Minutes-PC 1988/06/20
MI E
$E LAR MEETIN F THE ANAHEIM I PLANNIN MMI I N
Date: ~uue 20, 1988
The regular meeting of the Anaheim.Citg Planning Commission was called to
June 20, 1988, in the Civic Center
order by Chairman Messe at 10:00 a
Council Chambers, a quorum being present, and the Planning Commission reviewe
plans of the items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:45 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:35 p•m•
Chairman Messe Feldhaus, Herbst,
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo
McBurney
None
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
ALSO PitESENT: Joel Fick
r
h Planning Director
City Attorney
e
Joseph w. Fletc Depu y City Attorney
Arthur L. Daw
Traffic Engineer
Paul Singer Senior Planner
Greg Hastings Senior Planner
Mary McCloskey Assistant Planner
Linda Rios Planning Commission Secretary
Edith Harris
~r•*+~* vOSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was pasted
at 9:30 a.m., on June 17, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer
of the Council Chambers, and also .in the outside display kiosk.
published: Anaheim Bulletin on June 10, 1988.
~r7nr.T~ INPUT: Chairman Messe explained that at the end of the scheduled
hearings, members of turisd ctioalaf theaPlanning Commissioaland/orfagendaest
which are within the j
items.
iTAS FOR APPROVA~I: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, that the minutes of the meeting of
April 11, 1988, be approved as submitted.
06/20/68
0104m gg_828
mm
i
MINUTES- ANAr(EIM CITY PLANNING C4N"~?~.~~.4Zr._sL>n^° ~0 1988 Paqe 88-829
ITEM NO 1 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 240•
RF.CiASSIFICATT^*I NO 87-88-46• VARIANCE H0.~787.
PUBLIC HEARIN OWNERS: Ruth Marie Mount (Siglar), 929 North Citron Street;
Anaheim, CA 92805; Dennis Montgomery, 931 North Citron Street, Anaheim, Ca
92805; Benjamin Bedolla, Martha Bedolla and Jesus Jimenaz, 937 North Citron
Street, Anaheim, CA 92805; Richard M. Brewbaker and Nancy .To Brewbaker, 943
North Citron Street, Anaheim, CA 92805; AGENT: The American Companies,
Attn: Brent Nerguizian, 18300 `Ion Barman, Suite 610, Irvine, CA X2715;
LOCATION: 929, 931, 437 and 943 North Citron Street.
:'•equest: RS-10,000 to RM-12^0 or a less intense zone - to consider an
amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plaa, proposing a
redesignation from Low-Medium Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential. Waivers of (a) minimum building site ar s per dwelling unit, (b)
maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage and (d) maximum number of
bachelor units.
Continued from the meetings of May 9, 1988 and Kay 23, 1988.
Thera ~?re three people iadicatiny 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.
~,CTION: Commissioner Bouss 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 18, 1988, at the request
of the petitioner.
Chairman Messe suggested to those present that they contact the Planning
Department prior to July 18 to see if there has been a request for continuance.
Commissioner Herbst stated when an applicant asks for a continuance which is
granted, and than returns to ask for another continuance, he did not feel the
third request should be granted and the application should be withdraxn
because of the burden on staff.
Commissioner Souas noted in this particular case this item was to be
readvertised and asked staff the reason for the readvertisment.
Greg Hastings, Seaiar Planner, stated the applicant is proposing condominiums
rather than apartments.
ITEM N0. 2. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLAR~ION (RE VET)' WAIVER OF CODE
REO:tIRFMENT: RECLASSIFICATION NQ• 87-88-57: CONDITIONAL iISE PERMIT N0. 3006
(READVEFTISEDl.
Ptrnr,IC REARING: OWNERS: Paul J. Marasco and Fannie J. Marasco, 2285 N. Via
Puerta, Laguna Hills, CA 42653; AGENT: Dhirendra Shah, 13144 Caravel Street,
Cerritos, CA V0701; LOCATION: 212 South Beach Boulevard.
Request: To permit a 3-story, 196-room motel and accessory uses with waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces. RS-A-43,000 to CL or a less intense zone.
06!20!88
b72NUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING rnvuTCC*ON June 20 1988 Paae 88-830
Continued from meetings of May 9, 1988, May 23, 1988 and June 6, 1988.
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•
Mr. Parikh, 427 West Colorado, Glendale, CA, stated they had resolved the
sewer issue and as other people connect to the sewer, hey would be reimbursed
for the expense incurred, and that was acceptable.
Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated the sewer situation in that area not
only affects subject property, but also a development that has been approved
on Teri Circle. He stated it has been determined that in order to provide
sewer relief in that area, a relief sewer needs to be constructed in Dale
Avenue, north of Lincoln Avenue, which will be sufficient to allow this
project, as well as the Teri Circle Project. He stated very rough cost
estimates are approximately 580,000, and it could be built in two phases. He
stated the developer of whichever project proceeds first could construct the
first phase of the sewer, and the next development would have to extend it up
to another point to further relieve the system. He indicated by doing it in a
two-phase system, it would be possible to permit this development and the Teri
Circle development ,e connect into the existing sewer system.
Mr. Parikh responded he thought the sewer was going under Western Street.
Mr. Daw stated initially as was noted is Condition 5 of the staff report, the
sewer would have to i:~ constructed in Lincoln Avenue and go one half mile west
to Western Avenue; howev.r, through further discussion with the developer of
the Teri Circle project, and after turthNr review, they could provide
sufficient relief by the construction of the sewer in Dale; and that the
approximate cost to each develoger would be 540,000.
Chairman Meese stated that is a much lower figure than previously discussed.
He asked Mr. Parikh if he was aware of Condition No. 19, and Mr. Parikh
responded he was, and that everything looked very fair to him.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McBurney asked about the improvement of tho intersection at
Lincoln and Beach, as indicated in Condition No. 19. Mr. Singer responded
that improvement is necessary because it is a requirement of the EIR since
they are impacting the intersection.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun 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) Zone to CL (Commercial, Limited) or less intense
zone to permit construction of a 3-story, 196-room motel and accessory uses
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces oa a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of.approximately 1.9 acres, having a frontage of
approzimately 334 feet on the east side of Beach
06!20/88
MINUTES ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paqe 88 83]
Boulevard, and being located approximately 900 feet south of the centerline of
Lincoln Avenue and further described as 212 S. Beach Boulevard; and does
hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered
the Negative Declaration together with any ~.ommeats 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. PC88-154 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
Reclassification No. 87-88-57, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommmendatioas.
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
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
waiver of code requirement on the basis that the request is minimal and that
it will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity
nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and that granting of the parking
variance under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace,
health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-155 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
Conditional Use Permit No. 3006, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections.
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations and with a modification to Condition No. 5 that the relief
sewer would be constructed in Dale Avenue, and would be built in two phases,
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, 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.
STEM NO 3 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. CONDITIONAL USF PERMIT NO znii.
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Madhubala Rameshbhai Patel and Romesh Narottambhai
Patel, et. al., Attention: Ramesh N. Patel, 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805; LOCATION: 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard.
06/20/88
;tTi ~Y
w ~~ .
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Ji~~ae 20 1988 Page 88-8?L
Request: To permit a 64-unit motel.
Continued f,-om the meeting of June 6, 15fSL'.
ACTION: (This action was taken at the beginning of the meeting.)
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 18, 1988, at the request of the
petitioner, in order that they may further consult with their attorney.
ITEM NO 4 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3014
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: the Orangethorpe Promenade, P.0. Boz 15005, Santa
Aaa, CA 92705; AGENT: Industrial Property Management, 1495 E. Warner Avenue,
Santa Ana, CA 92705; LOCATION: 2370 East Orangethorpe Avenue.
Request: To retain an audio and alarm sales and installation facility with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Continued from the meeting of June 6, 1988.
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•
Joe Komaromi, 2370 East Orangethorpe, agent, was present to answer any
questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Chairman Messe asked Mr. Romaromi if he was axare that no work was to be dose
outside the facility; and Mr. Romaromi replied that he understood. He also
responded to Commissioner Bouas that there was to be no outdoor storage.
Chairman Messe noted that he saw a car being worked on in the parking lot the
previouE Saturday and Mr. Somaromi stated they might have been helping a
customer in adjusting something.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
BoyGi~:~un and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviexed the proposal to retain an audio and alarm sales and installation
facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on as
irregularly-shaped parcel of lan3 consisting of approzimately 4.1 acres
located at the southwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Placentia Avenue
and further described as 2370 East Orangethorpe Avenue; and does hereby
approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received diuring the public
review process and further finding oa the basis of the IniCial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
06/20/88
~~:_
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQpI, June 2Pi. 1988 Page 88-833
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
waiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking variccce xill not
cause an increase is traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor
adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and that the granting of the parking
variance under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the
peace, health, safoty or general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim.
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-156 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
Conditional Use Permit Na. 3014, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roli :all, the faregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST,
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.
7„~EM N0. 5. - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 287: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.
3010.
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Santa Fe Land Improvement Company, 3230 E. Imperial
Highway, Suite 100, Srea, CA 92621; AGENT: Phillips Brandt Reddick, 18012
Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA 92714; LOCATION: Approximately 48.4 acres
bounded by Hunter Street to the north, Kellogg Drive to the east, LaPalma
Avenue to the south, and Manassero Street to the west.
Request: To permit industrially-related office usos in conjunction with a
proposed industrial complez.
Continued from the meetings of May 9, 1988 and May 23, 1988.
There was no one 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.
PRESENTATION•
Rick Del Carlo, 3330 East isperial Highway, Brea, Santa Fe Land Improvement
Company, Project Manager, for Santa Fe Corporate Center, a 108-acre master
plan development in the Industrial Canyon Area, indicated the majority of the
project consists of industrial space. He stated it is their commitment to
preserve the area for industrial use; however, there are plans for the
development of over 1.3 million square feet of industrial there :.n the next
five years, and they found it important to supply accessory usos, such as
06/20/88
QI2.J'~'ES ANItfYEIM CITY PL7~~'NING COMMISSION rune 20 1988 Paae 88-634
industrial related office uses, to support that type of demand. He stated the
office area represents about 17i of the overall development. He stated their
intentions are long term, and that they understand Commission right aox is
quite sensitive to the economics in that area and that it is not their
intention to develop as office building today, but they do feel there will be
a need in the future.
Mr. Del Carlo stated they had worked with the Planning, Traffic, and
Redevelopment Departments and with regard to widening the intersection at
Lakeview and LaPalma. though their project does not directly impact that
intersection at present, is operating at a Level of Sezvice (LOS) "C", and
with other developments, including theirs, it xill be operating at LOS "E",
and that Mr. Singer has placed certain conditions oa this project, and that
widening will take place.
Mr. Del Carlo stated he would like it oa the record, that in their meetings
with Redevelopment, they had agreed that if the bond issuance is approved in
Washington is August that Redevelopment will supply the capital foz the
widening of Lakeview and LaPalma; however, if that does not come through, they
have agreed, as the developer, to provide those funds to allow those
improvements to take place, with reimbursement through incremental taz dollars
generated from the project.
Mr. Del Carlo stated they intend to do some great things with this piece of
property; that it is a long-term development and they are a long-term property
holder, and have bees around for years and anticipate being around for a long
time.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Messe asked if the Traffic Engineer agreed with what the developer
has indicated regarding improvements along LaPalma. Mr. Singer stated it is
the intent of the Redevelopment Department to undertake all the necessary
off-site ,improvements for the developments in that area. He added the only
problem is the timing of the improvements, and it may be that Santa Fe could
be required to front the money and be reimbursed, and if that does not occur,
then Redevelopment would be making the intersection improvements. He stated
in either case, it would come from the taz increment income and is not an
additional burden to the development.
Chairman Messe referred to the question regarding the sewer and noted the
staff report oa Page 8 indicates one of the mitigation measures in the
Environmental Impact Roport (EIR) is payment for nay wastewater system, and
that was not addressed is the conditions.
Arthur Dax, Deputy City Engineer, stated he had checked with the Orange County
Sanitation District and that statement in the EIR probably should not have
been included, and the Orange County Sanitation District foresees no
deficiency; and as far as the City is concerned, there are adequate facilities
surrounding the site to provide sewer service. Ee added that was an oversight
and that statement should be deleted from the EIR, and there would be ao
payment necessary for sewer services.
05/20/88
I ~~
V ~ M
~•I~^""°e ANIiAEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION 3 ne 20 1988 Paae 88-835 ,
Commissioner Bouas asked about the 17• office space, and Mr. Del Carlo stated
that was what they would anticipate, but it could be less.
Ch.nirman Messe asked Mr. Del Carlo if all that development would be right oa
Lali~alma Avenue and Mr. Del Carlo responded it would. Chairman Messe stated he
noticed this property is being advertise3 as commercial space.
Mr. Del Carlo stated that was done for practical purposes and he did not know
how they would advertise it as industrially related, since it might confuse
people who are not familiar with that terminology.
Commissioner Herbst Mated when the Commission talks about commercial uses,
the intent is that as long as it is industrially oriented, it would be
acceptable. He stated there are a number of buildings along LaPalma right now
which are empty, and there are a substantial number of research and
development buildings and office buildings which are sitting vacant and have
been for the last year and a half. He stated it appeared to him that maybe
this project would compound that situation by overbuilding with too much
office space along that entire frontage. He asked Mr. Del Carlo how he
defined "multi-tenant', and referred to some buildings on Lot 12, marked
"multi-tenant" on the plan.
Mr. Del Carlo stated those are small industrial modules. He ezplaiaed their
company is in business to make a profit and has been around a long time, and
they do not want to have the hardship of an empty building, and they do not
want to dampen their credibility as a developer, and they do not xant to
bruise their pride as a very visible and large developer. He stated those
issues are very real to them and they have no intentions of developing a large
amount of office space in the near future. He agreed that there is a high
vacancy is that area, but because of the vast amount of industrial space they
have anticipated developing, this is a use thaC will be needed in the future
and they are requesting approval today, but do not intend to build anything
right away.
Commissioner Herbst asked how that corner would be impacted, if the applicant
came back and said they were not going to build office buildings there, but
more commercial.
Mr. Singer stated obviously if Santa Fe does not take advantage of this
Conditional Use Permit (CUP), then all things are equal, and if they do not
exercise the CUP, they do not have to comply with the conditions. He stated
by right they could build industrial complezes. He added that Redevelopment,
with or without this improvement, is going to have to widen the intersection
at Lakeview and LaPalma.
Chairman Messe asked about the dual left turn lanes and Mr. Singer stated that
is part of the critical intersection improvements. Chairman Messe stated that
is included as a condition of the CUP. Mr. Singer stated that in this
particular case it is; and that the worse case scenario would be if the
applicant takes advantage of the CUP, he would have to front the money for the
improvement of the intersection; and if he does not take advantage of the CUP,
Redevelopment in their own time would widen the intersection. Regardless the
intersection will be widened from the same money.
Ofi/20/88
~.
MINUTES A*IAAEIb, CITY PLA_~JING COt~;ISSION Tune 20 1988 Paae 8@-836
Chairman Messe noted that Condition No. 11 needs something added which will
indicate that the westbound left turn lanes are to be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. Additionally, he inquired if the
condition pertaining to the wastewater had to be deleted.
Mr. Daw stated there is no condition regardi.ag the wastewater and no action is
needed by the Commission. Chairman Messe noted that is contained in the EIR,
and the Commission has to certify the EIR.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated generally' the mitigation
measures identified in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be included
in approval of the project, and the agency, in this case the Planning
Commission, should include a condition or mechanism by which the mitigation
measure would be carried out. He noted he was not familiar with this
particular EIR.
Chairman Messe ezplained the EIR erroneously stated there should be a
mitigation measure, and now the County is saying it is not necessary. He
asked if the Commission could certify the EIR if they include a requirement
that the County submit a letter that the mitigation is not required. He
stated there xas an impact identified with a mitigation measure attached to
that impact; and now, the County of Orange is stating that that impact is no
longer there, and that it was an error.
Mr. Fletcher recommended the Commission consider the final EI"R co include that
letter, and to then certify the EIR with a note on the record that per the
County of Orange, no mitigation measure for waste water is required in the
final EIR.
Mr. Daw stated the communication from County of Orange was is the form of a
telephone communication, not a letter.
Mr. Fletcher stated he believed the issue was adequately covered for the
record and the Commission could certify the EIR with notation that that
mitigation measure and the impact are deemed not to be significant.
Sid Lenmark, with PHR, stated they had prepared the Environmental impact
Report, and noted that on Paqe 53 of the draft, it does say the City had
master planned the area for sewers and there is ao significant impact on City
sewer lines anticipated, and in light of that comment and that the Regional
Agency has said that the capacity is adequate, he would just recommend that
number two mitigation measure on Page 53 be omitted in the final EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 287 for the proposed
Santa Fe Corporate Center and any evidence, both written and oral, presented
to the Planning Commission and does hereby find that EIR No. 287 is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State and City
Guidelines; that it does not identify nay impacts which are considered
unavoidable and adverse in nature and not fully mitigatable to a level of
insignificance; therefore, the Planning Commission does hereby certify EIR No.
287, with the deletion of Mitigation Measure 2to. 2.
06/20/88
~:`
ar.auxrxr, e^rnot lssioN. June 20, 198 - 7
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-157 and maved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
Conditional Use Permit No. solo, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 11.02.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
Oa roll call, tho foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDAAUS, HERSST,
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.
Additional Discussion:
Mr. Del Carlo referred to Condition No. 9 regarding the traffic signalization,
and stated they had a recorded Parcel Map 86-40-31 which required that they
install signalization on Montesaro and LaPalma four years from recordation of
the map, and that map was recorded in April 1988, which would make it 1992,
but this condition says 1991.
Paul Singer stated the Parcel Map states the correct timing which should be
December 31, 1991.
Mr. Del Carlo stated he thought Condition No. 22 was a bit confusing in that
it requires certain conditions to be completed within one year and one of
those is Condition No. 9, which really requires those items to be completed
within the years just stated and that he felt that xas a conflict of time.
Mr. Daw noted the last condition was intended to be complied with within one
year, and tksat it was the matter of posting the security, not the actual
installation of the signals. Chairman Messe stated the Commission would not
delete Condition No. 9.
tTFt.. NO 6 CEOA NEGATIVE DFrrtRtTtON• RECLASSIFICATION N9 87-88-53:
VARIANCE NO 3796
PUBLIC REARING: OWNERS: Aerbert F. Berger and Betty Jean Berger, 22x0 W.
Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92801; AGENT: Hugo Vazquez, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801; LOCATION: 1188 N. West Street.
Request: To construct a 3-story, 14-unit apartment complez with waivers of
(a) required coverage of parking spaces, (b) minimum building site area per
dwelling unit, (c) mazimum structural height, (d) mazimum site coverage and
(e) minimum recreational leisure area.
Continued from the meeting of May 23, 1988.
06/20/88
''~
~wtrrFC ANAHEIM CITY PL ,...tecT^v June 20 1988 _Paae 88-838
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.
g~Qt7;_ (This action was taken at the beginning of the meeting.)
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 July 18, 1988, at the request of the
petitioner.
Chairman Messe asked Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, if this item was to be
readvertised and Mr. Hastings responded that he had not received any revised
plans to indicate that it would.
Chairman Messe informed those present that the item would probably not be
readvertised, therefore, they could probably be assured that it would be heard
on the 18th, unless the applicant again requeasts a continuance or withdraws
the petition.
jTEM NO 7 ENVIROi7T~A rr IMPA REPORT N^v ~o~ ,,un snnFf7T)tiM (PREVIOUSLY
(`RRTT F_IED): FINAL SPECIFIC PLANS FOR PREVIOU,~LY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT NOS._
1~~56 13512 13513. 13 4- 13515, 13516. 13517 AND 13518.
PyBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Baldwin Building Company, A General Partnership,
16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714; AGENT: Diana Hoard, The Baldwin
Company, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714; LOCATION: Property comprises
eight (B) tentative tracts totaling approzimately 108 acres, located oa the
south side of the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the
west by the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, on the south by the Irvine Company
property, and further described as previously approved Tentative Tract Nos.
13266, 13512, 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, and 13518 within The Summit
of Anaheim Hills Planned Community (PC) (SC) Development Area 101.
Request: For final Specific Plan approval to construct a total of 210
RS-HS-10,000 (Residential, Single-family, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone
single-family detached residential structures.
There was no ~~ne 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.
Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, requested that this item be trailed until after
Item No. 8 is order to alloy a representative from the Baldwin Company to be
present, and responded to Chairman Messe that she thought a representative was
oa her way.
(This Item ways heard following Item No. 8.)
PRESENTATION:
06/20/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Pave 88-839
Diana Hoard, Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA, stated this is a
request for approval of the final specific plan of development for their 210
10,000-square foot lots. She stated they consider this the top of their line,
and is something similar to what they had done in Portula, which was received
pretty good; and that they are large homes with lots of bedrooms, lots of
parking and are pretty large estate type homes.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Messe stated the Commission had just been handed an amended set of
conditions and asked Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, if there is anything that
should be brought to their attention.
Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, stated these conditions were also added to the
Specific Plan approval for the five tracts just north of this development area
which were previously approved by the Commission. She also noted that these
conditions were all already included as part of the Planned Community Zoning
approval and nothing new was included that had not been included is the
previous specific plan approval, or in the previous tract map approvals for
this area.
Ms. Hoard responded to Chairman Messe that she had reviewed the conditions and
that she had found them all reasonable and acceptable.
Commissioner Herbst informed Ms. Hoard that be had just addressed The
Highlands project developer regarding grading plans and he did not want to
show favoritism; therefore, he thought a condition should be added that the
Planning Commission review the grading plans as part of the agreement on the
tentative tracts so the Commission could take a look at exactly what was being
done; and that he wanted to see the overall grading plans.
Chairman Messe asked if thst would be done when they came in with the Vesting
Tentative Tracts and Commissioner Herbst stated it should be whenever they are
available to Commission, and that the tentative tracts should be approved
subject to the Planning Commission's review of the grading plans.
Ms. Hoard responded that the tentatives have already been approved, and that
this hearing is for the site plan.
Chairman Messe stated the Commission has already approved the tentatives;
however, he would like to know if there is a grading plea approved at this
time.
Ms. Hoard stated they are currently doing their mass grading, which covers a
portion of this tract, and it is their first phase of grading.
Chairman Messe stated the Commission would like to see the mass grading plan,
and Ms. Hoard asked where that would fit into the schedule. Commisa~ioner
Bouas stated the Commission would like to review the plan as soon aaz it as
ready, if possible.
06/20!88
1
_~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Page 88-84Q
Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated the timing would really be xhenever the
Commission wanted to review it; but it would not be a public hearing item.
Commissioner McBurney stated he felt it would have to be a reported item on
the agenda and posted, so the public would know the Commission was going to be
reviewing it.
Mr. Aastiags replied that any item the Commission would be reviewing would be
a listed item on the agenda.
Commissioner McBurney informed Ms. Hoard that as soon as the grading plan was
ready, she should notify the Planning Department and then they could post it
and give her a date as to when Commission was going to review it.
Ms. Fioarc4 asked if the request would have to go through the pre-file meeting
and i.t was noted that it would not and the review would be a report to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Aerbst stated there are some things happening is the hill and
canyon area which he felt the Commission should take another look at, not
necessarily this applicant's projects, but the Commission has insisted on the
HigS7lands project doing this, and k•> felt it needed to be covered across the
board.
Commissioner Boydstun stated there were only six conditions in the staff
report. and those just received started with eight, and wanted to know what
happened to seven.
Linda Rios stated that was a mistake, and that staff will renumber the
conditions as part of the motion on these tract maps, so they will reflect the
correct number of conditions.
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that
Environmental Impact Report No. 281 (Previously Certified) oa June 30, 1987,
for The Summit (Oak Aills Ranch) Planned Community (Reclassification No.
86-87-19) and subsequent Addendum, is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for Final Specific Plans for Tentative Tract Nos.
y 13266, 13512, 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, and 13518.
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve
final specific plans for Tentative Tract Nos. 13266, 13512, 13513, 13514,
13515, 13516, 13517 and 13518, subject to the stipulation of the petitioner at
the public hearing to submit the final grading plan for Planning Commission
review as soon as it is available; and subject to the following conditions:
1. That a tract map to record the division of subject property shall
be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be retarded in
the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
06/ZO/88
June 20. 1988 Paae 88-841
rc at, uFIty CITY PLANNING CO2"' T'"'
2, That subject property shall be developed substantially in
accordance with psani t~hdoughcl3ications on file with the City of Anaheim
marked Ezhibit No
3. That the entry monument signs shall be located on private property
and in scch a position so as not to create a visual intrusion °rovedlbylthe
traffic. Prior to construction, the exact location will be aPP
City Engineer.
q, T~:at pursuant to Section No. 17.08.640 of Title 17 (Subdivision
Code) the fallowing landscaping features shall be required:
(a) On each building site or lot of a subdiots~whichever isagreateren
trees per gross acre or two trees p
and such trees shall be spaced at intervals of not more than forty
feet.
(b) Adjacent to arterial highways (S=ore=C Alineenearest well be
planted within ten feet of the p P 1' reserved.
right-of-waY line, ezcept where ezisting trees are being p
(c) New trees shall be in fifteen gallon containers and be at feast six
feet tall at the time of planting.
(d) Where a developer retains existing trees, said trees may be counted
in calculating the number of required trees set forth is (a) above.
5, That prior to issuance of building permit, or within a period of
one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition
Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be 9zanteddialaccordanceswith Sectionher
time to complete said conditions may
18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
6, That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No.
4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
7, That appr°val of this application constitutes approval of the
proposed request only to the extent ~alicablemCitysrequlations~APProval
Municipal Zoning Code and any other app royal of the
does not include any action or findings as to compliance oz app
request regarding ani other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
PLANNING RELATED
g. Thst all development including grading and landscape plans shall
comely with the requirements of the "Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone" as outlined
in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (~4)
g. That in ertaininCetolthe~initiallsaleaof resin aces tin the City of
Section 18.02.047 p 9 with written
Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer
information concerning the Anaheim GeneraleC~~zact.~(~7~isting zoning within
three (300) feet of the boundaries of subj
06/20/88
MINUTES, ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Page 86-842
10. That as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.89.041.012
and 18.84.062.032, no roof-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted.
(#8)
il. That the property owner/developer shall pay the Bridge Thoroughfare
Fee for the Eastern Transportation Corridor in compliance with City Ccuncil
Resolution No. 85-R-423. (#32)
12. That prior to any occupancy, t$mporary street name signs shall be
installed if permanent street name signs have not been i.astalled. (#38)
13. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, "No parking
for street sweeping" signs shall be installed as r~~auired by the Department of
Maintenance and in accordance with specifications ~n file with said
department. (#48)
14. That prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit detailed design plans for 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, an 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 Fire Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
(#53)
15. That prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or
lot, accessible fire hy3raats shall be installed and charged within one
hundred fifty (150) feet of all portions of the exterior 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
networx for The Summit may be obtained from the Fire Department. (#S5)
16. That prior to any construction on any parcel on The Summit, access,
as approved per Condition No. 52 of Resolution No. 88R-144, from Fire Station
No. 9 via Serrano Avenue or other acceptable route and Fire Station No. 10 via
a new Weir Canyon/Serrano connection or other acceptable route, shall be
provided in 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. (#56)
17. That buildings shall be constructed in cc~formance 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 brushland. Built-in fir6 protection
such as sprinkler systems shall also be provided where applicable in
accordance with City standards for commercial and/or residential buildings.
(#57)
06/20/88
s
M7xt~TES ANAHEIM CITY PLAtixi7,ii.C~G.OS,~20_N~J~:ne 20,1958 Page~8=~3
18. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department. (N50)
19. That native elopes adjacent to newly constructed residences shell
be landscaped with a low-fuel combustible seed mix. 6uch slopes shall be
spriaklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (200)
feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. (N5~)
20. That grior to the issuance of the first hvildiny permit, the
property owner/developer shall provide its fair share of the cost of tt,e
construction of permanent Fire Station tto. 9 as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. (N61)
21. 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 Smnmit shall begin construction of their parksite
within thirty (30) days of the commencement of• any construction required of
the Sycamore Canyon &anch oxnet/developer in their parksite located eontigcto^s
to The Summit property, regardless of the number of buildiny permits issues
for The Summit.
c. That prior to the approval of the first fiaal tract or parcel
map, with *_Y:e exception of Parcel Map tto. 87-;i53, contaiai.ng the 970th unit
the owaez/developer will post a bond or other appropriate security in an
amount and form approved by tY.e City, to ensure the parksite design and
eonstrueti.en (%ncluding all-weather vehicular access apgrovsd by the
Deoart~,ent of Parks, &ecreation and Community Services and t8e Traffic
F~~"+neer} are campleted as required in items a and/or b as indicate6 abov'e.-
($77)
22. That the property owner/developex shall have the financial
respansibil.sty for the installaY.ion of underground conduit, substructures,
retaining walls and far street lighting installations on a]1 streets; public
and. private,. at no cost to the t:ity in accordance with the-City of Anaheim
Bates., Soles and 8egulations.• (NT02)
23. That. the glecLrical sgstem and related improve,nants shall be
installed as develapmart occurs: Bonding for the raguired electrical
facilities shall be prov'i'ded in accordance with City codes: CN105)
Z4.. Thal in' conjunction- with t•]ie submittal of each grading' pYan, the
praperLy awaer/develaper sria11 pravide landscape plans' speeiEying'an
Irrigation Management Program far the•on-site landscaped areas; seed plans to
be•reviewedand.appraved•by'the Planniag'Department: The'system shah' ensure'
that irrigation rates do not exceed the 'infiltration of local 9oi=1s`and rust
the applicat:An of fertili:aers and pesticides does noC exceed appropriate'
levels and fregµencses.• Tha Lrrigation-Management Program shall specify
methods far moni~or.inq~theirrigataon system, and=shalt' be'designed'by'azi
irrigation. engineer .• ('N107)
o~:~a:ae
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COh,,.,ISSION June 20 1988 pace 88-843
18. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department. (~58)
19. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed residences shall
be landscaped. with a low-fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be
sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (100)
feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. (q59)
20. 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. (q61)
21. 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 in thoir 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 ezception 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.
(p77}
22. That the property owner/developer shall have the financial
responsibility for the installation of underground conduit, substructures,
retaining walls and for street lighting installations oa all streets, public
and private, at no cost to the City in accordance with the City of Anaheim
Rates, Rules and Regulations. (M102)
23. That the electrical system and related improvements shall be
installed as development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical
facilities shall be provided is accordance with City codes. (N105)
24. That is conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide landscape plans specifying an
irrigation Management Program for the on-site landscaped areas, said plans to
bo reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The system sha31 ensure
that irrigation rates do not ezceed the infiltration of local soils and that
the application of fertilizers and pesticides does not ezceed appropriate
levels and frequencies. The irrigation Management Program shall specify
methods for monitoring the irrigation system, and shall be designed by an
irrigation engineer. (~i107)
06/20/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paqe 88 844
25. 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 oa- and off-site. Prior to occupancy 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. (8108)
26. That if landscape maintenance is to be financed through a
Homeowner's Association, which Association hay 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 Homeowner's 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 conjunction 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 tdap No. 87-363. 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 Association becomes legally obligated therefore as
hereinabove provided. The property owner/developer shall post a bond in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance
of the property owner/developer's obligation therefore as hereinabove
provided. The property owner/developer shall post a bond in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance of the
property owner/developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the
required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map,
with the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (/111)
27. 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" and with
Noise insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code,
Title 25, ezcept when preservation of the viewshed is involved. (71113)
28. 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. (N114)
06/20/88
~~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAN*IING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Page 88-845
ENERGY CONSERVATION
29. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall confer with the Southern California 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 extent
feasible. (#115)
30. That all building construction shall comply with the California
Energy Commission conservation requirements and the standards outlined under
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (#116)
31. That subdivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for
the project shall promote, to the extent possible, opportunities for
maximizing solar exposure, shading and natural cooling (prevailing breezes),
and solar hot water heating either directly with system installation or
indirectly with provisions for accommodating future retrofitting. (#117)
32. That project solid waste handli~q provisions shall be is accordance
with City codes far the screening of trash receptacle areas and access for
trash pickup. (#118)
33. That the property ownerldeveloper shall implement regular ground
watering and other forms of construction dust control in accordance with City
standards. (#119)
34. That the development of subject tract shall. be subject to and in
conformance with all applicable conditions adopted is conjunction with
Reclassification No. 86-87-19 (City Council Resolution No. 88R-144).
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the rights of appeal
within 10 days to the City Council.
I;~EM Nf~~~ls,- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 273 (PREVIOUSLY CERT~IED)•
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NOS 12685 12686 12687 12688. 12689. 12690. AND
X2691 AND SITE PLANS.
yyHLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Presley of Southern California, David Graf, 17991
Mitchell South, Irvine, CA 92714; AGENT": Frank Elfend and Associates, 4675
MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: Property
comprises seven (7) tentative tracts totaling approximately 3'i 5.04 acres
(including Deer Canyon Open Space acreage), generally bounded on the north by
East Hills Planned Community, on the west and south by the original Anaheim
Hills Planned Community, on the east by Sycamore Canyon and AigLlands at
Anaheim Hills Development Areas 6, 7, 9 and 10 and further described as
Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan Development Areas 1, 2, 9, and 5 and
adjacent Deer Canyon Open Space.
Request: For tentative tract maps and site plans, 12685, 12686, 12687, 12688,
12689, 12690 and 12691.
06/20/88
wS
r.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paoe 88-846
There were three 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•
Frank Elfend, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach; David Boyle,
Boyle Engineering; Dave Graf of Presley of Southern California; Jeff Pemstein
of his staff; and Carmen Morinello, Attorney, were present to answer any
questions.
Mr. Elfend thanked staff for their assistance and stated they originally
started to work on the Highlands Project in mid-1985 with approval of a
Specific Plan by the Planning Commission and City Council in June of 1987. He
stated this was a comprehensive and lengthy process is which all issues
involved in the development of the property were considered and resolved. He
stated the approved Highland Specific Plan provided for reduced densities, an
increase in the amount of public open space, as improved land use plan by
providing a greater percentage of single-family homes than attached housing as
permitted by the General Plan, elimination of hillside grading along the
prominent north/south ridgeline highly visible from Serrano Avenue and homes
west of Canyon Rim Road, and the preservation of the Weir Canyon view. He
stated in February 1988, Phase I Tentative Maps were approved by the Planning
Commission which improved circulation to the school and park site and also
increased lot size, pad size and interior living spaces.
Mr. Elfend presented slides of the Phase II program illustrating the location
of the Highlands Project in Phase II Tentative Maps, located east of the
Canyon Rim and Serrano Avenue intersection and the Oak Hills Ranch, which is
now called The Summit, and the Sycamore Canyon Project located east of the
property. Slides also illustrated the planning and development process for
the Highlands Project in the Phase II Building Program, and that Development
Areas 1, 2, 4 and 5 comprise the Phase II Building Program, which consists of
approzimately 592 single-family detached homes. He noted the ezhibit also
illustrates the increased amount of open space and reduced density which were
provided by the approved Specific Plan. He added that is implementing the
Phase i Building Program, the Presley Company had enhanced the approved
Specific Plan by increasing the number of 7200 and 5000-square foot lots over
that approved in the Specific Plan and decreasing the number of 3500-square
foot lots by approzimately 37~.
He presented a slide showing the four development areas with product
elevations, and stated Development Area 1 was approved for 7200-square foot
lot. He stated is implementing the tentative maps for this area, the
applicant had enhanced the approved lot sizes and interior living space and
they are providing an average lot size of 23,450 square feet, which is a 225
increase over the minimum they reported to the Planning Commission several
years ago; that they are also increasing the interior living space to a
maximum of approximately 3500 square feet, and in June 1987, they had
indicated to the Planning Commission that these areas would have a minimum of
1225 square feet; however, the developer chose to have a maximum of 3500
square feet xhich is a 125! increase. He stated Development Areas 2 and 5 are
06/20/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae 88-847
areas which were approved for 5000-square foot lots, single-family homes, and
the developer had decided to build more 5000-square foot lots than previously
proposed. He noted also, they were providing an average lot size of 10,255
square feet and the interior living space is now provided to a maximum of 2800
square feet, an increase over that which was approved in 1987.
Mr. Elfend stated Development Area 4 had been approved for 3500-square foot
single-family homes and there has been a reduction in the number of those
homes by approximately 50 lots. He noted that is an area where the 3500-
square foot lots are provided, basically interior to the tract, and the
applicant has increased lot size, pad size and interior living space by
providing as average lot size of approximately 7000 square feet - a 98~
increase - and increasing the interior living space to a maximum of
approximately 1900 square feet - an approximate 37~ increase. Mr. Elfend
stated aside from the landscaping exhibit which is included within the
Specific Plan, the tentative maps also provide a comprehensive and more
detailed landscaping program. He noted as shown oa the Phase II Tentative
Map, it also includes comprehensive fencing, signage and monumentation
programs which, once again, are consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
He noted that much of the signage program and consideration for walls really
are as a result cif the concern of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition with
regard to view obstruction.
Mr. Elfend stated he is generally trying to eliminate repetition of conditions
which are already provided for within the approved Specific Plan, particularly
if they have been met, and that he believed where the conditions have been met.
and for the ease of being able to record the first final map, they would like
to delete those conditions on the tentative map where appropriate: and that
(1) Condition Nos. 19 and 20 be deleted since those conditions pertain to
the library site and police substation site which have been satisfied by the
Development Agreement approved by this Planning Commission and City Council
and signed by the Mayor;
(2) Condition No. 25 be deleted since it has been rt+et by the approved
Development Agreement; Condition No. 28, and that he understood that staff did
agree to essentially eliminate that portion which deals with the tentative map
and include the remainder which deals with the final map condition;
(3) Condition No. 35 regarding the payment of fees for the remainder of
the park dedication requirement for this project, and stated as indicated is
correspondence provided to them by Chris Jarvi and also discussed at the
Planning Commission and City Council hearings, and also approved by the
Development Agreement, those fees would be based upon the prior fees which
were allocated to this project by the City and not any new fees that have been
implemented since that time;
(4) Condition No. 76, that sub-item (d) be deleted and stated they would
pay the appropriate assessment fees as deemed necessary; that a signal was
proposed for this project in conjunction with a road that at one time was
anticipated from the Highlands Development Area 1 down to Santa Ana Canyon
Road and that road is no longer being proposed;
(5) Condition No. 86, and explained they had discussed this with staff and
they agreed it would be deleted;
(6) Condition No. 96 had been satisfied via the Development Agreement and
also should be deleted.
06/20/88
INUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI I u Tane 20 1988 Paae 88-84
Mr. Elfend pointed out that when they come into the C:'.ty to .record their first
final map, they will have to go through this process for the Specific Plan's
conditions of approval, so the conditions are not simply deleted, and still
have to be complied with.
Mr. Elfend stated he did discuss Condition No. 111 with Gary Johnson and Paul
Singer, Traffic Engineer, and that all streets shall be designed for a minimum
25 mile per hour speed, except as approved by the City Engineer. He stated
Condition No. 115 is, in essence, covered by Condition No. 15 and that he
understands staff does support deletion of that condition.
OPPOSITION•
Pam Fraser, 485 Country Hill Road, part of the Mohler loop, stated as a
homeowner and also as a member of the Soard of Santa Ana Canyon Property
Owners Association, she wanted to express their concern over the density,
specifically is Area 4. She referred to the request for the density transfer
which indicates they are going to add ten more units to Area No. 4 and that
area is already well ender a quarter acre and most of the homes at The
Highlands will be adjacent and are zoned RS-HS-22,000 which is about a half
acre. She stated they feel such dense home sites are inappropriate for their
rural area, and there are so few rural pockets left in Anaheim where tkiere is
the wildlife, etc., and such high density gives more of a city feeling to the
area. She noted builders like to make more money by putting more homes in,
but they want the Planning Commission to take careful consideration of their
promise to keep a rural atmosphere in this area which is directly adjacent to
half-acre home sites with only the power line easement and Deer Creek Canyon
as a green belt between.
Sally Smith, 7370 East Rite Drive, Anaheim Hills, stated she wanted to
register an objection to Areas 2, 4, 5, and 9, as they relate to both Deer
Canyon and the adjacent tracts. She stated she and many of her neighbors
moved into the area assuming that the General Plan which was in ezistence in
1977 would dictate the way property was to be developed in the area; and the
General Plan specified large green belts and estate-sized homes. She stated
the tract immediately adjacent to Area 5 was rezoned in 1981, without the
knowledge of the residents in that area.
Ms. Smith stated she realizes the Presley Company has attempted to present a
more attractive package to the City than was greviously agreed upon, and for
the most part they have, but there is a problem with t_he type of housing that
is going to be incumbent upon Deer Canyon and all the homes that are presently
existing there. She stated they are considerably smaller in lot size than had
been previously planned and what the Presley Company is offering is
considerably different than the surrounding community.
She stated the effect on Deer Canyon should also be considered, and noted in
Areas 4 and 5, particularly 5 which borders on Deer Canyon, the applicant has
homes with a rear setback of ].0 feet which is inappropriate since it borders
on Deer Canyon. She stated Pz•esley has in other areas presented 25-foot rear
setbacks which, although they do not compare to what they have presently
ezisting, are certainly more desirable than 10 feet. She stated considering
06/20/88
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C0~$SION. June 20. 1988 Pays 88-849
the views and what would be seen from the Canyon, with the increased density
of that area and the lots being permitted at 5000-square foot minimums, this
is not appropriate foz the existing community.
Ms. Smith stated she also felt with the high density faring Deer Canyon, it
would appear from the Canyon, as well as from her house, as if this is row
housing because there is only a five-foot required side yard, and since the
rear would be right oa the canyon, tea feet would hardly seem like it was set
back, but more as if it were bordering right on the edge. She also noted
these houses are to have wood privacy side yard fencing, which would be viewed
by all of those in Stoneqate, and it is not a permanent material and is
subject to maintenance by the residents, and within a few short years that
material would have to be replaced or repaired. She suggested the City and
Mr. Presley consider using something of a more permanent nature such as
masonry or a combination of masonry and wrought iron. She stated she felt
this proposal would not be an asset to the City.
Mr. Elfend stated when they prepared the Specific Plan, they understood that
when the maps became finalized, there would be some shifting of units for the
purposes of continuity within the total Specific Plan Planning Area; and for
that they provided a procedure in the Specific Plaa Ordinance, as well as the
Specific Plan which was worked out with the City Attorney's Office, providing
for the ability to transfer density to the benefit of the overall planning
area. He stated the development area that was mentioned by Ms. Fraser really
represents Development Area 4, which is approved for 3500-square foot lots and
the purpose of the density transfer was to increase the number of larger lots
to 5000 square feet and reduce the number of 3500-square foot lots which ha
felt, based upon the input received from the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition,
probably the smaller lots are the ones that are the least popular. He pointed
out increasing the number of single-family lots, decreases the number of
attached lots, and the overall project is more balanced toward single-family
development, so he felt the density transfer was very positive and he felt
larger lotswould be considered more positive to the surrounding areas.
Mr. Elfend addressed the comments by Sally Smith and stated he had spent some
time speaking to her earlier discussing the General Plan back in 1977, which
had subsequently been amended, even prior to their involvement in the project.
He stated at that time, the Anaheim Hills Company amended their General Plan
and the City's General Plan was amended at the same time, and stated the
Specific Plan really implements the General Plan.
Mr. Elfend referred to concerns Ms. Smith expressed regarding the type of
housing, and noted that whole area adjacent to where Ms. Smith lives is zoned
for Hillside, Medium-Density for up to 16 dwelling units per acre. He stated
when Southmark acquired the property, it was their belief, based upon input
from a variety of experts, that attached housing or apartments would not be
compatible with the adjacent area; and for that reason when the Specific Plan
was approved, the type of housing there was proposed as single-family
detached, for 5000-square foot lots or greater, which is what they have
brought before Commission. He stated the concerns have been considered and
rather than building :'partments, townhomes and condominiums, it is the desire
of the developer to build 5000-square foot lots and above which is much
06/20/88
;:
~. a
LANNIHG COMMISS~`=:~:.. .' ?;~~ ?:r,~,,li~i'i'e
greater tra3~ what was permitted otherwise. He stated that the size of the
house xau a marketing consideration, but generally they are not violating the
code is that area; and the minimum square footage for tlaat development area is
1225 and this project ezceeds that and is much larger housing than what they
had previously proposed.
Mr. Elfend stated regarding the wood fencing mentioned between homes, that
there is a wall that goes along the perimeter of the side adjacent to Deer
Canyon which had been provided with xrought iron. He stated they are all very
much aware of the concerns expressed is another part of the hills area with
solid block walls, and consequently those areas are proposed to be in wrought
iron to protect the view; and also they are aware of the concerns of Deer
Canyon. Mr. Elfend pointed out that the Deer Ctinyon open space area is a
prescribed area which has been dedicated to the County as an open space
easement and no development can occur is that area. He stated this project
abuts that area and all of the setbacks are consistent with what was
previously communicated.
Mr. Elfend indicated the homes in the area where Sally Smith is located are
approximately 100 feet above the lowest part of Deer Canyon so he felt there
was sufficient height difference between the two locations. He stated to give
the City some control on the issue, there are two conditions which will need
to be satisfied on this project before a final map will be recorded and will
more appropriately address Deer Canyon; one is the sedimentation study which
has bees completed, and they had a meeting with the Engineering Department
last week and are meeting again this week to hammer out the details on the
actual type of storm drainage that will be provided. He stated also there is
a conditior. which requires preparation of a very comprehensive restoration
enhancement plan and they are also working with the Department of Fish and
Game to guarantee that the areas that are disturbed will be re-vegetated and
re-forested in the appropriate manner.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated regarding the comments made by Mr. Elfend
concerning the conditions having already been complied with, that these things
are happening very rapidly, and the Development Agreement has been recommended
for approval by the Planning Commission, approved by City Council and it has
been signed. He stated it has not yet been recorded but he felt comfortable
with deletion of some of the conditions, recognizing that while it has not
been 100' completed, it is at this point merely a matter of recordation and a
technicality.
Mr. Fick stated he had no problem xith deletion of:
a. Condition Nos. 19 and 20, and 25 addressing the library, police and
street maintenance facility sites, since those are specifically
addressed in the Development Agreement;
b. Condition No. 28, that he has no problem with deletion of the first
portion of the sentence which addresses the provisions relating to
the tentative tract or parcel map; and that condition would start
with Prior to apgzoval of the first final tract or parcel map."
06/20/88
ldTh 7'f£C ANAHEIM CIT Y PLANNING COl~SMIS
~n 1
SIO~~
988 Paae 8~-~.~
c. Condition No. 35 relating to park requirements, that Chris Jarvi,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services had requested
that that condition remain intact, and it is not in conflict with the
Development Agreement; that his understanding was that Mr. Elfend was
requesting clarification that the fees that would be due would be in
accordance with previous fee structure for Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, and that is the way the Development Agreement is
structured, so this condition is not in conflict with that condition.
d. Condition No. 76 (d), far the reasons cited by Mr. Elfend, nay be
deleted because that was an option that was not reflected on the
maps, and that the Development Agreement has language that
specifically discusses the fee structure from the time the Specific
Plan was approved. (Chairman Messe asked if it addressed a specific
amount and Mr. Fick replied that it did and that the new fee
structure would not be part of this.)
e. Condition No. 86 may be deleted.
f. Condition No. 96 - Mr. Fick explained that condition addresses the
payment for a study and Santa Ana Canyon Road improvements, anwhicht
staff had no problem deleting the majority of that condition,
is really what is going to be addressed in Santa Ana Canyon Road
because those amounts clearly are defined by the Development
Agreement. He stated the only very minimal por~hichtthe ranchtowners
addressed is the payment for the study itself,
did agree to fund and that study has already been contracted by
Engineering; and he believed it was close to completion. Mr. Fick
said he believed the total sum of that was 524,000.
Chairman Messe indicated he thought the Development Agreement did include the
ar~reement to provide a study and Mr. Fick responded that the Develogment
Agreement provides the payment of costs for the improvements of the widening
project itself. 8e noted this study was actually contracted for prior to the
Development Agreement negotiations, and was underway nt that point. Mr. Fick
stated with that exception, staff has no problem with the balance of Coalition
No. 96. Additionally, Mr. Fick noted that that was going to be funded by the
three ranches so overall the cost is relatively minimal.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if that met with Mr. Elfend's approval and Mr.
Elfend replied that it did.
Mr. Fick continued:
g. Condition N0. 110 -changing "Director of Maintenance" to "City
Engineer" was agreeable.
h. Condition No. 111, adding the wording suggested, "except as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer" is also acceptable
i. Condition No. 115 - o.k. to delete.
Chairman Messe stated Mr. Fick had essentially agreed that all tho conditions
Mr. Elfend had mentioned, except for a couple could be deleted or clarified as
suggested.
06/20/88
N, Jun. P - 2
Commissioner McBurney asked Mr. Elfead what the average open space area was
between Area 4 to the existing su;,division to the southwest, from the boundary
of the tract Area 5 to those existing units along the north side of Canyon Rim.
Mr. Elfead replied there is an estimated 400 - 600 feet between where the
actual hotoes are going to be and where the existing homes are, and there is a
slope area.
Commissioner McBurney agreed there appears to be considerable distance between
this rroperty and the existing residences.
Commissioner Herbst stated before the Planning Commission approves these
tentative tract maps, he would like to see a detailed grading plan showing the
flat pads and the difference between grades because he could not read it on
the maps, and wanted to see how much grading is being done, and how much area
is being flattened. He stated he was concerned because there was some
confusion on the last tract map where he was told there would be a 35-foot
drop, but it turned out to be 100 feet. He stated he felt the grading that
is happening there nox will open a "pandora's box"; and that he had warned
Presley, and they had a wind study done and he felt when that area is opened
up, there is going to be a serious wind problem when the Santa Ana winds blow
and they are still grading. He noted, evi6ently, there has been some
miscommunication somewhere because that was the hill he stressed should not be
removed, and it is being removed. He added he feels that is one reason why
the Planning Commission should see the final grading maps or at least see the
full scale preliminary grading maps so they know what is going on, rather than
being handed something they cannot read.
Mr. Elfead responded that the Commission is looking at a composite map and it
is to a small scale, and there are Tentative Maps xhich are available and the
grading is shown. He stated he had asked the developer when the mass grading
plans would be prepared, and he understands it would be submitted in August
and the Commission would surely have an opportunity to review them at that
time for this development area. He stated whoa the Specific Plan and the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR} were approved, there were exhibits which
clearly show for Phase II that the hills were going to be graded in some areas
in excess of 100 feet; so the information has been provided. He stated he
understood the Commission desired to have additional detail and he thought
that additional detail would be provided oa the mass grading plan ezhibits
which are going to go to the Engineering Department for review and the
information on that Tentative Map is fairly explicit in terms of pad
elevations and what the exiting grades are.
Commissioner Herbst stated he was concerned because it appears the grading
plans that he had sees and the grading plans he looked at the other day are
entirely different; and that he xanted to see grading plans to indicate how
much of those hills they are flattening and what they are really going to look
like, instead of looking at something he cannot read, even with a microscope.
Chairman Messe asked Mr. Elfead if there were any additional exhibits the
Commission could look at.
06/20/88
,.
g. a.
Y
Pane 88-853
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOx Juae 20 1988
Mr. Elfend stated there were some sections that were submitted to the Planning
Department which he assumed were is the Commissioner's package. Mr. Elfend
stated the maps Commissioner Herbst was referring to were maps he had reviewed
in a meeting with the Presley Company, and that was for another Phase, and the
maps before the Commission today are for a subsequent phase. He stated he
thought these exhibits communicate to the Commission the distance of the
project from Deer Canyon; and that they looked at the cross sections with
Linda Rios earlier today, and the average distance from Deer Canyon to the top
of those sections is about 100 feet. He noted there is 100 feet between the
top and bottom of Deer Canyon which was a concern expressed by Sally Smith.
Mr. Elfend stated the information is provided, and it was provided
previously. He stated he will make sure Commissioner Herbst gets a copy of
those grading plans and either he or someone from the Presley Company will
meet with him and go over them oa a detailed basis.
Commissioner Herbst stated he woul3 like to see the whole Planning Commission
review the plans.
Mr. Elfend responded to Chairman Messe that there would not be any grading of
that area prior to submission of the mass grading plan in August, and Chairman
Messe stated then the Commission as a whole could take a look at the plans
just prior to that and Mr. Elfend agreed.
Commissioner Houas stated Sally Smith's concern was how close the houses were
to the edge of Deer Canyon, and that she knew they said 100 feet down, but she
thought Ms. Smith was visualizing that the pad is there and the house would
hang over. Mr. Elfend noted he had a di3C?~SS10n with Ms. Smith and had
explained to htr that the intent really xas to minimize the grading and the
larger the pad, obviously the more cut or fill and those are 5,000-square foot
lots. He stated the average setback was 15 feet, and added Ms. Smith was
speaking of a rear yard setback. He pointed out if those lots were bigger,
the development wou13 be pushed in and there would have to be more fill. He
stated the intent of the whole Highlands Project was to take development off
those ridgelines and try to consolidate them, and he understood there would be
some grading that would occur in the interim so if they were to make those
lots larger, they would do more grading and bring it down further, and there
is no other way to do it.
Mr. Elfend responded to Commissioner Houas that the homes woul•~ not be
cantilevered over Deer Canyon, or just be right at the edge of Deer Canyon.
He indicated there is the rear yard, the wall, and then slope.
Chairman Messe stated, however, that is not saying that they would not be
visible from the bottom of Deer Canyon, but they are set back.
Mr. Elfend stated they are right now working xith the Engineering, Planning,
and Parks Department to try and come up with a whole plan for that area and he
xas sure, at the time when they work out their plans, as well as the final
landscape plans, they will make sure they do the best they can to minimize
that interface. He stated the developer in this project has already committed
to dedicating to the County of Orange 129 acres nn that other ridgeliae
overlooking Weir Canyon, and obviously they stayed out of the canyon as
required.
06/20/88
t ! ~~ r
~ ..
Lj~''''4S ANAHrIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paoe 88-854
Commissioner Bonus stated they certainly xere not developing the canyon area
and it would be there and in a natural state so everyone can enjoy it.
Mr. Elfend stated right now there is a proposal and they are working with the
City and trying to get some public use out of that area so it is available not
only to residents of The Highlands, but also to the community of Anaheim Hills.
Commissioner Herbst asked about the access road and stated there had been some
talk before about having open drainage there, and then there was talk about
putting a pipeline through there to take the drainage, and he t,5ought if that
is done, the canyon would probably be entirely torn up.
Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated with regard to Deer Canyon itself,
the City's Master Plan for Drainage at this time does depict a closed conduit
storm drain to go up Deer Canyon; and that one of the conditions for approval
of The Highlands development was that the developer finance a study to review
their plans for development to determine what type of drainage facilities
would be installed. He noted Presley has submitted a proposal for drainage
within Deer Canyon, and the City's consultant has reviewed it, and as Mr.
Elfend mentioned, they did have two meetings, but at this time there has been
no finalization as to exactly what the drainage facility within Deer Canyon
will be.
Chairman Messe asked if the developer is coming in with as open or closed
facility and Mr. Daw said the majority of their proposal is an open channel;
and with the open channel, it was the Engineering Department's opinion, and
their consultants, that the grades that would remain in Deer Canyon would be
far too steep, too erosive, and carry too much silt. Mr. Daw stated there had
been a proposal by Engineering's consultant to flatten the grades to make them
more accessible, and that is going back to Presley for their review, and
hopefully, they will be coming closer to an agreement as to what drainage
facilities will be.
Commissioner Herbst asked if they would insist upon a pipeline because of the
development going into that area nox and there would be a lot more drainage
coming down Deer Canyon. Mr. Daw stated the Master Plan for Drainage,
prepared in 1974 did show a closed conduit system. He stated Presley is
proposing something other than a closed conduit system, and the original
conditions of approval did not specifically require a closed conduit but left
it open for them to submit a proposal to the City Engineer which would be
reviewed to determine what the City would accept.
Commissioner Herbst asked if Mr. Baw felt, because of the tracts being built
there, that there would be a lot more drainage down to that canton than there
is right now.
Mr. Daw slated the way a lot of the tracts are graded, there are substantial
portions which are being diverted away from the channel and the calculations
submitted by Presley's engineer indicated the actual flow in the channel is
about comparable to what it is at this time.
06/20/88
MINUTE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Juae 20 1988 Paae A8-855
Commissioner Herbst asked why they want to tear it up and put a pipeline down
if the natural drainage has been working for hundreds of years. He stated the
City seems to be making plans for a pipeline that would mean having to tear up
a lot of Weir Canyon from its natural state. Mr. Daw responded the
determination to do that has not been made at this time.
Mr. Elfend stated there is a Master Plan that says a pipe must go down that
entire canyon all the way to Santa Ana Canyon Road, and obviously some of the
comments Mr. Herbst made are consistent with camments they have made; and that
is that the drainage has been there for many years and to remain is a natural
state would seem reasonable, particularly when they are taking water away from
it and bringing it down somexhere else. He stated, however, the City has a
master plan which would have an extreme effect on the environment. He stated
he has proposed a plan, by David Soyle and Wildan Associates, which says there
are some areas where it is dangerous and those areas should be improved, and
is those areas there should be a minimal structure and those areas should be
selected wi~. the Parks Department to avoid the significant habitat. He noted
the City's consultant came back with a study last week which generally said it
does not seem they would have to put an entire pipe down there, but that there
needs to be more than what they are proposing, and maybe there could be
another structure or two. He stated they hope to have it resolved in the
immedsate future :~~d it is their intent not to destroy that area.
Chairman Messe stated he assumed they are taking into account additional back
yard watering and runoff water from the development, and that Mr. Elfend
seemed to indicate that there would be no additional runoff and he did not see
how that was possible.
Mr. Daw stated a portion of the drainage that is presently getting into Deer
Canyon through the grading of the overall tracts is being diverted into storm
drains within the local streets, and is being taken away from Deer Canyon. He
stated the additional drainage that is then being added due to the slopes
about compensates, so the total runoff in the future is about equal to what it
is presently in Deer Canyon.. He stated another factor that would be of vital
concern to the City as to what type of facilities qo in Deer Canyon, is
whether or not, in fact, a greenbelt area will be open to the general public
use or will it be more of a closed-type open area. In response to Chairman
Messe, Mr. Daw stated that decision will involve the Parks Department, as well
as the County, since the County presently holds an easement over it for open
space. He stated if the intent was to encourage it an active open area for
citizens, the City xould be much more concerned about the condition of the
channel, the rate of the channel, etc. which could substantially affect the
City's liability.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if that area is opened to the public at this
time. Mr. Daw responded it is not open technically, but the public may qo in
there anyway. Mr. Elfend stated they understand it is private property and is
used pretty much by the residents in that area. Commissioner Carusillo stated
it should be assumed that it will be used, and he found it somewhat ambiguous
to label it an open or closed area.
06/20/88
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 P
Ms. Fraser asked Mr. Elfend how providing larger lots would mean more grading
and added she felt in making that statement, he was assuming that anyone who
moved to Anaheim Hills wanted the entire acreage flat. She noted they moved
there because they like the hills and of their 3/4-acre lot, less than 1/4 of
their property is flat.
Mr. Elfend stated the lots themselves include either an up-slope or
down-slope. He noted the density is an issue and with the way the lots are
now, if they made them larger, they would have to cut the slope back further
or fill it and there is no other way to make the lot larger.
Pat Quackenbush, stated she lived above Deer Canyon on Singinqwood Drive. She
stated she sees all the animals that come to the canyon for water, and that
water has not caused a problem up to this point, and it is an open area and
that is why they have the animals. She stated if it is enclosed, the animals
would leave, and she hoped there was some way they could keep it open.
Chairman Messe stated lxe could assure her the Department of Fish and Game
would look after that interest because anything that is done is that canyon
has to have their approval.
Robin Rodvold, Singingwood Drive, said she had four concerns, and one is that
the initial EIR or Specific Plan of 1987 was divided into four phases and now
it looks like it was in two phases. She stated her concern is that the land
from the second phase, which is the rest of the development, would be
prematurely graded years before it is ready to be built on.
Chairman Messe informed Ms. Rodvold that this is just Phase II and that there
would be two more phases ~ominq.
Ms. Rodvold stated another thing that bothered her was that every time she
read the Specific Plan, it was mentioned over and over the intent was to
preserve Deex Canyon, but the next paragraph would talk about the drainage
system which xill include tearing up the whole creek or 1/3 of it. Chairman
Messe informed her that that issue had been addressed.
Ms. Rodvold said as soon as Serrano extends to Weir Canyon, it will isolate
Deer Canyon from Weir Canyon where the larger mammals come from, and she would
like to suggest that a wildlife corridor~irovided. ,~
Mr. Elfend stated the processing of Tentative Maps is not necessarily
indicative of when the development is going to start. He stated these
tentative tracts presented today are called the Phase YI area mainly because
it falls beyond the grading they are doing now and that he understood from the
developer that the earliest any grading would start, would be sometime nest
year and those units would be available sometime at the end of the year,
poin.tiaq out it would take several months to grade this particular site. He
stated they have an estimated phasing plan in the Development Agreeaent and,
actually, the City wants to have improvements provided at an earlier date and
theg have made commitments that they would have so much of the project built
at a. certain date; and ho assumed it would be implemented in that manner.
Ofi/20/88
i; f:
INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae 88-857
Concerning a wildlife corridor, :tr. Elfend stated they spent a lot of time
with the Department of Fish and Game when they negotiated their Phase I
development area, and it was not possible, with Serrano going through there,
since Serrano is a major arterial. He stated they did save another wildlife
corridor adjacent to Weir Canyon.
TI Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby determine that Environmental Impact Report No. 273, previously
certified by the City Council on June 23, 1987, for The Highlands at Anaheim
Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for Tentative Tract Nos. 12685, 12686, 12687,
12688, 12689, 12690 and 12691, including Site Plans.
ACTIQt7: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and
improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plaa, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve the following
tracts, subject to the following conditions:
A. Vesting Tentative Tract Ho. 12685 and Site Plan to establish a 16.27
acre, 84-lot (plus one open space lot), single-family detached
residential subdivision, (Development Area 4)
B. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12686 and Site Plan to establish a 66.69
ac., 100-lot (plus three open space lots including one open space lot
comprising a portion of Deer Canyon), single-family detached
residential subdivision. (Development Areas 4 and 5).
C. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12687 and Site Plan to establish a 100.70
ac., 113-lot (plus two open space lots including one open space lot
comprising a portion of Deer Canyon), single-family detached
residential subdivision. (Development Areas 2 and 5).
D. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12688 and Site Plan to establish a 34.81
ac., 89-lot (plus two open space lots), single-family detached
residential subdivision. (Development Area 2).
E. Vesting Tentative Tzact No. 12689 and Site Plan to establish a 69.71
ac., 70-lot (plus one open space lot which is a portion of Deer
Canyon), single-family detached residential subdivision.
(Development Area 1).
F. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12690 and Site Plan to establish a 29.94
ac., 79-lot (plus one open space lot), single-family detached
residential subdivision. (Development Aria 1).
G. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12691 and Site P3an to establish a 36.92
ac., 57-lot (plus one open space lot), single-family detached
residential subdivision. (Development Area 1)
06/20/88
MI E ANAAEI ITY PL N MMI ION June 20 1988 Paae 88-858
PLANNING-RELATED
1. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for
implementation of all applicable stipulations in the approved Highlands at
Anaheim Hills Specific Plan; and, that all future grading and development of
the Highlands project shall display the quality standards represented by the
applicant in conjunction with the Specific Plan process and in the Specific
Plan document for any zoning and development standards other than the minimum
standards as defined in the Zoning Code (Title 18). (pl)
2. That except as otherwise provided for in the Anaheim Highlands
Specific Plan, all development shall comply with the requirements of the
"Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone", as outlined in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code. (q4)
3. That any proposed parking area lighting fixtures for commercial
development shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet.
Said lighting fixtures shall be directed away from adjacent property lines to
protect the residential integrity of adjacent and nearby residential
properties. (q6)
4. That any specimen tree removal shall comply with the tree
preservation regulations in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.84 "Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zone". (q7)
5. That, is accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of
Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written
informakion concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within
three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (98)
6. That as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.84.041.012
and 18.84.062.032, no roof-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted.
(q9)
7. Prior to the approval of the first final tract map or parcel map, a
study shall be concluded by an independent third party acceptable to the City
and the property owner/developer defining the most appropriate financial
mechanism(s) (e.g., assessment district(s)) to assure the project generates
revenues (assessment revenues) to meet the assigned costs of City services
(operations and maintenance) on a year by year basis. Final decision for
establishing such financial mechanisms} will be that of the City Council.
Such mechanism(s) shall be formed to generate assessment revenues sufficient
to recover any variances between revenues to the City generated by project
development and assigned City costs to service the project. The City shall
have the right to monitor said revenues and costs. Annual assessment revenues
shall not exceed an amount necessary to offset the yearly difference between
costs associated with said project and the revenues generated therefrom
together with the Highland's estimated proportionate share of additional
off-site revenues generated by the project (e.q. regional shopping center
06/20/88
i
~:
:~
.,,.
MI*nJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Page 88-859
revenues to City); and, when the assessment 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 for said
studies associated with determining the most appropriate financial
1 mechanism(s) shall be borne by the owner/developer by mesas of reimbursement
to the City prior to the first final tract or parcel map approval. (911)
WATER
8. That prior to the submittal of each final tract or parcel map, the
property owner/developer shall make provisions for design features that
conserve water such as controlled irrigation systems which employ drip
irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic systems that minimize runoff
and evaporation, and use of mulch oa top of soil to improve water holding
capacity of public landscaped areas; and, use of xeriscape and
drought-tolerant species for landscaping. Plans indicating such conservation
measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Department.
(914)
9. That prior to rendering water service or the issi:ance of the first
building permit within the Highlands Project, Twia Peaks Reservoir shall be
operative and the Parkview Booster Pump Station, Phase II, shall be under
design. (916)
10. 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. (917)
11. That the water supply system for the Highlands development shall be
designed in accordance with the Water Utility's Master Plan for Special
Facilities District No. 1. (918)
12. That the mains and storage reservoirs shall be designed as part of
the City's Master Water System ultimately serving areawide development. (919)
13. That the owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for
implementation of the water system to the City in 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. (920)
14. That bonding for construction of the required water system
improvements shall be furnished is conjunction with each final map. (921)
15. That the xater supply system shall be funded and constructed in
accordance with the Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations as provided
below:
(a) The developer shall install the secondary system improvements.
(b) Funds for construction of the pump stations and reservoirs shall
be advanced by the developer trrough the payment of special facilities fees as
provided for in Rule 15-B.
06/20/88
t11hJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae BS-860
(c) Primary mains shall be installed by the City with funds provided
by the Developer in the form of primary acreage fees as provided for in Rule
15-A.
(d) The necessary financial arrangements for construction of the
specia]. facilities and required primary main fees shall be made prior to final
tract or parcel map approval. (#22)
ENERGY CONSERVATION
16. That all building construction shall comply with the California
Energy Commission conservation requirements and the standards outlined under
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (#23)
17. That subdivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for the
project shall promote, to the extent possible, opportunities for maximizing
solar ezposure, shading and natural cooling (prevailing breezes), and solar
hot water heating either directly with system installation or indirectly with
provisions for accommodating future retrofitting. (#24)
18. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the property
owner/developer shall confer with the Southern California 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 extent
feasible. (#25)
19. That prior to final tract or parcel map approval, plans shall be
submitted to the Police and Fire Departments for review and approval for
defensible space concepts and safety features (i.e. access, visibility,
surveillance, etc.). (#28)
SOLID TtiA,$~~
20. That project solid waste handling provisions shall be in accordance
with City codes for the screening of trash receptacle areas and access for
trash pickup. (#29)
UTILITIES - GENERAL
21. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the
property owner/developer shall provide documentation, in a form approved by
the City Atteraey, of acquisition of easements for any public facility
(including but not limited to water, electrical, sewers, drainage) that will
be necessary to cross the Oak Hills Ranch, Wallace Ranch, or adjacent
properties to the north of the Highlands in order to serve the needs of the
Highlands, as required by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General
Manager. Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the
sole expense of the property owner/developer. (#30)
06/20/88
~~
INUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 P
REIM$URSEMENT
22. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the
property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim the Highlands'
proportionate share of the cost for providing public facilities and utilities
(including a fire station and storm drain facilities) which facilities and
utilities are located is the Hauer Ranch but will also serve the Highlands.
Said funds shall be used to reimburse Kaufman and Broad (the developer of the
Bauer Ranch) for the Highlands proportionate share of said facilities and
utilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement agreements
administered by the City. (1131)
TREET MAINTENANCE
23. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, "No parking for
street sveepinq" signs shall be installed as required by the Department of
Maintenance and in accordance with specifications on file with said
department. (A33)
24. That prior to recordation of each tract or parcel map, the
owner/developer shall record a covenant roquirinq the seller to provide the
purchaser of each residential dwelling with written information concerning
Anaheim Municipnl 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 and the pea.alty for violation. (q34)
25. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the
property owner/developer shall provide a financial mechanism for the
maintenance of the following it.-.'mss:
(a) Slopes adjacent to roadways which provide access to the
Highlands (and which roadways may be located in the Wallace Ranch or Oak Hills
Ranch), and
(b) Deer Canyon Open Space Corridor. (A36)
SANITARY SEWER
26. That prior to approval of each final tract or parcel map, the
property owner/developer s?call submit plans, including sizing requirements for
the sanitary sewer systems within 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. (1137)
27. 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 street configurations, lot layouts, gravity flow and a
subsequent sewer study to be performed by the property owner/developer and
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Acceptability of the proposed
connection to the City's eaistiag sewer system at Canyon Rim Road shall be
determined by the City Engineer. (/39)
06/20/88
_ e ,
~_
,.,.r r~rv PLANNING COT.,,.IISSION '^ tO~a Pa~62
Mii:~i„G, axLUEIM C
28. The owner/developer of the Highlands shall be financially responsible
for the following sanitary sewer-related items:
(a) The design and construction of the twelve (12) inch line
extending north to Santa Ana Canyon Road as shown in Exhibit 4 of the Public
Facilities Plan Section of the Highlands Specific Plan.
(b) The acquisition of any required permits and environmental
assessments.
(c) The design and construction of all local sewer line extensions
and related facilities as part of the improvements for each tract or parcel
map, as approved by the City Engineer.
(d) 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 shown on Exhibit 3 of the Public Facilities Plan Section
of the Highlands Specific Plaa and sewer lines in private streets shall be
established at the expense of the owner/developer. (J140)
A_IR QUALITY
29. That the owner/developer shall implement regular ground watering and
other forms of construction dust control in accordance with City standards.
(/41)
PARRS
30. That, prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map,
the owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate 5 acres of
parkland at a site location acceptable to the City and its local park site
criteria, adjacent to the elementary school site, in the vicinity of Serrano
Avenue and Canyon Rim Road. The dedication offer shall also provide that the
park site be graded flat (5~ slope or less). (Y42)
31. That prior. to issuance of the 201st building permit in the first
phase of development, development of the 5-acre park site shall begin and be
doveloped to City Park Department standards, subject to Park Department
approval, and consistent with facilities provided for other similar 5±-acre
neig2tborhood parks within the City. The park site development must be
comryleted within one year from the issuance of the 201st building permit.
~yuch improvements must include, but shall not be limited to, irrigation,
landscaping (including turf, trees and ground covers), walkways, a children's
clay equipment area and picnic improvements.
?ark Department approval shall consist of the following:
(a) Approval of Landscape Architect and other consultants used to
design the park and prepare the construction documents;
(b) Approval of Master plan, schematic plans, preliminary plans an8
final plans, specifications, cost estimates and other construction documents;
and
06/20/86
°ti
Dane 88-863
MI ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI^"' June 20 1988
(c) Approval of all project materials and products used in
constructing the park and the right of inspection by City staff.
Developer/owner shall also provide consultant(s) who prepared construction
documents for construction observation to insure the project is constructed as
intended. (#43)
32. That the payment of in-lieu fees for the additional park dedication
obligation requirement equivalent to an additional 7± acres shall be made is
ac,:ordance with City requirements and the Subdivision Map Act beginning at the
time of building permit issuance for the 826th residential unit and continuing
unr.il completion of the Highlands development. (#45)
33. Prior to the approval of any final tract or parcel map, the
owner/developer shall submit the final alignment of the equestrian and hiking
trail within that tract or parcel msp to the City Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department for final review and approval. The developer
shall dedicate and construct the Four Corner's Trail including trail access
points, signage, furnishings and other related features per City standards.
Additionally, the developer shall construct the Anaheim Hills Trail (Deer
Canyon) and the Weir Canyon Trait including trail access points, signage,
furnishings and other related features per County standards. Bonding for
trail improvements shall be furnished as a part of in-tract improvements.
(#46)
34. That the Four Corners Trail shall be maintained by a special
maintenance district or other financial mechanism acceptable to and approved
by the City, and established at the ezpense of the owner/developer, prior to
the approval of the first final tract or parcel map. Any trail work involving
the Four Corners Pipeline easement right-of-way shall be reviewed by the Four
Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City prior to the approval of any
final tract or parcel map wherein the pipeline is located. Should the work
contemplated not be approved by the City, the property owner/developer shall
provide a suitable trail alignment alternative, subject to the written
approval of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, that
will accomplish the trail system as originally intended. (#47)
35. That the Anaheim Hills Regional Trail and Weir Canyon Regional Trail
shall be maintained in accordance with the Grant of Easement between the
County of Orange and Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc. or its assigns. (#48)
CTn TURAL RESOURCES,
36. 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
developer and grading contractor as determined appropriate by the consulting
paleontologist. Should grading of the site expose subsurface archaeological
remains, development shall ceasE until a qualified archaeologist has been
contacted and appropriate mitiS:ation measures are undertaken. (#49)
06/20/88
'~
MINUTES ANAHL'T~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION *„nP 20 1988 Paae 88-864_
LANDSCAPING
37. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall
be designed, financed and installed by the developer in the uncemented
portions of the parkways along any arterial highway. The responsibility for
maintenance of said 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 expenfce of the
owner/developer prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map.
(1150)
38. That prior to the first final tract or garcel map approval, the
petitioner shall make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for
landscaping and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the
development of this property and for the maintenance of Deer Canyon. (#151)
39. 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 owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant
obligating the Homeowners 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 conjunction
with said subdivision except those located within arterial streets; (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 xith the first final tract or parcel map. The deveic;~r 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 Association becomes legally obligated therefore as
hereinabove provided. The developer shall post a bond is an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance of the
developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the required insurance
and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office
prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map. (p52)
ELECTRICAL
40. That the developer shall have the financial responsibility for the
installation of underground conduit, substructures, retaining walls and for
street lighting installations on all streets, public and private, at no cost
to the City in accordance with the City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and
Regulations. (~53)
41. That the developer shall provide and construct for the City all
necessary trenches, backfill, conduits, manholes, vaults, hanhholes and pull
boxes. The scheduling and funding for the backbone system utility costs will
be determined during the preparation and prior to improvement plan(s)
approvals. The developer shall also advance this fee to the City to complete
the backbone system upon billing by the City. (/54)
06/20/88
~aaviza ,u ~`yv nr.rv nr auu7ur rnuaftTCCTnN Tung. 20 1988 Pa4e 88-865
42. That the developer shall advance prior to final tract map approval a
non-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department.
The developer shall also provide and construct all necessary trench, backfill,
conduit and manholes, vaults, hanhholes and boles per City of Anaheim Rates,
Rules and Regulations. (#55)
43. 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. (#56)
44. That all facilities shall be located within public rights-of-way 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. (#57)
45. 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 dosigned and coordinated
with site development. (#58)
NOISE
46. That construction activities shall be limited to normal daytime hours
in 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. (q59)
47. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the
proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound
Attenuation in Residential Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards
specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, ezcept when
preservation of the viewshed is involved as detailed in the Specific Plan.
(#60)
FiYDROLOGX
48. That prior to approval of the first final parcel or tract map, a
feasibility study of the developer's proposed storm drain concept shall he
conducted to address the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium and
environmental concerns within the drainage basin. In 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 in the
upper reach of the system, 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 Bepartment of
Fish and Game and the County Environmental Management Agency. (#61)
06!20/88
Q
v~
toIh rl'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae 88-866
49. 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. (962)
50. 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 xith City requirements, including timely
seeding of graded slopes and the use of temporary control devices, e.g.
sediment traps, desiltinq basins, berms and perimeter sandbagging. (963)
51. That the owner/developer of the Highlands shall be financially
responsible for the following items:
(a) Advance funds for and constr~.uct the Master Plan drainage
facilities.
(b) The construction of is-tract and local storm drain system
improvements.
(c) Any permits and any subsequent environmental assessment deemed
necessary. (965)
52. That bonding for the Master Plan Facilities shall be provided in
conjunction with the various phases that may be approved. Bonding for
in-tract improvements will occur with various tract approvals. (966)
53. That the phasing of is-tract improvements shall occur as final tract
maps are approved for all development areas. (967)
54. That local storm drains shall be constructed as part of the
improvements for each tract. (968)
55. That prior to the 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 ezpease of the
owner/developer for the maintenance of all open or natural channel storm drain
facilities both on- and off-site necessitated by the Highlands development.
(N69)
FIRE
56. That in conjunction with submittal of the first final tract or parcel
map, the property owner/developer shall submit plans delineating roadway
access to the Highlands from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue; and, Fire
Station No. 10 via a temporary emergency vehicular access road through the
Wallace Ranch. Such plans shall be to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief
and the City Engineer. (970)
57. That prior to the issuance of each building permit, the
owner/developer shall submit detailed design plans for accessibility of
emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location and other construction
06/20/88
A
~:.
u*~**r*vg ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae 88-867
features to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. Prior to the placement
of building materials on the building site, an all weather driving surface
must be provided from the roadway system to and on 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 Fire Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
(q71)
58. That the water supply system for the Highlands shall be designed to
provide sufficient fireflow pressure and storage is accordance with Fire
Department requirements as identified in the Specific Plan. (1172)
59. That prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or
lot, accessible fire hydrants shall be installed and charged within one
hundred fifty (I50) feet of all po*tions of the exterior walls of the first
floor of each building, in conformance with City s~andards. Specific
information oa the design and implementation of the required hydrant system
network for the Highlands may be obtained from the Fire Department. (k73)
60. That prior to placement of any combustible materials on nay parcel in
the Highlands development, access from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue
and Fire Station No. 10 via a temporary emergency vehicular access road
through the Wallace Ranch shall be provided in accordance with Fire Department
policies and requirements for fire fighting equipment and emergency evacuation
and as approved by the City Fire Chief and the City Engineer. (N74)
61. That buildings shall 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 brushland. Built-ia fire protection
such as sprinkler systems shall also be provided where applicable ir.
accordance with City standards for commercial and/or residential buildings.
(q75)
62. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department, and that the fuel modification program shall
be implemented as outlined in the Specific Plan document (Exhibit A) and as
illustrated on Exhibit 28 of the Specific Plan document. (1176)
63. That native slopes adjacent to nexly constructed residences shall be
landscaped with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be
sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (100)
feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. (q7?)
64. 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
or an in-kind land contribution at the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and
Serrano Avenue. (>!79)
06/20/88
r.
.~.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Page 88-668
C,RADING/SOILS/LANDSCAPING
65. That prior to approval of each final parcel or tract map, the
property owner/developer shall submit a final grading plan prepared by a civil
engineer based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering
Geologist subsequent to completion of detailed soils and geologic
investigations for each subdivision map area. Site-specific geotechnical
studies shall provide specific feasible recommendations for mitigation of
landslides, slope stabilization, liquefaction potential, soils engineering,
and appropriate drains and subdrains in eact, area. Grading plans shall be
approved by the City Engineer and shall be subject to a grading permit.
(a) Furthermore, grading operations in the vicinity of the Four
Corners Pipeline shall include procedures proposed by the property
owner/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) Furthermore, grading plans shall include an erosion, siltation,
and dust control plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The plan shall
include provisions for measures such as immediate planting of vegetation on
all exposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins and sandbagging, if
necessary, and a watering and compaction program. The plan shall ensure that
discharge of surface runoff from the project during construction activities
shall not result in increased erosion of siltation downstream. (180)
66. That any grading or development of the site shall conform to the
general recommendations of the geotechnical consultant, City Council Policy
211 (Hillside Grading) and the Anaheim Grading Code. Said recommendations
shall include specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment,
treatment of cut and fill, slope stability, soils engineering, and surface and
subsurface drainage, and recommendations for further study. (181)
67. That in connection with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide information shoxing that the overall
shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed is
accordance with City Council Policy 211. (182)
66. 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. Prior to occupancy 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. (183)
06/20/88
4S
y';
2
69. TY.at 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 maximize the protection and
preservation of on-site woodland resources within ungraded areas containing
oaks. (q84)
70. 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 work on
grading shall be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all
required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative.
Positive assurance shall be provided to the City that such drainage facilities
will be completed prior to October 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 developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The
required drainage facilities shall he of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties through subject property to
ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be
functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the
property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of the first
final building inspection or occupancy permit. To the extent the
developer/owner 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 with the
establishment of any such districts shall be at the expense of the
owner/developer. (k86)
Fj~SITAT ENHANCEMENT
71. That prior to the recordation of the first final tract or parcel map,
the property owner/developer shall fee-dedicate 129 acres within Areas II and
III (Weir Canyon viexshed) to the County of Orange for permanent open space.
(187)
72. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map,
the owner/developer of the Highlands shall prepare a comprehensive biological
restoration and enhancement plan. As described in EIR No. 273 and shown oa
Exhihit 29 of the Specific Plan, the plan proposes a program of planting,
salvage, drainage enhancement and habitat restoration to achieve stabilization
of the Deer Canyon drainage, enhance woodland habitat and compensate for tree
losses. This program and related details shall be finalized during the
subsequent permit processes with the Department of Fish and Game prior to the
approval of the final roadway design plan, and shall also be subject to review
by the City Engineer and the County of Orange and review and approval by the
Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. (q88)
05/20/88
~,_
MTNiiTFS ANAHtiIM CITY PLANN:N^ COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae 88-87C
TRAFFI
73. That the developer shall provide traffic signals in lieu of the
payment of traffic signal assessment fees at the following locations:
(a) Serrano/Canyon Rim,
(b) Serrano/proposed access road, and
(c) Fairmont/Canyon Rim (if deemed necessary prior to the
construction of the four hundred first (401st) dwelling unit by
future studies or circumstances).
74. That the developer shall widen Imperial Highway by one additional
northbound lane from Santa Ana Canyon Road to Route 91 prior to the issuance
of a building permit for the 901st residential unit. Said obligation shall be
secured by a performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in
as amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tract or parcel map. To the extent the developer/owner may qualify for
reimbursement fram surrounding or other benefited properties, he may petition
the City Council for establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit
districts. Costs associated with the establishment of any such districts
shall be at the expense of the owner/developer. (#90)
75. The following conditions apply to the construction of the Serrano
Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection between Canyon Rim Road and the Bauer Ranch.
(a) The owner/developer of the Highlands Project 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 from its existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the
easterly boundary of the Highlands Project as well as for one-half of the
construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the
Wallace Ranch prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the
Highlands Project, or when grading commences on the Oak Hills Ranch, xhichever
comes first. The owner/developer of the Oak Hills Ranch shall post similar
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 the
construction of Serrano Avenue within their property as well as for one-half
of the construction of tho Serrano Avenue/Weir Csnyon Road connection xithin
the Wallace Ranch within the same time frame as set forth above.
(b) In the event the Oak Hills Ranch fails to post security as set
forth in (a) above, the owner/developer of the Highlands Project may 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 the
construction of Serrano Avenue from its existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road
to the easterly boundary of the Highlands Project as well as for one-half of
the construction of Serrano Avenue within the Oak Hills Ranch prior to the
occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Pr~~ject or when
grading commences on the Wallace Ranch, whichever comes first, provided that
the owner/developer of the Wallace Ranch posts similar security in as amount
06/20/88
INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION .Lune 20 1988 Pa~P 88-87
and form approved 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/Weir Canyon Road within their properly as well as for one-half of the
construction of Serrano Avenue within the Oak Hills Ranch within the same time
frame as set forth above.
(c) In the event that neither the owner/developer of the Oak Hills
Ranch nor the owner/developer of the Wallace Ranch posts the security as
provided in (a) and (b) above, the property owner/developer of the Highlands
Project shall, prior to approval of the first final tract map or parcel map on
the Highlands Project, post a security in an amount and form approved by the
City to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue from the ezisting
terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highland project
and that prior to issuance of the building permit for the 401st residential
unit, the developer shall provide an off-site access road to Santa Aaa Canyon
Road via the proposed route to the north, or through Wallace Ranch (via Weir
Canyon Road) or by the widening of Fairmont Boulevard (from Canyon Rim Road to
Santa Ana Canyon Road) at its ultimate circulation designation.
To the extent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish
reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to the
Highlands Project and either the Oak Hills Ranch or the Wallace Ranch for the
cost of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above.
Costs associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the
expense of the Highlands Project owner/developer. (q91)
76. That the developer shall pay the Bridge Thoroughfare Fee for the
Eastern Transportakion Corridor in compliance with City Council Resolution No.
85-R-423. (q92)
77. That no residential front-ons along roadways identified as Roads A,
B, C, and Serrano Avenue in the Highlands Specific Plan shall be included
within the Highlands. (q93)
78. That in conjunction with the submittal of the first final tract or
parcel map, the property owner/developer shall provide the City with proof of
an easement across the Wallace Ranch for a temporary emergency vehicular
access road; said temporary access road shall be constructed to provide
emergency vehicular access to the Highlands development from Fire Station q10
prior to the placement of nay combustible materials on any parcel in the
Highlands project. Said temporary emergency vehicular access road shall be
demolished and removed upon the construction and opening to traffic of the
Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection through the Wallace RancY.• and the
Oak Hills Ranch. Prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map,
the property owner/developer shall provide a performance bond, letter of
credit, or cash in a form and amount approved by the City to secure the abave
obligations. (q95)
79. That prior to the approval of the first final tract map, the property
owner/developer shall agree to construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the
Orange County Transit District (OCTD) and the City Traffic Engineer at ao cost
to the City. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the
Planning Department. (q96)
06/20/88
Mii:~ cc auaacrit rtmv PT.~NNING COMMIS~Q~1, June 20 1988 Paae 88-872
80. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the
property owner/developer shall submit a phasing plan for both traffic
signalization and roadway construction in the Highlands to the City Traffic
Engineer for his review and approval. (#97)
81. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, rye
property owner/developer shall coordinate the construction schedule, alignment
and developer responsibilities for any road construction through adjacent
properties with the appropriate property owner. (#98)
82. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the
property owner/developer shall, is cooperation with the City of Anaheim and
Orange County Transit 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
@evelopmeat site. (#99)
83. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be
approved by the City Planning Department. (#103)
84. That temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any
occupancy if permanent street name signs have not been installed. (#104)
85. That no public street grades shall exceed 10~ except by prior
approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the Engineering Division.
(#105)
86. That any on- or off-site roads shall be constructed in accordance
with all applicable Circulation Element and Enqiaoerinq standards. (#107)
87. That the 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. (#108)
88. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the
general alignment of the Hiyhlands road system shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City, and prior to approval of each final tract or parcel
map, the engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Engineer. i#109)
89. That for on-site roadways and traffic signals, bonding shall be
furnished as part of in-tract improvements. Bonding for any off-site road
eztension, shall be furnished prior to approval of the first final tract or
parcel map. (#110)
90. That the owner/developer shall be financially responsible for the
following:
06/20/88
•~.
~ -, ~:
r~'IhtTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JuaP 20 1988 Paae 88-873
(a) Design and construction of the public and private road system.
(b) Dv~•ga and construction associated with landscaping of the
parkways adjace• to public and private roads.
(c) Design and construction of any off-site access road with the
final destination being the connection to Santa Ana Canyon Road. To the
extent the developer/owner may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or
other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for establishment
of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs associated with the
establishment of any such districts shall be at the expense of the
owner/developer.
(d) A^quiriag any permits f~~r any on- and off-site roadways and any
subsequent environmental assessments deemed necessary.
(e) Maintenance of the private street system and all public and
private street parkways, unless maintained by another financial mechanism
approved by the City. (glll)
91. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map,
the owner/developer shall submit a viable action plan subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission assuring the timely construction of
improvements identified as follows:
(a) Extension oP Serrano Avenue into the City of Orange to provide
regional access through the City of Orange into Anaheim.
(b) Eztension of Imperial Highway to Loma to join existing Loma
Street in the City of Orange. (8112)
92. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map,
the developer shall pay for and the City shall be responsible for conducting a
study to determine a financial plan for circulation improvements as follows:
(a) Widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate siz lane
configuration between imperial Highway and the Sauer Ranch improvements.
(b) Restripe the eastbound off-ramp from the Route 91 Freeway at
Weir Canyon Road to provide one right-turn lane and one optional left-turn and
right-turn lane.
MISCELLANEOUS
93. That all Special Maintenance Districts or other financial mechanisms
referenced in previous conditions and necessary to implement provisions of the
Specific Plan shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer.
(8114)
94. That all development and construction shall be in conformance with
the Specific Plan approved for the Highlands project. (8115)
06/20/88
`~~i z
z.
*~TNUTES ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae 88-874_
95. That the owner/developer shall construct and dedicate to the City of
Anaheim all cable facilities necessary to implement the City's cable
television network system. (Y116)
96. That prior to approval of any grading plan within a development area
wherein the Four Corners Pipeline exists, the property owner/developer shall
submit a safety plan to the City Engineer. Said plan shall analyze the
feasibility of developing adjacent to the pipeline in its present location and
identify potential problems or hazards which may be involved and acceptable
mitigation measures including relocation if deemed necessary. The plan shall
be reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City.
Costs associated with the relocation of the pipeline or other measures
necessary to permit development, including any necessary easements and/or
permits associated therewith, shall be the responsibility of the property
owner/developer. (8119)
97. The obligations of the developer as set forth is Condition Nos. 26,
27, 32, 43 and 96 of Ordinance No. 4861 shall be secured by a performance
bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in an amount and form
approved by the City. Said security shall be provided and approval thereof by
the City required contemporaneous with the approval of any agreement creating
such obligation or at the time such obligation otherwise is established.
(8120)
98. 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 22 days following the date of such decision or action. (N121)
99. That grading, ezcavation, and all other construction activities shall
be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm
water originating from or flowing through this project.
100. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
101. That the legal 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 improvmeats required as conditions of this map at the owner's
expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract
map and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the
property.
102. 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 recordation thereof, shall be submitted
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office,
Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as
approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder.
06/20/88
~..
;~
crnu Paae 88-875
~T**UTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS Juae 20 1988
103. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
104. That street lighting facilities along all public streets shall be
installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that
security in the form of a bcnd, 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 comgletion of the
above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of
Anaheim prior Lo final tract map approval. The above-required improvements
shall be installed prior to occupancy.
105. That construction traffic or equipment access shall be provided from
another source than the existing Serrano Avenue or Canyon Rim Road.
106. That prior to approval of the first final tract map comprising Deer
Canyon open space acreage (vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 12686, 12687, and
12689) plans showing the Deer Canyon storm drain maintenance road alignment
shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. The approved
maintenance road alignment shall be shown on the final vesting tract map.
Said road shall be constructed by the owner/developer per City standards.
107. That all street shall be designed for a minimum 25 m.p.h. speed,
except as approved by the City Engineer.
108. That prior to the approval of the final map, vehicular access rights
to all arterial highways within or adjacent to subject tract, except at street
openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
109. That prior to approval of the final map, final site plans indicating
unit layout, minimum building and front-on garage setbacks, and building
coverage for each lot shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Commission.
110. That prior to final tract map approval, transmission and terminal
storage fees shall be paid to Che Water Utility Division by the
owner/developer in accordance with Rule 15C of the Water Utility Rates, Rules
and Regulations.
111. That all public streets adjacent to the blue border of the tract
shall be fully included within the tract or that the full width of said public
streets adjacent to the blue border of the tract be offered for dedication
prior to final tract map approval.
112. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map
gaining access from Canyon Rim Road, the owner/developer shall post 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 to guarantee
reconstruction of the median island on Canyon Rim Road to the satisfaction of
the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
06!20/88
r,Ib EC ANAAEIM CITY PLANLING COMMISSION Ju^a ~0 1988 Paae 88-876
113. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map
within the boundaries of the Highlands 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 Avenue from its ezisting
terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highlands project.
114. That prior to recordation of the final tract map, that the
owner/developer shall record a reciprocal access agreement for those adjacent
lots, having 20-foot wide frontages, to ensure joint access.
115. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in
conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP87-1
(Highlands at AnaY.eim Hills Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4861).
116. That subject property shalt. be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Ezhibit
Nos. 1 through 31.
117 That approval of this application constitutes approval of the
proposed request only to the eztent that it complies with 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 applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
118. That prior to issuance of grading permits, final grading plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 10 days to the City Council.
RECESS: 3:25 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:35 p.m.
ITEM NO 9 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• R$rrACCTFrra'rrt1N NO 87-88-56•
VARIANCE NO 3805
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Raymond L. Phillips, 9297 Batavia Street, Orange,
CA; AGENT: Nick Gomez, 4871 Sunnybrook Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90621;
LOCATION: 3629 and 3633 Savanna Street.
Request: Reclassification RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. To
construct a 3-story, 20-unit apartment camplez with waivers of (a) mazimum
structural height and (b) maximum site coverage.
There was one person indicating his presance is opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
~RESENTATION•
Nick Gomez, 4871 Sunnybrook Avenue, Buena Park, w,~s present to answer any
questions.
Obl20/88
or awrnr_ rnuurecrnu .T„nn 2(1 . t oAR Paae 88-877
Art Stahovich, 805 Ramblewood Drive, indicated he was really not in
~~position, but had a few questions. He stated Savanna Stre@t had bees lost
to Magdy Hanna awhile back; and that he had just finished a complez right next
to this one in September of last year and it has doubled the density down that
street. He agreed with Chairman Messe that the Planning Commission had voted
against that project. He added he wiahed there were more such people to run
the City of Anaheim and not let outsider builders come in and do things that
are impossible for anyone else to do. He stated they request things that
don't get by the Planning Commission, but he feels the City Council doesn't
have respect for the west part of Anaheim anymore. He stated right now the
Council is trying to protect Anaheim Hills, and are trying to make it a good
City, but he lives on the west side and feels there should be a little respect
for the people living there.
Mr. Stahovich questioned the conditions for this project, and stated in July
1985 it was determined that this street was supposed to stay as it was. He
noted that on Page 3 there is reference to the setback and asked if that meant
a 5-foot setback from the walls. He clarified that was the setback to the
north, the west and the east, and asked if that building would be 5 feet from
the property lines. Commissioner McBurney stated he thought the parking lot
would be 5 feet from the property line.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated it appears on the plan that the parking
structure is 5 feet away, however, the livable part of the building is 15 feet
from the property line.
Mr. Stahovich asked how Item No. 4 an Page 5 would be enforced. Chairman
Messe stated the owner would enforce it by having an on-site manager, but he
would ask him how he proposed to do that.
Mr. Stahovich stated he has apartments and rental units and if there is a
tenant living there, and thoy have an another child, he did not know how they
would they get them out, or how this restricting would be enforced, and added
he thought there is a law against doing that. He asked will tell them that it
is against the City Ordinance, because the State of California says you can't
tell them to get out because they have children.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated regarding the first ,uestion
oa enforcement, that as a condition of the project, the City has the power
through Code Enforcement to enforce it, since there is a covenant on it and
the covenant runs in favor of the City, and the City could enforce it either
civilly or perhaps criminally if it becomes a violation of the zoning. He
noted the City could administratively enforce it by revoking prior approvals.
Mr. Fletcher responded to Commissioner Bouas that legally the City could not
evict, but they could bring an action against the property owner to require
them to comply with the conditions. He stated if it is a covenant on the
property, it would restrict the number of persons, not particularly children.
He added the question of tha age of the children is an unanswered question,
and that he had no knowledge of any court decision upholding or overruling the
age restriction, although the Unruh Act prohibits age discrimination; and
there are certain exceptions to that.
06/20/88
. .. _. ... ,..~.. ~. _.~.... ,Q....:,.,~,~~,u.:
INUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_CQMMISSION. June 20. 1988 Pave 88-87
Chairman Messe stated that has to be tested in court. He informed Mr.
Stahovich that this condition has been included in the conditions for approval
for approximately 2 1/2 years.
Mr. Stahovich asked the number of adults permitted and Chairman Messe stated
it is two adults per bedroom. Mr. Stahovich asked if that means they are
bound to four people in a 2-bedroom apartment and Mr. Messe stated that was
correct. Commissioner Boydstun interjected that people under the age of 2 do
not count.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McBurney said he noticed there was 59~ tandem parking and asked
for a reply from Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
Paul Singer ~~~:ated as long as the tandem parking conformed to the minimum
parking standards in the City, it has to be allowed. In reply to Commissioner
McBurney, he stated tandem parking has to be assigned parking.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if it was the intent to bring the landscape plan
before the Planning Commission. Chairman Messe said the Commission is to
review landscaping plans along with the application, and that there was one in
the package.
Commissioner Carusillo stated Condition No. 1T indicated that plan should be
submitted to the Zoning Division and he wanted to clarify that the Commission
should take a look at the landscape plan rather than the Zoning Division in
all cases.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated that condition referred to the final
landscape plan which would be submitted with building plans, and if it
complies with what has been approved, staff would find it in substantial
conformance.
Chairman Messe noted this is a request for RM-1200 zoning, which the
Commission voted against the last time, but it would appear now that this
block is destined to be an RM-1200 zone. He stated they are actually creating
a spot zone by doing this, that the corner property is now RM-2400 and will be
all by itself as RM-2400; and the rest will be RM-1200 and there are
condominiums on up the block.
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) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Muliple-Family)
Zone, to construct a 3-story, 20-unit apartment complex with waivers of
mazimum structural height and mazimum site coverage oa an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.59 acre having a frontage of
approximately 132 feet on the narth side of Savanna Street and being located
approximately 200 feet west of the centerline of Marian Way and further
described as 3629 and 3633 Savanna Street; and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
06/20/88
wINUTE,~ ANAHEIM CITSf PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Page 88-879
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. PC88-158 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 87-88-56, subject to interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
Commissioner Herbst indicated he ::cold vote ao, because he still felt it
should remain RM-2400. Commissioner Carusillo agreed. He stated even though
this Commission denied some of those requests for RM-1200 which the Council
granted, he still felt this was too much density there and that there was a
horrible traffic problem there, with or without a traffic signal, and he was
not in favor of this, although he saw the area going that xay.
Chairman Messe stated the traffic signal was going to be put in place at the
time the project across the street is occupied.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would like to see the developers consider a
place, or a small portion, for children. He noted there is an inundation of
low-medium density there with no place for children to play and a dead end
street on the other end. H.e stated when he goes down there and he sees
children running up and down the streets where there used to be houses was
fine, but now that they are putting in buildings, the children have no place
to play. He indicated it seems like they are forgetting something along those
lines and asked what they could do to try to alleviate the situation.
Commissioner Carusillo replied that cutting the density would leave more room
for other things. Commissioner Feldhaus stated that was true, but as is
known, everything has gone RM-1200 there.
Commissioner Souas indicated their recreational-leisure area was over the code
requirement.
Commissioner Herbst stated he recognizes the City Council has approved some
RM-1200 which Planning Commission had voted for RM-2400, but he, as a land
planner, still feels that this should be RM-2400. He stated he does not vote
any particular way just because the City Council wants it that way and he
thought with all these lots going to RM-1200, they are going to have a jam oa
a dead end street and that at some time it would be very regrettable.
Chairman Messe stated they had the lot that was RM-2400 just to the west and
if this was made RM-2400, it would not be an island. Commissioner Feldhaus
stated they had an irregularly-shaped piece of property and Chairman Messe
indicated they are all the same shape because that channel goes at an angle,
and Comissioner Bouas stated some lots are deeper.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the Code says no property because of special
circumstances can be deprived by privileges commonly enjoyed by the other
properties in the same zone and he does not see how it could be argued.
06/20/88
~,:
'~..:
ur rnMMISSION J++^P 20 1988 Paae 880
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI
On roll call, the foregoing resolution FAILED TO CARRY by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS
NOES: CARUSILLO, HERBST, MESSE, MC BURNEY
ABSET: NONE
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-158 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY
Reclassification No. 87-88-56 and recommends to the City Council that the
property remain zoned RM-2400 on the basis that there is too much density in
the area at this time.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST, MC BURlIEY, MESSE
NOES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN
ABSELiT: NONE
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-159 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY
Variance No. 3805 on the basis that there are NO special circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, toF~graphy, location and
surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code DOES NOT deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone
and classification in the vicinity,
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,MC HURNEY, MESSE
NOES: BOUAS
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.
I E N9 10 CEOA CATEGORI^ " 47FMPTION CLASS 11• VARIANrE N0. 3806
PTLBLIC HEARING: ~~~'tiER: Victory Baptist Church of Orange County, 227 N.
Magnolia, Anahei:. .A 92801; LOCATION: 227 North Magnolia Avenue.
Request: To construct 3 freestanding signs with waiver of maximum number and
size of free-standing signs.
There was ao 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.
05/20/88
a.
f -- ;.#.
MINUTES ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Pace 881
John Rosha, 5771 Mountain View, Yorba Linda, representing Victory Baptist
Church, explained this is the former Central Baptist Church formerly headed by
Dr. Bob Wells. Ae stated this request is for approval of a sign and referred
to the condition regarding the 10-foot wide driveway approach and stated all
they want to do is to put up a sign but now they have all these other
conditions to meet. He asked if it was possible to get a bond with the
promise to put in the improvements within 12 to 24 months.
Mr. Kosha asked about Condition No. 2, regarding a modified cul-de-sac at the
terr.~inus of Bruce Avenue, and stated Mr. Singer explained to them the intent
there was to just put a radius from the existing curb up to the block walls
that separate their property from the other property, and asked why and if
there was ever an agreement to that effect.
Mr. Kosha noted Condition No. 3 requires a double bin trash storage area shall
be provided and maintained in a locatiioa acceptable to Street Maintenance and
Sanitation and in accordance with approved plans. He explained they have the
two trash bins on the rtrar of their lot which are convenient for the trash
collector and they felt putting in another trash container will lend itself to
malicious mischief with graffiti, etc. and those people who want to put their
excess rubbish in their bins. He added they would like to have that deleted
and just keep the location they have now for the trash bins. He referred to
Condition No. 5, and added he felt tY,e plans they had submitted were
satisfactory.
Gordon Rourk, 3141 W. Lanerose Drive, Anaheim 92804, stated they are allowed
to have a 20 square-font sign and they would like to request a 40 square-foot
sign in the middle of the parking lot which would give them exposure to the
traffic on Magnolia Avenue, and also two smaller B square-foot signs on both
sides of the entrance to mark the entrance and exit to the property. He noted
in years past, the church had a theater-size sign that was taken down when
they sold part of the property for the condominium development, and that sign
was supposed to have been replaced by the contractors and for whatever reason,
it was not done. He stated since the church has changed pastors, they would
like to go ahead and erect a new sign. Ae stated the old sign was a
theater-type sign such as those seen at a drive-in movie where it can be
changed to read whatever is currently happening at the time.
Ae stated they felt bea use .of location of the property, they would not be
jeopardizing anyone's property by erecting the sign and their sign would be
comparable in size with other signs on other properties surrounding them.
OPPOSITION•
Chairman Meese stated Commission had received a letter in opposition from a
Helen Ruatti, 2649 Bruce Avenue. He noted she is against any signs that do
not come within the City of Anaheim's current ordinances.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
06/20/88
r
INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paoe 882
Commissioner Houas asked staff about the size of the previous sign. Greg
Hastings, Senior Planner, stated Variance 907 for a temporary subdivision sign
was approved by the Planning Commission in 1958 and that sign was 10 feet x 20
feet and was only to be temporary, although there was no time limit set.
Commissioner Bouas stated that probably was the sign that was turned into the
theatre marquee, but it was really only given to them temporarily.
Commissioner McBurney asked if there were any other variances for signs along
Magnolia. Greg Hastings responded he would have to check; however, the
majority of surrounding properties are residential.
Commissioner Herbst asked about lighting of the sign since it is surrounded by
residences. Mr. Rourk stated it would be an illuminated sign with a marquee
that could be changed and the sign would be illuminated primarily during
operating hours of the church, up to 9 p.m.
Commissioner Herbst asked if they would stipulate that the lighting for the
sign would then go off at 9 p.m. and Mr. Rourk replied that they would.
Chairman Messe stated he believed they would probably get enough recognition
from a 20 square-foot sign which is permitted by code, and added he felt 20
square feet is large enough. He also noted he did noL have any objection to
the small signs showing the entrances to the school and church, but could not
see putting a larger than code sign at that facility, especially if it is put
in the center of the parking lot, as indicated, and they would get plenty of
recognition from both north-bound and south-bound traffic.
Mr. Rourk stated currently they have a 32 square-foot temporary sign that is
located on the grass on the north side of the property and it is obscured by a
wall from the apartments next door. He stated a sign that could be seen would
have to be elevated in the center of the parking lot ana they would have to be
able to maneuver around it, and if it was down on the ground, the wall that is
in front of the property, would obscured it from the view of the traffic.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he did not have a problem with the location of
the sign, but he did have a problem with the size, and that 40 square feet is
twice code. He stated, personally, he did not see what difference it made
because he did not think the sign was going to bother any resident since there
is a golf course across the street and he did not think the residents of the
the apartments on both sides of that parking lot are going to be able to see
the sign.
Chairman Messe stated his concern is not whether there are people who would be
bothered by it but that he just slid not see a reason for going beyond code,
and he did not see the hardship at all. He stated a 20-square foot sign is
permitted by code and the applicant is asking for 40 square feet.
Greg Hastings clarified a ?0-square foot sign is permitted and has to be at
least 3 feet off the ground in the RS-A 43,000 zone.
06/20/88
,,..
..;:
MINUTES ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Mme 20 1988 Paae 883
Commissioner Carusillo clarified that the 32-square foot sign is a temporary
one, and agreed Chat if they are putting it right in the middle of the parking
lot, there would be a 200-foot visibility on either side, and he did not see a
need for it to be in excess of code. He stated he believed that 20 square
feet would be ample, and added he is looking at it from an esthetic viewpoint.
Mr. Rourk stated he believed the hardship is as indicated in the staff report,
Item (b) on Page 3 which says the strict application of the zoning code
deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical
zoning classification is this vicinity.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he believed the signs referred to earlier are
located on commercial property, and this is not commercial.
Commissioner Feldhaus agreed he did not see that as a reason for granting the
sign, but that he did not see the difference, or the reason, that the sign
could not be put up there.
Commissioner Bouas asked if the applicant would agree ;:o a smaller sign and
Idr. Rourk responded he would not.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the applicant's architect probably did some
distance studies and then with their professional attitude, came back and
suggested what size sign should be adequate to meet the needs for
identification. Mr. Rourk stated that was the case.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated if the applicant was someone who was
inexperienced and requested a larger sign just to give him an advantage, then
he would not agree, but since they hired a professional organization to do a
study, he felt there was some validity to the request.
Chairman Messe stated '; he City is looking at proliferation of signs and the
signing code very hard now and he did not want to grant a variance like this
without proper findings and he had not heard a sufficiently good reason.
Commissioner Herbst stated he agreed with Chairman Messe and, of course, the
bigger sign they can make, the more money they make and he felt some of them
were not as professional as one might think. He state3 there have beon signs
put all over this City and that is one of the problems right now. He
indicated he saw no hardship. He stated he could justify a variance for the
driveway signs but not a 40-square foot sign and a 20-square foot sign to code
could be seen in any direction and there is no hardship for granting a waiver
from the ordinance. He stated our code is very specific, and there has to be
a hardship. Commissioner Herbst stated he would offer approval of a variance
permitting the three signs, but the big sign would have to be 20 square feet.
Chairman Messe asked if the applicant would accept that, and Commissioner
Herbst stated the applicant could appeal that decision to the City Council if
he doesn't agree.
Commissioner Bouas asked about a reader board, and asked if it has to be as
large as they are requesting and Mr. Rourk stated it needs to be this large is
order to be able to change the marquee so it can be read from the street.
06/20/88
_ . ... ..... ....~.._ ...:..,..:. ...:, .::.::s::r.:.a..,w•.a..:.,r.,,lkt»t.c,&._'.YaYFi'.`ID±5i3tt,.N::.yv~fw';+ . 1
`_
MINUTES, ANAHEIM C>`'!_Y_PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paqe 884
Mr. Rourk replied to Commissioner Feldhaus that the letters on the sign would
have to be 3-1/2 inches to be read at a 100-foot distance. Commissioner
Feldhaus stated he still has no problem with the request.
Commissioner Bouas stated she does have a problem, especially while the City
is in the midst of studying the sign ordinance.
It was noted the Planning Dire•~tor or his authorized representative has
determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EnviL•oamental Impact
Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR.
An unidentified speaker (did not identify himself) stated ht was a resident on
LaPalma and a member of the subject church since 1966. He indicated they had
a sign there for years which was B' x 12' and elevated 8 to 9 feet above
ground so that children wouldn't disturb the letters. He stated now, cC~minq
out the church building, you can see other signs all the way down L.incola and
he realized that is a commercial area, but those signs must be 25 feet long
and 15 feet high and lighted all the time.
Chairman Meese stated commercial p1~_:..a! wit2'. developments such as
restaurants are different than a chucc?:.
The gentleman stated he agreed x±th that but waited to present a plea, and
added he felt the very minimum they should all::x is 40 square feet, aa3 added
he felt they are not asking for a very big sign. He stated he thought the
sign could be placed above the height of the cars so that when cars were
parked there, it could be seen.
Commissioner Bouas stated her resolution will not restrict the height.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, asked that the Commission address the
conditions which the applicant had stated he was concerned about.
Commissioner Bouas asked if the improvements could be bonded for and
Cominissioaer Feldhaus asked what the improvement costs are. Arthur Daw,
Deputy City Engineer, stated the Engineering Department would prefer not to
accept a bond because bands do require considerable administrative cost time
and they are difficult to enforce if the necessary improvementst are not
installed at the time they are specified.
Chairman N,esse asked about the cul de sac. Mr. Dax stated it is a standard
recommendation that the Engineering Department has made for a modified
cul-de-sac to be provided at the stub end of the street.
Chairman b;esse asked what is there now. Mr. Daw replied there is curb and
gutter parallel to the centerline and stubs right into the fence of the church
property. He explained ore of the primary reasons for the modified cul-de-sac
i.s that it does permit a street sweeper to go down the street, make the turn,
then go down the other side of the street.
06/20/88
a:.
,,~
MIN:`TES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING MMI~SION June_20. 1
Commissioner Bouas stated she did not think the price of a sign warrants this
cost at this time and that she would delete Condition No. 2.
Chairman Messe noted the applicant also questioned Condition No. 3 regarding
the double bin trash storage area.
Commissioner Bouas stated the trash location must be satisfactory to the
Sanitation Division, and they could continue with the present location, if
acceptable to them; however, she believed the 10-foot radius curb returns
should be installed on the driveways.
Chairman Messe asked if Commissioner Bouas was recommending approval of the
variance with the deletion of Conditions No. 2 and 3, and Commissioner Bouas
stated that was correct.
Commissioner Boydstun asked about the trash area and Chairman Messe asked if
the bins are enclosed. Mr. Rourk stated they are against a brick reta~ninq
wall and the east side is open and and oa the west side, the bins are against
a storage shed.
Commissioner Boydstun stated she thought all trash areas had to be in a
permanent, enclosed location. Greg Hastings stated that has been the
requirement of everything coming before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Bouas stated then they should qo ahead and eacSose the trash area
and clean it up; and Commissioner Boydstun stated they should be enclosed.
Mr. Rourk stated when they first cams in thoy asked about the requirement on
the brick wall, and were instructed that the only reason fcr the requirement
of the wall was that the new regulations require that the trash truck be able
to come in on the property and continue is a forward motion without having to
back up, and therefore, they were required to put the enclosure out in the
middle of the driveway. He stated no other school in the area has to meet
that same criteria.
Greg Has~ings informed the Chairman that this condition doesn't specify the
actual location and they would have ko meet with the Sanitation Department to
make that determination.
Commissioner Bouas and Chairman Messe agreed that should probably be left up
to the Sanitation Division and Chairman Messe clarified Condition No. 3 would
be left in.
T N: Commissioner Souas offered Resolution No. PC88-160 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Variance No. 3806 subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations
G~3~d modified to permit construction of three (3) free-standing signs for an
existing church, (two (2) 8-foot monument signs- and one (1) 20-square foot
free-standing sign), with a restriction that tsr signs not be lighted after 9
p.m. at night, and deleting Condition No. 2.
06/20/88
:
..
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS'!ON June 20 1988 Paae 886
On rol] call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC GURNEY, 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.
Chairman Messe apologized and explained signing is being reviewed very hard
right now in the City and that Commission would be most appreciative if the
applicant complied with the variance as granted.
ITEM N0. 11. - CEOA NEGATIVE DE~LARATION• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3017.
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: G b B Investment Company, Attn: Edward S. Baxter,
321 E. Country Hills Drive, LaHabra, CA 90621; AGENT: Goray Manufacturing
Company, Raymond E. Godges, 17042 Villa Rita Drive, Whittier, CA 90603;
LOCATION: 1020 E. Vermont Avenue.
Request: To permit a glue manufacturing 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.
Ray Weaver, 856 North Ford Avenue, Fullerton, was present to answer any
questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Messe asked if the traffic study had bean reviewed and if it was
adequate; and asked if the Traffic Engineer had any problems and Paul Singer,
Traffic Engineer, rea^.aonded he saw no problems.
A TI N: Commissioner McBurney 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 glue manufacturing facility
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on as irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.84 acres, having a fronta3e of
approximately 411 feet on the south side cf Vermont Avenue having a maximum
depth of approximately 310 feet and being located approximately 310 feet west
of the centerline of East Street and further described as 1020 East Vermont
Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it
has considered the Negative Declaration together xith any comments received
during the public review process and further finding ~n 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.
06/20/88
riIh t'i'ES ILNAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1x88 Page 887
Commissioner McBuraey offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
waiver of Code requirement oa the basis that the parking waiver will not cause
an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely
affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner McBuraey offered Resolution No. PC88-161 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3017 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental
Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ASSENT: NONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the xritten right to
appeal the Flanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
I N 12 - E A NE ATIVE DE R I N• ND I A E PERMIT N 1
~IBLIC HEARING: OWNER: Lakeview Business Park, 19600 Fairchild, p200,
Irvine, CA 92715; AGENT: Norris Beggs 6 Simpson, 18400 Von Barman, M100,
Irvine, CA 92715; LOCATION: 1250 North Lakeview Avenue, Suites G S H.
Request: To permit a church with waiver of minimum n~unber 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.
Nick Silkebakken, 380 East Second Street, Tustin, stated their request is for
use of an industrial facility as a church assembly. He referred to Condition
No. 2 concerning dedication of the property by the owner, and noted there
might be a technical corcern because it was his understanding that the parcel
that was on the corner of Lakeview and LaPalma is not owned by the same
individual who owns the Lakeview property on which they are requesting the
permit. He stated he believed his property started just a little more than
300 feet from the corner, and the staff report mentioned 300 feet from the
turner, then an additional 300 feet beyond that.
Chairman Messe stated he thought that was merely an explanation of the
dedication being asked for and asked the City Traffic Engineer to ezplain.
Paul Singer, CSty Traffic Engineer, stated that is exactly what it is and
explained that that particular property falls within the taper of the critical
intersection dedication.
06/20/88
.;, '~!~.
n 20 1988 Paae 888
MIhy1TES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~01~4MISSIO'u.
N.r. Silkebakken stated his concern was really with Condition No. 8, since the
commencement of their activity apparently can not begin until that dedication
has been completed. He noted it was his understanding that their engineers
had been talking to Arthur Daw, City Engineer's Office, and that this whole
process of dedication is is process and should not really be hampering the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for use of the facilities.
Mr. Silkebakken asked how long it would take and that his concern is being
able to use the facility.
Chairman Messe asked when they wanted to use the facility or when would they
want to move in. Mr. Silkebakken responded their lease, subject to the
Conditional Use Permit, was to begin July 1, 1988.
Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated he had discussions with their
Engineer and the information relayed was that upon approval of the Conditional
Use Permit by the Planning Commission, the Real Property Section xould then
have the necessary deed prepared and mailed out. He added as of this date,
there has been no work started on the dedication. He stated i.f the Commission
sees fit to approve the Conditional Use Permit today, that he could then
arrange to have the dedication prepared and given to the Real Property Section.
Chairman Messe asked Mr. Daw if he fel*_ comfortable with the Commission
approving the CUP and then getting that dedication.
Mr. Daw stated he assumed they would probably not be permitted to use the
facility until after the 22-day appeal period, which would probably make it
about the middle of July and he thought by that time they would have sent the
deed out; and ezpla;tned the timing depends on when the property owner returns
the deed and added lie did not recommend that the condition be deleted.
Mr. Silkebakken stated he has concern about Condition No. 1, the assessment
fee and the difference between industrial and institutional, and asked what
the assessment might be.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the difference between industrial and
institutional fees is about 5200 - 5250 a thousand square feet, so it would be
5750 maximum, or less.
Commissioner Herbst stated they have probably already paid their industrial
fee.
Mr. Silkebakken said he would like to understand why the additional assessment
and why the distinction between industrial and institutional.
Mr. Singer stated the original fee structure for traffic signals was passed on
traffic generated by the various land uses, and an industrial user would have
probably 7 trips pee acre, whereas a church or that type of institutional use
probably has about 300 trips per acre. He added that is a City-wide fee.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
06/20/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae R4g
Chairman Messe stated he thought it was great to have the combined use of a
church and a temple there and asked if there is anyone present representing
the temple. He asked how they could get through an entire year without having
services on any Monday through Friday?
Larry Mandell stated they would normally not have services during the day and
they did not have any day services planned because they do not have enough
clergy.
Chairman Messe responded there are Jewish holidays when they could have a
crowd of people there during the day. He added he thought the use would be
acceptable, but with the stipulation that there would not be any services
between o a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated that is actually a code requirement of
the ML Zone, and they would have to ask for a waiver of that code section in
order to have day services.
Mr. Mandell stated since their calendar is set many years in advance, it would
be no problem to provide those dates when they would need to have a variance.
Greg Hastings responded to Chairman Messe that it would be best to readvertise
this matter, if the Commission wishes to grant that waiver.
Chairman Messe stated churches, synagogues, and houses of worship are
permitted in the ML Zone, but they cannot be in operation during the time of
normal business hours. Mr. Mandell responded nothing is mentioned about
holidays in the Code, and referred to Good Friday, asking if they azo being
discriminated against.
Mr. Hastings pointed out there was a rather recent code amRndment which took
place about a year ago and the intent was not to have concurrent operating
hours; however, the code did not stipulate any holidays, and just said Monday
through Friday prior to 6 p.m. Commissioner Soydstun asked which days would
be considered holidays and Chairman Messe explained his concern would be when
there are Jewish holidays which are during the week.
Mr. Hastings stated strict interpretation would be any Monday through Friday
whether it was a holiday or not.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if the Commission could just grant a waiver for
those three holidays and C:~airman Messe stated that would have to he
advertised. Commissioner McBurney stated he would not. have a problem with the
church having services on the holidays. Chairman Messe stated there might be
a problem if there were 100 congregants and they all appeared on one
particular holiday, and then the property may be overparked.
Mr.. Mandell stated he believed there are very few businesses that are
presently occupied in that area.
Mr. Hastings replied to ~.rnmissioner Bouas that they would not be allowed to
como in when necessary and apply for a special event permit because special
event permits ar•e not allowed in the industrial zone. He suggested this
matter be continued for two weeks, so it could De readvertised.
06/20/88
~-,
,~.
~Lt(g'~4 ANAHEIM CITY PLA*?NING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae 899
Commissioner McBurney stated he thought they would also need a specific
calendar to show the days the facility would be used during the day. Chairman
Messe stated they should have a calendar for three years, and also that they
should really consider whether services are going to be held on some of the
other Jewish holidays or not.
COMMISSIONER HERBST LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Mr. Mandell stated that presently most of the activities are held in the
evening.
Chairman Messe stated he was sorry to delay this for two weeks, and asked if
Mr. Mandell could submit the list of holidays on which they would be open
during weekdays for the nett three years into staff before Friday, so the
matter could be advertised.
Mr. Hastings stateu the newspaper advertisement would actually have to done
tomorrow morning and Mr. Mandell stated he could have a list in by this
afternoon.
Commissioner McBurney offered a motion that this matter be continued for two
weeks in order to allow subject request to be readvertised.
Commissioner Bouas asked what continuing this for two weeks means and Mr.
Silkebakken stated they would not be able to get into the facility until
August and they were also in danger of losing their lease because it was
specified July Y. He stated they had to get special accommodations in order
to get the facility in the first place, and since they did not have the
authority to sign a 3-year lease, they had to do with a 1-year lease and two
1-year options.
Commissioner McBurney stated this could be approved and then the applicant
could come back and refile for the waiver for those specific times, and
Chairman Messe agreed that was a good suggestion.
~TION Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a church with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 4.6 acres having a frontage of approximately 387 feet oa the
east side of Lakeview Avenue and being located approximately 320 feet north of
the centerline of LaPalma Avenue and further described as 1250 N. Lakeview
Avenue, Suites G S H; 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 ~rios.ess and further finding on the
basis of the Initial Study and any comment_ zeceived that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will S;av:: a significant effect on the
environment.
Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTIGN CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby GRANT waiver of code requirement on the basis that the
parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the
06/20/88
:4:
,~.
,~~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. June 20. 1988 Paae g91
immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and gz•antinq
of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, w9.11 not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-162 and move3 for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3019, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, for a period of three (3) years,
subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOZIAS, BO'lDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST
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 13 - CEOA NEGATIC'E DECLARATION; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3020
PyBLIC HEARING: OWNER: East Anaheim Christian Church, Attn: Joseph W.
Shelley, 2216 E. South Street, Anaheim, CA 92806; AGENT: Francis L. Wood,
578 Century Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805; LOCATION: 2216 East South Stzeet.
Request: To permit a caretaker's/minister's quarters for an existing church.
There was ao 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.
Bill Craig, 28x5 East South, Anaheim, was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Messe asked if the part of the lot to the north is going to be
cleaned up, and noted there is a structure there now. Mr. Craig stated that
building was put up by the nursery and would be coming down when this home is
built.
Chairman Messe asked if the old car that was on t:ie lot would be removed and
Mr. Craig stated it has already been removed.
Chairman Messe stated his concern xas that the property be cleaned up and Mr.
Craig stated once the home goes there, the entire property will be better
maintained.
~: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit construction of a
caretaker's/minister's quarters for an existing church on a rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.3 acres located at the
06/20/88
~' ~:
MINUTES ANAHET ITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae dg2
ooutheast corner of South Street and Priscilla Street, and further described
as 2216 East South $lreet (East Anaheim Christian Church); 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. PC88-163 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
Conditional Use Permit No. 3020, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY, MESSE,
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERHST
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
TTFM NO 14 - CEOA NErATIVE DECLARATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT t10 3021
P[1BLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Marion Malouf and Robert Bergess Brehm Malouf, 900
E. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92805; AGENT: Practical Schools, Attn: Marilyn B.
Sheehan, 3290 E. Carpenter Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806; LOCATION: Property is
approximately 5 acres located at *_he southwest corner of Ball Road and Lewis
Street.
Request: To permit a vocational school with waivers of (a) required
improvement of right-of-way and (b) 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 apart
of the minutes.
Marilyn Sheehan, 1242 East Liveoak Court, Anaheim, stated the project is a
vocational/technical school, and that they had been in Anaheim for about 20
years in various locations. She referred to Condition No. 12 regarding the
number of students indicated as 88 and stated she would like that changed to
180 because they would like flexibility.
Chairman Messe stated he had intended to ask why they would limit the maximum
students to the exact enrollment and asked Mr. Singer to comment.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated there would be no problem with that
because they have 223 parking spaces available avd they certainly could
accommodate 180 students, plus faculty and staff.
Ms. Sheehan indicated that Condition Nos. 3 through 7 would cause a financial
hardship for them.
06/20/88
MINUTrS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae $93-
Chairman Messe asked if they would be moving from their present location into
this building after they had renovated it and Ms. Sheehan replied that was
^orrect.
Tom Raviet, attorney, stated he was there on behal of Prosser Industries, the
current tenants of the property, and they are most anxious to have that
property occupied; that Prosser vacated the premises and moved back to Ohio
approximately a year ago and they have had extreme difficulty is getting this
property leased because of the age of the building and because of the
conditions being imposed oa subsequent users of the property, namely the
dedication requirements and the improvement requirements, which are making it
extremely difficult to find a prospective tenant who is able to financially go
forward with the occupancy. He noted they have attempted to approach the
owner of Che property without too much success, and the owner has little
incentive, other than possibly some cash consideration, to provide for some of
the conditions being imposed, particularly the dedication requirements;
therefore, they would like to have Condition Hos. 1 through 7 reconsidered and
possibly deleted.
Chairman Messe clarified that this is a matter of a tenant wanting to
sublease. He Hated that most of the changes to the property are being done to
the interior.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated Condition No. 3 refers to the
installation of sidewalks along Hall Road and that would be a standard
requirement of any development. He noted sidewalks were not required along
Lewis Street because the property is zoned for industrial uses. He stated it
had been the general policy of the City Engineer that sidew;~lk waivers would
be approved except for those which are nlonq arterial highways or are on a
designated bus route. He responded to Chairman Messe that the Commission
could delete that as a condition of approval.
Responding to Chairman Masse, Mr. Daw stated Condition No. 4 pertains to
driveways, and in this particular instance, it was somewhat combined with
Condition No. 5. He stated the field inspection conducted of t!a2 property
indicated Che driveway along Ball Road was badly cracked and should be
replaced.
Chairman Messe recalled there was only one driveway there and Mr. Daw stated
that was correct and at such time as they replace it, they would be required
to put in a 10-foot radius return.
Chairman Messe noted Condition No. 6 pertains to payment of a traffic signal
assessment. fee equaling the difference between industrial and institutional
which shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, and asked if that
was 3250 per 1000 square feet.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he really did not know but it was
probably about that amount. He noted there is no waiver of this requirement
and even if the Commission deleted it as a condition, they would still have to
pay it.
06/20/88
~.
y e,
-s~~
^*'^~ PLA_rrNING COMMISSION June 2Q 1988 Paoe87~i
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, pointed out that Section
18.04.080.080 of the Municipal Code pertains to variances or waivers of
improvements and it applies to waivers of the right-of-way improvements,
street lighting fac_lities, street trees, public utility easements, and fire
protection facilities, and explained those are the ones than can be waived or
on which variances can be granted by the Planniaa Commission.
Chairman Meese clarified Conditions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and ? could be waived.
Chairman Meese imquired about Condition No. 2 and Mr. Daw stated that
Condition Nos. 1 and 2 were essentially related and that when the City Council
approved the General Plan Amendment for the stadium area, they increased the
classification of Lewis Street from a secondary highway to a primary highway.
Mr. Daw noted that Lewis Street was dedicated to 45 feet as a secondary and
the requirement for a primary highway is 53 feet; and that at the same time
the City Council approved that, they also included Ball Road and Lewis Street
as a critical intersection, which is the requirement for the additional
footage in Condition No. 2; and that these are Code requirements and there are
no provi;sio.ns for waivers.
Chairman Meese stated the dedication along Lewis Street must be made and Mr.
Daw added tk.at also t+pplies to the critical intersection along Ball Road.
Commissioner Bouas asked Mr. Raviet the length of the Prosser's lease and he
replied it expires the middle of 1995. Commissioner Houas noted Prosser would
have to Continue to gag the rent no matter what transpires, therefore, the
owners have no incentive to do any of those improvements because of the
lease. She noted that until 1995 when the lease is up and the owners want to
do s~!!+ethinq else with the property, it would be very difficult to get them to
do i;,ny of this.
Mr. RavieC stated it xac their yyaderstaading that the property owner,
following thr• expiration of the lease, vas intending to redevelop the
property. iie nc:.;d the Buildings were quite old, and he was not sure e?f the
age, but the property i.s underutilized, compared with other properties in the
area. He noted if the owner could get someone else to do the required
improvements within those seven years, it would be so much better for the
owner.
Commissioner Bouas stated the dedicatio' is probably not a possibility.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the owner is going to have to do the dedication
at some point and asked if the owners had been approached regarding Condition
Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Raviet stated they are in the process of approaching the owner, but based
upon his understanding of past experience with this particular land owner, the
likelihood of ultimately doing the improvements out of the goodness of his
heart is remote. He said as ire understood it, the only way they could get
around this would be to have an industrial user come in, who does not require
any improvement on that propert;.
06/20/88
.1 ,
~:
M7Ni7TE5 AciAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS2n*±- .Tnno ?:i 1988 p~Qe a9>
Commissioner Feldhaus stated a user cannot dedicate the property and it has to
be done by the owner. Mr. Raviet responded tht!t i;s correct and that cs why
they are rurinirq into problems.
Chairman Meuse askerl if there was anything Prosser ;:geld 3o to grease the way,
so to speak, with the owner. He noted it would h~a `.~ Cheir advantage if this
~,,ccupancy taxes place, and r.2:ey could approach ti~g oo,ner and negotiate on th~~t
basis.
Mr. Ravin stated ti:r:• are in the process of doing :Ls t, and as he has heard
toda~~, these are tt:ia-;s that could noC be e:aived by Q.he Commission. Chairman.
Mess! noted only the street lighting could be waived. Mr. Kaviet asked if he
was r:orrect in understanding that possibly the sidewalks could not be waived.
Mr. Daw stated a waiver o3: tea aidewalk condition would have to be done
through the City Engineer ar,:: in the last }•°ar and one-half they have not
waived any sidewalks under those conditions.
Commissioner Bouas asked if there are sidewalkr. along the rest of that block
now any the reply was that there are not. Chairman Meuse noter', that the
waiver would not be up to the Commission, but up to the City Engineer.
Mr. Daw stated they had made as estimated cost for sidewalks along Ball Roaid
of 512,000.
Chairman Messe stated ii. was Commission's duty to see what they could do 'a?;*s'.t
the waiver of code requirement and the Conditional Use Permit. He noted ':'s~~..
the CUP is merely a zeque3t to put a technical schcfll oa this site and 'aC saw
no problem with that. He stated regarding t'he waiver for parking, that a
packinn, study had been done and Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, ha; agreed it
wo adequ;ite to accommrdate even 1.00 ad'd2tional students, so that leaves only
tine waiver of required improvement of right`. of wey.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if °nginet;rag has 1:he authority to gr::nt the
waiver and Mr. !haw replied they ilid have r_he authority to grant a temporary
waiver; Commissi~~!_r Feldhaus informed M.-. navieY. he felt the way to proceed
is to gn thro=lgh i.;:e Cj.ty Engineer's oLfice and see if they could get Che
waiver.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commi~.sioner Herbst absent;; that the An;aheir.~ City
Planning Commission had reviewed the proposal to permit a vocat°_~nal school
with waivers of required improvement of right-of-way and minimum number of
parking spaces oa an irregularly-shaped parcel of lane :onsi~:.ing :.+f
approximately 5 acres located at the southwest aoraer of Ball Road and Lewis
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 an8 further findinv on 'the basis of tb^
initial Study and any comma:~nts received that there is ao substantial evid~:ace
that the project will have a significant effect oa the environment.
06/20/819
rt
.' ~I
i~NUTES, ANA~fEIM CITY PLANNING COM:~l,~$$,ION, June 20, 198/x,_ Paae 89(i
Commissioner s'_~uas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey end
MOTION CARR~ED (Commissioner IieG'Ae.`. absent; that the Anaheim City ''?lanninq
Commission does hereby GRt:*ri' =:aive_ , f cods, reR ~9 rement, on the basis that the
parA:in7 waiver will not ..~aus2 a~o increass is tz:~ffic congestion in the
iarJ~ediate vicinity nor aiv<:•seiy affect any adjoinini; lanR ~Ses ai:d granting
of 'the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, ii ant, will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safAty sad general welfare of th.. citizens
o~f the City of Anaheim.
Q:~~:~missi,oner Houas offered RESOlution No. PC88-"~54 and moved [or its passage
anc; ??::pciva *hst the Anaheim City Planning Cor,J.;;~ssion does ht;r.eby GRANT
Ca.:ditional Use Permit No. 3021,, in part, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal code
Sections 18.0?..030.030 through 18.03.030.035, denying waiver (a) and granting
waiver (b), subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, deleting
Condition No. 3 and modifying Condition Ho. 12 to permik a maximum of 180
students on-site at any one time.
Ors roll call, the Fo:egoiag resolution wss passed by th- following vote:
;AYP~: BOUAd, BOYDSTUN', CA4USILLLI, FELDHx.U° MC BURNEY, MESSE
N;,ES: NONE
AB:;rNT: HERBST
Jos4ph W. Fletcher, Lepu*_y City Attorney, presented the written right to
appea~i the Planning Cc;nmission.'s decision within 22 days to the City Council.
C'U:!MISSIONER HERB ;T RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
1'~EM N0. 15. - C'EOA NEGAi'IVE AECLARATIO!?: CONDITiL~N~L USE PERMIT N0. 3022•
PUBLIC HEAR'N6': OWTIER: Arat G. Quist, 3737 Birch Street, Suite 200, Newport
Beach, CA 9266.0; AGENT: Anaheim Food Park Inc., Attn: Manmett Niwar and
Kuljewt Niwar, _'433 E. Ridgeway Drive, Orange, CA 9;6667; LOCATION: 300 South
Anaheim Boulevard2,•
Request: To construct a 3584-square foot convenience market with waiver of
miniR.tm dimension of small ^.ar spaces.
There were five persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the stT,Yf report was not read, it is referred to and made
a part wf the minutes.
Rudolfo Montejano, agent, painted out the property is immediat,ly adjacent to
City Hall and has been vacant .quite some 'time. aru is to abandoa~d service
station, and there is ao doubt it is an eyRcore at the present time. He
statel the proposed ~::~elopment is an allowable use under the City ordinances
,and Code, subject to approval of a Coaditioaal Use Permit. He stated the
conditions imposed by staff are satisf,ictory to the applicant.; that parking is
adequate, and the Code calls for 20 spaces and the plans show 22 spaces. He
stated although landscaping is not required under the code, they propose
landscaping along Broadway and Anahe:n Boulevard, (six feet and three feet),
and the plants meet all the Cede requirements.
06/20/88
}4'
n ~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae 8q~.
Mr. Montejano stated he felt he should address the long-range use; that at
present the applicants propose using three quarters of the proposed project
for a convenience market, and when the plans are approved, they will go back
to the owner so they can obtain all the property aad have full control. He
stated the previous application by another establishment was to have a
take-out pizza facility, and they did not feel that would be an appropriate
use and they would IiY.e to have full control of the project. He stated
obviously this area is going upscale at some point, pointing out that they
have noted vacant land throughout the City Hall area; however, they feel in
the future there would be some substantial development in and around the
proposed site and for that reason the applicant is installing all removable
equipment with the intent to convert the use into a high quality food service
use in the future.
FP ~.i~Q~I:
Craig Adams stated he has a business just down the street at 406 South Anaheim
Boulevard and he is opposed to the project because he did not believe the
delivery vehicles, etc. could use the rear alley behind the business for
on-loading and off-loading because the alley is not wide enough. He added he
believed it was a traffic hazard for ingress aad egress into the site itself
because someone would try to speed through the intersection to beat a yellow
light and someone else would be slowing to enter the market and there would be
a rear-end collision. He stated they had spent a lot of money in downtown
developing soma nice buildings, and a lot of money was invested with the
Freedman Forum, and he did not believe a 29-hour convenience market was what
should be across the street.
Gary Field with Higgeafield Mortuary at 120 East Broadway, stated they are
located directly east of the progosed project, aad asked why there was no
proposed driveway on Anaheim Boulevard. He aoted the proposed entrance is
from the alley and from Broadway, but ao entrance from Anaheim Boulevard. He
stated he felt that severely restricts the entrance to the project and creates
a potential traffic tie-up there. He also stated he agreed with Mr. Adams
about tk.. dz~i,very trucks, some of which could be quite large, and the only
place thr^ w~uid be able to park is in the alleyway which is pretty heavily
used now anc •aould ca~ise a potential tie-up and blockage, particular during
funeral services at their facility. He stated in his opinion the Broadway
entrance is toe close to t:1e intersection; and that he realized they had
pushed it back as far as possible, but it was only a compromise to a bad
situation there. He felt there would be a lot of rear-end collisions, and
noted a convenience market was a kind of impulse buying situation and people
would drive along, suddenly hit the brakes and pull into the market. and if
customers missed the driveway. they would impulsively pull into his driveway
because their driveway is about 15 to 20 feet beyond the driveway into the
market.
He stated he felt a mini-mart in downtown Anaheim was really incompatible with
the area, and noted there is a Safeway Market in the shopping center
downtown. He noted there are other liquor stores in the area and he did not
feel this project would enhance the downtown area, He noted he also objects
to having liquor sales, even off-sale, so close to the mortuary, just over
their fence, and the use is rather incompatible with their use ~,nd enjoymea~
06/20/88
Ih ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 P~qe-$78
of their property for its intended purpose, and to have people buying liquor
and walking out to their cars witY, funeral services going on, he thought would
be incompatible, and added some of them would probably be opening a few cans
and drinking them in their car as they drive away.
He also indicated he had a question about the intended use of the other half
of the building. He noted on the plans it looked like the mini-market would
accupy half the proposed structure. He also noted it was mentioned that a
possible future upscale food service would go there and he did not know how
the parking could accommodate that type activity in the future.
Mr. Field stated they had been is that location since 1941, prior to World War
II, and they felt they are entitled to the unobstructed full enjoyment and use
of their property for the purpos: of its present use.
Ronald Bevins, attorney, 300 South Harbor, Suite 1010, stated he was
representing his mother, Evelyn Bevins, who owns the property at 336 Anaheim
Boulevard, the property immediately to the south of subject property, just
across the 20-foot alley. He stated it now houses a used car sales facility
and a repair shop, and they are opposed to this application for the same
reasons as the previous application for the pizza take out. He noted the
previous application was for a variance for the convenience market and for a
pizza take-out place wYiich was substantially the same application as this. He
noted that application went before the 2oniag Administrator and did not come
to the Planning Commission. He stated it ultimate.y ended up in front of the
City Council and it was denied there; and now the application is for the
convenience market again, because convenience markets require a Conditional
Use Permit under the new city ordinance adopted several months ago.
Mr. Bevins stated in looking at the plan it appears substantially the same as
before. He noted the Environmental Study indicated it was approximately a
2600-square foot convenience market; and the plans attached do show a
2600-foot square market, but there is another plan shown on the board, and
that still shows a 3584-square foot building. He stated the convenience
market is a part of it, but there is still approzimately 975 feet, with an
undesignated use. He explained that was the area where the take-out pizza
facility was before. He stated he would first submit that when a Conditional
Use Permit is app)'~d for, that it should be specific and they should be
entitled to know .gat the other use is going to be, and he felt the idea of a
Conditional Use Permit was to see a;l the uses on the si*_e, and he felt that
was the reason for the City Council Ordinance. He stated in other words, we
have a Conditional Use Permit for a convenience market and an undesignated use
oa 975 square feet, and that brings him to the next point, about the parking,
and they talked about the project meeting the code but it might not, depending
on what was going in the 975 square feet.
Chairman Meese stated if that use did not meet code, they would have to come
hack before the Commission. ,•tr. Bevins stated that was true but if the
building was ug, and a pizza place put in there, they would have a real
enforcement problem. He said he thought when they talk about a Conditional
Use Permik, it was more than just meeting the code, and the use had to be
compatible with the area. He stated he agrees with Mr. Field that there are
severe parking and traffic problems there.
06/20/88
~..
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. June 20, 1988 Page a92
Commissioner Feldhaus asked how the Commission could deny this Conditional Use
Permit. when applicant meets the parking requirements.
Mr. Bevins stated the grounds are listed in the findings that have to be made
which the staff submitted to the Commission. Items (b), (c), and (d), and
that he did not know how Commission could make those findings.
Commissioaer Feldhaus stated when the applicant was originally before
Commission, they were asking for a parking waiver and now they have come back
and mitigated that problem and this use does not require that waiver.
Mr. Bevins added that the twenty-four hour market was going to cause all sorts
of problems for the adjacent area, especially Higgenfields and his mother's
property; and that would mean there would be people there all night long and
98i, of the people will be law-abiding and 2i of them won't. He added he felt
it would cause a security problem for both of those adjacent properties.
Mr. Bevins noted, in looking from Anaheim Boulevard at the building, there is
a door in the middle of the convenience market and a door on the north side of
the convenience market, but there is also a door in the front of the 975
square foot area, which vas the take-out pizza place oa the previous
application. He stated the setback on the alley is min;,mum, and the front
door is about 10 feet from the alley, and he felt that would be a dangerous
situation. He stated he just wanted to call these matters to the attention of
the Planning Commission and also the Commission's attention to the findings
they have to make to grant the CUP.
Chairman Messe asked Mr. Bevins what kind of development tie believed would fit
onto a lot like this dad Mr. Bevins indicated *`,e had no answer.
Mr. Bevins stated the staff has said that is a problem corner there, which he
agrees with, but the owner bought the corner, and the owner also bought the
white house that was located there in 1985, and the City owned the 6400 square
foot strip which it has awned since it widened Anaheim Boulevard and in 1986
the owner prevailed on the City to sell him the 6400 square foot corner, so it
seemed to him that the owner created his own hardship and then came before the
Commission and complained about a hardship. He noted that when the applicant
asked the City to sell him the property, he wrote a letter to the Real
Property Division, October 7, 1985, which said it vas his desire to acquire
the City-owned property and combine it xith his property, then remove the
existing structures dad construct a building which will complement the
surrounding area and especially the new construction on the north side of
Broadway. Mr. Hevins stated he does not know what construction the owner was
referring to, but it certainly does not say anything about a convenience
market.
Joe White, 809 West Broadway, stated they have been through this; that
previously an application vas denied and now they are coming back with the
same thing, only oa the first request, they asked to waive 10 parking spaces.
He stated the only change was that they had left off the name "pizza"; and
that when they had "pizza" shown on the plan, they needed 30+ parking spaces;
but now they left the name "pizza" off, and are going to be back as soon as
the hearing is over wanting to put their pizza store in and claiming a
hardship because they have a pizza store and Commission will have to naive the
parking for them.
A
~•t
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt.4.gIcSrnx June 20, 1988 Paae q~0
Chairman Messe informed Mr. White that the Conditional Use Permit, if
approved, would not include nay fast food and that would be one of the
conditions.
Mr. White asked what they are going to have in there because it is an awfully
small site for a shopping center in magnificent new downtown Anaheim.
REBUTTAL•
Mr. Montejano stated he believed there was some misunderstanding; that the
application that previously came before the Council was brought by Pizza Pete
who wanted a waiver of the parking requirements. He stated the proposed
operators of the convenience market, did not favor the waiver of the parking
requirements and they took a public position on that, and they have not been
here before asking for approval of a convenience market; and they are not
asking for a waiver of the parking, and noted, in fact, that their parking is
is excess of that required by code.
Mr. Montejano stated regarding the remaining 975 square feet, that upon
approval of this permit, they would propose to go back to the owner of the
property, Mr. Quist, and obtain the remaining 975 square feet for the specific
purpose of the convenience market and not for any other purpose. He said it
was their hope there would be no other use in that 975 square feet, other than
the use they propose and would control.
Mr. Montejano noted one gentlemen had pointed out that this is a problem
corner and apparently no one can come up with a better use than the one
proposed. He stated under current market analysis, their proposal is the
highest and best use of the property; however, he felt in the future that
corner could be upgraded and converted to something more compatible with what
is there in the future; however, he felt their proposed use is compatible with
what is there presently.
He stated it is their hope to attract a large amount of foot traffic from City
Hall and also the new developments going into the area. He stated obviously
that corner lends itself to foot traffic and he did not believe they would
have the kind of problem that was contemplated by some of the people.
He stated they had hoped that there would be an announcement shortly that
there would be a high level development of the area across the way, but
apparently that is not forthcoming. He stated presently because of all the
vacant property, this site would not sustain an upscale food service; but he
felt is the future it would, and until then, this proposal is not only in
conformance with code, but is over and above what the code requires. He
stated they wanted an entrance on Anaheim Boulevard, but now having one was
staff's decision, and they would more than gladly cooperate and accept that
condition. He stated they had done everything they could, and asked that this
application not be confused with the application of Pizza Pete.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bouas stated she understood that the applicant is saying that the
market is an interim use, rith the idea that eventually some type of food
service would go is there.
06/20/88
~.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~,ANNING COMMISSION, Sune 20, 1988 .., Paae 90.1
Mr. Montejano stater°.•"hey would hope the area would develop so that it would
sustain such an oper~;etion. He noted, is fact, that the equipment going into
the business is rer~;,vable so they could look at it as a shell and be able to
convert it without much problem. He noted they understood they would have to
come back to Planning Commission and the Council at that point.
Commissioner Bouas stated certainly a building there would be a great
improvement over what is there now; however, in listening to Mr. Bevins and
noting the traffic situation downtown right now, she would hate to think what
it would be like if downtown Anaheim were more developed. She stated she did
not feel the market is the answer to what should go in there, but she did not
believe anyone had anything to suggest that would be better, and that she
believed to develop and clean the property up would be a tremendous asset to
the area.
Chairman Messe asked if this was an interim use until they could build a
restaurant, because then there would be a parking requirement which would
require them to assemble more land. Commissioner McBurney stated if they put
a restaurant on that site, 61 parking spaces would be required.
Mr. Montejano stated he understood that, and noted at the present time that
property does not lend itself to any other type of development that could
sustain itself economically. He stated they had some discussions with people
associated with the City had they felt in the future something more upscale
would be in order and they concur with that position.
Commissioner Boydstun asked where they would get their parking to do something
else, if they consider this an interim use? Mr. Montejano stated he did not
have an answer and he did not feel anyone in the City has that answer yet, but
he assumed that as development goes in, the City will make provisions for
additional parking. He stated other cities have provided parking garages
which will accommodate additional businesses. He stated he was not proposing
a public policy statement right now, but as downtown is developed, he felt
what they perceive today as future problems, could be alleviated.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if he hoped to get the other 975 square foot as
part of this store and Mr. Montejano replied that was correct. She asked
where deliveries would be made and he replied in the parking lot area and that
he did not anticipate that deliveries would be is the alley. He stated
deliveries are a minor problem, but they could be handled on a weekly basis
and would not pose a problem. He stated his clients operate other stores and
the delivery issue hss not posed a problem at any of the stores.
Commissioner Carusillo stated his personal view is that this use is not
compatible with the area; that it is in the downtown area and he was looking
for the overall image to be something a little more upscale than a convenience
market at that main intersection across from City Hall. He stated it would
also disturb the funeral services next door, especially if delivery trucks are
in the alley. He noted they have a back door to the building and he assumed
the deliveries would be going in tY2 back rather than in the driveway.
06/20/88
O
9 1-
~~ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING, COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae~~02
b!r. Montejano stated they could accommodate delivery on either side, and he
felt those are decisions imposed by staff and/or Commission. He stated if
staff wished to have deliveries in the front rather than the back, it is not a
problem, and that he was assurtrinq the back door was there because of the
ordinance requirement and not because of the delivery issue.
Mr. Nijjar stated the back door is a fire door. In response to Chairman
Messe's question, he stated the door would be unlocked but it would not be
used for deliveries.
Commissioner Herbst stated he agreed with Commissioner Carusillo and felt this
is an incompatible use with the area. He noted it is a problem site and at
some time in the future, it would require some more land assembly, and how
that would be accomplished is something the property owner should have assumed
when he bought it, but he did not feel a 24-hour convenience market across
from City Hall is compatible.
$~TION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Co•-unission has
reviewed the proposal to construct a 3584-square foot conver.i~nce market on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre located
at the southwest corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard, and further
described as 300 Sauth Anaheim Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration
together with any comments received during the public review ;rocess and
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any cr•:nments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-165 and moved for its passage
and adopti~a that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY
Conditional Use Permit No. 3022, on the basis that a convenience market is not
compatible with the surrounding downtown area, and would adversely affect the
adjoining land rises and the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: FELDHAUS
Joseph i+. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal th.e Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
06/20/88
~: {
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1988 Page 943
T•rFM NO 16 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3023
PSjBLIC HEARING: OWNER: Beulah Beatrice Watson, 701 N. Elm Drive, Beverly
Hills, CA 90210; AGENT: Hopkins Development Company, Attn: Richard Mount,
13 Corporate Plaza, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: 2804-2816
West Lincoln Avenue.
Request: To construct an 11,415-square foot commercial •cetail center
including 5565-square foot of automotive service.
There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report vas not read, it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Tim Cromwell, Hopkins Development Company, 13 Corporate Plaza, Suite 200,
Newport Seach, stated the request is for a canditiona:t use permit for a
planned shopping center at the corner of Lincoln and 'Dale. He stated the
project as it exists is in disrepair, mostly vacant, and there is a vacant lot
and they plan to enhance the corner. He stated they will complement the
existing auto use, Tune-Up Masters, with a planned auto retail building then
another building that will be used mainly for retail.. He noted they were is
compliance with all applicable codes. He stated the project will make the
corner a lot better than it is at present.
Mr. Cromwell indicated they are in agreement with all the conditions ezcept
Condition No. 13 which requires a six-foot high block wall, and they are not
opposed to that, but believe it should be constructed prior to occupancy
rather than prior to issuance of a building permit; and Condition No. 17
requiring termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 849, 1001, and 1433, and
ezplained he would not like to terminate CUP No. 1433, since it is an existing
liquor store/market which has a lease, and may be relocated into the proposed
project.
Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Cromwell stated the building on the west
side of the property would be demolished with the new construction.
Bill Schmidt, 2741 West Tola, off Broadway and Dale, stated he did not know
what the applicant is proposing there and he had not heard anything about it
and had not. been notified, but was present because of another matter.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated Mr. Schmidt's property is located outside the
300-foot radius, and Mr. Schmidt stated he just wanted to know what was going
on because they are tearing up enough of his neighborhood. He stated he was
protesting more building because they have enough there already. Commissioner
Boydstun informed Mr. Schmidt that as old building was being taken down and a
new one constructed, and Commissioner Bouas suggested he review the plans
exhibited oa the wall of the Council Chambers.
Curt Wesseln, 815 North West Street, stated he owned the property south of the
project which was listed as undeveloped, and that is not correct because there
is a single-family residence there. He stated because of their tenant, he
would appreciate an eight-foot high fence for privacy if they are going to be
repairing cars there. He acknowledged that the project would be a great
06/20/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae904-
improvement over what is there; however, with all the problems they have had,
he would appreciate the 8-foot fence. He agreed with requiring the 15-gallon
trees since the trees that were is there previously knocked over his fence, as
well as the garbage, and added otherwise, he considered it a great project.
Nancy Brown, 324 Coolidge Avenue, stated she was also present oa another
matter and was unaware of this project. She stated she wanted to bring to the
Planning Commission's attention that there is an elementary and junior high
school where students are walking to and from school, and however the property
is developed, she would appreciate consideration for the safety of the
children.
Chairman Messe stated sidewalks are addressed in the conditions.
REBUTTAL•
Mr. Cromwell stated repair of the sidewalk is a condition of approval and they
agree; and that a 6-foot high block wall is what he preferred to keep, but if
an 8-foot wall is required on the south side, he would probably go along with
that, noting there are apartments on the south and he did not think it was
necessary to have an 8-foot wall there. He stated he would like to apologize
if people outside the 300-foot radius notification area were disturbed about
not being notified, but that was something he could do nothing about.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the existing billboard would be removed and Mr.
Cromwell stated they are terminating the lease on that and will be taking it
out.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained the condition requiring the
termination of Conditional Use Permit 1433 pertained to oa-sale liquor, not in
a restaurant. Responding to Chairman Messe, he stated the applicant had
indicated that the lessee might wish to continue to lease after the new
building is constructed; however, that permit was tied to the specific plans
and that would be a different situation. He also noted an eight-foot wall as
requested, obviously would need to be readvartised because that would be a
code waiver.
Commissioner Bouas asked if there was any difference in the grade of the
adjacent property oa Mr, wessela's side and subject property. Commissioner
McBurney stated he believed those two grades were fairly close.
Chairman Messe informed Mr. Wesseln that there was going to be a building
within 10 feet of his property, on the south side of the lot, and then there
would be parking on the west side of that which would be partially next to his
lot. He asked if he believed the 8-foot fence would help.
Mr. Wesseln stated his concern is visibility and he thought that was something
the City of Anaheim should look at because he felt anybody could look over a
6-foot high fence and could see what his tenant has in his yard.
06/28/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Page 945
Chairman Messe stated, oa the other hand, an 8-foot fence would cut down on a
lot of his light and circulation and he wanted to make sure Mr. Wesseln knew
that.
Mr. Cromwell stated there would be no ezits oa the rear of the building and
there would be landscaping in between the building and the block wall sa it
actually might be nicer for his property to have the lower wall; and there
would net be any noise coming from the back except parking to the east of the
building.
Mr. Hastings stated in the RM-1200 zone, the code allows carports which
typically are a 12-foot high wall to be adjacent to the property line;
however, the fence would not be allc~ed oa the commercial site, so if the
Commission wished to determine this was in keeping xith the RM-1200 standard
of the adjacent property, there could be a carport wall.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated one gentleman is here with the request for a
higher wall, and applicant is willing to do it; however, the Chairman wonders
if it is practical and he believed Mr. Cromwell and Mr. Wesseln needed to get
together before they decide.
Mr. Cromwell stated they would probably develop the property next door and was
curious what would happen then.
Mr. Hastings stated it is actually zoned RM-1200 at present and would have to
be developed that way. He stated if it is developed as apartments, they could
build carports up against that property line and the back of the carports
could have a 12-foot high wall.
Mr. Cromwell asked if that could be a driveway there, and Mr. Hastings
responded since it is adjacent to commercial, it could be almost anything.
Commissioner Carusillo noted that a 6-foot block wall would not conflict with
applicant's future plans and Mr. Cromwell stated that was his concern.
Commissioner Souas clarified he would not be required to put in a higher wall,
and only 6 feet is required now.
Mr. Cromwell stated he would try to work it out with Mr. Wesseln.
ACTION: Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission l:na
reviewed the proposal to construct a 11,415-square foot commercial retail
center including 5565 square foot of automotive service on an
irregularly-shaped parcol of land consisting of approzimately 0.97 acre
located south and west of the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Dale
Avenue, and further described as 2804-2816 West Lincoln Avenue; and does
hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered
tlse 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 oa the environment.
06/20/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMN,ISSION, June 20, 1988 Paae 906
Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. PC88-166 and moved for its
pa::>aqe and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3023, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to interdepartmental
Committee Recommendations, with modification of Condition No. 19 to delete No.
13, and modification of Condition No. 13 to read that a six (6)-foot high
masonry block wall shall be constructed prior to occupancy and maintained
along the south and west property line(s) excepting the front setback where
the wall height shall be three (3) feet.
On roll rall, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: SODAS, 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.
ITEM NO. 17. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 229
LREADVERTISED); RECLASSIFICATION n0. 87-88-43; VARIANCE N0. 3772.
PUBLIC REARING: OWNERS: Donald T. Takai and Dorothy M. Takai, 3174 W. Rome
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804; Attn: Orange County Flood Control, P.O. Box 4048,
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4048; AGENT: Maqdy Hanna, 4000 W. MacArthur Boulevard,
Suite 680, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: 150 South Dale Avenue.
Request: Reclassify RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone; to
construct a 10-story, 48-unit apartment complez xith waivers of (a) maximum
site coverage, (b) minimum distance from dwelling units to covered and open
parking spaces and (c) maximum fence height.
Continued from the meetings of April 25, 1988 and May 23, 1988.
There were approximately 25 persons 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.
Al Marshall, 4000 MacArthur, Newport Beach, stated they were proposing a
48-wait apartment complex just off of Dale, parallel to the Carbon Creek
Channel and covering a portion of the channel. He noted they adjoin an
RM-1200 property and commercial zoning.
Mr. Marshall stated this project is the result of having met with the
neighbors and the end result is a project that is greatly reduced from their
last presentation. He presented copies of corrections to some of their
tabulations that were turned in incorrectly. He stated they are asking for an
RM-2400 designation and their proposal fits within that zone. He explained
there was a misunderstanding on their designer's part in the way he calculated
the area, but they are leasing the entire channel section paralleling the
property they now own, and in so doing, when calculating that and deducting
for the vehicle accessway, the net buildable area is 16,527-square feet
06/20/88
1tTT7ii'I'FS' ANAHEIM CIT7C PLANNING COMMISSION ,Tune 20 1988 Paae907
divided by 48 dwelling units, which is 2427.64 square feet per dwelling unit;
thus, the net unit to the acre is 17.97 or roughly 18 units per acre which is
within the RM-2400 zoning standards. Mr. Marshall noted the site coverage
based on these figures has been greatly reduced to approxin.ately 30~ vs. the
579, indicated earlier.
Mr. Marshall stated they are actually requesting a waiver strictly dealing
with the distance from the parking area to the end apartments, and also for
the 8-foot wall if the neighbors desire.
Slides were presented, and Mr. Marshall pointed out there is a mobilehome park
and some commercial establishments to the left, and to the right there are
some two-story single-family homes. He explained they are asking to cover a
portion of the channel and intend to lease the entire section of the channel
as discussed earlier with Orange County Flood Control District. He noted they
have tentative approval of the Flood Control District; and the parking over
the channel has to be constructed to their specifications, including the
improvement of the culvert underneath, and they will be allowed to build
covered parking over it, with the understanding that any time it needs to be
removed for repairs or access to the culvert below, the applicant will do so
and they have agreed with that stipulation. He stated basically they are
asking for the waiver for the distance from parking to the end units and
everything else has been deleted, and pointed out they are within the 20-foot
policy from single family residences.
Mr. Marshall stated everything throughout is all one-story, and the only thing
they are doing with the culvert is putting some covered parking on it. Ae
noted the design of the culvert will be left to the Orange County Flood
Control District Engineers.
Mr. Marshall stated there are no views intruding on anyone's privacy. He
noted there is a condition requiring that they dedicate 45 feet from
ceater:line and they could not, of course, dedicate the Flood Control
District's property since they are only leasing the right to use it, but the
net result would be the same; and that xould be used for widening of the road
if it <;oes any further than what they have currently. He noted those rights
would 1>e obtained regardless, through the Flood Control District, but all they
could do is offer rights to their leased portion of that flood control channel.
Mr. Mairshall stated they have prc!vided 10 additional parking spaces over that
which .Ls required, and are offering 122 parking spaces instead of 112. He
stated what they are now requestiiag is directly a result of their
conver~satioas with the neighbors„ He stated they had sent letters to the
property owners within the 300-foot radius on a couple of occasions for their
meetiai;s and the meetings were quite a.'nicable, and that they have copies of
the lust of all the neighbors thely had meet 'with, if Commission would like
them.
Greg H;sstings, Senior Planner, stated since this was not analyzed at RM-2400
standards, it appears there may be a couple of additional waivers, one being
the nwnber of dwelling units, land area per dwelling unit, and in light of the
buildiinq coverage, the RM-2400 zone only :allows 45i lot coverage and staff
calcul~stions still remain at 579,.
06/20/88
ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO~gQISST~^x June 20 1988 Pages--~8
Mr. Marshall stated he believed that calculation did not include the entire
area. Chairman Messe stated the new calculation says 47~ so there would be an
additional waiver.
Mr. Hastings pointed out that staff did analyze this at RM-2400 standards and
RM-1200; however, it was advertised at RM-1200 since the application stated
RM-1200. He responded to Mr. Marshall, that the percent coverage was
calculated at RM-2400, and 45~ is allowed. Mr. Marshall stated they are only
asking for 29~ coverage. Mr. Hastings stated staff calculations are 57~
regardless of which zone they are going to be applying for. He responded to
Chairman Messe that the coverage is based on the whole property, minus any
driveway area, and there is a large driveway area.
Chairman Messe asked if it is legal to use L•he flood control channel as part
of the property in the calculation, even though it is unusable to anyone. Mr.
Hastings stated staff did not calculate it since it was not part of the
project request.
Mr. Marshall responded to Chairman Messe that he included the channel in his
calculation and explained that is because tlhey are leasing the entire
property. He responded to Chairman Messe tlhat he realized it is not uststhat
piece of property, but the code does not require that it be usable, j
it be open.
Mr. Hastings stated staff did not count the uncovered portion of that channel
into the overall loC area because it is a flood coatrel channel.
Chairman Messe asked if the applicant vas leasing the channel as part of the
project, whether staff would have counted it, if they had known it. Mr.
Hastings stated if the applicant owned the land, he assumed they would have
included it. Mr. Marshall said they are leasing the rights to the entire
section paralleling their property and that is the reason for their
calculations.
Mr. Marshall stated this situation is similar to the parking decks discussed
before; and noted if they cut holes in their parking decks, even though it is
usable, it is calculated as open space; therefore, when they cut the hole they
are allowed that as open space even though they cannot use it. He said the
situation here is the density, and when they provide the parking deck they
then get hit for coverage and it reduces the open space even though it is
usable.
Chairman Messe stated it is kind of like open space in the hills area, where
you could not build anything except a path.
Mr. Hastings pointed out that area was not included in the General Plan study
area, so it is still on the General Plnn for flood control purposes, and that
part is uncovered.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked the length of the lease and Mz. Marshall stated it
is leased for 25 years renexable at a market rate; and the market rate is
determiaod by the value of the land.
06!20!88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae 909
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the lease was also assignable so they could
build the project and then sell it and Mr. Marshall replied that it was.
QpPOSITION•
Bill Schmidt, 2741 West Tola Avenue, Anaheim, said he opposed the project
because he felt it affected the quality of life in their area. He stated they
are unhappy with the growth. He referred to another project which has been
built across the channel, a two-story apartment house, which was not shown,
but it prevented him from being able to see the mountains anymore. He noted a
police report compiled from research from May 1987 to April 1988, in just the
area out of west Anaheim, revealed there were 2 homicides, 8 rapes, 42
robberies, 140 assaults, 206 residential burglaries, 75 commercial burglaries,
539 thefts (larceny), 138 thefts of motor vehicles, and 8 arson - all Class I
crimes, and he noted there are problems with prostitution on Dale to Lincoln.
He said he is opposed to this project because the more people brought into the
area, the more the quality of life is impacted.
Dave Fernandez, 2776 Rowland Circle, asked who owned the property and stated
at the last meetin_,* there was some question about the owner. Mr. Fernandez
noted the staff report states if approved, the amendment would increase
allowable density from 0 - 36 dwelling units per gross acre and since there
are 2.1 acres, he wanted to know if that would allow 72 units even though the
proposal is only for 48.
Chairman, Messe stated if the property is rezoned to RM-1200, a developer could
build as many as 36 dwelling units per acre.
Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, explained it could go to 90 units. Mr.
Fernandez said his question was how many units could they add to this
project. Commissioner Bouas stated they could not add any units to this
project without coming back before Commission.
Chairman Messe clarified if the property was rezoned, they would be entitled
to build 36 units per acre with ao waivers, but on this property it would be
most difficult.
Responding to Mr. Fernandez, Chairman Messe explained the applicant has asked
for a variance of City code, to permit him to increase the distance from the
dwelling units to the parking. Mr. Fernandez asked if there would be room to
put additional structures is that huge area between the units and parking area.
Mr. Fernandez stated he did not understand xhy the County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency would not endorse this project until
Commission votes on it. Chairman Messe responded the County did not wish to
waste their time is approving something the City would not approve.
Mr. Fernandez asked if the variance under the new plan accommodated the
20-foot area between the residential areas and the buildings and whether that
was one of the changes just mentioned. IIe referred t~ Condition No. 23 and
asked if those waivers requested were not because applicant did not meet
Cude. Chairman Messe responded that if the Commission approves the waivers,
it would then meet requirements.
06/20/88
;~,~-
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Pagg 9.10
Mr. Fernandez questioned Condition No. 4 on Page 9, and asked if the City was
acknowledging that there is a problem because of overcrowding in the schools.
Chairman Messe stated there is a problem in both the Anaheim City School
District and the Magnolia School District, and some of the schools are
overcrowded and if the school in this area is overcrowded, this condition
requires the landlord to tell the potential tenant of the overcrowding so that
they do not rent a place thinking their children will be able to walk to
school, when they are going to be bused.
Mr. Fernandez stated based of *__hat done, and aside from the fact that
everyone there does not want additional density, he felt the granting of this
project would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare
of the citizens.
Steve Michaels, 2749 West Tola, submitted picture taken from his back yard and
stated he believed the pictures provided by the developers are misleading, and
obviously those pictures, taken either from the ditch or the street, are
valuable in terms of viewing the property, but from the perspective of how the
neighbors view the property, they are not really pertinent. He noted in one
of the pictures taken from his back yard, there is an apartment complex being
developed by this same development company for 111 units, and he was under the
impression that that project was to have subterranean parking and the pictures
show that portion of the building allotted for parking is very visible, thus
making the structure a 3-story building rather than 2-story, which was
approved.
Mr. Michaels stated this is a proposal for an apartment complex to be built
between that unit and the existing houses along Tola and he thought there has
to be a point •here the density is at a mazimum to the point where it affects
public services. He added he felt there comes a time when the Commission has
to say this is enough.
Mr. Michaels stated he first got involved in this for personal reasons because
he felt the development of the land xould affect his property value and he
still feels that way, but he has also learned in the process that there are r,
lot of other things to consider, and referred to today's meeting with
discussion about approv.inq development oa the corner of Lincoln and Dale,
which is almost directly across the street from where the entrance to this
proposed apartment complex would be; and, in addition, the gentleman who owns
the property adjacent to that development on that corner has indicated that he
wishes to develop his property is the future. Mr. Michaels stated all this
traffic leads right cut onto Dale which is within the same block as an
elementary school, and the traffic is terrible at the light in front of that
school, and all of these developments are going to pour more traffic right out
into that stopped traffic.
Mr. Michaels stated obviously the r.S~acy of his backyard was the thing most
important to him and he did not want any type of parking structures built up
against his fence, nor did he want lighting of the traffic or parking area to
light up his backyard.
06/20/88
.°
h ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Page g~i~
Mr. Michaels stated he believed development that would be acceptable to the
citizens of West Anaheim is development that takes the citizens' rights and
considerations into account, and that the citizens along Tola want the flood
control channel left alone so there is a buffer between them and whatever is
oa the other side, and they want one story for privacy. He asked why
apartments, and noted everywhere you looked there are apartments going up in
Anaheim; and a single-family dwelling comes down and a 24-unit apartment
complex goes up. He stated he felt this would lead to congestion, a drain on
public services, and a negative impact on the community, so he opposed the
project for those reasons. He stated considering the way the land was laid
out and the way it was developed in the first place, Commission has to agree
that it is not suitable for residential development of this kind.
Chairman Messe asked where the pictures presented by Mr. Michaels were taken
and Mr. Michaels replied from the top of his pool slide. He stated there was
another concern that children might climb the fence and end up in the pool.
Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Michaels stated his home is not two-story,
and there are no two-story homes along that stretch of street.
Mariano Molina, 223 Renoak Street, Anaheim, stated the two gentlemen who had
spoken before him basically had said what he intended to say, but he wanteS to
add that they did meet with Mr. Marshall and Mr. Hanna and they did inform
them of what their plans were; however, it was their feeling that even 48
apartment units is 48 too many for all the reasons that have been stated.
Mr. Molina stated the diminishing of r.he quality of life in West Anaheim by
the continuous congestion being added by over development of apartment
buil~iags is something they are all concerned .about.
He noted the staff report stated that the impact of traffic on Dale Avenue was
negative, and he felt with the additional traffic going out of those apartment
units, and the additional traffic the development of a shopping center oa the
other side has brought, he could not see how that determination was made that
there would be no traffic impact on Dale Avenue.
Mr. Molina stated he was concerned about the developer getting a lease from
the Flood Control District to have the required amount of space and parking,
and asked what would happen if for some reason is the future the Flood Coatzol
District took that property back.
Mr. Molina stated the last time they were before Commission, they were
informed by Commissioner Bouas that a developer has a right to develop his
land, and that may be true, but one thing he did not hear was what were the
rights of the homeowners. He noted they have made their investment and put
down their roots, as~d he felt even though a developer may have the right to
develop the land, the homeowners also have rights Ls citizens of the City of
Anaheim which the Commission represents and they appeal to Commission for some
relief in this matter.
Jeff Ochoa, 2745 Tola, Anaheim, stated he did take a set of the plans that
were given to them to look over by Mr. Hanna to the Fire Marshal, who had some
court duties and was not able to attend, but did have some input as to what
06/20/68
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Tune 20 1988 Paae 912
was going oa, even though the Commissioners are the ones who would actually
approve the project. He added the Fire Marshal looked at the plans and called
in another member of his staff to look at them and they both just shook their
heads and could not believe that the applicant would actually ask to get
something like this approved.
Mr. Ochoa noted the third building in the project had hardly any access and he
believed they were asking for a waiver of the distance from the parking. He
stated the Fire Marshal noted this could be a potential hazard and as it
stood, they did have the allotted amount of space needed to pull is a fire
truck and turn it around, but there was not very much room to take hoses down
small walkways into the back apartments. He stated with the other
construction already up and the one currently being built, it would make it
much more hazardous if one of the back units caught fire; and it is just that
much harder to protect those apartments, not to mention protection of the
neighborhood homes. Mr. Ochoa noted his home is directly behind this.
Mr. Ochoa stated he has a 4-year old son who would be going to the elementary
school, only because they had room for him in kindergarten; that if they had
not had room in kindergarten, then his son would have been bused. He
indicated he understands that is not Planning Commission's problem with the
busing of children, but the Planning Commission's dilemma is whether to let
t'iis developer build, and if the Planning Commission allows this project to be
built, that would mean that other people who bought homes in the neighborhood
and who have older children, would end up being bused and he did not believe
that is right.
Dave Johnson, 2735 West Tola Avenue, stated this project is going to impact
his property negatively more than some of the other properties owned by othF•rs
who are present. He stated as an adult with an intrinsic obedience of laws
and rules and general societal behavior, children and teenagers are not so
inclined and a teanager will jaywalk when he could walk 10 feet further and
use the crosswalk. He stated his property backs up onto the Carbon Creek
Channel and standing in his backyard during the day, he can see a steady
stream of foot traffic down that creek which is school children going to and
from school because it is a shortcut, even though they should not be back
there.
He stated he has a particular problem because his house is the first house
people xho want to get through from the channel onto the street will walk
through, and people have cut his fence, and he has had people is his backyard
when he has been in his house and heard footsteps outside, and this was not
just at 2:00 in the afternoon but at 2:00 in the morning. He stated if this
project is built, it would block the end of the channel and, in effect,
everyone who wanted to come down that channel would hop his fence and go
through his property to proceed down the street. He stated he had knocked
people down out there who were trying to climb his fence, and he has called
the police many times, and on one instance a person being pursued by the
police after creating an armed assault on someone, went into this back yard
and confronted his daughter who was at that time it years old. He said to put
this is perspective, it is a problem now and if they block that channel, it
would be intolerable. He noted most of the people who use that channel are
people going to school but also there are some adults with questionable
motives, and stated, in conclusion, he would like to ask the Commission to
disapprove this project.
~ ~.
. ~:
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 20, 1988 Paqe 913
Fay Molina, 223 Renoak Street, stated she has petitions with 213 signatures,
which she would submit to the Commission at a later date after she had made
photo copies of them, and they are asking that Commission not approve this
project.
She stated the petitions are from her neighborhood, across Broadway from
Renoak, and the neighborhood across Dale, and at Dale and Broadway on the west
side of the street, because this development affects all of these homeowners,
and not just people within 300 feet of it. She stated she was talking about
traffic, school~v, local stores, etc. She added any time you bring more people
into an area, it affects far more than a 300-foot radius. She noted all the
apartment dwellers, as well as the homeowners, are being affected by the
continued development; and that as she drove down the street, she noted more
two and three story apartment buildings advertising vacancies, and with those
buildings which have gone in recently, they no longer have a view of the
mountains or trees, and can only see roofs of apartments. She stated her
concerns are with the density and close proximity to present homes.
Mary woods, 2726 West Lincoln, wondered if she was going to have an B-foot
fence on the north side. Chairman Messe informed her if the project is
approved, there would be an 8-foot fence. She responded that was what she
wanted.
Doug Berry, 2733 Skywood Place, indicated he lived about 300 feet south of the
flood control ditch in question and when he looks out of the top story of his
2-story house, he sees apartments, where he usel to see mountains and trees.
He stated at night he hears police helicopters constantly in that area because
there has been a large influx of people. he stated with maximum density of
people, there is a lot more crime and violence, and the Anaheim Police
Department has had increased activity in Ghat area; the Anaheim Fire
Department is highly over-taxed in that area, and he thought it looks like a
very difficult complex to get into for the Fire Department. He noted the
homes in the surrounding area are all shake roof, making it dangerous.
Mr. Berry stated the channel at present is open and well-lighted, but if it is
partly covered and built closer to the existing homes' rear yards, it could be
anticipated that burglaries would go up because of the easier access. He
noted the owner of the property has the right to develop within the laws of
the City of Anaheim, but the developer plans to build here, not live here, and
take that money out of the City, whereas the property owners are stuck here
xith devalued property with the maximum density. He indicated this project
would affect the neighbors quality of life in a negative manner.
Larry Thompson, 223 Tola Place, Anaheim, stated it has just been brought to
his attention that there are two critical intersections involved close to this
project, one at Lincoln and Beach, the other at Lincoln and Magnolia. He
indicated these are designated critical intersections by the City of Anaheim
Police Department, and this project would add traffic to those critical
intersections at all hours of the day. He noted traffic throughout the area
now is quite bad, and adding 48 units would certainly not help the traffic
flox in the area. He voiced strong opposition to any increase in apartments
being built in the area.
06/20/88
~ ~ .. ~.
.nr
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. June 20. 1988 Paae 914
REBUTTAL
Mr. Marshall noted the general opposition is basically, "no more apartments,
people, or traffic." He stated about 60~ of City traffic is cienerated within,
with youngsters growing up, getting cars, new children, etc., and our schools
are overcrowded for the same reasons. He stated development fees qo to parks
and recreations, schools, and all the different utilities they are
over-burdening the City with their growth. He indicated the best bet is to
grow as smartly as possible and as controlled as possible, by adding to the
utilities and facilities as the growth occurs. He stated that was what they
were attempting to do in this particular project by reducing it greatly in the
number of units requested and upgrading the style and quality of the
structure, making it look more like a single-family unit, He noted people do
have to live somewhere, and the apartment dwellers he was sure would complain
a lot more if the apartment prices went so high they could no longer afford to
live there. He stated it is very difficult because apartment dwellers are
there usually because they cannot yet afford a single-family home.
Mr. Marshall noted Mr. Schmidt had mentioned there were prostitutes on Dale to
Lincoln, and noted they had taken a major step in eliminating that when they
wiped out that old motel on Lincoln and built the 111 apartments. He stated
that was, according to police reports, an absolute hotbed for prostitution,
crime, etc. He noted that was a case of good development doing good for the
community. He assured those present that their apartments do not bring
prostitutes to the area, just the reverse, and they actually eliminate places
for them to be in business. He noted their management is very strict and
their security very tight.
Mr. Marshall addressed the vacancy rate and noted it was extremely low. He
stated when developers build new projects, they offer certain incentives to
encourage people to move in quickly so they can refinance the projects
immediately. He noted this is an economic decision, not one of lack of
vacancy. Ae stated the average absorption rate at present is about 20 units
pffr week, which is very high and people are moving in very quickly.
Mr. Marshall stated, in reply to Mr. Fernandez, that if this project was
approved, the number proposed is all the units that would be built there, as
far this applicant is concerned. He stated they would in no way come back and
try to build more apartments on that property. He stated the setback policy
is one they are in violation of, not one they are adhering to, and that was
the 20-foot policy between single-family homes and apartments. He noted it
was not their apartments that are within the 20 feet, but that it was the
parking. He stated also as a concern, if the roofs on the parking structures
are offensive, they could flatten those to where they would be almost
non-existent, which would eliminate any more blackage of areas because of roof
lines. He stated the apa:utlo:t roofs were not very high, and are similar to
single-family structures and are over 80 feet away from the sf,ngle-family, so
he did not think that would block anyone's view; however, they could be
lowered if desired.
06/20/88
A
Y ~'
M
MINUTES ANAHEIM CT'rv ar.astNING COMMISSION _June 20, 1988 Pag~_9,1-$
Mr. Marshall also noted there are very few 2-bedroom apartments. in this
project, and 2-bedroom apartments are where the majority of families live; and
the are only proposing 12. He stated the bulk are single-bedroom and bachelor
units xhich are not conducive for families. He noted they are not planning to
have a large .influx of families, noting the occupancy covenant controls that
as well. He stated he did not feel this would put an undue burden on the
school district due to a possible 12 more families there.
Mr. Marshall stated he did not see the photos Mr. Michaels brought is but the
111 units that were mentioned when the photos were presented is that land
along Lincoln and is a bit higher than the other land, thus they appear a
little more imposing, although across the back of those units, there are only
1-story apartments which were done is order to mitigate that view over the
distance to their homes. Mr. Marshall noted also that the reason for the
parking structure being partially visible is because of the height of the
land; and they did not raise the land, but actually lowered it.
Mr. Marshall, in answerincl "why apartments", stated it is pretty clear there
is a great need for apartments when the vacancy rate is somewhere around 2i,
which is incredibly low.
Mr. Marshall addressed Mr. Ochoa's concern that the Fire Marshal brought forth
and stated there is a driveway aide enough to accommodate a fire truck all the
way to the end. He stated the back building is totally sprinkled which should
eliminate any concern for fire in that area.
Mr. Marshall stated to alleviate Mr. Johnson's concern about people cutting
through his yard, they could raise the wall, but basically the project is
blocking the flow of foot traffic through the canal area to get to the street
and their management would help enforce that. He noted people use that
channel and he has no control over that, but as far as people going through
the neighbor's yard, they would be glad to help him with a wall or something
like that, and stated he felt once the project is in that foot traffic would
be cut down considerably.
Mr. Marshall stated as far as people using the garages to access the back
yards of adjacent residences, he did not imagine that, as their management
would be more watchful ani2 there would be less people trying to jump fences
with more activity there. He added he did not see that as a real potential
liability, and that if someone wanted in a back yard, a garage would make ao
difference.
Mr. Marshall stated, in reply to Ms. Woods, that Chey will put in the 8-foot
fence.
Mr. Marshall stated he was not quite sure where Mr. Berry was located or what
apartments he was looking at from his residence, but he did not believe it was
theirs since theirs are one-story, and this project would not be seen any
differently than single-family and the two-story homes already along. In
addressing Mr. Berry's concern about them taking money out of the City of
Anaheim, he stated they do a great deal of their work here, and bring a great
deal of money to the City, and employ a great number of people is the City so
he felt the opposite was true.
06/20/88
~ ........ w....... ,. a ..:.~.. ,
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. June 20. 1988 Pave q1G
Maqdy Hanna, 4000 West MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Heach, stated he believed
they had done a tremendous job is putting together a very difficult project,
and coming up with something that was workable. He noted the current zoning
of this property according to the General Plaa is commercial, which would
actually allow them to build commercial on that property which would bring
more traffic on Dale Street. He stated they were coming before the Commission
with a very low-density residential project which he felt was compatible to
the area. He stated they are very sensitive to the community and neig'nborhood
as they have been with all their projects in the City, and felt they deserved
some credit for that. He noted Mr. Schmidt's concerns about the crime in the
City of Anaheim, and stated apartment dwellers do not bring crime to the City;
that the tenants they would be renting the apartments to would be those who
could afford the 5700 - 5800 rents and these people are by no means
criminals. He stated probably all the people present started by renting an
apartment first and later moved along to a single-family home, and that he
believed apartment renters have the right to live somewhere.
Mr. Hanna noted Mr. Fernandez was asking about the owner of the property and
informed those present that Mr. Takai is the current owner, and they are in
contract with him to purchase the property.
Mr. Hanna indicated the City Traffic Engineer stated there was no traffic
impact and that Dale Street could accommodate the additional traffic. Mr.
Hanna said the concern about the single-family home on the south boundary, and
someone jumping into the back yard, could be alleviated and he was proposing
that they build an 8-foot high fence across the south boundary of their
property, and that should secure both the applicant's property and the
single-family resident's back yard.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, left the meeting and did not return.
Commissioner McBurney asked if this an P.M 1200 project or an RM--2400 project.
He noted staff mentioned something about the percentage of coverage and asked
how they could maintain everything with the waivers applied for.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated they could either do that or go to the
RM-2400 standards and count that area that is outside the actual project but
part of the flood control channel. He stated it appears that there would be
only one waiver and that would be maximum distance from rental units to
covered and open parking spaces.
Chairman Messe asked if they could qo to the RM-1200, Exhibit A amended and
Mr. Hastings replied they could. Commissioner Feldhaus asked how it was
advertised, and Mr. Hastings replied it was advertised as RM-1200 or a less
intense zone, which enables them to use either RM-1200 or RM-2400 standards.
Commissioner Herbst stated he has been opposed to the project since its
conception, and felt it was a very poor place to put people; and that they are
taking open space, of which there is very little left, and are covering it
with concrete, and putting apartment houses there. He stated he wanted to be
realistic and say it is a very unusable piece of property for commercial use,
06/20/88
MINU'S'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae9~7_
and unusable for putting people on. He added using it for a nursery was the
ideal situation, as it is presently, but he did not believe that creating a
corridor with 8-foot walls, and covering the channel with concrete, creates a
good living environment for people: and it is just like walling them in. He
stated he has opposed it from the beginning, and had not wanted it continued
but that was up to the rest of the Commissioners; that access is limited; and
the tenants who live in the back would have to walk an excessive distance to
even get to a parking place. He stated he did not recall ever voting for
anything like this. He stated once he saw where the Commission has allowed
putting garages and 8-foot walls is back of single-family homes, he said he
would never vote for one that way again because he knew what it did to those
single-family residents' back yards. He said he did not think it right to
block them in with 8-foot walls and he did not believe the residents wanted to
be blocked in that way.
Mr. Hanna informed Mr. Herbst that they had not proposed the 8-foot wall, but
they had agreed to put it in because it was the neighbors' desire. He also
stated the owner of the property has the right to develop it; and that the
nursery was put there maybe good 30 - 40 years ago, but today thare is no land
available in the City and in the center of the City is no place to have a
nursery.
Commissioner Herbst informed Mr. Hanna that he agreed that a person has a
right to develop their property, but they did not have the right to take the
open space that people are backed up to and cover it with concrete.
Commissioner Herbst said he would agree to cover a ditch with concrete for
safety sake, but is this case they are covering a canal in order to build on
it and he is opposed. He reiterated that they have a right to develop the
property but that right was to develop it to what it was best suited for and
it is not best suited for people.
Mr. Haaaa asked what Mr. Herbst believed the property was suited for, and Mr.
Herbst repeated that it was best suited for what it is presently being used
for and until such time as something comes in that can utilize that property
it should stay. Mr. Herbst stated that to tell people that you could probably
put something in there commercially that is going to create more traffic than
apartment houses is fictitious. He stated the the code says commercial uses
create more traffic but in a place like this that is certainly not true.
Mr. Hanna stated that a mini storage facility could be placed on the property,
but that would create traffic there.
Commissioner Herbst informed Mr. Hanna that mini storage facilities did not
very much traffic.
Mr. Hanna stated by covering the channel, he felt that was the best thing, and
noted a lot of places in the City are trying to cover it for safety, and he
felt he had done a good job with this p.~:j.ect. He stated he felt the use he
was proposing is appropriate; and it is one-story, very low density.
06/20/88
''~ ~.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM ~ITX PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae °~d
Commissioner McBurney inquired of Commis.eioaer Herbst what his feelings would
be if the channel xas not existing and Mr. Herbst staled that would be a
different matter, however, the channel is there. Mr. Herbst stated it is open
space and the people realized that when they bought their homes there; and it
was existing and they had a reasonable expectation that it would not change.
Chairman Messe noted part of the channel is right in the front yard of one of
the apartment buildings and that did bother him; and also that a portion of
open channel is in front of one unit.
Mr. Hanna stated there is an existing fence now and there would be an extended
fence to cover so that no one could get into the channel from the project
property.
Chairman Messe asked how tall the fence would be and Mr. Hanna replied it
would be six feet.
Commissioner Bouas stated she felt the applicant has done a very fine job and
certainly has done what the neighbors had wanted as far as going to the
one-story, but she agreed with Commissioner Herbst and did not feel the
channel should be covered and used for parking. She noted perhaps something a
lot worse could go is there, but she did not want to ses• the channel used to
make the project work so she could not agree to this request.
Chairman Messe asked about the Fire Department's reaction to the project as
amended, and whether there was anything brought up in the Interdepartmental
Meeting.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, responded they had required that the back
building be sprinkled since they could not access the back building; and that
they were a little concerned about medical aid; and that they said i.t would
take a longer response time.
Mr. Hanna stated they have the hammerhead access which the fire truck could go
in and back out of the project without any problem; and that the Fire
Department requested the back building to be fire-sprinklered, which they had
planed to do since most of the projects they build aze all fire-sprinklered.
Chairman Messe stated Mr. Marshall had alluded to the fact that the County had
approved this and asked Mr. Hanna if that was really the situation and Mr.
Hanna replied no.
Mr. Marshall stated he was referring to their conversations and correspondence
with Orange County Flood Control District; that all they have approved
tentatively is the ability to build carport over the concrete on the channel
and then if there is a problem, the applicant is liable for tearing them down
or for any repair that would be needed, should the Flood Control need to work
on the culvert itself. He stated he did not mean to imply that the project
was approved by the OCD, because it was not. He stated it is subject to
approval by the Planning Commission, and then they would begin a long, drawn
out procedure with OCD. He said they had told him they had done this in the
past and saw no problem with it, provided that it was done properly.
06/20/88
~lIN_,JTTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paae 919
Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Marshall if he knew the confusion he created
sometimes when he sent out printed documents which say "Newport Pacific
Development has purchased a unique piece of property." He asked Mr. Marshall
why they sent that out and Mr. Marshall replied that was his fault, and he had
been under the impression that they iiad purchased it.
Mr. Hanna stated that if you are under contract to purchase a house, you
purchase the house even if it has not closed escrow; and they are under
contract to purchase the property.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated he wanted to add some legal
points about the culvert which concerned him; and one is the term of the
lease. He stated Mr. Marshall alluded earlier to a 25-year term with some
extension, and he did not know what Chat renewal right was; but his concern
was a potential that the lease could run nut or they could choose not to
accept the extension if it was based upon too high a value. He stated he was
concerned about what that would do to the remaining use because now there is
ao tie in the conditions of approval to the maintenance or their right to park
on the channel. He stated, secondly, that several Commissioners had talked
about the concern of the height of the wall adjoining the single-family homes
to the south and since we do not know what the Flood Control District design
standards are going to be, it is foreseeable that they might rwg::ire that the
pads be higher than street grade; and that staff doesn't know what J.evel
floods they want to respond to, so potentially that slab could wind up 2 - 4
feet higher above grade that it is right now; therefore, theoretically there
could be a 10-foot wall or higher adjoining those homes to the south and he
believed those types of issues should be addressed in the conditions.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Souas
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning has reviewed the proposal to
amend the Land IIse Element of the General Plan from the current General
Commercial and Flood Control Channel designations to Medium Density
Residential or Low-Medium Density Residential designations; and to reclassify
subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agficultural) Zoae to the
RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 1-story, 48-unit
apartment complex with waivers of (a) maximum site coverage, (b) minimum
distance from dwelling units to covered and open parking spaces and (c)
maximum fence height on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 2.5 acres, having a frontage of approximately 133 feet on the
east side of Dale Avenue, and being located approximately 650 feet south of
the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 150 South Dalo
Avenue; and subject property includes a portion of the Carbon Creek Flood
Control Channel; 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 Carusillo stated he felt regarding the Negative Declaration, that
there was some conflict because of the dilemma as the builder's right to
build, the owner's right to develop, and the Anaheim citizens' right to peace,
health, safety asd general welfare. He stated he believed the proposed
project would conflict with the citizen's life-style and general welfare; and
that while he acknowledged that the developer has done all he could to
mitigate that, a mutually acceptab]e solution has not coma about.
itTN77TES ANAHEIM CITY PLAt%~~!E_;:. +;,"~r:.`;~,~,r~,.~~,?~,L~T"' 20 1988 Paae 920,
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PCBS-167 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY
General Plan Amendment No. 229 oa the basis that the current adopted General
Plan designations of General Commercial and Flood Control Channel are
appropriate for the study area.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-168 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY
Reclassification No. 87-88-43 on the basis that General Plan Amendment No. 229
submitted in conjunction with subje~lt reclassification was DENTED, thereby
prohibiting said reclassification ;nnd because a reclassification of subject
property from RS-A-43,000 to RM-12J0 or a less intense zone would be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: HOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC HURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ASSENT: NONE
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-169 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY
Variance No. 3772 on the basis that General Plan Amendment No. 229 and
Reclassification No. 87-88-43 submitted in conjunction with said variance were
DENIED, thereby prohibiting said variance.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote:
AYES: HOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BUANEY, MESSE
NOES: N027E
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.
nDDITIONAL DISCUSSION:
Chairman Messe thanked Mr. Hanna but stated the Commission did not think the
utilization proposed was viable for that area.
Mr. Hanna asked what the Commission would like to see developed on that
property, explaining the property would be owned by his company since he has
contracts to purchase it with no contingency, so it will be bought and he will
develop the property in some way. He stated he would like to get a reading
from the Commission as to their desire.
Commissioner McBurney stated he believed there is a great need for mobilehome
facilities; Commissioner Bouas stated she believed it was appropriate for mini
storage or a combination with motor homes; Commissioner McBurney stated there
are a good number of motor homes parked on the streets which they would like
to get off the streets.
06/20/88
vrurrrrc ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paoe 921
Mr. Hanna responded there is a possibility that they would come back with a
mobilehome park proposal and asked if Commission would consider that, without
covering the channel.
Chairman Messe and Commissioner Bouas indicated that is a possibility, but
they would have to look at the plans.
Mr. Hanna asked if they could come back under this same application, rather
than filing a brand new application.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated that would have to be advertised under a
Conditional Use Permit, which is a whole new application.
ptJHLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS
r'~'FM NO 18 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3008
(READVERTISED
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: Olympia Stations, 405 Park Avenue, New York, New
York; AGENT: Gary Engineering, 2207 Garnet Avenue, San Diego, CA 92109;
LOCATION: 100 North Beach Boulevard.
Request: Amendment to certain conditions of approval pertaining to fast food
sales is a convenience market with gasoline sales.
Hob Faudoa, 9410 Kamloop Avenue, San Diego, stated UNOCAL's original proposal
was for a snack shop and it was hard for his office to define the difference
betxeen a snack shop and fast food; and then the dealer stated he wanted to
pttt in a microwave oven which automatically changed it to fast food.
Chairman Messe inquired if they had added the additional 5 parking spaces to
accommodate the fast food requirement and if they were still not asking for
beer or wine.
Mr. Faudoa stated that was correct. He indicated he would like to make one
change and referred to Page 2, item No. 6, indicating he would like to stay
with the original proposal for a unisex restroom.
The Commissioners responded negatively. Commissioner Messe informed Mr.
Faudoa that Commission did not understand that request.
Mr. Faudoa stated the Orange County Health Codes are very restrictive and in
order to maximize the potential of that building, they would like to provide
only one restroom. He added the County is asking for a change room, a
dealer's office to be separato from the storage area, and it is pretty hard to
make all that work in the limited space they have. He stated they are
squeezing the sales area to nearly nothing because they wanted the storage
area to have 32 linear feet of shelving. He noted that is three tiers, 18
inches deep, 32 feet long, per health code to store anything, along with a
change room inside, and that is limiting the space for sales. He stated in
looking at the UBC Code, and they are only having one employee working, there
was no necessity for two restrooms.
06/20/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COhLMISSION Juae 20 1968 Paae 922
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he has become more concerned with service
stations providing clean restrooms that were open facilities-.. He stated he
has become more aware of it and it is really something he is a stickler on.
He stated he saw "out of order" signs an their restrooms, and he had asked an
individual from Shell Oil at a previous hearing when they said it was their
policy to provide both male and female restrooms in their service stations, to
check a particular facility. He stated he then went back to the facility to
check, and the "out of order" signs had been removed, but they had replaced
them with a sign that said "office", so they are not complying.
Mr. Faudoa said he understood that but in a convenience market it is really a
necessity to have a restroom for customers because it brings them in, which is
what you want to do. He noted customers remember that facility having an
operational restroom; and that it is UNOCAL's policy also to have a restroom
available to the public, just for that purpose.
Commissioner Boydstun replied that two are needed.
Mr. Faudoa stated with one employee and customers coming in gurchasinq gas, he
wanted to change the restroom so that it could be accessible from the inside,
and did not see why two restrooc.a are necessary.
Commissioner Herbst informed Mr. Faudoa that he was talking abcut a Heach
Boulevard facility, pointing out Beach Boulevard is a state highway with an
awful lot of traffic all the way to the beach, and that station is in an area
that is bound to get a certain amount of traveling public and it was
inconvenient for the customers to stand around waiting to use the same
facility.
Commissioner Feldhaus suggested that Mr. Faudoa go to the county and ask for
the waiver, rather than requesting it from the Anaheim Planning Commission.
Mr. Faudoa stated he was at the county today and they aro very strict with
their codes, and they are asking for a separate office area, a separate
storage area, and a change room for the employee, which shrunk the sales area
to nothing.
Commissioner Herbst indicated they could either have the store or the gas
station, but they would need two restrooms. He stated the way it sounded was
that either the store or the service station would need to be eliminated.
Mr. Faudoa asked if he could have the matter continued, because UNOCAL made it
clear to him that they would want to appeal that.
Chairman Messe stated if they would want to appeal it, perhaps the proper
thing to do is to vote on the issue now and then they can appeal it to City
Council.
Mr. Faudoa stated this convenience store would be the first on the west coast
for UNOCAL.
06/20/88
"- 'i-
~.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Pave 928
Chairman Messe said this would be the first with only one restroom. Mr.
Faudoa said they are following the lead of Texaco, Chevron, and Mobil who all
have Lhe unisex restrooms, because when they go to the Orange County Health
Department they found they have a problem.
Chairman Messe stated in this request, they are dealing with the space that is
required to run a convenience store with fast food, which he could understand;
and that maybe this property is too small for this use.
Commissioner McBurney stated by having only one employee, he believed the
applicant could talk to the County Health Department seriously out of
requiring the change room. He stated he believed that would sufficed for a
certain number of people on a shift for fast food and would not fall under the
same category as this project.
Mr. Faudoa asked what would happen if he came back in two weeks and Chairman
Messe stated the Commission would still require a men's and ladies restroom.
T N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Souas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 6, 1988, at t'"* request
of the applicant to allow time to mitigate the problem of the re•:•., _ed
separate men's and women's restrooms.
ITEM N0. 19 - REPORTS AND RE MMENDATIONS:
A. GENERAL PLAN REVIEW OF MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDF-~'TAL LAND USES AND
MULTIPLE-FAMILY HOIJ~iNG cTt y DRAFT WORK PLDN/S OPE nc WORR
Lucy Yeager, Senior Planner, explained this is a General Plan review
of Medium Density Residential Land Uses and Medium Density Housing
Study; that essentially, ~n May 10, 1988, the City Council conducted a
joint work session with the Planning Commission regarding
multiple-family residential development is Anaheim. She stated a
number of issues were discussed, including a study to address
medium-density land use inconsistencies and potential reduction in
residential land use densities, possible revision to the existing
condominium ordinance, reduction of the 150-foot setback requirement
for multi-story, multiple-family residential developments adjacent to
single-family land use zones, and landscaping requirements including
recreational leisure areas. She ezplaiaed also, elevator and handicap
access requirements, tandem and underground parking, mixed use
developments and affordable housing, and density bonus policies were
addressed.
Ms. Yeager ezplaiaed this report is to explain a four-phase work plan
which staff feels is a very realistic work plan; and the first phase
would be dealing with the stv9y of condominium vs. apartment
development and also review of specific apartment and condominium site
development standards; that Phase II would initiate a General Plan
Study to identify medium density land use inconsistencies and specific
areas for potential reduction is residential land use densities;
06/20/88
A A
ti ~'
I%,*IUTES ANAF~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Juae 20 1988 Paae 924
Phase III, if directed, would consist of an amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan that would be deemed necessary based on
the Phase II review; then Phase IV would consist of additional studies
including, but not limited to, mired use development, affordable
housing, and density bonus policies.
She stated it should be noted that Phase I studies have been
prioritized, first due to their immediate impact on developments
currently pending and proposed in the future and to complete these
actions prior to the more lengthy General Plan Study. She stated it
also should be noted that in the joint work session in May, there was
discussion regarding architectural standards; and staff feels the
current efforts by the Community Development Department undergoing a
Vision 2000 Strategy in the downtown area would suffice for initial
reporting efforts on this basic issue.
Ms. Yeager stated at the joint City Council/Planning Commission
Meeting oa May 10, a proposed study area was suggested which extended
from State College Boulevard on the east, to Euclid Avenue on the
west; and that staff is recommending that be revised to include the
area from State College Boulevard oa the east all the way to the
western City limits. She added staff also estimates that the scope of
the work for the first two phases will take a minimum eight months,
which would be three months for the first phase and five months for
the second; and that the staff can adequately carry out this work plan
by re-prioritizing current projects underway with the aid of possibly
a consultant participating in phase one with a market focus study.
Chairman Messe asked if any of that time frame could be done is
parallel, or if Phase I and Phase II could come one after the other.
Joel Fick, Flanniag Director, responded actually there vas no reason
why, other than staffing requirements, that the two phases could not
qo together; and explained the plan is literally to have an Associate
Planner work full time on the project and roally to do the two phases
concurrently.
Chairman Messe stated even if it xas not exactly concurrently, he
xould like to eliminate some time out of the eight months, so it would
not have to be five months for Phase II.
Mr. Fick stated staff xill be doing it as fast as they can; and that
the review of standards does require survey work, documentation and
things that procedurally would take some time, and then obviously to
present them to the Commission and Council will take a few weeks. Ae
stated there have been a lot of discussions at staff level to see how
they could compress the survey portion and when the survey area is
expanded, it is going to be the largest General Plan Study within the
urbanized area of Anaheim probably ever undertaken.
06/20/88
a
~.
i~ ~ .
.. .~+'
MIEN JTES 3~NAHEIM CITSC PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 1988 Paq~ 925
Chairman Meese inquired if the boundaries are along the arterials?
Mr: Fick replied primarily that is where the medium-density
designations occur. He stated staff would be looking on a quarter
section by quarter section basis at the City and cross-tabulating on a
parcel by parcel basis any medium-density residential General Plan
designation, any RM-1200 zoned parcel, and then any land use that is
an apartment use, and that is literally on a parcel by parcel basis.
Commissioner Feldhaus said he would like to get to the 150-foot
setback as a first item, because that is the one that causes a lot of
trouble. Chairman Meese agreed.
Mr. Fick responded staff is certainly open for any suggestions which
the Commission or Council might have, since they asked for input as
well. He stated staff is suggesting to go with the standard review as
the first phase of the project, because literally at every meeting the
Commi~~;ion is dealing with those type projects, and there is just a
pressing need, and he felt those questions need to be answered quickly.
Chairman Meese stated he would like to see is instances where the
ronort indicates reduction and down zo:.inq, that the words
"intensification" and "upzoning" be included.
Mr. Fick stated staff appreciates that comment and that is absolutely
their intention.
Lucy Yeager concluded that she would like to recommend that the
Commission ezpand the study area to include review of the
medium-density land use areas and RM-1200 properties from State
College Boulevard to the western city limits and, secondly, to
initiate in whole, or as altered, the attached work plan for phases
one and two for the medium-density General Plan Amendment Study for
said study area and other associated studies.
06/20/88
.. .....«~.c..:..c., -rsc+:nVamPfi.'x.%kin~R~SM~;:.~;...:~v..:'.~:~.v~-.w.'.awc~.....c:..-.niuv~:+rwhrrw-~nezariav ~~..:-...gyn.
„}
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN r~tiRdlSCrnN,, June 20, 1988 page 92
Commissioner Herbst stated the timing bothered him with regard to
looking at the whole city, because the Commission is getting these
requests at almost every meeting, and suggested the study be done in
segments so the Commission could get a better handle on it.
Mr. Fick stated that is a good point and suggested building into the
process some type of reporting or check point system whereby staff
would come back to the Commission with a progress report.
Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission may want to have a meeting
with the City Council concerning a =ertain segment of the City before
they have a chance to get the whole thing.
Mr. Fick stated he has no problem coming back in whatever incremental
segments makes sense, to give the Commission progress reports, and he
thought that was a good idea.
Commissioner Herbst stated wherever there are is-fill lots, there are
problems.
A I N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBuraey and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby direct staff to 1) expand the study area to include review
of mer?tum density land use areas/RM-1200 properties from State College
Boulevard to the xestern City limits, and 2) to initiate, in whole or as
altered, the attached work plan for Phases One and Two for the Medium
Density Residential General Plan Amendment Study for said study area and
other associated studies, and to segmentize the study according the
recommendations discussed.
B. RECLASSIFICATION NO 86-87 1T - Nunc pro tune to correct legal
description for property located at 2215 Loara Street.
TI Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-170 and moved
for its Iiassage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby GRANT a nunc pro tune resolution to correct the Legal
description in Resolution ao. PC86-280, granted on November 10, 1986, in
connection with Reclassification No. 86-87-17.
ADJOURNMENT•
There being no further business, Chairman Messe adjourned the meeting at
7:45 p.m.
Respec ful~mi~d, `
Prepared by Marvelyn Mc illan for
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
0:104m!Olllm
06/20/88