said it seemed that way because he would be spending up to 25~ of
construction cost just to get a permit. Commissioner Feldhaus noted that
anyone in that area would pay the same. Mr. Patel asked the perimeter of the
area involved and Paul Singer informed him the area is between the 57 Freeway,
the Santa Ana Freeway, from the Edison right of way south to the City Limit.
Commissioner Feldhaus informed Mr. Patel that there is a map of the area, if
he wished to obtain it. Commissioner Herbst stated he needed to look at this
with regard to the services involved; and if this was not there, Mr. Patel
would not be able to build anyway. He stated the rest of the Anaheim
taxpayers should not be expected to pay for services for the new developments
going into that area, and everyone building in that area has to participate
and that Mr. Patel is doubling the size of the project so he xas going to be
involved.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked Mr. Patel how long he would like to continue the
matter and Mr. Patel stated two weeks.
ACTION: Commissioner Souas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of June 20, 1988, at the request
of the petitioner, in order to consult with an attorney.
06/06/88
sys ~a
MINUTES ANLRFTM [`TTY P7ANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-806
ITEM NO 11 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3014
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: The Orangethorpe Prominence, P.O. Boz 15005, Santa
Ana, CA 92705; AGENT: Industrial Property Management, 1495 E. Warner Avenue,
Santa Ana, CA 92705; LOCATION: 2370 East Orangethorpe Avenue.
Request: To retain an audio-alarm sales and installation facility with waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
(This item had beem trailed until after item Nos. 12 ~ 13 because the
applicant was not present, and then staff learned the applicant was unable to
be present.)
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of June 20, 1988.
ITEM NO 12 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3015.
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: LaMirada Cleaners, inc., 135 W. Ball Road, Anaheim,
CA 92805; AGENT: Meior Slani, 9301 Wilshire Boulevard, p509, Beverly Hills,
CA 90210; LOCATION: 135 West Ball Road.
Request: To permit a 6,880 square-foot, 8-unit commercial retail center with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
There were two 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.
PRESENTATION~
Charles Sevgh, 9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 509, Beverly Hills, CA 90210,
stn*_ed he wants to build retail stores on the property, and it will be a
beautiful shopping center. He stated it was suggested that there not be any
food establishments and he agreed, there would be no food service or any kind
of restaurant. He stated this center would just be for stores which would
serve the community's retail needs.
OPPOSITION-
William Arvin, 3124 E. Jacaranda Avenue, Orange, owner of the apartments
immediately to the north of the subject property, stated he did not object to
anyone developing their property to its best use, but that there is a bad
parking problom in that part of the City and, in fact, in that part of this
block. He noted they are asking to have three parking spaces waived, which is
approaching 8~. He stated on the west side of Lemon Street there is a 2-hour
06/06/88
~~`;.
*i rrvS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI ION ntNE 6 1988 88-807
parking limit which the residents asked for a number of years ago because of
the use by employees of Western Medical Center. He stated also there is no
parking allowed on Friday morning on either side of Lemon Street; so all the
parking for that little shopping center would have to be provided off street.
He stated their apartments were built 30 years ago and he wished the City ha3
been tougher with parking requirements at that time because they do have a
parking problem.
Paul Reynolds, 292 Heliotrope Avenue, Corona del Mar, stated he was
representing the owner of property at 1101 South Anaheim Boulevard and the
rear of his property is approximately 50 feet from the project. He stated
they have an 8,000-square foot building on 1-1/4 acre so he has ample parking
for his use, however, his concern is that people finding the project parking
lot full will find it a tremendous advantage to go just 50 more feet and park
on his property.
Chairman Messe asked exactly what property Mr. Reynolds was representing. Mr.
Reynolds stated it is directly behind the apartment house which faces Lemon
and Mr. Reynold's property faces Anaheim Boulevard and that takes up the
entire property from street to street. He stated his property is north of
MacDonalds and the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. Mr. Reynolds stated
because there is an easement for Kentucky Fried Chicken to use the south 20
feet of his property, there is no way of fencing that off and securing it from
use by adjoining properties. He noted also that there has been a terrible
problem with traffic racing through there and he feels this project will
compound the problem. He noted, as mentioned before, there is no street
parking and he felt when that parking lot is full, they will find their way
onto his property.
REBU?'TAL
Mr. Sevgh stated with the amount of improvement he is proposing, they will be
providing ample parking and there would be no need for people who come to the
center to go elsewhere. He stated he did not think just the fear that someone
may park on their property should stop anyone else from improving their land,
and he did not see how the project would encroach on the apartment land. He
stated his patrons would not be able to park oa Ball Road and that Lemon
Street was going to be landscaped and he did not need parking there either.
He notad he had disscussed this with Mr. Singer and that he is not even
allowing for compact car parking but is providing all full size parking spaces.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if it was just a deficiency of two parking places
and Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that if if there was a parking
problem is the neighborhood, it would be on this property due to the apartment
complex people who would probably park on this property rather than visa
versa. Mr. Singer stated he believes there is adequate parking for this use
and, as the applicant stated, there is no small car parking spaces and it is
virtually to code. Mr. Singer noted that if applicant were to make 25~ small
car spaces, he would be to code without any problem.
06/06/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 6 1988 88-808
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus Mr. Arvin stated there are 24 one-bedroom
apartments and 29 parking spaces, with nothing provided for guests.
Commissioner Herbst stated he was concerned about the access on Lemon Street.
Mr. Sevgh stated the clients would be coming from the parking lot provided,
and the doors shown on Lemon Street are just for the store owner's access, or
people walking from Lemon Street would not have to go around.
Commissioner Aerbst stated he thought if there is access from both~'~
sides, it would create a problem on Lemon which is getting to be a very busy
street, and the homes across Lemon will be looking at the rear of the building
and he did not feel this is a good design.
Mr. Sevgh stated the back of the building would be decorated and there would
be doors, but they would not be used by customers. He stated he is not
providing big windows for that side and it would not be like an entrance to
the store.
Commissioner Herbst stated he still did not feel this is a good design for
that corner because the project would be backing up to a major street (Lemon)
and the whole corner was being blocked, and he was still concerned about the
residential people looking at the back of the building.
Commissioner McBurney asked if Commissioner Herbst thought the building should
be axiented toward the inside with the parking lot outside. Commissioner
Herbst indicated he felt there should be some exposure, with landscaping, but,
as it is, a person would be looking into the back of a building which is right
along a sidewalk.
Mr. Sevgh stated he had considered building next to Reatucky Fried Chicken,
and the reverse would give him more accessibility since it is wider, but he
thought this way gave more exposure on Ball Road and blends better with the
businesses there. He stated Lemon Street xould have five feet of landscaping.
Chairman Messe stated other buildings along Ball Road were aligned in the same
manner as the proposed building, which puts the building right up against
Lemon and asked if there is a way to eliminate the access doors. Mr. Sevgh
responded he thought having the doors would be better for the public.
Commissioner Bouas indicated she believed Code requires a front and back
access.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated if the building was to be moved to the
east property line, there would be no access on Ball Road because the driveway
would be too close to the intersection; and there is no particular problem
with having a pedestrian access to Lemon Street because there are a lot of
pedestrians is the area and this plan places the driveway as far as possible
from the intersection of Lemon Street. Mr. Singer stated that if the building
06/06/88
1~NUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
was reversed, there would be no access to Ball Road and all of the traffic
would have to come from Lemon Street, and he felt that would make a bad
situation worse. He stated the project as presented, is not a bad situation.
Commissioner Herbst indicated he felt it wound be a bad situation because he
believed they would be making deliveries through the back doors off Lemon
Street.
Commissioner McBurney indicated that if it were heavily landscaped along that
edge, it would take away from the blankness of the building on that side and
he agreed with Mr. Singer that if the building were moved to the other side,
the driveway would be too close to the intersection.
Commissioner Bouas asked if they could obtain an artist concept to see what
the Lemon ~*_reet side of the building was going to look like and Mr. Sevgh
stated tha elevation shows how it would look.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the plans showed a five foot setback along Lemon
Street and inquired if they could come back ten feet, which is the Code
requirement, and landscape it properly. He stated he would not have a problem
with it if that was done. Mr. Sevgh stated the code was five feet but he
could make it six or seven. He added he wanted to give two feet of
landscaping on the other side, which is over the requirement for landscaping.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would like to see a lot of landscaping on
Lemon because it is primarily residential there, and that helps with the sound
attenuation and trash problems as well.
Mr. Sevgb responded because of the depth of the property, which is 134 feet,
he could provide seven feet of landscaping on Lemon Street. Commissioner
Feldhaus stated that would make the project more palatable and if the Traffic
Engineer did not have a problem, he could approve it.
Commissioner Herbst asked Paul Singer how an angled building would sffect the
project. Mr. Singer stated parking would be lost.
Commissioner McBurney asked Mr. Singer about the vision at the intersection
and Mr. Singer stated that intersection is signalized.
Chairman Messe asked if this is one of the critical intersections and Mr.
Singer stated only a small portion is affected.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he was concerned where the proprietors would
park, with 38 spaces for 10 units. Mr. Sevgh noted a correction in the
request changing it from ten units to eight units.
Paul Singer stated there is adequate parking and Applicant is sticking with
the Code, minLS two spaces. .Commissioner Carusillo naked where employees xould park
and Mr. Singer stated he did not see each snit being separately leased and
reminded Commission that this is also on a bus route.
06/06/88
r coI.4.SISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-B10
MINUTES AlIJi~IM CITY PLANNIN
Commissioner Feldhaus noted this is a Conditional Use Permit and a time
limitation could be imposed. Commissioner Cazusillo stated landscaping-along.-Lemon
Street should be made as dense as possible out of concern for the residents
across the street.
Mr. Sevgh stated he wanted this renter to be like a "boutique shopping center"
and there is a lot of ezposure and traffic there and he wanted a European
look, with all four sides being beautiful. He stated he is going to keep it
for himself and wanted the people in the neighborhood to enjoy it and noted
there is no retail store xithin two miles of the project and the residents
need this.
Chairman Messe stated he wanted to clarify the number of units to be approved,
and the staff report indicates 10, Mr. Sevgh has stated 8, and the plans
.indicate 7.
Mr. Sevgh stated the plans provide for 7, but he had gone over it with the
architect a~:d wanted to make it eight and the property is 137 feet. Mr. Sevgh
stated he is not going to divide the units until he knows who will be there,
since some tenants may want more than one space.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would suggest that this item be continued so
the applicant could come back with a new set of plans, including the
landscaping, also so he could show the eight units.
Mr. Sevgh stated he would need to do a survey to provide the plans for the
landscaping ezactly and that he could provide as additional two feet. Se
stated if the project is approved, a condition could be added to require seven
feet of landscaping oa Lemon Street. Commissioner Feldhaus indicated he was
concerned about the type of landscaping, as well as the footage. Mr. Sevgh
stated that he would pvt in the best because not to do so would be devaluating
his own property; however, Commissioner Feldhaus noted without plans, the
promise could not be enforced.
Mr. Singer indicated he wanted to make a correction, and that he had indicated
earlier they were two parking spaces short when, is fact, there were three,
which is still net a great deal.
Commissioner McBurney stated he felt the landscaping plans could be shown as a
condition of approval and that staff can see that it is adequate. He inquired
if Commissioner Feldhaus had any suggestions as to what type of landscaping
would be appropriate. Commissioner Feldhaus statr33 it should be something
larger than 2-quart plants. Chairman Messe suggested trees would perhaps be
appropriate.
Commissioner Feldhaus noted the Commission is beginning to look at landscaping
since, in the past, there appeared to have been a lot of projects which were
allowed to be rather bare.
06/06/88
t - ,~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION .nTHE 6 '988 88-811
Chairman Messe noted this was advertised as a variance for parking and asked
if the number of units was specified on that advertisement and if it needed to
be readvertised. Gzeg Hastings, Senior Planner, informed Commission that it
did not need readvertising.
Commissioner Souas indicated the number of units would not be indicated, but
Commission could indicate that no more than a certain number would be allowed.
Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the landscaping plans and
perhaps the site elevation should come back as a Report and Recommendation for
approval by the Commission, rather than have the staff try to interpret what
is good landscaping or bad, and the conditional use permit should be granted
for a certain number of units, which would still leave the applicant
discretion as the size of the units.
A TI N: Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
fiouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to permit a 6,880-square foot, 8-unit commercial retail
center with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to be constructed on
an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.43 acre
located at the northeast corner ~f fial.i Road and Lemon Street and further
described as 135 W. Ball 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
chat there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mcfiurney and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst voting NO) 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 lead uses and granting
of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. PC88-150 and moved for its
massage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
',4ANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3015 with the condition that ao more than
tight units be constructed oa the subject property and that seven feet of
landscaping be provided along the Lemon Street. side of the project, said plans
to be reviewed and approved by the Anaheim City Planning Commission, as a
under Report and Recommendation item, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental
Recommendations.
06/06/88
~~
~iy7TFS ,~ T'~'4 PLANNING COMMISSION Tt~F R 1988 88-812
Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC SURVEY, MESSE
NOES: HERBST
ABSENT: NONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Carusillo wanted a stipulation as to the size of trees for
landscaping because of the vagueness.
Mr. Sevgh stated he wanted to put something there that would be better than
having trees. Comtni~sioner Carusillo stated the Commission is trying to
accomplish softening the view of the wall from the residential area across the
street, and that the trees should be as high as the building.
Commissioner Bouas interjected that when the applicant brings the plans in for
review and approval, if it is not what was wanted, they could be sent back.
Commissioner Herbst indicated that is why he wanted this item continued so the
applicant. can bring in revised plans for the Commission to reviex before
approval, rather than listening to verbal ezpressions of what might be done.
He stated he opposed it because the building is backing onto a major street,
and hc,• felt if a building is going to be built on this corner, which is a
major corner in the City, the Commission should see the final plans.
Chairman Messe stated he felt since the Commission is asking for final
landscaping 'plan approval prior to issuance of building permits, that
accomplishes the same thing.
~Ert xo,_13.__~EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONDITIONAL USE PFRMIT N0. 3018.
This item was heard prior to Item Nos. 11 b 12.
PUBLIC HEARING: Thomas P. Walker, et. al., 2855 E. Coast Highway, 8221,
Corona del Mar, CA 92625; AGENT: Six Pence Inns of America, Inc., 1751 East
Gary z:.venua, Santa Ana, CA 92705; LOCATION: 1440 North State College
Boulevard.
Request: To construct a 55-unit motel.
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.
06/06/88
mIh^JTES ANA~NEIM CITY PLA*INING COMMISSION. JUNE 6 7 ong 88-8~
PRESENTATION•
Peter Trapolino, 1751 East Gary, Santa Ana, Vice-President of Sixpence Inns,
stated they have a motel existing oa Via Burton and they had entered into a
lease agreement with Tom Walker to lease the corner property where the station
used to be. He stated they would like to expand the motel with 55 additional
units. He noted he had read the conditions given to him by staff and he has a
problem with Condition No. 2; that they will enter into a reciprocal access
agreement and the motel property stands alone on its parking and does not need
the parking of the Deany's, nor does Denny's need their parking. He stated
they would like to enter into a reciprocal access agreement, with the
exception that the two motel properties together would enter into a parking
agreement. He stated other than that, he is is accordance with all the other
conditions.
Chairman Messe asked if this project would be an annu:. to the existing motel
and Mr. Trapolino stated that it would be operated as one motel and they will
be face-lifting the whole unit with the architecture of the new building,
restriping the parking lots, landscaping and dressing up the corner to look
nice.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he was under the impression that Denny's would be
moving out and Mr. Trapolino stated the Penny's lease has five more years, and
they may have some options but he did not know what they xere going to do.
Chairman Messe stated the last time this property was before Cammission,
someone indicated the Denny's lease was expiring shortly.
Thomas P. Walker, 2855 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar 92G25 stated the
Deany's lease primary term expires the 30th day of June, 1992, and they have a
10-year option. Mr. Walker indicated they have no control over Deaay's
parking; that Denny's had the exclusive right to use the property in any legal
way they wished. He stated both Denny's and the motel have adequate parking
and there is no necessity for the agreement. Mr. Walker stated as owner they
would not want to record reciprocal easements, and that they have ao right to
force Denny's to accept motel parking in any case. He stated the condition
for removal of the variance and the CUP is not necessary because lax year he
provided letters dated October 9, 1987 to Mr. Doug Faulkner of the Planning
Department, asking that Variance No. 2412 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2872
be terminated.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, responded to Chairman Messe that he does not
have a problem, since both uses meet the Code fer parking; however, he noted
the general public would not be ar.?*a of who is supposed to park where; and
there is an undefined line that appears to the public to be common. Mr.
Singer stated that is why it was suggested they have a reciprocal access and
parking agreement.
06/06/88
~:
1.?INUTES ANAhEIb, CITY PL1L~.7ING COMMISSION TTY 6 1988 88-814
Commissioner Bouas and McBurney stated they did not think there would be any
problem. Commissioner Bouas also indicated she believed this would really
clean up that corner and encourage Denny's to stay at that location for many
years to come and that it would make a nice piece of property there.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if there would be an elevator in the building,
since it is three stories. Commissioner McBurney noted that by code, anything
over two stories requires an elevator and Greq Hastings, Senior Planner,
stated it was his understanding that in a commercial building, three stories
and over would require an elevator. Mr. Trapolino stated he could not tell
from the plan and Chairman Messe asked that he stipulate that there would be
an elevator and it would be to code. Mr. Trapolino so stipulated.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Soydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to permit construction of a 55-unit motel on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre
located at the southeast corner of Via Burton Street and State College
Boulevard and further described as 144V North State College Boulevard; and
does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with nay comments received during
the public review process and further finding on th6 basis of the Initial
Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect oa the environment.
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-151 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
Conditional Use Permit No. 3018, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, amending Condition. No. 2 by removing "and
parking" from the reciprocal access agreement, and subject to
Interdepartmental Committee Recomrt~eadatioas and the stipulation that an
elevator would be installed if required by code.
Mr. Walker stated that a condition to the rezoniaa which the Co~ranission
granted last year was a reciprocal access on the driveway off State College
Boulevard and they also proposed, even though not requested, to the same
thing for the driveway off Via Surtoa. He stated he cannot agree co
reciprocal driveways that would includes any intrusion on Denny's property. He
stated he did not know what the staff meant by common access since the3: are
separate pieces of property, described separately, oxned separately and leased
separately. He notec5 that while the driveway off State College and the one
off Via Burton cover both properties and were built and intended for common
use, he could not agree to the agreement.
Commissioner Bouas stated it was just the driveway in on either one so that if
the properties were separated and sold, there would still be access and that
was all that was being asked. Mr. Walker stated he was agreeable to that and
they had already recorded a reciprocal access agreement on the State College
Boulevard driveway Yast year. Commissioner Bouas asked that they do the same
thing oa the other one, Via Hurton.
06/06/88
itTNITI'F~ ~ *s~r,I2v CITY PLANNING COMMISSION T~T~ F 1988 88-815
On roll call, the foreaoinq resolution was passed by *_he following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUFi, CARUSILLG, FELDHALTS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appear the Planni ,.3 Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO 14. - REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - To consider a Code Amendment for all property in
the City currently zoned PD-C (Parking District-Commercial).
DISCUSSION•
Chairman Messe indicated that Che Planning Commission tnade a request of
the Planning Department to change the designation along North Anahei:e
Boulevard, that is presently ~uaed parking, and which would permit RM-1200
also, to only allo~~ p`d-2400 with parking is that area. He stated he
believed staff hac •:r~7:arally taken what is called PD-C throughout the City
and attempted to t.~-~.ge it to RM-2400. He stated the Commission did not
feel that wss corre~~. He asked if there were anyone present who wanted
to discuss Item No. 14 A.
There were ten people indict;-~nq their presence who wished clarification
from the Commission as to exactly what the Commission has in mind is this
proposal.
Commissioner Boydstun stated that Commission had just down zoned property
on North Anaheim Boulevard and that anyone who owned property in that area
knew that Anaheim Boulevard xas going to rue widened and all those
properties were going to be losing some footage off the front. She stated
her feeling was that before they downzoaed both sides of Anaheim
Boulevard, there was parking possible on the properties adjoining those
and that Commission should put that PD-C designation back in that area so
that when those properties are redeveloped, because several would be made
vacant, that if there was no place tsn owner/developer could go for
parking, the City would end up with the same kind of substandard little
buildings that are there now. She stated she did not want to disrupt the
whole City, but just add the PD-C to the RM-2400 on the properties
bordering Anaheim Boulevard.
Eugene Silberman, a real estate broker, stated he owns one of the
properties and is acting as an agent for a couple of others, all in the
same neighborhood which is not on Anaheim Boulevard but are on Westport
Drive. He stated he had a quostion as to whether it was Commission's
thought that this action would provide more parking to the public.
Commissioner Boydstun stated yes, and if the properties were developed on
North Anaheim Boulevard, they woald be able to have parking for what. they
are developing there.
06/06/88
~.. __
1.tZNUTES ANA_h'EIb, CITY PLANNING ^,...TCernu ntur t, ~ OR8 88-816
Mr. Silberman stated if this action is intended to cover a large area
where there may be lots which he knew nothing about, he could not speak to
that, but that he did know that Westport Drive, which is the first etreet
south of East Anaheim Shopping Center, has buildings which were
approximately 30 years old, built at a rather high density. He stated if
the City proposes to buy a tract of these properties and convert them to
parking it would take housing away from the public. He stated that he did
not see a reason to tear these buildings down, the buildings are all in
use and fully occupied, is good condition and maintained.
Chairman Messe informed Mr. Silberman there is no intention to tear
anything down. Commissioner Soydstun stated the Commission was not
talking about Westport, but when the properties along North Anaheim
Boulevard was down zoned to RM-2400, they last the PD-C because nothing in
the ordinance covered i=, and stated she believed there needs to be an
ordinance that would allow the addition of PD-C to RM-2400 in that
specific area, but not to change all the RM-1200 to RM-2400 throughout the
city.
Commissioner Soydstun stated nothing world be changed which is already
existing, even if the zoning was changed. Mr. Silberman stated that it
would, however, change the property's financial value. Commissioner
Soydstun stated when the Commission started this, there was no intent of
putting any of that area in it, it was just strictly for North Anaheim
Boulevard.
Mr. Silberman stated his knowledge of the whole project was limited to the
Planning Commission Staff Report which he just got, and that it did not
tell him a great teal.
Chairman Messe asked staff to present what they understoad the
requirements to be now, and added he would ask for public input, so it
could be considered at the next meeting.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated it was staff's understanding that
the Commission was asking for perhaps a new zone along Anaheim Boulevard
which would allow parking, as well as RM-2400 land uses; and the remainder
of those properties zoned PD-C in the City would allow RM-1200 with PD-C,
however, there would have to be two separate zones. He stated staff had
done a survey and that approximately 2~ of the propertie.R are curzertly
developed with parking lots, and the remainder or majority are
multiple-family RM-•1200 and the rest is a mixed bag of land uses.
06/06/88
~,~
~~ 7
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-819
Greg Hastings stated that area behind the East Anaheim Shopping Center was
originally designated for parking for that center; however, it has been
developed as apartments and perhaps one solution might be to rezone that
property to RM-1200. Commissioner Bouas added it should be without the
PD-C.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated Commission should be addressing specifically
Anaheim Boulevard and not the res*_ of the City. Commissioner Boydstun
concurred. Commissioner Feldhaus did because the notification received
included the whole City, wherever there was PD-C Zoning. Chairman Messe
stated the Commission should instruct staff, at this time, to consider
only Anaheim Boulevard.
Commissioner Feldhaus added that nothing would be determined today, and as
far as Anaheim Boulevard is concerned, staff has to come up with some
additional recommendations, etc. He stated he believed the Chairman was
allowing everyone present to give whatever input they would like
concerning the matter.
Marjorie Booth, 125 E. Wilhelmena Street, stated she lived just three
houses from Anaheim Boulevard and she was very concerned about this. She
indicated she wanted to know what her situation xas, since her three
houses are zoned for paxkinq and whether she would be required to move.
Chairman Messe informed her that she would not be required to move, and
that Commission's intent was to retain that area as zoned for parking but,
rather than PD-C, which would allow RM-1'L00, Commission wants to change
that to RM-2400 which would mean half the density.
Ms. Booth stated they have had real estate people approaching thorn to
purchase their property, telling them if they don't sell, the City will
take their property and land, and they do not want to leave their property.
Ms. Bouas stated that they did not want people to give up their property,
and when things are developed on Anaheim Boulevard, property owners can
sell their property and develop it under the new zoning.
06/06/88
V ,7
~srrrrr'rFS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-818
Betty Ronconi, 1241 S. Walnut, stated she owned property oa Stueckle and
that she understood ghat Commission is now talking only about Anaheim
Boulevard; however, that when she did talk with staff, was told staff did
not feel they could do the code amendrient without including the entire
City and that concerned her. She stated that she understood Commission
would use another tool now to accomplish their purpose. She noted she did
not have any problem with Commission's purpose, she felt it was healthy
for the City. Chairman Messe indicated that the tool they would probably
use is to create a new zone. Ms. Ronconi stated she was wondering since
the PD-C designation had been on the books for 37 years and seemed to be
outdated, could Commission do something about eliminating that zoning.
Chairman Messe stated that in certain areas it was probably obsolete but
that there were other areas where it was needed. Commissioner Bouas
wondered if it could be looked at in the areas where it is obsolete and
Greg Hastings stated they could review it, and that Commission would be
asking staff to rezone those PD-C properties to other zones, whether it is
industrial-commercial or RM-1200. Dfr. Hastings pointed out that only 2`!
of the property is the City is currently being used for PD-C property.
Ms. Ronconi stated the property across the street from her is still
undeveloped and it is zoned RM-1200. She indicated they wanted it to
remain consistent with the area. Commissioner Bouas stated that they are
consistent and would stay the same.
Chairman Messe stated the intent is to create a PD-C - 2400 Zoae along
Anaheim Boulevard and leave the rest as PD-C which would allow RM-1200 by
right. He stated maybe later on staff could take a look at whether any
PD-C 2oaes are obsolete or not.
Commissioner Herbst asked how the whole City got involved in this and
Chairman Messe indicated it was no doubt just a misunderstanding by
staff. Commissioner Herbst stated that their intent was only to make
things uniform along Anaheim Boulevard.
Mr. Hastings stated staff thought the intent was to change the development
standards in the PD-C Zone to allow RM-2400 rather than RM-iZ00, which
would cover any PD-C property in the City. Ae stated now they understood
Commission was just ta.iking about Anaheim Boulevard. Commissioner Herbst
informed Mr. Hastings that there may be some areas which should be left at
RM-1200 - or possibly there could be a mixture in other parts of the City.
Chairman Messe indicated he would like staff to come back in twc weeks to
a month oa this subject. Mr. Hastings indicated staff would like a four
week continuance until July 6, 1988.
06/06!88
~_
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-819
TI N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration
of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly
scheduled meeting of July 6, 1988, to allow staff time to
prepare additional recommendations.
B. CONDITIONAL ;JSE PERMIT N0. 1218 - Applicant (Gary Odell, Electair
International Marketing) requests approval for a manufacturer's marketing
office.
DZSCUSSION•
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, indicated Conditional Use Permit 1218
originally made a list of uses that would be permitte': in that particular
center and required each one of those uses to come before the Planning
Commission. He stated staff had reviewed the list, including the Traffic
Engineer's Staff, and determined that there would be no problem.
Chairman Messe stated this seemed to be something that would fit in with
the industrial zone and if parking is not impacted, is acceptable.
A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed Conditional Use Permit No. 1218 and the proposal to establish a
manufacturer's marketing office on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 8 acres located at the northwest corner of
Kraemer Boulevard and LaJolla Street, and further described as 3601 East
LaJolla Street, Suite "C", and does hereby approve said proposal on the
basis that sufficient parking is provided on-site to serve the ezistiny
and proposed use.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2844 - To consider revised plans for service
station/car wash/mini mart located at the northwest corner of Weir Canyon
and Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Commissioner McBurney 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 seq., in that he held an interest in this site and
pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman
that he was withQrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditional
Use Permit No. 2844, 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 Commission. Thereupon COMMISSIONER MCBURNEY LEFT THE COUNCIL
CHAMBER.
DISCUSSION•
Ren Van Gordon, architect, stated Shell had been caught in a lot of
changes that have happened in the City of Anaheim, and that when this
proposal originally went through, which was the Conditional Use Permit
06/06/88
~- -°~
..
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-820
granted by the City Council, to their knowledge at that time there was no
requirement far additional square footage for beer and wine sales in
conjunction with gasoline. He explained when they tried to change the
square footage, they were told that would not be permitted without coming
back before the Planning Commission and the City Council. He stated then
the decision was made by Shell management that they would like to also ask
for the beer and wine approval at this time.
Chairman Messe stated essentially the City Council approved the plans and
he was assuming that staff was asking Commission to make a recommendation
to City Ccincil.
Mr. Van Gordon stated Shell had made a presentation to the Anaheim Hills
Homeowner's Association a.nd Ursula Smith, President of that association,
is present to speak in favor.
Commissioner Herbst stated there appeared to be a double driveway going in
and that coming out there is a drastic right turn to get to the other one,
and it appeared the people eziting the property could go right out the
entrance.
Mr. Van Gordon explained this property is odd shaped and the legal lot was
not shoxn on the map since it was not part of the parcel and to his
understanding, the driveway is a full 30 feet in width. He noted part of
the agreement between Shell and Hutton Development Company is that Hutton
has to develop a portion and then Shell will build their station on it.
He stated the portion that Hutton is providing is the full width of the
driveway. He stated he had already had conversations with the City Fire
Department in processing of the building permit, and that the full width
driveway must be developed at the time Shell Oil goes in there.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the 30 feet is ezistinq at this time or if
it has to be constructed. Mr. Van Gordon stateu it has to be constructed,
and nothing is there now.
Ursula Smith, 7910 E. Sagewood Avenue, East Hills, stated she i.s a realkor
and her specialty is East Hills. She stated she is president of the East
Hills Homeowner's Association, and that Shell did present their plans to
them as a courtesy to let them know what was going on. She noted they did
approve of the mart and the property and that they are very eager to have
a service station and food mart there. She indicated the residents at
this time have to plan well in advance if they want to travel to a food
market, since Santa Ana Canyon koad is so busy. She stated when they
found out the beer and wine would be off-site consumption, that xas
agreeable with all of them.
Commissioner Bouas indicated she was concerned about the beer and wine
sales and did not want to go along with that without knowing what else was
going into that area. She asked staff if the Council had approved beer
and wine at the time of the original approval, Greg Hastings, Senior
Plaa.~:sr, indicated beer and wine was not brought up at that time.
06/06/88
.~ _ ~
~.~
88-821
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION nJNE 6 1988
Commissioner Bouas stated she believed it was not brought up because it
was not even a consideration, and that without knowing what else was going
to go into the center, it would be hard to approve it with beer and wine.
Commissioner Feldhaus noted that the state law has now pre-empted the City
being able to deny it. Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated
the law is that where a proposal is to sell gasoline and beer and wine, in
conjunction with each other, the City could not deny the beer and wine
sales if otherwise permitted in that zone. He stated is this case a
Conditional Use Permit is required anyway and it could be denied based on
any other grounds that would be used to deny beer and wine sales for that
site.
Commissioner Bouas asked if Shell would consider the mini-mart and station
without beer and wine.
Carl Williams, 511 North Brookhurst, Anaheim, indicated they are back here
because after obtaining the conditional use permit to put in the
mini-mart, car wash, and gas facility, they realized they had neglected to
think about beer and wine, and then decided they should have bear and wine
in a convenience store. He stated he understood they could have to have
more square footage than what was allowed for under the conditional use
permit originally, and if they are denied beer and wine sales, he felt
this facility would not generate the kind of business they would like to
have there; however, they would probably qo ahead with the project. He
stated gasoline is not a big profit generator, but is more of a traffic
builder and the profit often comes from the other sales.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the need to increase square footage and
Mr. Williams stated they are required to have 1200 square feet. Greg
Hastings stated for off-sale beer and wine, one of the minimum
requirements is that there be 1200 square feet of retail area, and the
original approval was for 1000 square feet, and they are now back in with
1200 square feet.
Commissioner Herbst stated he recognizes this site is on a Freeway access,
and that Weir Canyon definitely needs a service station. He noted there
are certain privileges granted to a service station since it is closer to
the Freeway, and they have been given quite a few conditional use permits
to allow them to do certain things, but he did not feel beer and wine
belongs in service stations. He stated he has never voted for beer and
wines in a service station in the City of Anaheim and would not do so now.
He noted that gas stations used to be service stations, including water,
oil, restrooms, etc., aid he believed they are more interested in
competing in diffe•~seiY. areas now such as hot foods and sandwiches, and
that Commission has arprcved three or four drive-in restaurants in that
area which they wouldl be ~.n competition with, and he did not feel it is
right for them to haves the type of uses other peogle are not allowed to
have under certain conditions.
06/06/88
f
MI ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-822
Chairman Messe noted on the other hand the State has made a determination
as the City Attorney had just relayed, but if there are certain conditions
which prevail, then he felt the Commission should recommend to City
Council that they deny approval of the revised plans.
Commissioner Feldhaus noted at the last Commission meeting, he had asked
what mechanism was in place to assure that service stations provide
restrovm facilities and asked where staff was with that request. Mr.
Hastings stated, as far as he knew, service stations are not required to
provide separate men and women restrooms; however, as a condition of
approval on many of the mini-marts, there has been a condition requiring
that those be in provi3ed.
Commissioner Herbst stated one thing that is bothering him is that the
Commission is talking about changing a very important condition without a
public hearing. Chairman Messe noted the public hearing would be in front
of the City Council, and that Commission is just being asked to give a
recommendation. Greg Hastings stated City Council did have final action
on this. Commissioner Herbst added the public hearing is important, and
there are peogle who are opposed to the beer and wine in service
stations. Commissioner Carusillo stated the City cannot circumvent what
the law dictates. Chairman Messe noted the State has taken that decision
away from the City.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated he had reviewed the CL
Zone which covers this property and that a conditional use permit would be
required for the beer and wine saleson that site, anduUader the current CL
zoning, liquor stores are a permitted use; therefore, they could build a
liquor store on that site without Planning Commission approval, so any
grounds to deny beer and wine under this CUP would have to be other than
the fact that there was going to be liquor sales.
Mr. Williams, addressing Commissioner Feldhaus, stated they do plan oa
putting restrooms there; and that anytime Shell comes before the
Commission or Council and putting restrooms in is a concern, they are
happy to put them in. He noted it is hard to enforce that sometimes with
the dealers, since they are independent businessmen, but they do have
those facilities is the stations and they police it so they are available,
as well as air and water.
Chairman Messe stated staff is asking the Planning Commission to recommend
that the City Council, folloKing a public hearing, find that the
previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate and that the revised
plans are acceptable, and that he did nat believe the Commission could
make that recommendation to the City Council because thoy would not be
privy to what would be going on in that public hearing. He stated,
therefore, he thought this matter should be passed on to the City Council.
Commissioner Bouas asked what guarantee the Commission would have as to
the apuearance of the building. Greg Hastings stated this is a specific
plan approval, so staff would be looking at these plans to make sure they
matched.
05/06/68
~ -, '
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-823
ACTION:
Chairman Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby forward this matter on to the City Council
with the recommendation that they hold a public hearing and determine
whether to deny or approve the proposal to expand and include off-sale
alcoho? and fast food service is a previously approved mini-mart proposed
in conjunction :pith a gas st^.tioa and car wash with waiver of minimum
structural setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 19.7 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road.
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. i260 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION.
COMMISSIONER N.CBURNEY RETURNED TO THE MEETING.
Request: Robert F. Lott, property owner, requests termination of
Conditional Use Permit no. 1260.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-152 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby terminate all proceedings in cc=.3nection with the Conditional Use
Permit No. 1260.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution wag passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. a,?z - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION
Request: Ghazi Itani, property owner, roquests termination of Conditional
Use Permit No. 1772.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst ofl:ered Resolution No. PC88-153 and moved for
its passage and adoption that tY~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby terminate all proceedinq:t in connection with the Conditional Use
Permit No. 1772.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by thts following vote:
AYES: SOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
06/06/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 X988 BS-824
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2441 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND DETERMINATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANa.
Angela Smith, 2122 South Grand Avenue, Suite E, Santa Ana S`2705, stated
she was there for Shell Oil Company, and that she had reviewed the staff
report and urged Commission cc approve the project based on the staff
recommendation.
Chairman Messe indicated there is a question on the northerly driveway on
Harbor Boulevard closest to the intersection.
Ms. Smith stated the Traffic Engineer recommended that that driveway be
closed originally and Planning Commission did not require it, and they
only closed one of the driveways instead of two. She stated she prefers
not to close that driveway since it will negatively affect the on-site
circulation, even with the new places. She noted the concept behind
putting the car wash equipment inside the three-bay building is to smooth
out the on-site circulation and that driveway is necessary.
Commissioner Carusillo asked about a patron wha, once they leave the car
wash, would want to pull over to wipe it down, etc. Ms. Smith stated that
is why they have a reverse system, which means they can go through the car
wash and the spots would not dry on the car, so there would be no ne~:d to
wipe it down. She stated they had provided another five parking spaces in
addition to the three that they had.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if there was someone on-site who would detail
the cars, and Ms. Smith replied that there was not. Commissioner Feldhaus
asked how many e:~~ployees would be on-site and Ms. Smith replied that there
would be no more than four. She stt'.ed the car wash is Free with fill-up,
so they could fill up, pay the cashier, drive through the car wash, and
then out.
Cortanissioner Feldhaus asked if there are parking spaces in case anyone
wanted to pull over to do last minute detail work and Ms. Smith stated
that there are parking spaces provided.
Commissioner Bouas asked if there was a vacuum. Ms. Smith replied there
is a vacuum, and also air and water.
Replying to Chairman Messe, Ms. Smith stated there is no median oa Harbor
Boulevard at that point, and that driveway provides people with the option
of exiting after they fill up if they do not wish to use the car wash;and
they can come is through tho upper driveway on Harbor Boulevard and exit
out at the intersection and make a right hand turn or go straight.
Commissioner McBurney stated because is a signalized intersection, he did
not believe it will be a hazard.
Commissioner Herbst noted that this is a conditional use permit and if it
later turns out that the open drive is a hazard, the Commission could make
a change, under the revocation process.
06/06/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6 1988 88-82
A I N: Commissioner McBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby find that the submitted plans, relocating the car wash, are in
substantial conformance with the previously approved plans.
G, °°^^•^~'NDED CODE AMENDMENT - AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN SECTIQNS OF TITLE 18
PERTAINING TO GARAGE SETBACKS AND TANDEM PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL 20NES.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated that this matter had come before the
Planning Commission a few meetings ago and this amendment allows far
20-foot areas behind garage doors, provided they are roll-up garage doors.
A I N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that the accompanying draft ordinance
be adopted amending various chapters of Title 18 relative to garage
setbacks and yard requirements for "front-on" garages to permit a 20-foot
wide "front-on" garage setback with a roll up garage door or a 25-foot
wide "front-on" garage setback with a standard tilt-up garage door in
single-family residential zones „ and to permit the same requirements for
parking space lengths that are in tandem to a garage in a multiple-family
residential 'lone.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION:
Cornmissianer Horbst stated in looking at the variances granted this meeting,
on the ~partmea,t house where there was 73~ coverage over and above the code
for tlae building coverage, and then the apartment house only covered a small
percentage, and indicated in looking at the necessity of variances which a lot
of people do not understand, particularly when going below grade, he wondered
if possibly the ordinance could be revised to allow parking structures below
grade, and then look at the living structure separately.
Chairman Messe asked if it would have to be completely below grade.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated that is a problem staff has run into
with some of the developers, and asked at what point does it become natural
land area and at what point does it stop being a structure. He noted the way
it works at present is that anything that has a cover such as covered parking,
is considered a structure.
Commissioner Herbst stated legally it is a structure, but when the structure
is used primarily for parking, and it is below grade, it is confusing between
the living area and the parking structure, and it is confusing to the public
when Commission approves a variance for 73~ coverage and it is really parking
area, and the public thinks a lot more p•~opie are being allowed on the
property.
Mr. Hastings stated the way Planning staff has interpreted that, is that if it
is entirely below grade and has a natural soil area, it would not be counted
as coverage; however, staff has never seen that occur, and usually the garage
goes only partially below ground and it then considered as a story.
06/06/88
__._ _.____...._.._.:. ...,,...tea»~a~":,~,:~.:._
R
.4~}•
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQ~a1ISSI0N. JUNE 6, 1988 88-826
Commissio~+e~^ Herbst asked if something could be added in the code to work
around that which would distinguish between the perking area and living area.
He referred to a gentleman °:ho ixad an apartment house on today's agenda and
that it was primarily bo::a::se of the ~arkinq that he was before the
Commission, and with a public heariiac;, the people were concerned because they
thought Corrmissioa was giv;'.ao, ii •~;;•!tiance for 73~ coverage *ahea it was the
living area that they were: r~,ally concerned about.
Mr. Hastings pointed out that l:he siaje,rity of that is required covered parking
s6~ich would count even if a2 was ai: ~frade level,, and if it is ~.,~~,tletely besaw
c,,X.=.de and there is soil there, it :is not counted., and we end up with someti~iL~g
that is out of the ground tb.at adds to the hardscape.
Chairc•:n Besse agreed that at this meeting ti:ey had seen hardscape, but it was
a good arch. Commissioner IIouas stated she did not believe there was anything
wrong wi_~a hardscape, i' it were done properly, and pointed out it is open
space.
Mr. Hastings indicated than it was recreation area but in terms of covering
the natural lot area, it had been counted toward coverage in the past.
Commissioner McIIurney asked if it is completely be~iaw around, would it still
be counted as a story. Mr. Hastings replied only if th~are is single-family
residential zoning or a single-family r•esidencee withi:a '150 fe'6t.
Commissioner IIouas noted that parking structures are ' +e;r.•: Fo stay and th~'t
that type of parking is here with apartments and is ~,~~•:.uacaly atafer prsrkinq and
better use of the land; 'the'refore, she Eelt we need to bring our ord:tnance~s
into conformance wikh that type of building.
Chairman Messe noted that the Phil Case project thst carve 1'iefore the
Commission today really required technical types of waivsrs caused by that
same type of problem.
Greg Hastings state3 if Commission wishs, staff could make it part of the
taLltiple-family sturiy currently unde nosy or Commission could look at it
separately.
Chairman Messe ,stated he thought it should be part of the multiple-_family
study that is lasing done as a result of the Commiss ic° 's meetinc/ wit~+ 2hs City
Council.
Mr. Carusillo stated he felt the uadergraund parking led to a density problem
and he would rather discourage it, trap a;scept it as a trerod.
06/06/88
1
MINUTES ANAHEIM ITY PLANNING COMMIS`iION, JUNE A: Z9p° 88-827
PUIILIC INP~:
Sally c!Si=..:ri, 7.°.,IU ?.i. Kil_v in•zve, Anah~>im Hills, sta;;ed si:~ b,ad sent a letter
dated .!'~-~~~ i, 1988, which she bel:., ved all the members of th~i Planning
Com;~issioin had raceived concerning ?ten•. No,. 5. and that she regretted she had
not been able to make it to the public hea:iaa in time t~ voice her objections
to the applicant's request.
ChairmaL Mrrsse indicated hsr letter had bee•.: rreeived and. was brought up. He
pointed out action had been t ken on that mat~cr and her concerns should be
taken to fhe City Council public hearing.
Ms. Smith continued with some of her concerns about the project in q•ioZtion.
Joseph W. Pletcher, Deputy City Attorney, .indicated that the discussion was
getting into a lot of detailed issues about past and future public hearings
•~hich the Commission is going to hear and he was concerned thaL• there would be
confLsion as to chat is on the record and what is not. He reco:mnended. that
any furti:~r 9iscussi~n Tie reserved until one of the public hearings been*-se
there are ll lot of things einq said a:nd statements being made that do noC fit
into any pui:r'.i~: record whict'i we have, and this might lead to someone assuming
that. they h.nve .nade some statement that has been put on the record before the
Pl.~~nniaq Ca~:~:+ission, when in fact it has not, and noted the discussion would
not he going on any public record.
Chairman Messe again recommended ".hat Ms. Smith appz.ar in front of the City
Council in a p;t9lic hearing s~ss~na, when the matterr is taken up on appeal;
and eznl:ined that the matte: would probably be addressed in about three weeks
before the City Council and that Ms. Smith should call the City Clerk's Office
tic make sure that it would be oa the agenda.
D~'DJOURNMENT•
There being no further business, chairman Mosse adjoura~d the meeting at
5:35 p.m. to a June 24 work session to be 2.e~:i, at the Anaheim Stadium.
Respectfully submitted,
,R
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
06/06/88