Minutes-PC 1978/03/13City Hall
Ansheim~ :~ltfornia
March 13, 1918
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N
REGULAR - The regular mee~ing of the Anaheim Clty Plenning Commiss(on was call~d to
MEETING order hy Cheirmsn Toler at 1:35 p.m.~ Merch 13. 197~~ in the Council
Chamb~sr~ a quorum betng ~resent.
PRESEHT - CIIAIR~IAN: Tolar
~l1MMISCIANFRS: DAVid, He~rbst~ King
Commissioner Ba rnas arrived at 1;40 p.m.
Commissioner Li~n arrtved at :1;00 p.m.
ABSEt~T - COMMISSlONERS: Johnson
ALSO PRESENT - Jack White
Jay Tttus
Jtm Kawamura
Annika 5sntalahti
J~y Tesli i ro
Edtth Narris
Deputy f, i ty AC [or r~ey
Office Engin~er
Traffic Enqincering Asslstant
Assistant Oirector for Zoning
Assistant Planner
Planniny Commtssion Secretary
PLEDGE OF • The Pledge nf Allegience to the Flag was led by Cc~mmissioner King.
ALl.EG1ANCE
APPROVAL OF - Conwnissioner David offered a motion~ seconded by Comnissloner King and
THE MINUTES MOTION CARkIEO (Conmissioners Barnes end ltnn being absent)~ that tha
mtnutes of the meetin~ of February 27~ 1978 be approved~ as submitted.
ITEM N0.
EIR NE~A~IVC DECLARATION CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. 4WNER5: ROBERT AND
ND 0 AL SE ERHIT N0. 177~ BERNiCE SUE GROSSE~ 2421 41est Cdinger~ Santa Ans~
N CA 92704. AGENT; F. EARL MELLOTT, 205~ East
~~~ Cerrritos, Anahetm~ CA 92806. Petittoner requeses
pcrmtssion to ESTABL.ISH A VETERINARY NOSPITAL WiTH
MtAIVER OF (A) MiNINUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND (B) MINIHUM LANDSCAPf.D SETBACK on
property descrlbed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land co~sisting of app roxlmately
2.7 ecres having approxlmete frontag~•s of x29 feet on the south side ofi Santa Ana Canyon
Road and 340 feet on the north side r,>f Rio Grande Drive~ t~eving a maximum depth of approxi-
m~tely 4~2 fee:. befng tocated approxirr~tely 300 feet west of the ~enterllne of Fairmont
Boulevard~ and further described as 6230 Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property presently c~assi-
fied CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL, LIMIT~O-SCE~lIC CORRIDOR OYERLAY) ZONE.
SubJect pnt(tion was continued from the meeting of February 13~ 1978. at the request of
the petitfoner.
Chalrman Tolar reported that the pet6tioner has requested thet this item be wlthdrawn.
ACTION: Coramissioner King offe~ed e motion, seco~ded by Commissioncr David and MOTION
~0 (Commissioners Barnes. Joh~son. and Ltnn beTng absent)~ that consideratlon of
Pe~xition for Condittonal Use P~rmit No. 177~ and waive~ of code rcqutrements be withdraMm ,
as req~ested by the petitioner.
78-147 3/13/78
MINUfES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING LOMMISSION~ MpPCN 13~ 1918 78-148
ITEM N0.
•, E DECLAItAT10N PU~LIC HEARING. ObNERSt ELMER C. AND ELiZABETH
, - 8-50 B. OREWS and CENTRAL BAPTIST LHURCH OF ORANGE
~ N~ 2 c~_ COUNTY~ 221 North Magnolla Avenue~ Anaheim, CA
92801, and ROLAND J. JENSEN, 1010 Eaat Chest~ut
Strcet~ Senta Ana~ GA 92701. AGENTs BORIS
ELIEFF~ 2006 North I3roadway~ Santa Ana~ CA 9270U. Property clescribed as ~ rectAngularly-
roxi ~
sh~ped parcel of land consisting of approxlmately 7.7 ecres having e frontage af app
rt~ataly 551 fECt on the west sidc ~f Magnolla Avcnu~~ haviny a max(mun depth of approximately
605 fnet, and being loceted approxtmstely 325 feet north of the centerllne of Lincoln
Avenuo. Property presently classified P,S-A•43~Q00 (aES10ENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: kMr-4u00 (RESiDCt~TIAI~ MULTIPIE-FAMt1Y) tONE.
REQUEST~D VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM BUILDIt~G SITE AKEA~ (B) MINIMUM REAR SETBACK,
(C) MINIMUH DISTl1NCE BETWEEN BUILQINGS~ (D) TYPE OF PARKING SPACES~
ANO (E) REQUIRED SCR~ENIi~G OF PARKING FACILITY~ TO CONSTRUCT A
146-UNIT~ RM-4000 CQNDOMINIUM C01~ LEX.
Chairman Tolar Indicated a request haJ been recGived from the petitioner that this item be
contlnucd in ardcr for ehe petitloner to delete waivers and submit revtsed plnns.
ACTION: Commissioner David offcred a mc~t(an~ seconded by Commisstoner King and NUiION
C R EU (Commiss~oners 8arnes~ Johnson~ and Linn beln9 absent)~ that consideratlon of
retula~nmeetingcofSthf~Planning~Commisslon ofdMarct~a27e N97II~9as requesteduby thethe
9
petitloner.
ITEM N0. 1
EIR~ NEGA'~IVE DECLARATIO~! READVER7ISED PUBLIC HEAP.ING. OWNERS: BERNARDO M.
~ p. 1803 AND MARGARET L. YORBA~ 2029 Century Park East. Sulte
wA VER 0 ODE E U R MEN 3y~. Los Ang~~les. ea 90067. ACENT: CHEVRaN USA~
1201 South Beach Boulevard~ La Hab~a, CA 9Q631.
Petitioncr requests permission to ESTABIISH AN
AUT0010BILE SERVICE STATION wITH WAIVER OF PERMITTED SIGN on property described as an
l~regularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of approximately ~.8 acre located at the
northwest corner of Avenida Bernardo iJorth and Impe~ial Nighway. havtng approximate front~
ages of 186 feet on Lhe north side of Avenida 9ernardo North and 25~ feet on the west side
of Imperiat Highway. Property presently classlfiad CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMlT~O-SCENIC
CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE.
SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of February 21. 197a~ ln order for staff
to advertise a negativc declaration.
There were 17 perso~s indleating their pre~ence in opposition to subJPCt request, and
slthough the staff repo~~ to the Planning Commtssion dated March 13~ 1978 was not read at
the publlc hearing~ it is refer~ed to and mt+de a part ~f the minutes.
It was noted the Hiil and Canyon Municipal Advlsory Committ~e (HACMAC) reviewed subJect
project at thetr meetiRg on Februbry 14~ 1978. On roll call~ with nine members present,
etght membe~s opposed the project due to treffic p~oblems with ingress and egress
(cengestion resulting from the school~ ~hopping cente~ and residEnttal traffic). feeling
that a serviGe ststion should ~ot be located in a"~eighborhood center," and feeling that
the proposed se rvice station is situated in an unacteptable location due to th~ proxlmity
of nea~by view resida~ces and a school. On~ member vated in fa~or of the ~a4~a3~13/1g
~
..
.
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CI1~Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ W1RCN 13~ 1978 78-149
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION__AND CONDiTIONAI USE PERMIT NQ._ 180~ (contlnued)
Jay Tashiro~ Assi3Lant Planner~ indicated thet a pet(tion had been sulxnltced c~nteining
approximately 14~ slynatures In opp~~sttion and twc~ letters in oppostti~n and one letter•
endorsing subJect proposet have been rec~~ived. He indtcated there is a correctfon to the
staft report in porac~raph (6) which shoul~i rGad~ "Surrounding land uses i~clude shopping
centesr (CL(SC)) to the north and west, vac+~nt property end Cnnyon Iligh School to che east
across Imperial Nlgliway. and a condaminiuM ~.omplex to the south ecross Avenida Bernardo
North."
COMMISSIONER BARPIES ARRIVCD A7 1;4~ P.M,
Tom E~aumgardner. re~resentlnq Standarci O11 Cornpany~ the petitioner~ stated that in 1371~
when Anahe(m f~ill; became a reallty~ they were approeci~ed t~ see if ttiey h~d sny Jaslre Co
become a part r,f this cortxreuni[y shat~ping center and [h~c they had expresscd an interest;
that a cond(tional usc permit was approved in 1971~ includtng the servlce station as a
,~art ~f the centcr; that thc center was compler.ed in 1y7~~ a~d is a very aclra;.tive center;
thet the:y we~e unable to project themselves into this plan becausc af the unce~ta(nties of
the oil embaryo, but as thc; supply of yasollne has halanced out, they are now ~•eady to
move ~head with their pro,~ect; that in thc fall of 1976~ they ~yent to the FecJer~l Energy
Admin(stratlon anJ submitlecf ~ petitlon to supply tf~is are~ and ep~roval was granted based
on revicw of thc yrowth and numbcr of uutlets to service th~ connunity. Ne referred to
the renderiny and plot plAn an~ ~~o(ntad out they are providiny a full tile roof because of
thetr concerns with the site frorn the I~illsl~e looking down, He pointed out both
driveways are in existence and tf~at Mr, Singer d(d have some concern about traffic
circulatlon on-sitc~ but they had me[ and it was determined thpt this service station Nil)
not yenerate enough traf`ic into the A~aheim Nills aree to ~e a can~ern. Ne (ndicated the
statiun (s off Santa Ana Canyon Road or, Imperial Hi~~hway and is designed to take car'e of
the needs of the community itself. He indicateu Mr. Singer's cencern Nas that cars will
be cominy out the driveway and rnal~.iny an iltegal U-turn going nor•th on Imperial and that
mitiyatiny meosures had been diacussea~ such as on-si~e sign(ng and arrows on the
pavement~ etc. He in~ficated there were concerns regarding [he fiour•s of operatlon and
notse and that it was their fceling th(s woulc! noc be a problcm witF~ this fRCflity wtth
the service bays des~gned for light mr.chanical services~ such as tunr-up~ brake wo~k, air-
conditioning repafr~ e~enerators~ ecc., which would be done in e matiter of cwo or three
hours; that tt~ere would be nc~ t~eavy rriechanical work~ such as hndy and fende~ work or mater
overhauling. He stated tlicy would be agree~ble to stipulatEng that the bays will be used
for light mechanical work oniy. Concerning tl~e hours of operation~ he irdicated they felt
the hours should be to service the community. but would not be open 2~+ hours a day. He
indlcated another concern was the liyhting on the slte and that the perlmeter lighting is
atr~~ady a part af ehe shopping center and are high stand~rds which are taste~fully
dc;corated; that they would make no change and the c~nly lights wauld be to th~ bufldtng and
pump blocks which are unde~ the canopy and these would be diffused lighting; and that they
would n~ake every effort to place tl~e lightirg so that it would not be abusive to the
neighbors.
Concerning the watver of signing, he inJicated they show d 25-foot~ monument sign and he
is aware there are no free-standing signs on thi~ center~ but feit t~is use is unique in
that state anJ Iccal o~dinances require gasoline p~ice signs be displayed. He Indicated
he personally did not like to go into a station wlthout signing and find the price was
something more than he was williny to pay. Ilt stated Lhey felt prtce signing is impc~rtant
and would like to tie thac into the logo~ but that they are flexible ag to the design and
location. Ne indtcated that Standard Oil has made a long°tern dectsinn to service the
Anaheim Hills community and have attempted to r~deh the H111 and Canyon Municipal Advisa ry
Committec (HACMAC), but through a misunderstanding had missed the meetings.
3/13/78
Mit~UTCS~ ~NAIiE1M CITY PIANNING COMN;SSION~ MARCH 13~ ~978 7a'~5~
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PEf~MM1~T N0~ 18,03 (coniinuad)
Ne{1 Foss~ight~ 247 Vista del Muntc~ Rencho Yorbe, rcpresenting the Rancho Yorba
Haneowners Associetion f3oar•d of D(rectors~ stated these b~ard members erP elected to
represent the 12S townhome owners in Rancho Yorbe tn ~tters concernin~ their well-bolnv.
tle indlcated thot many of th~ tiomes arc dlrectly ac~oss the strect or wttt~tn vlew ~f ~he
prcposeJ servi~e statlon and ttiey w-~u1J be severely lmpacted by thls proJect. Fle
indlcated they were opposed to che EIR negative declaration, the conditional uss perm~that
and the waiver of ~ermitted styniny for a 2~-foot, monumcnt slgn on Imperiat Nighway;
they belleve such a facllity has no plece in the S~enic Co~ridor in close prox(mity to
residentlel development; and that tlie problemg of briyht ligt~ts~ fwncs~ nolse and general
unslyhtliness that go with service stations arc well known; c.hat trafflc c~nyestton olong
Imperial snJ accompanying sal`ety problems createJ by nearby schc~ols ere already serious
ond that th~,y belteve the statlon w(11 yenerate rn~re traffic th~in a vacan[ lot; and that
they are worricd obout pote~~tial satety problems ll~at morc congcstl~n wlll crf:ate. Hc
stated it was thc obllyation of the petittoncr to prove thet ~~ service station ls the
proper use for tl~is lanJ and :hat it would not adversaly affec:t the surround{ng community.
a~d they did not believe he couid prove tl~is and requcstecl derial of all three requests.
Larry Naske, 20~ Camino de Cresca~ {ndicatc:d his residenr.e ls dlr~ctly adJacent In the
Rancho Yarba compiex. Ne presented pet.itlons with namf:s of th~~se perSOns in apposition
and indicated he was present to speaE: in oppusltion for those rrho signed the petitlon and
those who could not be present; that Rancho Yorba is a trn+nhouse ccxr,munity lpcat~d along
Avenida Bernardo North and Imperial Highway and pointed aut the lacation on the slldes he
had to p~esent. Ne indicate~l tt~ey were opposed to a service st~~tfon for a number of
~easons, most of which will become evident if they are successful in defeating a negatlve
decla~atlon for an environmental im~act report. He stated t.hey consider bright Ilghts,
noise, and an increase in traffic as part of their environmcnt and they wtshed to protect
the c~uality of thelr envlronment. ~~e stated thac rioise was the roaJor concern of anyone
wt~o Is wtthin earshot of thc station; that therc is a contlnu~l c•.langing of bells when
sonwone pulls up to the pumps or E~esses the pumps; t~iere is the air cr~npressor that
automatlcally turns off ~nd on tl~roughout the day. providing alr ~~ritt~ a machine gun sound
for the air tools~ hissiny car hoists. and press~~rized tire chanying; that there is
continual startiny and revving of enyines being repaired~ and he f'elt this was an
infringement on the rights of the people living there; that th~ rents are higher In the
canyon area and they felt it was safe to assurne the rent on any commercars andplony ours
be considerably higher, which w~uld mean long hours of servtcing mt~ny 9
of burninn bright 1lyhts, and tt~ey feit the lighting arould be an intrusion on their right
to vlew the Scenic Corrldor. He s[ated they would oppose the rnonurt-e~t sign for the same
reason, an int~usion of their view ef the Scen(c Gorridor.
He stated they were also concerned with the negative effect on s~afety with the Increase of
trafflc in this area. tie presented slides illustrating existing problems and how they
would be compoundecl. He Pointed out a p~oblen at 7:3Q a.m. when cars line up at Ganyon
High School dtrectiy opposite Avenida Oernardu; that they are makinc~ a left turn into tlie
parking lot. He pointed out thcy have a rather unique situatian on Imperi~al Highway south
of Santa A~a Canyon Road ancS north of Nahl Ranch Road in that there are three schools
locateu ~djacent to each other~ with a totml of 2~367 students, of which 771 aie bussed~
which mea~s that 1~596 students wi11 travel to the school by public bus, be driven by
thetr parents or drive themselves, or walk, and that this indicates there is aiready heavy
vehicular and pedestrian use when these schools are in oper~tion. He indlcated the
driveway to be used by the service station is di~ectly acr~ss from the median break.
Several slides were shown illust~ating the traffic conditions.
He indicated they felt the biggest saPety hazard w~as the studer.ts walking to and from
school; tha: many stud~ents walking from home or public bus stops must cross Imperiat
Hi9hv+aY to get to the campus. He presented slides illustrating t.his situation. He stated
3/13/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 13~ 1978 78-151
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION_AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. IA03 (co~tinuad)
thcra is constent actlvity at the high schaol parktnq lot frum 7:00 e.m. until 11:00 p.m.~
at wh(ch ttme night classes cease at the hiyh schoo~; tha: there are students from three
~chools welking and crosslnq Imperial Htghway; thnt some are driven or drive ~long
Impertal Hiyhw~•i; that there are rezidents w1~o drivr or welk alon, (mp~:rial Nighway and
the trafflc will (ncrease In the area. He f'elt this station would attract an increase in
an already danyerous situattun; an~i that tne students are flndSng it easy to cross betwecn
cars~ but with more traffic wlll Lhey continue to be ~s lucky.
Ne referred to two propos~d professional buildings at Avenida Hernard~ and Imperlal
Highway and thG origin~l plan to put a med(an break approximately 300 feet from the
tntersection of Santa Ana Ca-iyon Road which~ rras deniPCf by the TrafflG Enytneer, which
m~ans they rnu~ t use ttie row-Px 15 t. i n<~ rr~d i ar. b reak wh i ch 1 s the same access fhe shopp 1 ng
center and service statlan would use and felt that access to thelr prope~ty frum tha
sauthbound traffic would be via an illegAl U-turn,
H~ state~~~ in conclusion~ he would like to ask the Plannfng Commisslon to deny the request
for negative d~:laratlon for an EIR and dcnlal of waiver of Code rcquirement ta permtt a
25-foot sign,an~1 denial of the issuence of thc condltionel usc permic because they feiC a
servtce statlon w~uld havc a definite d~trimental effect on the healtt-~ peace~ safety and
general welfare of thc citizens of Analieim.
Mr. Baumgardner referred to thc concern reyardin~ brigl~t lights ~n~ lndicdled the proposed
lights would be reflective lights rigtit to [he canopy. Cancerning the fumes~ he indicated
thls station would h~vc: a primary vapar recovcry system to take fumes from the ges tank
truck and put them back tnto the syscem and also a secondary system ta recover tl~e vapors
into tl~e vehicle; that these two sysCems are certified and he was sure the st~tion would
meet the standards af tt~e California Air Reaources Board. !ie ind(cated the op~osition had
made a val(d poln[ concerning lhe noise but felt the configuration of th~ 1•~be bay
buildir~g would all~eviate most of the n~ise prcblei~ and that the cloors open out to face the
parking lot and a 10~-foot right-af-way and tl~ere is notf~ing 2o cause reverberatio~. He
stated the alr compressor is in a separA:e room behind another wail and that the noise
from thc air compressor ts not objectionable. He felt they could meet. at the property
itnes~ any standar~.s of noise levels that have beei- adopted. C~ncerning the clanging of
bells~ he indicated they do not have rubber hoses and thn! these sounds can be muted
solely to attract the attention of the person in the buildin;. He stated the purpose of
this operatlon Is zo service the community and ~ill not ue bringing business from outs(de
the community a~d tl~at the hours of operatior will be what thE community demands, and he
would envision somethiny certainly less tf~=+~~ 24 hours. He indi~ated he fel[ the sltde
presentation showe~ the main concern was students Jayti•~alking across Imperial Highway and
dtd not feei that was 3 m~tter a service station should address itself to. Regardtng
conyestion~ he felt when the professional buildings are built~ congestlon will be
alleviated; that the station has shared in the original cost of lighting on Imperial
Highway which will alleviate some of the traffic conditions. He indlcated he could see
the Traffic Engineer's concern wlth access at the intersectfo~; that he felt a customer of
the servite station will be a northbound pa~ty wfio would come back to the station. Ne
stated hc was glad to see the traffic congestion at those hours; that i;e had been te the
site at different hou~s o` the day and did not feel there would be a prob?em w(th
congestion. Ne stated~ again~ h~ felt the main concerr. !~ that with the child~en and did
not feel he could address that problem.
Tt1E PUBLIC HEARIhG WAS CLOSED.
Chairman To18r stated he felt the opposition to the fumes was not the fumes from the gas
tank trucks but from the added traffic into the arGa. He stated it was hard to look back
six or seven y~ars and see what has happened to that center and that he recognized a
3/13/78
MINUTES~ ANAIiEIM CI'iY PI.ANNING GOMMISSION~ MARCN 13~ 1978 78•~52
C I a NEGAT I V~ DEG~AltAT I ON ANO GONG I 1' I ONAL USE PEIW 1 T N0. 1803 (con t i nued)
service etation is irnpUrtent i~ the cenyon area; tl~et In yesrs gone by In other perts af
the City tharo haa besen e servicc~ statton on every corner, but it was ov~srdo~e in the
canyon area in thet there are nono aut there. Ho indlcat~J he f~lt this Is a bed plsce
for a servica station and felt the congastion is ebout as muct- es con be handled wlth the
schools end circulatlon pattern tha~ exist~ an~ naw wlth the new commarcial office spsce
across thG street~ would be ~ven worse. Ile Incliceted he hAd not hcard t~nythlny t~
convince h(~n that this is a yoc~d Ic~cAtion for a servlce statlon; that one or two Are
needed tn the cenyon area~ but he felt this one would hsve an adve ~se Impact and he felt
an environmentel lmpact report concerning the circulation and erafflc wes necesssry.
Con~nisstoner Kiny indlcatea it was hts ,juJyment that tl~e cvmnu~ity does not ~ent the
st~rvlce offcrcd~ othcrwisc tl~ose in fnvor would be present or would have signed a petltlon
indicating they were favorabis~ and th~t he was placiny hls jud~me nt on that,
Cc~mmissioner Herbst pai~ited out thot one lettcr had been recelvcd In favor of the project.
and Jey Tashiro, Assistant Planner~ indicated that letter was written by Don Bates.
Comnissfoncr Narbst Indicated f~e wuuld have to disac~ree becausr he w~s involved wikh the
origtna) condltional use permft ~~n this proJect and thou~ht this shopping center want 1~
about ttie same time tt~e condominiums were bein~~ built~ anJ ttiat wa~ abuut titic same time
the servicc sta~lon was approvcd to service thts corRnunity~ and at this patnt in tlme he
felt it wa~ the only property left where a service station coulci be developed. He stated
the pro)ect was approved in 1`1/1 with alnrost th~: exact configuration as it is today~ bu,
he felt the improvemencs made on the building site with the architeclure to protect the
visibflity of tt~a properties above are ~~ood. Ne statFd the Planning Cummtsslon has to
luok at lard use here and tha[ the shopping cent~r is to service the cortnunity, and he
felt a scrvice stattor~ must be a p++rt oF tt~at. Ile indicated the praJect was taker~ off tha
calenda~ previously because it was in the Scer,ic Corridor Overlay Zone a~d they wanted to
be sure the station would conforrn with ti~ose zoning ordlnances. He stated he reco~nized
this Is ~ larye parcel of property which can be utflix<~1 for somc: other commerc(al site
which would increase trafflc considerably and he was loo'~(ny at the aver•all picture. He
indlcet~d he felt the conse~sus of opinion of th~ overall canyon would be the bulk of the
peuple would want a ser~ice statiu~ up ther~; Lhat lie has had pho~e calls from quite a few
people who would Iike to see a service stati~~n in the canyon area. He indicated th~re was
another service stat(on appraved at the Alpha 8ata Market complex on Anr~heim Hills Ro~d,
and that is all. He indicated a sc:rvice statlan on the Rtnker cenCer was approved but a
bank was developed in its place. He felt if this s~rvice station wes not developed,
anothe~ commerctal devPlopment wou1J be placed there.
Chalrman Tolar pointed out there are two servicc statlons within one and one-half miles~
at La Pa1ma and Imperial~ and it would appear that if the people Tn the area want e
service station they would not be oppost~g it. it is one of those things everybody wants
but they do not want it ciose t~ them~ and that che other people in the canyon want a
service station as 'ong as it is at this lotat6nn and no• :iose to them. He indicaied he
did not think a~er~ice station is what is needed to cort~,~ete this center.
Commissioner Herbst i~Jicated this project was approved before the development happened
and that the property owners have had thls property for a long time, and the reason it was
disapproved was to be sure the service statinn conformed with the overlay zone; that he
did not thinl: it was fair to the developer or the other property owner who has had this
approved.
Chairman Tolar indfcated ~~e appreciated the position the oil company and the c~mer of the
center (s In, and recognized la~~d planning uses change a~d needy change, but he did not
think this was the best use of t~~e land.
3/13/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY pLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCM 13~ 1978 78-~y;
EIR NEGATIVE D~CLAfWTION ANO CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0~ 1803_ (tontinued)
Gommissionnr Bar~es ~sked whst types oP things could go on the stte~ e~rd Jey Tashir~
potnted out those would include most types of reteil aperatlons or offtce uses.
Lommissioner King asked Chrlrm~n Tolar to ascertatn if there was ony~nP in the eudle~ce
desiring to speak (n favor of the pr4Jcct.
Mr. ~aumgardner stated regerding the traffic flow that this stfltion wauld not be brinc~tng
traft(c into the arefl buc would be servictng traffic thet exists end that It is e statlo~
thet will take care of the cortxnunity. He Indlcated p~eople have spoken with htm regarding
their desire to see a station in the cany~n area~ onJ he falc that hc could provlde
pet(tlons to support thc proJPC~. Ile felt it was up to the Planninc~ Conmission to declde
whett~er or not this statton wos in conformance wtth tho Ceneral Plan end the Scrnic
Corridar anJ if It fulf(lls GhQ needs of thc community.
8111 Barry~ S;~iO East V(sca del Este~ Rench~ Yorba~ indlcAted he was a visitor at the
meeting today and that I~e has heard a l~t of people say(ny e servlce station (s not
needed; that he can lcwk out h(s back door and see where the service stetton Is gotnc~ to
be and hc felt tc ~.vould bc an asset to the cUnmuntcy; th,~r he dld not feel nolse wvuld be
e pr~blem since there Is a noise barrisr there and fie felt the trrfflc would stay the
same. -le felt the people who buy grocerles woulcl also need to buy gas; that one of the
problems ln tlie area is yettlny down tA a s~rvice station In the locatlo~s menttoned and
that i[ is m trafftc hazard~ and he woul~i li;ce to see mor~ people involved tn a"yes" vote
for a scrvice stetlon In that area.
Gommisslaner flerbst pointed out to Mr. Baumgardner that I~e dtd not think the proposed
signtng should be allaved in the Scenic Corridor; that he was in favo~ of the service
statfon but not the •7tyning proposed and ask~d if that could be deleted~ and Mr.
Baumgardne~ replled that he would be willing to wnrk with staff to utilize the roof
struclure of the canopy with a low-profile type sign simtlar to those depicted on Vons~
etc., and indiceted he felt they could take care of the gasoline price sign an-site~
realizing the concerns of the Scenic Corridor.
Commisstoner 8arnes indicated stie had asked the question regarding what cauld go Into the
center and pointed ~~ut there would be a lot of tr~ffic generated by an esiebl(shment such
a Thrifty Drug store. She pointed out that the traffic generated by such an estabilshment
wouid be as much or more than a serviGe station on that site and that people would not bc
coming from miles around to utilize a service stati~n~ wfiereas they would Thrifty Orugs~
and askcd thosc prese~t in :,ppositlon if they had g(ven any t~~ought Lo an establ(shment
such as a Big 5 Sparttny Goods store or some other types of things that could go in~ with
traffic. teenagers and other problems~ without a varianta or wlthout coming befure the
Planning Commissio~n; that there are uses allowed which could be developed which could be
worse than a servicr. station.
Opposition from the auJience indicated they would voice their opposit(on wfi~n that time
canes~ and Commissioner Ba~nes indicated there is a proposal today for a service stetion
and a month from naw there cnuld be another proposal, and that :he Planning Commission
could not keep turning down ~equests forever; that pepple have the right to develop their
prnperty~ ard It could be worse.
Comnissioner Herbst indicated he felt the service station slte does co~form to the Scenic
CorriJor qrdinances and does cenform to the General Plan and se~vice station standards
which have been demsnded of developers in the Scenic Corridor in that ~t is integrated
with e shqpping center. He felt they have don~ everything rcquested; that they had the
3/13/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNtNG CQMMISSION~ MARCN 13~ ~97A 78-1y4
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COND_i_TIONAI__USE PERMIT N0. 1803 (co~tinued)
sito •pproved since 19J1~ end he felt the people tn opposltlon h av~ rtwved the~ e slnce that
tlma and s hould heve been eware ~f what w~s proposed far thdt site.
Commtssione~ 1ltrbst offered a motio~, seconded by Commisstoner David ancf MOTION FAII.EU TO
CARRY (Conxnisslonars Barnas~ Tolar and Kiny vottng na)~ th~t th c Anahefm Clty Pl~nning
Commisslon has considered the proposel tQ p~rmit sn automobile t ervice statlon w~th watvor
of pe~mitted signin,y on an irreyulerly-sl~aped parccl of land co~slsttng of eppraxlmately
0.8 acre locatod at the northwest co~ner of Aventda Eiernardo Narth and (mparial Hiqhway~
having ap p roximatc frontages of 186 feet ~n the north side of A venida Bernarda North and
250 feet on thc west side of Imperlal Hlyhwey; a~d daes hereby approve the ne gatlve
declaratlon from the requlremen~. to prepere an env(ronmental impect report on the basis
that there would bc no significant tnd(vidual or c~imulotive adv~rse e:nvlronmental impACt
due to the approval of th(s neU~tive declaratlon since thc Anah~im G~neral Plan destgnetes
the subJeet property for Ilmit~ comn~ercial land uses commensurate with thc praposai; that
no scnsitivic e~nvlr~nn~ental (mpacts p~e i~~vulved in tlie prapflsal ; that the Inittel Stud~~
submttted by the petltioner Ind~ca~.es no slgniftcent indlvidual or cumulative adverse
env(rqnmenta) impacts; and that the negative declarattan substa~tiating the foregoing
ftndtngs is on ftle In tha Clty of Anaheim Planning Oepartment.
Prlor to voting on tlie negative declaratlon~ Ccx+~missioner Barnes i~dicated she was not
sure she ~ras oFposed to a scrvicc station but felt the Pla~ning Commisslon did not havc
s~fficlen t informakion concerning the c~aff(c at this time~ and asked if there were any
studles which would Indicate th~ klnds of problems that would b e created for the schools
in Che area, She indicated she had a tendency to beltevp the station would not brtnq
addittonal traffic in the erea, but she felt the Planning Commi sslan shuuld eansld~
whesther o r not an envfronmental impact report is necessary.
Chal rman Taler indicated he hes doubts ebout tt~e e~vi ronmental impact report a~d
definitely felt the pro,ject would briny a loc more t~affic inta the area.
Commissioner K(ng indicated he could not support the negatfve decl~ration because he felt
the~e would be an adve~se impact on the area.
Lommissioner David indicated he did not fe~l the Planning Comoi ssion was being consistent;
that they have approved other r~egative deciarations with more irnpact than this one; that
s taf f has madr a recommendat i on and has a rev i eva body co look a t these proJee ts and ~ i n
essenct~ the Plan~ing Commis~ion is saying the review body is in error.
Jack Whit e~ Deputy City Attorncy~ pointed out tha[ it is true s taff does have a revlew
body~ hart ver~ the Plan~ing Comm(ssion is the ultimate finder o f facts as to wfiether or
not they feel there are suff(ciene adverse impacts to warrant the requirement of a full
envi~onrnental lmpact report~ and if the ~lanning Commission do~s find there is an ~dverse
impact~ It is up to them to decide whether or not they can acce pt the staff's
recommen datlon regarding a nega*ive declaration.
Commissloner Herbst Rointed out that the Plannin4 Commission has htstorically planned
development eround a shopping cent:~r tu creatP a higher impact of 1 iying quarters~ such as
epartrr~nts and condornin6ums, to help suppo~t the shoppiny center, an~ from there phase off
to single-famtly residential. He felt thr. traffic impact is ai ~eady tl~ere a~d Is not
going to chonge and that you could put in additional comm~rcia 1 activities, s uch as a post
office~ w hich would impact the traffic greatly.
3/13/7a
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH lj~ 1918 76-~55
~I~ NEGATIYE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ~ 180~ (concinued)
Mr. Whlte potnted out that the motio~ fafled with a three to two vote~ howcvnr~ a vote Is
stl~l needed on the negative declarattan and assumed thst onu ut the members voting in
oppositton would movo that the negative declaratio~ be cle~led on the conditto~ that thera
arn substantia) adverse impacts requ(riny a full environment~t impact report.
Commissioner B~rnes (ndicated In the post ti~e Planning Comnission hr~ augqested thdt
perhaps they do noC need a full enviranmental tmpect repo rt~ thet trafflc studies could be
done In particulsr caxes; that she dtd not ca~c In thls case about the flora or faune.
atc. ~ but would 1 tke to knaw rrpre about the traffic gonerated end the impact It wauld heve
on the community.
Mr. White asked if more infor~,~ation were made availnblc. was she tn~~icating that she would
be In a positlon to approve a negative declerati~n; tliet lf tl~e nec ;Ive declerotian Is
not approvad, tlien e fui l dilVlfUtl~ilf:Rt~~ impaci rcport wt 11 bc requ. d,
Commissio~er [iarnes indicatcd she felt the only pertlnen t information needed is the eiFect
the traffic patterns wtll have an the ar~a.
Commissloner Harbst pointed out that the questions of naise, trofffc~ air pollution~ etc.,
are all tied together and that ~ne was not any more impo ~tant than the othar. He felt
that information had been cc~vered in the environmental Tmpact report su:~~~~tted to support
the shopping centar.
Chefrman Tolar indicated he did not wa~t the applicant to believe that his vote f or an
envfronmental impact report wlll nx an his support of a s ervtce statlo~. He felt there are
measuring sticks in relatlonship to nolse and trafflc th at are answered tn an
envlronmental impact report; that he was npt interested in an expenslve docume~nt but one
that is goiny to ~how the trafflc count~ noise, etc., and did not feel ~en envlronmental
impact report wes going to have any effect on his vote o~e wey ~~ th~ other. He t~dicated
his oppositlon was that he felt the proJect would brinq in more Lrafftc; that those F*ople
who aro in favor of the service station live in other parts ~f the canyen and would be
coming Into the area~ and he felt whether or nnt full envtronmental i~~npact report is
submitted~ he would not support a service statton ~~t this site~ ~ecogr;izing that there may
be other things that will inc~ease the traffic.
Commissloner Barnes indicated slie did ~~ot feel that wa~~; th:.t she has an open mi~d and
would like to see the problems that ~^Ight result from the servlc~+ station conterning
trafl`ic.
ACTION: Cornmissloner Barnes offered a motion~ seconded by Cornnissioner King and MOTION
~U (Commissioners David and Herbst votinq no~ and Go~ntss(oner Johnson being absent)~
that tt~e P 1 ann in g Commi ss i on has co~s 1 de red the proJecx to permt t an autort,ob t 1~ serv 1 ce
station with waiver of permitted sign on an Irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng
of approximately 0.8 acre located at the northw~st corn er of Ave~ida Bernardo No ~th and
Imperlal Highway~ having approxlmate frontages of 186 feet on thE ~orth stde of Aventda
Bernardo North and 250 feet un the west side of Imperial Highway and doas, therefore~
disapprovo the negative declaration from the requfremen t to prepare an environmental
impact report on the basis that there would be signtficant indivtdual or cumula tive
adverse enviror~mental Impacts due to the approval of this negative d.sclaration slnce thsre
are sensitive environmental impacts involved in the proJett~ and t!iat the In(tial Study
submitted by the petitioner indlcates significent individual or cu~~ulative adverse
envi ~onn~ntal impacts.
3i13/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ MARCH 13~ 1978 78-1y6
EIR NE6ATiVE DECLARATIdN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1803 (conti~ued)
Mr. Wt~(te potnted ouc thst the motlan car~itid on a three to two vote ~nd at thls point the
Commlaalon is precluJed from approving the conJttlonnl use parmit; that they could eithe~
disepprove the condltlona) use permit~ requlring e new appltcatlon to be filed st the time
the environmentel impact rAport Is filed~ or they could cont(nue thts item unttl such time
as an envlranmantel Impact report Is completed end properly ~~ticed; that tt takes a
mintmum of 30 days to file the legal publication after an enviranme~tA1 impact report is
completed, so thet length of t(ma betng disc•ussed Is approxfmately two months before th(s
could be braught before the Planning Commission Ac~aln.
Cumm~ssioner Herbst asked lf the Planniny Commission disapproves the project~ would Il go
befo~e the City Council~ and Mr. White replted ihat it could be app~aled to the Clty
Coune 1 1~ othr. -w ( se ~ noth i nc~ wnu 1 d he done .
Mr. Baumgardner stated he felt the Gity Counc(1 would have the sarr~ questlons regarding
noise~ traffic, safety and air p~lluttun and esked tt~e Planniny Commission to contlnue the
matt~-r in order that an environmentel Impact report cen be delivered~ end he felt it would
be July before thls metter ls before the Commisslon egaln.
Chalrman Tolar asked Mr. White if there was any way the enviro~mental impact re~ort could
be raduced to covar th~se questlons which need to be resolved, end Mr. White ~~plied that
the Californla Air Quality Act addresses icself to e(ther a negative declara~tton or e
compl~~te environmental impact report and that if the Planning Commiss(on does not accr.pt
the neyattve declaration~ then the full information must be s~~pplled; tfiat the extent af
thG informAtion requirad ~aries, but that the items ere specific an~d have to be covered;
that the acnou~t c~f information may va ry~onsiderably, depending upon the type of problems
ca~••~ ' by ~ -oject; and that each item must be addressed but very little work may need
to be d. xnc of the po i n ts .
~~+irman T~,1.. ~...~~~ted out thac th~ petitloner has hcard enough testtma~y of what the
~%lenning Gommission is lookiny for in rr.lationship to those spar,ific Items~ and Mr.
Baumyerdner indicated he would need two to tl~ree months to prepa~e the proper document and
asked the Planning Commisslon for a continuance slnce the item must be readverttsed.
It wss also discussed whether or not those persons within 30~ feec would be re-notlfled~
and It was determineJ that they would not be re-nofified.
~~CTION: Commissloner Bernes offerad a motion tha[ consideratEon of Conditional Use Permtt
No~03 and walver of Gode requtre.,~cnt be co~tinued to the regular meeting of she A~aheim
City Planning Commission of July 3~ 197b. in order that an envlronmental impact report may
be sub~!i tted.
Chalrman "olar emphasized that he did not want the opposition to br. inconvenienced and for
these people to cur.~e down again and have the matter continued again, and he wanted to be
su~e the petitiu r t~as sufficient time to prepare the report.
Mr. Baumgardner tndicated that any request for continuances would not be done to hide the
actions from che community; that they wished to have a good relationship wlth the
neighbors and the only reasan he would ask for a continuance would be if they had trouble
securing the t~formatian requestad.
Cortmissioner Barnes suggested those persc ~~resent in oppostt0on should cAll the Pianning
Department p~tor to coming to the n~etln,q Lo make sure that item fiad not been taken off
the agenda.
3/13/7g
!
MINUTES, ANAHElM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAitCN 13~ 191a 78•157
ITEM N0. 2
NEGA IVE OECLARATION PUBLIC HEARING. OWNCRSs CARI L. ANb MILDRED E.
N ~ • p•4~ RAU. DOfIIS GIBSON~ AND CLASSIC OEVELOPMENT CORP.,
~ ~ 12700 Knott Street~ 5utte B~ Gsrden Grove~ CA 92G41.
~'~N~ P F TRACT N0. 102~4 AGENT: SHALLER S IOHR~ INC.~ 36(, San Miguel Orive~
p Suite 311~ Newport Beach~ CA 92660. Property
REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES describad as an irregularly•shaped parcel of lend
consisting of approxtmately 7.7 acres having a
f~onteye o~ appi~ximl+tely 1490 feet on the north-
west slde of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ havinc~ a nw ximum depth of approxtmately 440 feet, +~nd
beln9 located appraximately 1800 feet northeast of the centerllne of Mohler Drtve.
Praperty presently classifted RS~A-43~000(SC) (RESlDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENIC CORRIDQR
OVERLAY) ZONE and COUNTY A1 (GENE ML AGRICIILTURAL) OISTRICT.
REQUESTCD CL~JJlFlCl1T10!I: PS-72Qn(CC'1 (RfSIQE1JTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY-SCCNIC CORRIDOR
OVE RLAY) ZON~.
VARIANCE REQUE~~T: WAIVE.R OF (A) MINIMUM lOT WIDTH AND FRONTIIGE AN~D (B) REQUIREMENT
TI~AT SINGLC-FAMILY STRUCTlIRES ItEAR-ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS.
T~NTATIVE TRACT RCQUEST; 28-LOT~ RS-7Z0~(SC) SUElDIVIS10t~.
There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition t~ subJect request~ end
although the staff report to the Planning Cornmisslon dateJ Ma~ch 13~ 1978 wes not read at
the publlc hearing~ iG Is referred to and made a part of the minutcs.
It was nnted the h1i11 and Canyon Municipal Advlsory Committee (NAGMAC) reviewed subJect
project on F~bruary 26, 1978. On a roll call vote, with eig-~t members prese~t~ eight
mertbers opposed the dcvelopment as thcy felt na hardship wa~, presented for the reduced iot
widths, and the layout of tl~e tract as propased was not satisfactory for this ~eason. in
addition, noise problems wau~.1 be experienced if side-on lats arc permitte~ on Santa Ana
Canyon Road and lot depth ~•,~irements as prescribed by Council Pulicy No. 538 are not
ob;crved. One member emph.'-3ired he would iike to see some specimen trees preserved.
Jay Johnson~ Classic Development Corporation~ indicated they have taken an isolated~
triangular piece of property adJacent to other proper:ies they have developed to the west,
with a total ecreage nf 7.7 acres. and are developinr~ it into 28 lots.
Mary Oinndarf~ 131 La P~z. Anaheim~ -'~esident of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement
Association, expressec< ,. :~~rn regarding a negative declarat(on because she was sure the
Cortimission had tried ~ {~~~: at the site and cauld see Santa Rna Canyon Road was closed
because of flooding. :,~~c ~ndicated she unde~stood there are considerable drainage
easements through this property and that at one time she was under the impressian tt was
(n the flood plain. She indicated that accordtr•~~ to the Ctrculation ElP wr:~ plans are to
make Santa Ana Lanyon Road an expressway from ~•. city limit to Weir Ganyan, which wlll
increase the traffic and felt there would de~inltely be an impact regjrding the no(se.
She felt it would impact the Scenic Corridor which is the Riverside -'r~eway through the
C i ty of Anahe i m and a 1 so tliat Gwo- th i rds o'r the p roper ty i s i n the Cc. ~+~ ty ~ and fe 1 t an
environmental impact report would be requi~ed.
She indicated her primary obJection to che plan is that she diJ not want to see any more
land annexed to the City of Anaheim at the present time and that another obJectton was the
removal of 43 specimen trees. She in~Jicated she did not feel this par:icular p~operty is
3i ~ 3i~a
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ MARCH 13r 191a 78•15g
EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77w~8-46~ VARIANCE N0. 2994~ TENTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 10254 ANC RE4UEST FOR APPROV~ REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES _(co~tinued)_ _
e hardshlp; that it would be an econamlc h~rdship to remove tha trees~ but that the tree
removsl la not necessa~y. Sha felt because it is a hardship parce) and the w~iva~s
requested cancerning the mtniniwn lot width and frontage and reyutrement thet stngle•famlly
structu~es reer-on ~~terta) hlghweys because of the topography was reolly not the casa.
She Indicated it wea not clear as to how the easements on the prop~rty are tomputed in the
net density and pointed out there are numerous oascments on thc property. She felt this
development would heve a very adverse impact on che other single-family homes because of
the access; that there has been a prublem for a number of years getting people in and out
because Santa Ana Cenyon Road already is Impactad with drlvcweya to varlous tracts. She
indlcaWed ~~Q~NEL asnthenslupesugotup~nwhlchais serl~us~~AndASheufeltnthistwouldhadd mo~e
l~vol s
noise.
Mr. Johnson indicated they wi11 be constructiny a skorm ~raln system to plck up water
across the h(ghwAy. Regar~ing the net area fdr the casements~ he indlcat~d thesc are
storrt~ draln aasements and they are computed in the lot arca heceuse they are not fee
simple. Hc Indicated, hopefully~ thesc lots wlll b~ app~oved at 7200 squ~re feet and thc
aversye yross lat area is 12~000 square feet~ whlch is compatible wi eve~ytf+ing
developed to the west. Goncerning the traes~ he indicated they were cu~rently studying
ways to save at least 20$ of the eucalyptus trees but would Ilke to ~-eplace them wtth a
more substantlal trce which would be nare compacible with the residentlal development. He
refarred to problems with thcse traes during recent sto~ms.
Cheirmen Tolar asked Mr. Joh~son if he wss aware of the letter received today to the
Planning Commisslon from the Corps of Enyincers~ Oepartment of the Army.
Mr. Johnson Indicated he had read the letter and that they would be constructing a 100-
year storm drain system, which is quite common.
Jay Titus~ Office Engineer~ indicated he understood the letter expressed concerns
regarding the possibil(ty of the underground system being blocked and watcr ~verflowing
from that.
TNE PU6LIC HEARING WAS CLOSCD.
Chai rn~an Tolar indicated he had two questlons~ onc In relatlonshlp to the noise and how
they planned to buffer those properties since so many lots wauld be abutting Santa Ana
Cenyon Road. He (ndicated that with this large piece of property he was not sure he would
agree it is a hardship piece of property. and while he recognized the lot arees averege
12,000 sncernlneCSlncettheremwas sormuchepropertyeto~workPwith~andffeltaarchltecturallyt
qulte co 9
tl~e plan could have bee put together betCer.
Mr. Johnson ~ f~~dhiehewall9onht p ofett~atLewhichttstatstandard formuofdnoise abat~.ment9h
berm plus a 9
Chalrman Tolar asked if h~ would be building this berm and wal! alon9 both the freeway and
Santa Ana Canyon Road~ and he replied that he would.
Mr. Johnson indicated that as far ~is the property is concerned~ there are three separate
ownerships ana this is an unusuPl piece ~~~P~~srandtindicatedtthatdtheeproperty almost
considerable storm drain and to agraphy p
3/13/78
MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 13~ 1978 78-1y9
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATiON~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-18-~6~ VARIANCE N0, 2994~ TENTATIVE MAP
OF 7RACT N0. 10254 AND RE,QUEST FOa APPROVAL OF REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES (contlnued~
_ .
sarves as a trash dump a~t the pres+nt tlmc~ nnd they have made an honest effort to teke
these three properties and makc t'~em (nto samething useful for the communtty.
Chal~rnan Tolar aaked if chero we other pians trled which could conform without the
veria~ces by e,11m1nAting some af the lots; ttiat he dtd not view economics as part of land
plen~ing and really folt with thi~ pie~e of graund, even though thc topography is unusual~
it could have been done oy elir~?nating a few lats and some lot widths In reletlonship to
the varTances.
Mr. Johnso~ indicated they hacl lried seve~•~I ~lans in an effnrt to make the development
compatlble and had discussed these plans witf~ Mr, Singer~ the Engineering Department,
plenning Uapartment anc! Flre Deparlmr.nt and felt~ to the(r knowledge~ the mc.st deslreble
pl~~ was bcing prescnted and tt~at It was compatibic with other things tn the area that
they have done and is compatibl~ re.yarding lot width~ size and the level areas, and~ tn
sarw cases ~ wes mc~re des i rab l e; tl~a t i c i s an ( s~ 1 a ced p i ece af g raund end there wou 1 d be
no develapmcnt adJacent to it.
Cortmiaslo~e~ Nerbst indtcated he rec~gnizecf this is a contlnuatlon of the existing tract.
~~e referrad to the Mo lois off Vla Copa~a and the two lots on the other side and
indtcated he was conc~rr~ed about the accessiblltty. Ile stated he could not vlew puttinc~
two homes in that area, Ile referred ta Lot B and the fact that berms would be bullt on
both sides~ and t~c did not feel that w~~~1J be a bulldable lot. He roferred to the pte-
shaped lots on khe cul-de-sac anJ Lots 17~ la and 19 with the berm and the setback~
resulting ~n ve:ry sh.~llc:v lots and with a tlg-foot total width with 5~•foot setback~
leaving a lqt of ~bout 70 feet.
Hr. Johnson painted out they h~ve take~ [he houscs they arc currently building and plotted
ther~ on the map, a~d chey are within Cod~,
Commissloner Nerbst indicated they may be wtthin Code. but with thc setback from Santa Rna
Canyc~n Roac~ and the drop from Santa Ana C~nyon Road to thr loc, there would be very Itttle
yard for lot 1$. Ne lndfcated anaeher concern was impacting that many houses wtth the
access coming out Vla Escolo bec~use of t~,: sharp Incline of about 12$ at that location~
and the vie~r was qutCc limited and did not provide a linc-of-sight~ and felt the entrance
could be drast(caliy impraved by the elfm(n~tion of p+~rt of the lot. He indtcated there
was scKne discussio~ regarding the possibil(ty of a dlrect alignment with Monte V(sta and
ask~d tf that type access had been dtscussec! with the T~affic En~ineer.
Mr. Jahnso~ indicated that afier discussions with the TrafFic Engineer and Planning and
Engineeri~g Dapari~ner~ts~ they had brought the bcst plan for presentation.
COMMI5SIONER LINN ENTEREp THE COJNCIL CNAMBER AT 3:00 P.M.
The Cc~rmis~io~ asked N~. Titus why Lhe T~affic Engineer wanted the ma~or accrss to Santa
Ana Canyon Road at Yia Copala and close off the access at Cami~o Tampico.
Mr. i'itus repli~d that the Traffic Engineer felt the Camino Tampico intersectton with
Santa Ana Canyon Road should be aligned with future Monte Vista and that at th(s time its
precise locatton has not been determined.
Cammissioner Barnas ind(cated she felt if the Commissto~ has the chance to put Camino
Tampico and Monte Vista ac~oss from each othe~~ it would save a lot af traubie in the
future~ end she believed tF~e first plan showed something similar to that.
3/13/78
MINUTES~ ANANEtM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 13, 1978 78-160
EIR NEGATIVE ~ECLA~ATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77•78'~6~ VARIANCE N0. 299~~ TENTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 1025W ANO REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REMOVAI OF SPECIMEN TREES (contln~aed)
Mr. J~hnson tndlceted that ths original plan did indicate thet~ but since they dld not .
knaw exaCtly where It was go(ng to come out and thay had a tremendous storm d~aln that has
to be co~sl~ered~ and aftar conslderable diacusslons ~nd they were tallctng about 28 lots
that would terminate any future developmenc in the area~ they felt the autlat as proposed
would be qulte adequa~e.
Commissioner Barnes tndicated shc was concerned about the Army Corps of Englneers report
and t~etr sugyestion that not only an underyround drain system be pr~vided but ~lso ane on
top and suggested that if it were incorporated with the road~ It would be better.
M~. John:on pointcd out Lhat hP had ^nly receiv~~~ thp Arnty r.nr~c ~f Fn~lnwnrc letter
today; that their design criterla ls pretty much standard for a 100-year storm and felt
that when the storm system ts complete~ !t wtll allevtate a lot of the present conditions.
Mr. Titus polnted out that even though the un~eryround sy~tem (s designed for e 100-year
storm~ thcy were concerned about the entrance bel~g plugyed by dehrls and trash~ causing
water to overflow and flow tnto the tract and then would have no wey to get out. He
stat~d Chere could possibly be other design conslderaGions to mitigate that possib(lity~
such as upstre3m temporary basins or maybe an open channel could be constructed al) the
way instead of tt~e enclosed plpe sYscem; ti~at this could be a design consi~eration at the
tirr~ the speciflc designing is done for the project. He indicated there ts a proposed
condltion that the developer ohtain a flood hazard letter from the Oranye Cou~ty Flood
Cantrol Uistrict that the tract is safe for a i00-year storm. Ne IndiGated thet~ as the
property Ites tnday, lt would be flooded by a 100-ycar storm~ and he felt sure In order to
get a 100-year stnrm flood hazard letter from the Flood Cant~ol Disirict the leve) oP thc
tract would I•ave to be raised~ which rrould be hlyh enough above the wat~r surface tevel tn
bc safe from a 100-year storm.
Chairman Tolar ind(cated it woul~ appear to him that with the problems being discusserl,
that there is taa much development on this property and he wondtred tf the petlttoner
wished to ask for a continuance and redraw the pla~s. He indicated thc Commission could
vote on the proJect if he preferred. but there are some ~eal problem areas co~cerning the
iot sizes and the cul-de-s~~ street with Lot 18 which is very small. He indlcated he
recognized the lots averoge 12~000 square feet~ but that Lot 18 is very tiny, and he felt
that one lot bein~ alleviated cuuld eltminate vartance p~oblems and referred to the lot at
the end whlch ts in a pncket and has severe water problems. and he did not think it was a
buildable lot.
Commissloner Herbst ind(cated it would appear to htm that when there is a hardshtp parcel~
the developer wants to put more peopie Qn rather than less, and that they are trying to
squeeze irregular lots into this development; that there is ~ maJor freeway and a major
atterial o~ both sides, which will present tremendous sound p~ablems and this Is an area
which wou'd probably be better developed to have half-acre lots with lcss dnnsity because
nf the problems qetting t~. He indicated that with average lots in the RS-7200
developments~ even on the flat lands~ you should only get 5 lots to the acre and that this
proposa) has 4.8 units to the acre on a hardship parcel~ and he felt tt was tmpacting this
~rea so gre~tly and that the people buying these properties deserved more than they are
getting; that lt ts a flood a~ea which could probably be correctPd with some grading~ but
that he did not believe thought had been gtven to the freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road
which is schedulsd to be an expressway.
Mr. Johnson polnted nut they will be required to build two 72-inch storm drain systems,
one parallel with Santa Ana Canyon Road and one traversing the p~operty, so they are
3/13/18
MINUTES~ AN,',HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 13~ 1978 78-~Go- e
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-7~-46, VARIANCE N0. 2994~ TENTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0, 1025~+ ANO REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TRE~(.~ontinuQ_d_Z_.____
starttng out the proJoct with 510~000 per lot required for storm drain systems. He
potnted out they have teken thr~e properties And tried to resolve the problem and they
would not do anything that was nat compatible with th~ other proJects; that they are
involved wtth all the homeowners and have mode an honest effort to present a good proJect;
that they had several other plans wtth es many as 32 or 33 lots~ but they had dropped that
down to something thcy thought th~y couid work with.
Commissioner 6arneg indicated she thought the developer had n~ade every effort to make a
guod development and recognized this ts a problem piece o~ property~ and that the
daveloper ts not responsible for th~ problcma b~ing discussed regarding the elignment nf
~VI' `Y ~I ~ r ~V •
Chalrman Tolar asked if ther~e was any proJectQd time in relatlonshtp to the alignment of
Monte Viste~ and Jtm Y.swemura stAfed that at th(s time Ma~te Vlstr is n~t even considered
withln the next ten years to be any type of arterial~ although there are plans to bulld a
road ana there is a dirt access on Sant~ Ana Csnyon Road tha~t Is co~sldered by most as the
access point to Santa ~~na ~Cenyon Road from Monte Vista~ but that is not certaln ctther.
Cortmtssloner lierbst indlcated he recalled f~om the recent GGnerel Plan ame~dment
consideration of the Clrculation Element which was continued, that we are bei~g asked to
approve the elignment of Monte Vista so that people can start developing their propertles.
and h~ did not believe It would bo ten years down the road.
Commissioner Ba~nes tndttated she felt the Commission should look at this piece of
p~operty In consideration of what they will be considering on the General Plan amendment
to the Circulation Elem~nt concerning the expressway problem. She indicated the Trafftc
Engineer has been indicating for years that he wants as little cuts to Sants Ana Canyon as
posslble and wouid like them to be aligned~ ar,d she felt the CommissioR should address
themselves to thac problem.
Comntssioner Herbst pointed out that Via Copala does align with Eucalyptus~ and Mr. Tttus
indlcaied there ls an exlsting acc~ss polnt at Eucalyptus and that is why the Trafflc
Engtneer wanted thts tract to open here.
Chairman Tolar askec Mr. Johnson if he would like the Coimtisslon to act on thls proJect or
he would like to asl~. for a continuance ln order to redraw the proJect~ and Mr. Johnson
indlcated he would '~(ke to request a continuance and indicated he assumed the Planntng
Commission was talGing about a reductson of lots and not the alignment of the streets.
Commtsstoner Herbst indicated he thought if the access from Monte Ytsta could be
determl~eed~ it woulci give the developer a much better outlet, as far as safety from the
tract~ to Via Copal:.~.
Mr. Titus indtcated that with the Monte Vtsta access has been dis~ussed considerably and
e~+tails the Circulatian Element and this was nart of what was being dtscussed in the
General Plan amendment and there are other ci~ings involved.
Cornrt:isslone~ He~bst indtcated thac whatev~_~ Is allowed to be developed wiil be forcver,
end he thought it was ve~y important and necessary that the Engineering Department get
together with the c+evelo~±er and discuss the ou~let of Monte Vista.
Mr. Titus indtcat~d that the fina) decision is not up to the Enginearing Department~ but
invalves the whole County and NEOCS Report.
3/13/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, W1RCH 13~ 191a 78-161
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 77•78•46~ VAPIANCE N0. 2994~ TENTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 10254 AND REQUEST FOR APPaOVAL OF REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES (continued)
Mary Dinndorf indlcatsd that revlsed plans should be submttted to HACMAC~ and Cheirman
Tolar Indiceted they cannot hold up the dnveloper's plana becruse of dtffefent bodtes'
meeting detes; that he did appreclate thetr concerns and would try to get the rnvi~ed
plans to t1ACMAL~ but that if they could not do that~ the Planning Commission would ltke
thelr pr,;sicipatlon at the Planntng Commtssion meeting which will be a date certatn to be
dete~~~lned~ end suggestnd to the developer that an extra copy of the revised plans should
be gr,tten to Mrs. Dl~ndorf or some member of HACMAC so that they could work them tnto
thelr meeting.
ACTION; Commiss(oner Davld offercd a motion~ aeconded by Commiss(oner Barnes and MOTlON
i~0 (Commissloner Johnsnn being ebsent)~ thet considerattan of the aforementioned item
be conxinued to the regular mieeting ot the Aneheim ~ity Planning Commission of A{~ril 10~
197a~ In order for the pctitioner to submit revlaed plans~ reducing the number of lots~
and to provide additional Informatlon regardtng the flooding problems.
RECESS There was a ten-minute recess at 3:20 p.m.
....,...~_
RECONVEIJE The meating was reconvened at 3;30 p.m.~ atl Cortimtssloners present except
""!'-"-' Commissioner Johnson being absent.
ITEM N0. 4
E R NEGATIVE DECLARATION PUBLIC HEARII~G. OWNERS: DONALD E. BOUCHER~ ROBERT
CON01710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 1810 L. wAlliS~ AND MARY ANN JAVf LERA, 17722 Irvine
M N Boulevard~ Su(te 4, Tustin~ CA 92680. AGENT: BILL
T. ASAWA~ 5~+0 North Golden Clrcle DriYe~ A114~
Santa Ana, CA 927~5. Petitioner requests pe~mission
to ESTABLISN A VETERINARY NOSPITAI WITIi WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBEa OF PAaKING SPACES on
property d~scribcd as an irrnyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximetcly 1.1
acres having a fro~tage of approxtmately 25 feet o~ the northwest side of Rio Grande Drive~
having a maximum depth of approximately 432 fect~ and being located approx(mately 600 feet
southwest of the cente~line of Fal rnqnt Boulevard. Praperty presently classifled CL(SC)
(COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED-SC~NiC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE.
There were four persons indicating the(r presenc~ in app~.~sition to subJect request~ and
although thc staff report to che Planning Commission dated March 13~ 1973 was not read at
the publlc heartng~ ft ls referred ko and made a c't+rt of the m.nutts.
It was noted the Hill and Canynn Munlcipa) Advisory Comrnittee (HACMAC)reviewed the above
proposal on February 28~ 19~8. On a roll cai) vote~ with eight membnrs present, the
Commitk~ea expressed no opposition to the c~nccpt of a veterinary hospital; howcve~, five
members requested that an overali slte plan for the commercial center be presented; five
members tndlcated it was premac~~re to consider any access to Santa Ana Canyon Raad~ and if
requesCed access points are approved, members pointed out that much 4f the traffic exittng
onto Santa Ana Canyon Road would be forced co make a U-tu~n on Falrmont Boulevard~
crest(ng a hazardous and undesirable traffic situatton. One member felt a variance fo~
parking was premature without an overa'I stte plan~ and one membe~ expr~ssed cQncern about
the lack of horse trails.
Bil) Asawa~ agent, stated this application is for a veterinary hospttal; that thare have
been two wnditional use pe rtnits approved on this property, being Conditional Use Parmit
3/~3/7$
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NARCN 13~ 1978 78-162
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CON01710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~10 (contYnuad)
No. 1545 which is still active~ and Co~ditional U~e Parmit No. 177a has been tcrminated.
Ne Indicatad thac he was acqutrine the entire percel consisttng oP three parcels of land
extending from Fetrmont to tho S.A.V.t. easQment; that the orlginai appllc~t(on ~or a
vetertnary h~spital was on the middle portion of the property pr~scntly awned by Dr.
Crossee. He p~asented a man shawing the entire proposed development, which Inc~rporates
the veter(nary hospital to one side so that they can utilizc the enttre property for a
better development.
He indtcated there were some conditlons recortmended by the Inte:rdepartmenta) Committee
whlch would create a hardshlp beceuse~ baslcaily, under thQ conditl~nal use p~rmit they do
want to construct a veterinary hospital. 11e polnted out the access for the veterlnary
hosplta) from R(o Grande Avenue on clu m~p. ~le polnted out the threc nwnershlp parccls
and indtcated his company will control a~ll three propa~tles. Ne indicated the ariginal
plans for Canditlonal Use Permlt Nos. l~l+a and 1778 were proposcd on the middle proporty~
but thet in looking over the plan it would create a problem wlth development for the
entl~e parcal~ so they have actually maved the hospital to the west portion of the
property.
He referred to Condttion No. 7 concerning the existing power noles and pointed out thesc
were actually on the oth~r property. He stated they were trying t~ resolve the problem
referred to in Condition No. 8 regarding the developer of subJect p~operty purchastng the
~emanant parcel which ts located between the sub)ect property and Santa Ana Canyon Road;
hawever~ they do have a problem because they cannot detern+ine the legal owners of the
property. Ne indicated e title company is trytng to resolve that problem. lie felt that
since the veterinary hospital would have access from Rio GrandP~ this condition should not
be applicd at this tlme, but that the problem would have to be solved befare the entlre
shapptng center could be put tAgetl~e~. Concerning Condlt(nn No. 9 regarding th~ 10-fc~ot
wide trail easement. he indicated thcy had met wiih the tralls xystem committee and
lndicated thts would be no problem if it could be provided tn the setback requlrement.
Cuncerniny CondEtion No. 1Q regarding tt~e ~ccess easement for use by adJacent property to
the w~st~ he indicated this is an exEsting nurs~ry and that he had talked with thc manager
of the nursery who had Just recently acquired the pr~perty. He indtcated that he does
have a title report involved and the easement is possibly a prescrlptive easement. He
stated he has talked with the Traffic Engineer and he indicated that if an accessway is
allowed from Santa Ana Canyon Road~ he w~nts it limited to one access and they ar~ in
accord with thet. He felt they could resolve the problem with the nursery owne~; that it
would be a ha~dship to impose tliat condition at this t(me a~d realized the problem wtll
have to be taced when the whole proJect is done. Ile felt to hold up the veterinary
hospltal project until these problems ere resolved would be a hardship on Or. Gro~se.
Concerning the walver for minimum numbe~ of parking spaces, he indicated he felt the
difference was the terminoiogy whether you were dealing with a commercial p~oJect or a
h~~spital; that there ~re considerable differences as to the parking requirements and
indicated they felt the bulk ef the enti~e property is under hospital classiflcation which
would require 10 stalls. plus stalls for the people who work there~ and under those
requtreme~ts~ 17 parking sQaces would be required and they are providing 19•
Gene Boyle~ 6276 Rio Grande Drive, A~aheim~ submitted a petition with 23 signatures from
Peppertree Nill Homes in opposition. He indicated he wvuld like to ~o on record opposing
the conditlonal use permit and the envtronmental impact report ne4ative decla~atlon and
waiver of the Code ~equirement because he felt the noise and odor ganerated from this
facility would not be in concert wlth this area and thet possibly the oyernight boarding
of animals wAUid create additionel noise. Another obJectian was to tha increased traffic
3/ 13! 78
MINUTES~ ANANCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARC11 13~ 1978 78-163
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONOITIONAL USE PERHIT N0. 1810 (co~tinucd)
on Rio Grandc Orive whlch ts to se~ve the residentia) community. Na referred to the
Trafffc Enginear'a recomrt~ndation that there be no access from Rio Gra~de to Santa Ana
Canyon Road~ and also referred to the reference in the staff repprt regarding piecemeal
co~struction.
Mary Dinndorf~ 131 Le Pez~ Anahelm, President af the Sante Ana Canyon Improvement
Assocletlon~ indlc~ted she was sure most of t~~e Commtssioners were Sltting on the
Commisslon when Imper(al P~opertles came in pn Anaheim Nills Road and La Paz way and thet
they hsd discussed the fact that they wer~ running out af east-west feeder connections end
potnted out they still do not have any; that sha was concerned as to how far west Rio
Grande (s going to go and askeci if it was going to Quintana. She Indicated this Is a
residenttal street with tlie Mark III F~ouses~ Impar:al Housing, The Grove~ Peppertree, t~~o
Butler trect, etc.; that the traffic would be coming out on a residentlal street~ which is
something she has b~en concerned a~bout for a long tlme; and that it ls e very poor traffic
circulation a~d that thsse people have the riqht to heve their residential integrlty
protected. She stAted she did not see how the developer could sey he has to have access
onto Santd Ana Canyon Road; that the nursery has had access for a l~ng time and suddenly
constdcration ts given to t~klny that access and gtvtng it to someone else. She indtcated
she could see where one access onto Santa Ana Canyon Road would be great, but the
petitioner should work thaL out with the nursery people. She indtcated she was concerned
abnut how far Rlo Grande was going to extend,which would irnpact the homeowners~end potnted
out that thase are nice homes. She stated she would like to seP the proJect h~ve the
right amount of parE:ing.
Norman Tsura. representing the nursery~ indicated he had learned of thls hearing at 12:00
noon this date and had nothiny prepared exGapt they know they are opposed to thls proJect;
that the nursery is located wAst of the proposed pro~ect and [hat they would Ilke to see
the proposed plan of the configurati~n and the finished product of the veterinary
hospital. He stated they had been informed thae 90$ of ttuir parking lot is In the right-
of-way to the A.S.A.W.A. Development Corpo~atlon; that they purchased the nursery in
December of 1977 with an agreement with the seller and the City of Anaheim that th(s part
of the nursery was grented for tcn years~ and that if a section of the parking lot far the
development is being used for ingress and eg~ess, it would be heavily used by thcir
patro~s. He felt tt would cut their business considerably because of the median strlp in
Santa Ana Canyon Raad.
[ietty Severson~ 210 Quintana~ M aheim~ indicated they have lost a few an(mals to trsffic
barreling thrnugh a~d did nat want to lose any af their chtldrer,. She asked why the
property needed two exits on Rio Grande; Lhat this is a resldential street and not
commerclal.
Mr. Asava indtcated they do have Conditional Use Permit No. 1545 already approved for a
vettrinary hospital and could build on the site with access to Rio G~ande~ but that they
we~e attempting to utilize the property tu its best use and it wes their Intent to provide
a shopping center• that would have a goo~ configuratton~ but having a veteri~ary hospital
located rlght in the middle of tha parcel would be detrimental to the entire proJect. He
indltated the property is zoned commercial at the present ttme and the reasc~n they had
requested an access was not to impact the residenttal stre~et~ but to alleviate ~om~ of the
problems on Santa Ana Canyon Road, but, unfortunately~ Fatrmont has a median strip aRd any
traffic would have to go to the incersection. Ne stated they recognized it is a
resident~a) street but they were Just trytng to utilize the property in a manner In which
it (s zoned; that he appreciated the opinions of those persons in opposition.
3/13/78
~
~-
MINUTES, A~iANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ h1ARCN 13~ 197A 78-164
EIR NEGA?IYE DECIARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0,_181A (continu~d)
He pointed out there i~ soma question as to the ownershlp of tha rtght-of-way for the
accesa to the nursery; that he haci talked with the owner and not Mr. Tsure; that the
nurscry Is parking In thc right-of-way~ which they may or may not awn.
Earl Mellott~ architect~ indicated this is going to be a mociern~ up•to-date hospltal; that
the wails will be solld concrete block~ it will ba saund-proofed and Inaulated~ and alr-
conditloners will alleviate thc smells; that tiiey wtll be completely in ~ccord wtth Animal
I~ospital Assoclatlon standards and there should be no smells~ ~dors or sounds ccxninq from
the hospltel.
Mr. Meil~tt 9ldtCCl wn~~~~~i~~y tl•~e access off Sonta Ana Canyen P.oad. besides P~~~~+~+tcAlly
making It e mc>re viable proJect, it is best to keep the heavy traffic off alo Grande. He
indicsted Lh~y dtd not Inte~d to cut aff the nursery but rnoant to do tt (n accordance with
thc ag~cemcnt; that they had talked with the (nttial c~wner and found out only a wtek ago
that he had sold the nursery and he eppearcd not ~o b~ inte~ested in whatever was done.
Ho IndlGated Mr. Asawa has talked wlth the current owner and thought he had tnformed him.
but evidently nat; thdt the Glty does f$el it will want to close off that access since
tt~ey want only one acces~ off Santa Ana Cenyon Road; that there is the possiblllty of
puttin~ in a signnl but they had not discussed it with the Traffic Engineer. Na referred
to the conditlon reyuiring that the land be acquired in the front and poi~ted out most of
that is betng used for parking by the nurse ry.
T1iE p~Jf1L I C HEAP.I NG WAS CLOSED.
Chalrman Tolar indicated he was in agreement with the land assemblage and palnted out the
Pla~~fng Commi~ston ltkes the concept of putting properties together and gettin~ a better
iand assemblage proJect, but that `~e was concerned that it ts being done at a cost to
othe~s, parttcularly tn view of the fact that it would dump traffic out onto Rio Grande.
ConcernEng Conditlon No. 8. he felt that was an integral pArt of the overall plan, and he
felt that problem should be resolved now. He indicated he realized a veteri~ary hospita)
could be developed~ but that would be foolish v~hen w~th the land assemhlage t~~ey could gEt
a more vlable proJect. He felt it would be better to accomplish ~ondltlun No. $ and get
access to the property first~ rather than developing piecemeal. He indic~~ted he woulc not
suppo~t this project u~less the problem of in,qress and ~gress for thz nursery and the
access is solved su that traffic is not being dumped into Rio G~ande. He indicated he
recog~ized this is a probl~em Sut it must be resolved before the proJect is developed.
Mr. Asawa asked whak would happen if a determination is made that the right-of-way belongs
to the City of Anaheim. He Indic~ted he feit they ceuld go along with the proJect if the
City would go on record~ stating they would help them acquire the property~ since he felt
the City has the phwe~ to condemn the old riyht-of-way.
Chalrman lolar indicated the Planning Commisston dces not ha~~e the powe~ to make such a
commitment anc! that he would not go on record indicating the City would help resolve
anything, and that~ in fact, he would go an record sayln~ that if ft is not resolved~ he
would not support the pru,je~t.
Commissloner Herbst pol~ted out one of ths problems is created bY the fact th~t Rio Grande
goes (n back of the prope~ty *~d the fact thet the City does n.:~ want to let them have
access onto Santa Ana Canyon ~~~yad and at this point they do not have access tn Fairn-ont~
so it could be called a landlocked parcel. He indtcated he agrees with Mr. Asawa that the
property does need access. Ne stated the Traffic Engineer does not wank access onto Santa
3/13/78
MINUTES~ ANAN~IM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ 14ARCH 13~ 1978 7R-1Gy
E{R NEGATIYE DECLARATION ANO CONCITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1810 (continued)
An~ G~nyon Road~ the praporty ewnors do not w~nt access onto Rlo Grande~ end he hes no
~ccoss to Fsirmont, and felt the 'affic Englnear should make e roccxnn~ ndetion ~s to whe~e
the access should be. He indicateu the n~rsery has access now~ and that he felt a ca~rnon
accesa point t•wean the proparties cauid be resolved In a msnner that would be
sattsfactory to both~ not off Feirmont or Rio G~Ande.
Commissloner Herbst asked Mr~ Asawa the plans for the property on thc corner where the
Adobe Nlsto~lca) House Is lotated~ and Mr. Asawa repllcd they werc working wlth tha County
and the Nistarical Soc(ecy to lry and find a rr~rc advantageous place and referred to a
group af pcp~:cr trce: whtch would be ~ bett~r lnrrtinn. NR indiceted the Countv had
provlded a considerable amaunt of money to noke thr resto~stton; that they would llke to
wark In conjunction w;th the County and tl~e Nistorl~~l Soclety to proviae a better
loGation for this Adohe ~Itstoricdl Nousc.
Gommissioner Nerbst referred to one prublem he cauld see using thal access pc~lnt from Rlo
Grande down to Senta Ana Canyon Road~ whFch wou~d be a stra(~ht bypass for cars ~n Rlo
Grunde th at do not want tu go to Fslrmont.
Carmissloner Fiorbst Indicated he was going on ~•cord saying tt~at he has n~ abJections to
the concept of the s'te, but that he fel t i t F,,.s to be developed in o~e piece In order to
meke s ure the re ( s g~~ i ng to be acr.ess to se rvl ce that many bu i l d( ngs And that much
development.
Mr. As~r+a tndicated there may be a possibility of working out an agreement w(th the
nursery and with thc City being the beneficlal rtght owners of the S.A.V.1. right~of•way
and that if the trallway requlres 10 feet on both properties, thcy could possibly relteve
the parkiny situation.
Commissl~ner Herbst indicatad they were just talking about poss!bllltles~ end he felt Mr.
Asawe needs to get the facts on what ts actually going to take place; thAt the tr~lls need
to be put in and the access polnt needs to be resolved~ and he felt the o~ly feaslble
access would be to Santa r~na Canyo~ Road to service this slte. and that a common eccess to
bath parcels with the nursery shuuld be resolved,
Commissioner Barnes InJicated that about a year ago si~r. had served on e committee whlch
wes asstgnsd to study this and that even the owner of the pr~perty at the nursery dtd not
knaw whether or not he had access to Santa Ana Canyan Road, and asked if he does have
State approval for the access.
Mr. Asawa indi~ated he had not sten his tttle repart; that thf:y had to study the entire
area because it Is qutte involved and they ~~ad a tltle company wo~king on the project and
the tttiP company stated they cannot Insure the title, and he now has anothcr title
company working on the praject. and they say it is goin4 ta take th~ee weeks, 444 docu-
ments ~ p~obab ly 200 houra of intens ive work~ and even thr.n they may not know who th~ ~awner
is, and t~e recognizes they do havc z problem and felt~ (n the final analysis. they may
have to look to same munlc(pal body to step In and say who actually has the right•of-wa~.
Chai~man 7olar steted he liked the plan w~th land assemblage with the exceQtion of the
straight-through thoroughfare~ and he sincerely felt that has got to be resolved now
because he could see Sbnta Ana Ganyo~ Road and this plan with ing~ess and egress onto
Santa Ana Cany~n Road resulting in p~oblems as being discussed. Ne stated he realtzed a
vaterinary hospitel could be built right now and the t~afflc dumped onto Rlo Grand~.
3/13/78
f
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 13~ i918 78-166
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1810 (contt~ued)
Mr. Asawa indicated Dr. Grossa was p~e~ent and that he was th~ persan wha would be most
(mpactod by any decision made; that he did hava permisslon to davelop the vetertnery
hospital a~d was gotng to go ahesd wtth the plans~ and that Mr. Asewa had lnoked at the
parcnl and fndlcated it would creete a sltuatlon which he felt wouid impect the enti~n
develapmant~ and that h~ had agreed to acqutro other properttes and mnve the vaterinary
hospital further west.
Commissloner Herbst tndicated that original apprava) of the vcterinary hospita) nad been
beceuse it would nut (mpact Rlu Grandp; that th~ reyl uf ttre yhoppiny centar Is yoing to
(mpoct P.lo Grande; that the car~ 9oing to the shopping center wil) tm~+~ct th~ ar«,~ And ha
was co~cerned about thet. tle Indlcated he was not worried about the ,~revtously epproved
conditlonal use permit if that was the only development that could go into the property.
Mr. Asewa indicated he felt tt was (m~ossible to develop without accP~s onto Santa Ana
Canyon Road. Ne stated that Dr. Grosse Is ready to procned with I~Is proJect and states
the aroa does need an anlma) hospltsl. Fle i~dicated it will not take p1ACe anl~ss access
Is provid~d on Santa An~ Canyon Road; it is a pract(cal macter and has to be done, but
that the condition Is g~ing to be en impositlor~ on the doctor stnce he does have
Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1545 that allows him to build; that I~e owns the middle property
and if he puts the animal hospltal at that locatt~n~ It would be detrimenta) to the entlre
devalopment. He (ndicatcd that if they could not find the owner of that piece of
property. they would not be able to fu1f111 this conditian.
Cha'rman Tolar askod ARniKa Santatahtl, Assistant Dtrector f~r Zoning~ tf there wa~
anything the City could do to find out whather ar not they vwncd the property~ and Miss
Santalahtl asked if the property in question was the old Santa Ana CanyoR Road r(ght-of-
way or the other small p~ece between that and Santa Ana Canyon Road~ and Mr. Asawa replied
both propertles were in questlon.
Mtss Sa~ntalahtt stat~d chat when the conditlonal use permit was originally a~proved for
th~ animal hospttal~ tha ~c~.ess ta Santa Ana Ganyon Road was aliawed on a temporary basis
becs~ise Ria Grande had not bcen developed yet~ and that the Cortxnission det~rm(ned that tf
the straet d(d not go in fir~t and the animal hospttal did~ thcy couid tempo~arily take
access and then when Rio Grande was developed, tf~ey could revert to using that. She
lndlcated~ co~ceivably. ail three property awners would want to take ec:ess off Santa Ana
Canyon Road and that ts not desirable~ but that before the City would want to be involved
In trying to determine the legal ownership of ne proper~y~ Lhey would want all the
propei~ty owners who would have advantage of an access point to be in agreement on the
plan. She stated the ciursery people~ Mr. Asawa and the oCher group should agree an what
they are looking for in terms of an access point so that the City knows for sure that it
is a plan the three property owners agrse upon.
Certmissloner Herbst asked if there is a possibility the small access road run~iing paralle)
with 5anta Ana Canyo~ Rnad had been consldered.
M~. Asava replied there are restrictions because of the Scenlc Corridor Overlay Zone~ but
it could possibly happen b~ecause they do have a 100-foot s~tback on the property~ but that
they do have certain restrictions on things that are allawed within the setback area.
Commlssioner Herbst indicated because of the landlocked portion of the property and
Iimited accCSS. a parallel road might be something to be lo~ked at; that he felt Mr. Asawa
shouid go back to the :~ursery people and try to incorporate that praperty into ~n sccess
3/13/78
ti~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 13~ 1918 78-167
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 1$1Q (continued)
polnt so that the Plannlny Commisslo~ cnuld talk ebout the whole group of propertles~ not
Just the •ccess off 5anta Ane Csnyon Rosd ond how (t ti going tG affect thls proparty.
Chalrmen Toler polnced out there was an indfcation the nursery could posslbly be psrking
on p~operty they clo not own and thet if thoy could Agree on an ingrnss and eg~ess poi~t
for one access polnt onto Ssnte Ana Canyon Road, then h~ did not see eny p~oblem wtth the
project.
Commlastoncr Bns•ncs indlcated she woulcl like to ao on record that th~ City should do
,•vwryehing p~sslble to solve the problem If th~y cann~t find out who the a~vner I~ and that
this has been ~,~ol~g on for three years and she would Ilke to see it solvC~l~ and if thcrc
is anythtng the Clty can do. they shauld do it.
M~. Asawa Indleated they would Iike Lo yet the whole matter settled (n ordcr to put
tognthe~ e v~able develvprn~nt i~~tead of chopping up the development. Ile felt the owners
would be coming in and Indicating they h~ve a iiardship and asking for variances, and he
asked what would be the procedure if the titl~s campany cann~t solve the problem.
Commiss(oner B~rnes suggestad that the Planning Commiss(~~n cauid makc a recomme~datton to
tha Clty Council that approprlate measures be taken.
Commissianer Herbst Indicated if Mr. Asawa c.ould gQt a common access point to all faur
parcels. the Planning CaTUr-ission co~~ld at least mal:e a recar~randatlon to tha Caunctl.
Commtssioner Tol:.r (ndicated hP +•_ ~''~~t maybe a letter from all property owners would be
a starting polnt~ including the owner r the nursery,
Mr. Aaawa indicated he would ltke co req~•~st a contlnuance of f~ur weeks.
Commissioner Linn indicatod that the R1o Grande problem should be solved tn thc new plans.
Mr. Asswa indicated that was one af the ft~st things he had feit when the access to Santa
Ana Canyon Road was not allewed; that rhe property is zoned commercial and to dump atl the
traffic onto a residential street seern~d totally unfair, but that you have to look at the
property from a reallstic point~ and with tlie m~dian strip already ln Fatrmont, it was n~t
realistic.
Commissioner King asked Jack White, Deputw Ctty Attorney~ what would be the proc~dure the
Planning Commtssion should follow if the tftle search proves nothiny.
Mr. White aoi~ted out the City cannot cundemn property for private pur{~oses; that It would
have to be for a legitimate public purpnse~ such as a strcet, but thet there sre othe~
alternatives prlvate parties can instltute to res~ ve the problem~ but to get the City
involved In condomnatlons whcn they di~~ not know Whu the a~vners were~ would be very
unusual; that in order to start a condemnat(on praceeding, tha City would first have to
have a title report to determine who Che proceedings would be against and that if saneone
thtnks he owns the property, iie could sta~t e qulet title search in order to heve the
court determine the riyhtful vwner; and that the Ctty cauld start the proceedings if they
felt they had title to the property.
ACTION: Commtssioner Davi~ offered a moti~n~ seconded by Comnissioner Barnes and ~IOTION
~t D(Commisstoner Johnson being absent). that consideration oP the aforementioned item
be continued to the regular meating of the Anahetm Ciiy Planning Commission of April 10~
1978, in orde~ for the Petitioner ta work ~ut a common access point to Santa Ana Canyon
Road ~~d to dete~mine the awncsrship of ad~acent property.
3/13/78
r
~
~~ ~
MI NUTES ~ ANANE I M C ITY PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON ~ MARCH 13 ~ 1978 1a-168
I TEM N0.
RICAL EXEMPTION-CLA55 PUBLIC HEARING, OMNERS; PATRICK M. ANU JUDITH M.
. RYAN~ 192 South Sta~i ight Drtve, Anahelm, GA 92~7•
Petitloner requests WAIVER OF MIN,MUM SIDE YARD
SETBAI'K TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COUpT on prope~ty
desc~fbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel af land conslsting of ~ppruximately 1.0 acre
havin_v, a frontage of app~oximately 12H feet cn the east side of Starl ight O~tve~ having a
moximum depth of approximataly 360 feet. being locatQC1 approximately 138 feet north of the
canterl inn of Peral ta Ht 1 Is Dr ivc~ and fu~ther d~eseribed as 192 South Starl ight Drivc.
Property presm~tly classified RS-FiS-4~~0~0(SC) (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY HILLSIDE-
SCENIC CORa100R QVERLAY) ZONE.
There was no one t ndi cAt ing thei r presenco i n opposi clon to subJoct requcst ~ end el thouyh
the staff report to the F'lanning Comn-iss iun Jaces tt.~rch l;. 1;]8 was not road at th~
publ ic hearing~ ( t is refcrred to and madc a port of the minutes.
I t was noted thQ N i I 1 and Canyon Mun I c i pa 1 Advl sory Comm( t tee (HACMAC ) ~ev i~wed the above
proposal on February 28~ 1978. At the mceting, the Appllcant Indtcated the property owner
to the south was not in opposi tion to the request slnco he was ~lso planning to construct
a tennls court in the future; that tl~e prope~ty c~wnar to the north I~ad not been contacted
since the property is currently for sale. Nith e(ght commi ttee meml~ers presenc~ the
committee unanimously voted to recomr.iend approval of Variance No. 2!~97. provided that the
tennts court be providec~ with downilghting so es not to be offenstv~~ to surrounding
properties.
Eli=~betfi Hube~~ 15562 Bolin Clrcle~ Tustin~ agent. presented a lay~~ut of thc property.
~ointing Lo the south property line and indicated that neighborwas going to be building a
tennis court backing up ta the petitiane~'s tennis court. She Indtcated that the propQrty
owner to the north was not contacted hecause the property is vac~nt. She Indfcated that
at the back of the property on Peral ta H i l is Dri ve f s a eucalyptus grove and there are
che~ry trees at thn back of the house; that Mr. Ryan had chosen this spot In order to
p~eservo the specimen trees, She indicated it arould be about 7-~/2 f~et between the fence
on the s ide of the tennis courts end the north property I ine; that the matter had been
before HACMAC and t t was approved; that thr.i r one concern was rcgsrdi ng the l lghts end Mr.
Rya~ is going to have downllghting instal {ed whtch will be directed dow~ into the court,
and that he i~tends to plant shrubbery and t~ees on the north property 1 tne.
THE PUBLIC NEAR~~~G 41A5 CLOSED.
Cortxnissioner Barnes asked if a written statament was obtai~ed from the property owner to
the south ~ and Ms . Hube r i nd i cated the property awners had s i gned the pet t t I on and that
they hed agreed verbally~ but she was not aware of a written agreement.
Commisstoner Ne~bst tndicated he did not feel this proJect would be detrimental; that
tcnnis courts are one of the things that have been approved and as long as the adJacent
property owners are agrneablc, he would recommend approval .
Commi ss ioner Barnes i nd icated she wes not sure; that she ~+as concerned wi th the zero
property line and felt the Commission is going to havc a lot ofrequests like thts and felt
approva 1 shou 1 c! be cont i ngen t upon an ag reament wi th the p roperty awne r to the south.
Chai r~man Tolar polnted out this fs not a structure, they were talking about a pad and a
fence~ and he did not ferl it would be a problem.
3/13/18
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARGM 13~ 1978 ~8-169
~,~C~TkGOR~ CAl ~,:XEMPT I ON-CLASS 5 AND VAR IANCE N0. 2997 (~nt I nued)
It was noted the Plenning ~iractor or his eutharized reprasentetive has dete~mined that
the proposcd project fells v+ithin the definitlon of C~tego~tcei E~emptions, Class 5~ ~s
defined in p~rac~~eph 2 of the City of An ehalm Environn~ntal Impact Report Gu~dellnes and
Is~ therefore, cstegorically cxempt fram tho requiremant to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commisstoner !lerbst offered Resolutlon No. PC7~~4G and moved for its passage and
a~optfon, thet the Anaheim City Plannlny Commisstan does hereby app~ove Petition for
Verlance No. 2~97 on the basis ch~t a re creation~l faciltty is b~ing created very slmilar
to a swimminy p~o) that woulJ have. to be fenced a~d would not be detrlmental to the
surrounding areas. and tennls courts hsve been allowed with mtnlmum side yard setbecks in
thc past in thie particulbr area; and that relocation would requlre the ~emovsl of saveral
speGlnen trees~ end due to the lony~ na rrvw shape of the lot.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passcci ~y tiie f~llowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: E3ARNES~ DAVID~ NCRUST~ KING, I.INN~ TOLAR
NQES : COMM I SS I 0~lERS : tJON~
ABSENT: CONMISS IONERS: JO~~NSON
ITEM N0. G C OMTINUED PUBLIC fiEARING. OMINERS; CALVIN AND
~T~TVE DECIARATiON WILt1El.MINA MEEIU~OF~ ;438 Nenovc~ Orive~ Cypress~
ON N0. -~8-4y CA 90630. Pecitlo~e~ propases reclassificatfon
`"' '-~- w of property described as a rectangula~ly-shaaed
parccl of land consisting of approxlmately 0.3
acre having a frontage of approximately 162 fcet on tt~c west side of 4lestern Avenue.
having a maximurn depth of approx(matcly 87 feet. nnd being located approximately 163
feet north of the tonterline of 8a11 Road from the RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICUI.TURAL)
ZONE to the RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAM~LY) IONC.
SubJect petitlon w as continued from the Planntng Commisslon meettn g of Feb~uary 27. 197g
for the submission of revised plans,
There wss no one indicating their prese~ce in oppositlon to subject request~ and although
the staff report to the Planning C~mmission dated March 13~ 1378 was not read at the
pubiic hearin~~ it is refer~ed to and made a pa~t of the minutss.
William 5. Phelps. 1259 North Batavia, Orange~ agant~ was present to ~nswe~ any questlons.
THE PUBLIC HEARINC NAS CLOSED.
Cortunissloner King Indicated he iiked the revised plans sinte one of the lots had bee~
aliminated.
Chairman Tolar indicated he had a ques tion in relationship to the trash and understood
there was going to be a dduble gate~ a~d Mr. Phelps rAplied that the property owner to tht
north was wi 11 ing to provide a letter tc+ that eff~ct because of the cam~on wal l end the
fact that the trash truck is going to be a~iJacent to the stte.
Chalrman Tolar asked Mr. Phelps to stiF.~late to obtaining tha~t letter ta~om M~. Huffman and
indicated he would like to see that tied into the approval, ~nd M r. Phelp~ so stipulated.
3/13/78
MINUTES~ AHAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 1~~ 1978 78-170
EIR NEGATIVE UE~IARATION AND RECLASSIPICATION NO,r~-ZB~ (cantinued)
.._-.~
ACTiONs Commissioner King offered e motian, seGOnded by Conmissioner Dav(d and MOTION
~0 (Commtssloner Johnson betny absent)~ that the Anahe(m City Pla~ning Ca-mfssion hs~
~evlewed the subJect propasal to ~eclasstfy the zoning trom RS•A-43~OA0
(aes(dential/Agrlculturel) to RM-1200 (Multiple•Femlly) o~ a rectanqularly-shaped parcel
of land consfsting of app~oximately 0.3 acrc heving a frontuge of approxtmately 162 feet
on the wast side af West~rn Avenue~ hoving a maximum aepth of approxlmately 87 feet, and
bein~ located approxlmately 163 feet north of the centert(ne of Bsil Road; and does hereby
approve the Negattve Declaratlon from the requlrert~nt to prepare an envtronmental impact
report o~ the basis th~t there would be no stynificant indivtdua~ or cumulatlve adversn
envtronmental impact due to the approval of this Neyative Declarattan since the Anaheim
Gancral Ptan dosignates the sub)ect property for rr~,diun density residenttal land uses
~~nensur~;e with the proposal; that the propased use is ccm,.,dttblP with surrounding land
usns to the north and west and tho project wiii upyraJe the arca; tha~t ne s~nsirlve
environmentel tm~nacts arc Involved in t~ie p~aposnl; ch~t thr. ini:ia) Study submitced by
the pet(tloner indicates no slgnificent indlvidual or cumulat(ve adverse environmentel
Impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substentiatiny the foregoing findings is on
flle in the City of Aneheim Planning Department.
Commissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC7I!-41 and moved for Its passaqe end adoptlon~
that the Anahelm City Planntng Commission does hereby grar,k Petttion for R~classiflcatlon
No. 77'7~'~5~ subJect to the petitioner's s[ipulotlon to provide a written agreement
aWproved by the Ctty Attorney and siqned by th~ property owner to the north~ permitting
common pick-up of trash frcxn the driveway on the property to the north~ and subJect to
Intcrdepartmcntal Camiittee recommendations.
On roll call~ the foregoiny resolution was passed by the followiny vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARN~S~ DAVIUy NERaST, KING~ LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: J011NSON
I TEM iVO. 7
EIR~ NEGATIVE DECLARATIOt~
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-47
VR~ Il~N. 29~
of approximately 3•0 acres havin,y a
r;f Euclid Street, having a maximum
approxim~tely 258 feet south of tha
classificd CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED)
Pl7BLIC HEARING. OWt~FR: MEB INYESTMEN7S a28~
3723 g1~ch Street~ a23, Newpo~t Heach, CA 92b60.
AGENT: DOUGLAS POb1RIE. 37z3 Birch Street,
Newport Beach, cA gz66o. Praperty described as
an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisttn~
frontage of approximately 25 feet on the east side
depth of approxima~ely 791 feet. and being located
centerline of Rcxnneya Orive. Prop~rty presently
ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICfiTION: RM-~:000 (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZQNE.
REQUESTED VARiANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTH ANO (B) MlNIMUM
BUILDING SIT~ AREA TO CONSTRUCT A 3Q'UNIT~ RM-40Q0
CONDOMINIUM COFtiPLEX.
~~'1 There was one person indicatfng her interest tn subJect proJect, a~d although the staff
~ report to the Planning Commission dated March 13~ 191$ was not read at the publtc hearing~
it is refer~ed to and made a Part of the minutes.
3/13/78
i5
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 13~ 197a 78-171
Ellt NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLA5SIfICAT10N N0. 71"78-47 AND VARIANCE N.^.. 2'#~ (contlnucd)
Douglas Paw~ie~ agent for the petitioner~ state~i that In edditlon to the items covered in
tha staff report~ these Individual units would include a lat of Int~ric~r am~ni~les~ such
as microwave ovens~ vecuuming systam~ 2•1/Z baths~ etc.
Irene Bull~ 116;i North Arbor Straet, Anaheim~ indicflted sha wss Interestad In the swtmmtng
pool p~oposed and hav close It would be to he~ prope~ty; that she iives on the south s~de
of thc property, next to thc wsll.
Chairman Toler indiceted a su99astion by tha Traffic Engineer that the proJe+ct be rcversed
in order to put the access o~ thc south propc~ty ltne rother than thc north so that It
wl11 be further away from Romneya~ beceuse he felt a person making a left turn would
treate e traffic problem, wcwl~ protably olso ell~vlate Mr. Bull's concern.
Mr. Powrle Indicnted the only problem with that proposal is that the maJical bulldtng on
the corner of Romneya and Euclid does not have an easemcnt over thcir prope~ty and thert
ia e peved road Chey have been using~ and that thls is the only leverage Lhey have, to not
only provide for dccess but to gain easement rights In order to make a wtdar acc~ss whlr.h
was better far thei~ project. Ne indicated he was not opposed t~ reve~sing the projec: in
terms of acces5~ but the proposal should be weighed agatnst the possibility of providing a
wider accsas road to the proJect.
Chairman Tolar indicated It would be up ta the develaper to provide a wider access for
this many units, but that he felt the access must be taken away from clase proxtmity of
Romneya or there wtll ba traffic problcros Ir- and out of the proJect.
He Indicated this is a one-owner pruperty and that the owner was trying to save the fron~{e
portion for a CL develoQment and tltiat he felt he was creating a hardshlp ln this case.
indicated he did went a larger access and that the owner rr-~y have to take a larger piece
of his tommerctal property out of the front por[i~n~ but felt the proJect should be
reverseci.
Mr. Powrle lndicated this would be fine and in that way they could place the pool next ta
the tsnnts courts and consolidate those actlvities.
Ms. Bull indlcated she was also ~oncerned about the noise created by the motors and
equipment far the pool~ in additfon to the notse frcxn the people using the pool.
Mr. Powrie indicated the ~qutpme~nt would be housed i~slde a building. Ne. indicated this
would be a solar-heated poc~1 and would not have heaCers running.
TNE PUBIIC HEARItIG WAS CLQSED.
Canmt3sioner linn inqutred if there were a~Y plans to limit the pool hours~ and Mr. Powrie
tndiceted that would be set up th~ough the h~omeowners association.
Chairman Tolar indicated that with the size of the sub,ject property he did not understand
why the variances we~e needcd.
Mr. Powrie indicated the developer felt tie could prov(de units of much better quality and
a parking arrangement that would provide adequate p+trking~ and felt the trade-off was He
providing quality units which were smaller and whtch would include an attached gara~e.
indicated it would be providing one access road down to two separate parking a~reas~ and in
3/13/78
;
MINI:~ES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNII~C COMMISSIOt~~ MARC11 13~ 197~ 78-172
EI't NEGATIVE DECIARATION ` RE`CLASSIFICATION N0. 77-Z8-41 AND VARIANCE N0. 2995 (conttnued)
that way you did nnt have to h~ve es much a~phelt a~ea which Mrould be deducted frnm the
gross aree.
Annika Santalahtl~ Assistant Director far Zontnq, cl~rified that the developer was talking
about tlie denslty calculation of the Cod~ which sets up standards on net lot erees,
subt~acting all driveways; thst they a~e putting in more driveways in order to provide
attached ga-eges for aach unit and if they did not do that, the garages would not be near
the unltQ and they would have less osphalt and the denstty wauld be alrlght. She
indir.ated Ghere was a property to the south~ Just north of La Pslma~ where e number of
homeowners from Arbor Street were slso p~es~nt (n opposttion~ and thc Planning Commisslon
d(d approve hi~hsr dnnsity.
Commlssloner Linn asked if the devetoper had minlmum driveways~ would he be wlthin Code.
and Miss Se~talahtl replled that he {~rubably wouid.
Mr. Powrie tndlcatod he felt this was a play un words; that if the parcel were located in
another situation they could be well wlthin Code; that the privatc ~ti•eet is only u~ed to
gein access to the driveway A~ea. As developers~ they lookcci at the entt~•e street as
drlve aprons because people are using them to yet through te the units. Ne indlcated they
could have g~tten 33 un(ts If they had sut~tracted the entire asphalt area and the driveway
aprons,
Commissioner King indicated he felt tt~e request was instynificant end that the un~ts would
be beautiful and more practlcal.
Miss Santalahti pointc~l out if he had no driveways on the property he would have 10 unfts
per acre and =oning will allow 10.~$~ sc he would be close without any driveways.
Jay Titus~ Office Engineer, pointed out the minim,m standard width for ~ private street
with no parking is 2t; feet.
Mr. Powrie indicated they would provide sidcwalks for access to the back portlon on the
c~rcial portion through an easement.
Comm(ssianer Herbst indtcated he was conce~ned the private stree:t would be utilized for
access to the commerctal site.
Mr. Powrie Indicated he felt that was the ~eason for reverstng the pro,ject wfiich would
b~ing a common acc~ss into the fro~t portlo~ so that they could make a left-tu~n lane that
is not as near t4 Romney a as it now exists.
Commissioner Herbst Indicated concern with a 28-foot easement to service that many people
along with thQ commertia) site~ and asked what is planned for the commerclal site.
Mr. Powrie replled that the plan calls far retail ca~xnerciai and that the plan had been
presented to the 7raffic Engineer end he had come up wich the idea of combtning the access
through a comr~on 28-foot access easement that wiil servicP both properties; that there
would be a curb cut into the commercial establishment end they would be using the same
turn-i~ spot.
Con~nissioner Herbst felt that if that was the situation, maybe a wider street should be
p~ovided.
3/13/78
MIN:ITES~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 13~ 1q78 18•173
F IA NEGAI' 1 YE DECSARAT I ON. aECLASS 1 F I CAT 10~I N0. )]-78-47 AND VAa I ANCE N0. 299~_ ( cont t nued)
Jay Ta~hiro~ Assistant Planner~ pointed auC that If the 28-foot casemcnt Is elimin~ted~
thG proJect wouid have to be reedvertisad as a lot wlthout s[reet frontrge (e lendtocked
parcel).
Nr. Titus pnlnted out that tlie ectual street width v~auld have to bc 7.8 feet and an extra 3
feet would be required for tha sidewalk.
Mr. Powr(e ir~dtcatad commersial property is sold at a price per square foot and that he
did nat really see the dlfference betwe:en a 26-foot wlde or 28-foot wide pavenwrnt~ and
Commissioner Linn pointed out there ts a 28-foc~t requiremcnt with no parking. Mr. Pawrle
indlcated he wauld stipulate to meeting the reryuirement f~r a private street.
Commissioner Hcrbst felt it was Imperative that tlic Codes be mct fo~ a privatrz street~ but
that the varla~cc st{II would be ~equiredwitf~ tl~c 7~-fu~,l frontaye. tlc fclt ihis would
be the only way to servicc the site in vlew of the lon~,, parcel and stil~ have the
commcrcial on the front.
ACTION: CommisStoner Herbst offered a molion, seconded by Corxnissioner L(nn and MOTION
R ED (Commiss(oner Johnson being absent)~ that tl~e Anaheim City Plann(ng Commission hes
vtewed the subJect proposal to reclassify the znning from CL (Conunercl~l~ Limited) to RM-
k000 (Residential~ Multiple-Family) to conscruct a 30-unir condominlum complex with
weivers of minimum building site width a~d minimum building aitr area per cfwelling unit on
an irregularly-shaped parcal of land conslsttng of appraximotely three acres having a
frantage of approximately 26 fect on thc east side of Euclid Street~ having a max(mum
depth of appraximately 791 fcet~ and beiny located approximately 258 feet south of the
centerllne of Rom~eya Dr(ve; and does hereby approve the Negative Dr.claratton from the
requirement to prepare ~n cnviranmental impact report on thc basis that thr.re would be no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval af
this Negatlve Declaration si~ce the Anaheim General Plan desi~nates tha subJect property
for medtum density residentia) and general camiercial land uses canrt-ensurate wich the
proposal; that no sensitive envlronmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the
I~itlal Study submltted by the N~ritioner lndicates no significant indivldual or
cwnulatlve adverse e~vironmental impacts; and that tha Negative Declaratlon substantiating
the foregoiny t~indings is on f(lc in the CI[y of Anaheirn Planning Oepartment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolutio~ No. PC7~-42 and moved for its passagc and adoption~
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Reclassificatton
No. 77-78-47 subJect ta the petitfoner's stipulation to revise. the plans submitted in
connecxlon with sub,ject reclassificatlon and Variance No. 2995 by revPrsing the proJect to
provide a 28-foot wida access driveway ~long the !~uth property line Instead of the north;
that the drivewa•, shall be developed In accordance v~ith City of Anaheim prlvate street
standards. wit,. curbing and a sidewalk on one side; that the swimming pool shall be
relocated from the s~uthea~t c-,rner of subJect property to the northeast corner, and that
the revised plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Department staff to determine whether
or not they are substentially (n accordance with the lntention of the Pla~ntng Commisslon;
and subJect ta Interdepartr,ental Committee recomn~endations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BA~NES, DAVID~ HERE3S7~ KING, LINN, TOLAR
NOES: COMMI SS I ONERS : ~!C E
ABSCNT: COMMISSIONERS: JOFiNSON
3/13/78
MINUTES~ A~~AHEIM CITV PLANNINf, COMMISSION~ MARCN 1;. 1a78 78-174
EIR NEGATIVE DELLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. l1-78-4y ANQ VARIANCE N0. 2995 ~~nttnucd)
Commiss(oner Herbst affrred Resolutton ho. PC7H-~~3 and movecl for its pessage end adoption~
tt~at the Aneheim City Planniny Commtssion does he~eby yrant Pet(ti~n Por Vartance No. 2995
en the basis thAc the arca of the minimum building site width will ba used only fur a
driveway and no bullding wlll Ge const~ucteJ In satd area and that a hardsht~ exlsts 1~
thet a stmtlAr waiv~:r of minirnum buildlnc~ site aree per dweliing unlt w~s ~ete~tly grant~d
on a nearby parcel of I~nd~ and tliat the vAr'~nce is granr;;~l subJect to the pet(tioner's
sttpulatlon to submit plans reverslr~y tl~e pr~i~ct~ providing access on the south ~ather
than the norr,h; thot the pr(v~te access will be developed tn accordence with the City of
Anaheim private street standards and a sidewalk wlll bc provided on onc: side; that the
swinmin~ pool wlll be relocated away from the slnyle-family resl~iences; and the plans
shall bc revlewed by t~~c Planning Department staff Lo determine whether or not they are (n
accordancc with the (ntentlon of thk Planntriy Canmtssion; and subJect to Interdepartmenta)
Cunmtttee r~:cun~nendatiuns.
On roll ca!I~ the foreyplny resolution was passed by thc fullc~wing vote;
AYES: COMMISSI~NLRS: (iAR~~ES~ uAVIU~ NcRtsST~ KING~ LINt~~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSEI~T: COr1MISSIONERS: JO~~NSO~I
ITEM N0. ~;
E R NEGATIVE UEGLARATIO-l PUBLIC HEAR1t~G. QNNERS: LEOt~/11',U J. W~D GERALOINE
RECLASSIF CATION N0. 77•Ju-t~g LAWICI~.1, 167G Ord Way, Anahelm~ CA 92002. Property
0. 9~ described as a rectangularly-sl~ap~d parcel of land
consistiny of appr~x~matcly 72G0 square feet loceted
at the northwest corner of Sallis Lane and Euclid
Street, tiaviny approximate frontayes of >; feet on tnc north slde ~f Sall(e Lane and 132
feet on tl~~e west side of Euclid 5treet, and further described as 1]03 Sail{c Lane.
Prnperty p~esently classlfied RS-J2Q0 (Rf.SIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZOt1E.
REQUESTCG CLASSIFICATt01~: CL (COMMf.RCltil~ LIMI7CU) ZONE.
REQU~STED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A} MAXIMUM SiRUCTURAL FilIGNT~ (D) MINIMUM STRUCTURAL
SETBAGK AE~UTT I;~G AN ARTEr~IAL H I G11WAY ~(C) lil t11 MUM STRUCTURAL
SE7aAGK ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZUNE, AND (U) MINIMUM NUMf3ER OF
P ARKI Nr, SPACkS ~ TO CJ~lVE RT AN EX I ST 1 NG RES I UEtaT t AL STRULTURE
IN70 A RE:AL ESTATF. OFFICE.
There was no one indicating their pre,enc~ in opposltion [o subJect ~equest~ and although
the staff report to the Planning Gonmisston dd~ed March 13~ 1978 was no[ read at the
public hearing. it is referred to and made a pert of the minute~.
Leonard l.awicki~ the petitioner~ stated the subJect property has been in the planning
stage sinca ~9b~• He presented a~etition with 11 signaturES of those who would be
~ffected and who would be happy to see the developmtnt.
TNE PUULIC NEARING WAS CLOSCO.
Chairman Tala~ i~dicated he was concerned with the drivewey approach on tha north stde of
the property and the design of the parkin9. He feit a left-turn anto Euclid that clc.se to
Sallle Lane would be a maJor p~oblem. Ne suggested that r sign be posted indicating
3/13/78
MINUTCS~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MIIRCN 13~ 1978 78•175
EIR NEGATIVE OEGLARATION._RECLASSIFICATION N0+ 77-78-k9 A~ID VARIANCE N0. 2996 (contl~ued)
right-tur~ only and asl.ed tl~e petttioner to stlpulate to post(ng such a sign~ which he
did.
ACTION; :onmissloner David offered a mot(on, seconded by Cor~mission~r Linn and MOTION
~RIED (Commtsstuner Johnson bein~~ absent)~ thet Ch~ Anahe(m City Planning Commtsslon has
revlewed the subJect proposal to reclasslty the zon(ng From RS-7200 (Residential~ Single-
Femlly) to CL (Commerclal~ Limited) and to convert an existiny ~esidential struct~re into
a rea) astato offlce wlth walvers of maximum structural height~ mtnlmum structural setback
ebutting an orter(ol highway~ minlmum structural secback abutting a residentlal zone, and
minimum number of parking spaces on a rectane~ularly-shaped parcel of land c~nsisttng of
approximately J260 squarr feet located at the northwest corner of Salii~: Lane end Euclid
Strect, h~ving approximate frantagcs of ;; feet on th~ north sidc of Sallic Lai~e and 132
feet on the wcst sicle of Eucltd Street; and Joes licreby approve thc Neyative DEC1erAtlon
f+'an- ll~~ rCquiremenc to preparc an c:nvir~nmental impact report an the basis that there
would be no signlftc~nt indlvidual or cumulative adverse environnx~ntal impact due to the
app~oval of this Negativ~ Ueclaration slnce cl~e Anahslm General Plon deslgnates thc
subJect property for general con,n~ercfal {end usos ca~Knensurate with the proposal; that no
sensltive environn~entai impacts are (nvolve~d in [he proposal; that the Initia) Study
submit[ed by the petitioner tndicates no significant indivtdual or cumulative adverse
envtronmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration subs[antiatlnq tt~e foregotng
ftndings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planninq Departmeni.
Canmissianer G'avtci offered Resolucion No. PC7~-~~1~ and rx~vcd for lts passag~ and adopt(on,
that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby yrant Petition for Reclassification
No. 77-7f3-A9~ subject to interdepnrtmental Committee recartr+~ ndatfons.
On roll call~ tlie forego(ng re3olution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID, NER85T~ KING~ IINt~, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONkRS: NON~
A65ENT: COMMISSIONERS: .IOfINSON
Commissione~ Uavid offered Resolution No. PC78-45 and moved for Its passaye and adopt;on,
that the Anaheim Ci[y Planning Corrunission does hereby grant Petition fnr Veriance No. 2°95
on the basis that the petitioner demonstrat~d a hardst~ip exists in that the property is
more sultable for commercial uses because it is located between two comherctal parGels
fronting on Eucl(d Street~ said parcels forming a natural buffer between Euclid Street~ an
artertal htghway, and the residential uses to the wes[; suL-ject to the petitioner's
sttpulation to develop the existing str~cture in Gonfor~nance wlth the appliceble City of
Rnahetm codes for commercial buildings; subJect to stipulations by the petitioner to
eliminate the existing driveway on Sallle Lane, remove the chalnlink fence along Eucl(d
Street and lendscape tf~at area; that a 6-foot high block wall will be provided o~ the west
propcrty line and a riyl~t-turn-only siyn will be p~sted at the Euclid Street drlveway to
restrict left turns ontc+ Euclid; and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votc:
AYES; COMNISSIONERS: BARNLS, DAVID~ NERDST~ KING~ LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIOtJERS: NONE
ABSEN7: C~MMISSIONERS: JAHNSON
3/13/78
~~~ I
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 13. 1978 78-17e
ITEM N0. iA
E~ I~TIGAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1~ 5 PUBLIC NEARING. OWt~ERS; WILI.IAM K. AND YVON~~E
. 2 l.. NYMAN~ 2510 Wmst Glencrest Avenue~ AnAhetm~
CA 92801. AGF:NTt MARK H. FOUCNER~ 3326 Wnat
Ltncoln Avenue~ Anahe(m~ CA 92801. Petltioner
requests WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAf,E~ (a) MAXIMUM REAR YARb COVERAGE~ a~b (C)
MINIMUM REAR YARU SE7BACK~ TQ PERMIT AN EXISTING ILLEGAL ENCLOSED PATIO on property
described as a rectengularly-sheped parcel of land co~sistin,y of approx~mately 6077
square feet hav(ng a fro~taye of approximately 61 feet an the south side of Glenc~est
Avenue~ having a m~sximum depth of opproximetely t0A fcet~ being located approximately
1150 feet east of the centerllnP of Magnolia Avenue~ and further described as 251~ West
Glencrest Avenue. Property presently classified RS-J200 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMiLY)
ZONE.
There was no 4~~ Indicat(ny their presence In oppositlon to sub.~ect request~ and althaugh
the steff report to the Planning Commission dat~d March 1}, 1y7~ w~~ nok read at the
public hearinq~ tt is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mark Foucher~ agent~ indicated the variance has be~n requ~sted to permit an enclosed patio
to encroach i nto the setback and tt~at oth~r propert i Ps i n tl~~ san-~ v I cl n i r.y and zona have
more land than the suhject property so they could build a structure that wauld not be
illegnl. Ne indicated subJect property is locaced within 20 feet of a Clty-owned water
pump which is located on tl~e west of this property. tle indicated the enclosed patio was
bullt to keep out noisss from thc wr~tc:r p~rsp chat runs ntght and day. Hc indicated the
previous eveniny the peticioner ~~ad informed the Citv of A~aheim ta turn do~n th~ rete of
water going thraugh the pump and that they had prnvided relief. Fle tndicated the City has
acknawledged th~re Is a problem with noise on the property and has participated on a 50~
basis to construct a wall tc~ help alleviate the nois~. but ~he noise is still there. He
indicated this property is one nf four lots wl~ich were originally in the area before the
tract houses cartxz in and are: substantially smaller than those lots provlded In the housing
tract. He indicated that berore the pat~v was built there was 37~ lot coverace and that
wi~t~ the patio it has increased to 1FGb. He indicated the ~etitioner has 6077 square feet
on his lot and thc ~egular arca for this nei9hborhood is 720~ square feet~ and ff he had a
lot comprisi~g 7200 square feet~ his patio would be wtthin Cdde.
7HE PUBLIC HCARING 41AS CLOSEO.
Commissloner linn pointed out that when the house was built a variance wes gra~ted because
of the size of the lot. Ne indicated he has not been convinced there (s a hardship on
thts percel.
Comm(ss(oner Herbst asked what praTwted the Zoning Enforcement Officer's citation~ and Jay
Tashiro~ Assistant Planner, i~dicated one of the nei,yhbors had complained about the noise
while the s*ructure was being built.
Mr. Fo~.icher pointed out there was no one present to express opposition~ and he realized
the reason the petitioner was here is betause saneone had informed the Building Division
sorn~thing was wrong on the propc~ty. He indicated he had been informed one of the
neighbors whu lives directly behind this property is che one who asked the Building
Division to check i~to the property with respect to the petitioner`s enclnsure. Fie
indicated the closure was erected two years ago a~d the neighbo~ has lived there for about
a year and a half. He stated the petitioner had indic~ted therc was a problem wlthln the
3/13/78
MI~IUtES~ AI~ANEIM CITY PLIINNING COFWISSION~ Ml-RCN 13~ 1978 78-171
FIR~„_,CA'TEGORIC~AL _EXEMPTION-CIASSES 1_a~ At~D VARIANCE ~~o. 2992 (continued)
last four mo~ths concsrning e dog and thay had dncided to qo to ttie Bullding Dlvislon
becausa of tt~ls matter~ and it did not really co~cern the petftl~ner's enclosure.
Jack White~ Deputy City AttArney~ polnted out to th~ Commisslan that they could not base
thely dec(slan on wF~eth~r ar not there wes ~~y oppositton present; that the only thing
Yhey would have to declde rss whother tf~e appllcatlon meets the Code~ and the fact that no
one is prasent does not entitle anyone to approval of a variance.
Cheirrtum Tolrr indicated that reyardless of the dog barking~ the rt-~in obJectlve here is
that the petio has been built wlt~~out bullding permits and it ls tiard to Justify the
rr.oson for dotng that. N~ felt the property owner knew hc must yet a permit.
P1r. Foucher (ncllcated that he felt they were talking abaut a personai hards}~iN~ i,ut t?~~e
property hardship was creatcd befure that, it started wtth che small property.
Canrntssioner Herbst Indicated the fact tt~ac the room was built tllegolly ls the complaint
aince everyone knows tliey must obt~in o perrnit; ttiat tiic size of thc lot did not have
anythiny ta do with it~ but puttinq up a room withouc getting a pcrmit was the concern,
and he did not see a hardship.
Commissioner tiarnes pointcd out that it. a~ppe~rcd to her a~ the plot plan that the
neiyhbor's lot was approximately the same stze as tl~c subJect p~operty.
Commissioner Herbst pointcd out therc ar~ qulte a few 6onrf-sauare foot lots in Anahcim
whi~h were devcloped prtor to zoning codes; that he did not thlnk there was a hardsh(p
here.
Gha~rman Tolar indicated he recoynized ihe room was constructed illeclally~ but that he
could not see a~y harm in it and that it does abut a garage to the rear and the water pun!p
~d)acent to it does appear to create excessive noise.
It was noted the Olrector of the Planniny Uepartment or his autho~ized representat(ve has
determined that the proposed proJect falls within the definition of Gategorical
Exemptions~ Classes t and ~~ as defined in paragr~ph 2 of the City af Anaheim
Envtronrt~ntel Impact fieport Guidelines and is~ there~fore~ categorlcally exempt from th~
requirement to prepare an EIR.
Gommissloner Linn offcred a resolution that P~tition for Variance Mo. 2992 be denied on
the basis that no hardship has b~en demonstrated by the petitfoner.
Commissloner Nerbst indicated he did not agree; that the building has been built and it
would be a real hardship to have to tear it down. but that this type petition really
cr~ates a proble. for the Planning Gommisslon. He felt if the building was thoroughly
inspetted and brought up to ineet all Godes for t~e City of Anaheim, that a hardshtp could
be found due to the excessive naise from the purnp station t~ext door.
il egalistructuresPQtheydwill cantinue,togget requestsnfor thentand ttcwillnbeSSettingrane
undesirable precedent.
Qn roi) call~ the foregotng mc~tion by Commissioner linn friled to carry by the following
vote~
~/13/78
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ M1RCH 13~ 1~78
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOM-CLASSES 1 b 5 AND VARIANCf: N0. 2992 (continued)
AYESt COMMISSIONERSt IINN
NOESt COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ OAVID, HERDST~ KING~ TOLAR
ADSENT; COMµISSI0N~R5: JONt~SON
78-178
Commission~r Herbst polnted out thet he reelized the buildir,g was constructed illegally~
but duc to the testirtx~ny by the petitloner stating that the pump noise was excesstve,
whlch warranted the nesd to enclose the patio~ he felt the existing lot coverage of 46$
was minlmal~ and thet the 6-foot setback from the rear prorerty line ts Insignificent
since it was abuCtin~ a garays structure. Ne Indlc~ated the Planning Commisslon has
allowed other 4~~ covarage in some RS-6000 devel~pments anA that denlal would be denying ~
pri~~ilege enjoyed by utl~~rs in the aren.
Cummisslener Barnes indlcated she Jld not think the rlght enJayed by oChers In the area
should be made a part of the resolution because s~~e felc nthers could use that for an
example in requpsting simtl~r variances.
ACTIOt1: Canmtssioner Herbst affered Resolutivn N~. PC78-4G an~ moved for its pass~ge and
a~op ~vn~ that the Anaheim City Planning :onmtsslon do~s hereby grant f'etftion for
Variance No. 29~2 on the basis that the petitioner demonstrated that a hardsh(p exists in
that the subject property :s localecl adJncent ta a City-owned pumping 5tntto~ to the west
and testimony presented at tt~e public hearing ind(cates ~onstant noise generated by the
pumping station warrants the ~~clasure of the ex(sting patio~ and subJect to the
petltioner's stipulatian that che exisCiny illeyally-enclosed petio wlll be brought (nto
conformance with all appllcable City of Anaheim codes within 60 days. anJ subJect to
Interdepartmcntal Comr~lttee recommendati~ns.
On roll call, thc forcgoing resolution was p~ssed by the follvwing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: BARIdEa, DAVID, t1ERBST~ KIMG~ TOIAR
NOES: C~thMISS10NERs: l.~tlN
AUSEI~T: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON
Commissioner Barnes indicated she felt the Planning Commission is going to have to do
something about these illegal enclosures and that they shoulci go on record as a"warning"
that t`~ey are coming to the end of the "milk of human kindness" whicii w(11 allow s~ch
structures.
Commission~r King pofnted out there is not an abundance of these th~ngs and the Lommissior~
should use cammon se~se.
3/13/7s
..~~ ~ ........:....:~.-,:..:..:.~.M~.s4n~NM1iX•if4~~{.yi
!
MINUTES ANANEIM Ci11 w~.ANNING COMMISSI0~1~ MARCH 13~ 1978
78-179
ITEM N0. 11
~Z~CEE~~ICAL EXEMP710N•ClASS 11 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNCR: ASAWA CORPnR11TIQN~ 5~~0
A~"'R~~'~'~p.~3pqp North Colden Cir~~r Drive~ Santa Ana~ CA 92705.
" Petitianer req4ests WAIVER 01' MINIMUM DIS7ANCE
BETWEEN FREE-STANL~ING SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT A FItEE•
STANpING SiGN on prope+rty descrlbed as an trr~c~ularly-shaped percel of land Gonaisting
of approxlinetely 0.~ ecre locared at the narthwast cornbr of Orsngethorp~ Avenue end
Kraemer l3oulevard, having approximate frontuges of 143 fioet on the north side of Orange°
thorpe Aven~• and 149 feet nn the west side of Kraemer f3ouleverd, and fu~thcr descrtbod
as 1701 North Kraemer pouleva~d. ProperCy presently classifted Ct1 (COMNERC111L~ NEAVY)
ZONE.
There waa no one indtcotiny their presence in opposltfon to subJect r~quest~ and although
the steff repurt to the Planning Commission datcd Narch 13~ 197~ was nat ret~d at the
publlc hcoring~ it (s referred to and mAdP. a part of '~e minutes.
0111 Asawii~ the p^•titluner. IncJicated subJect property Is locatec: at the northwest corner
of Oranycthorpe Avcn~e and K~aemer Boulevard and that they havc plans to put in a 7-Eleven
Market and a Winchet s Donut Nuuse. Ile indicat~d they were requesting two free•stending
slgns and polnted out1other free-standing signs in the ar~:a. Ne indicated that most
companies want seperale Identific~tion and he rea~ized signs are problems for citles~ but
because thcre ore multlple uses on the propcrty t,hese signs shouid be allrn~red,
Tf1E PUdI.IC NEARING WAS CI.OSED.
''h~irman T~lar lookecl at the exhibit presentcd by Mr, Asawa stiawing thc signs end
ii~:~:cated he felt tl-e Clty liad created a state of ch~+os on the tharouyhfares wlth too many
signs. Ne indicated he did not fecl either onc of thes~e plACe~ needed the s(gn for
ldentificatton; that people are going th~re on purpose, and Gommisslane~ Herbst pot~ted
aut thfl~ even on large shnpping cer-ters~ the Planning Commisslon inslsts on combining the
signs and that he did not see any reas~n why tt~ese cannot be incorporated (nto one sign
for this locatian.
Mr. Asawa pafnted out tlie City has nilowed sEmilar slgns in tl~e past and it t~ a policy
for tl~e %-Eleven store to use their siyn.
Commissioner Herbst indicated lie could not support these two signs~ and i,fiairman Toler
agrec.~ with him.
it was noted the ~)irector of the Planning Uepartment or hIs author(zcd representative h~s
determinad tliat the proposed pro.ject falls witt~in the deflnitlon of Categorica)
Exemptions~ Class 11~ as defined In paragraph 2 0` the City of Anaheim Environmentel
lmpact Rep~rt Gutdelines anJ is~ thcref~re~ categorically exempt fram the requtrement to
prepare an EIR.
ACTtON: Commissioner Barnes offered Reshlution No. PC7al~+7 a~d moved for its p~ssage and
a~tTon, that the Anaheim City Planning Conmission does hereby deny petition for Variance
No. 3000 on the basis that the petitioner did no: demonstrate that a hardship exists and
that the subJect property is a small comme~cia! site with good visibility along two
arterial highways and therc is no need for excessive siynin~,
On rol l cal l~ tiie foregoin,~, resulution was passed hy tne fol lowing vote:
AVES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID~ Hf.RE3ST~ KING, LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A6ScNT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSOH
Jsck White. Deputy City Attornay. presented the prtitloncr with ~c~ written right to
appeal the Plan~ing Commtssion's declsion within 22 da~~s.
3i~ 3i~a
~,
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM LITY PI,ANNING COMHISSION~ MARCiI 13~ 197$ 78-180
ITEM N0. 12
~TA~RICAL EXEMPTIOt~-CLASSES 1 b PUaLIC NEARING. 041NEPS: DOROTIiY SI10EL end
NDI ON L USE ttMIT N0. 1 WILLIAM A.~ CLORIA M. ANU GOLDIE BAYZERMAN~
fi98U Knott Streot~ Duene 'ark~ CA 90621.
AGENT; MARVIN H. GREENSPAN~ 2~U2 Victoria
Avenue. Anahrim~ CA 92t~04. PGtitioner r~quests perr~Isslon to ESTABLIS~1 A MA5SAGE
PARLOR on property describod as a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of
approxlmately ~.8 acre h+~ving a frontagc of approximatcly I~A feet on the east slde
of Euclld Street~ hiavinc~ a rrwximum deptli of ~pproxtmately 2J3 feet~ be(ng located
approximetely 195 1'eet nort~~ ~f the centerline of Broaciway~ end further described as
242 Sauth Euclid Street. Proprrty presently classifted CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITEO) tONE.
The~e were 13 persons indicartny thelr presence i,, opposltion to subJect ~equest~ and
although thc staff re{~ort tu [I~n Planniny Co~nniYSiun dated Ma~ch 13~ 197o was not read at
eh~ ~~~hti~ heArin~~ it Is refcrrecl t~ and madc a part of ihc minutcs.
Marvin Greenspan~ uyent~ was present to answer ony questions.
Kendal) D(lls~ Presidont of thc Anahsim Board of Realtors~ indicatcd their propcrty
adJoins the subJect property dirc.ctly to the north and polnted out thelr complex of
businesses is well maintained anJ shows a hlgh quallty. Ne referred t~ the publiclty
concern(ng massage parlors and the effect they havG on the comrnu~tty; thot wherever
massage parlors are located it ~s usually An undesirable ~ren; thAC they do have a
substantia) investment in this building and [hey have considereble prlde in it and do not
want their lnvestment reduced. He pointed out the property values do Jecline when a
massage parlor (s in existence In the neighbarhood. He s~id he. would Ilke to urge the
Planning Cammissian for a nPgetive vote for a message pa~lor at 242 South E:utlid Street.
Max Pearl~ 2220 Avenue ~f the St.~rs~ Los Angeles~ indicatecJ he c~wns the praperty next door
to the real estate office~ Standord Shoe Score~ ar- aptical store~ a ladies dress and
sportswear shop~ ~nd tfie Sawyer Schocl. Ne indtcated he hacl talked with the people who
run these busfnesses and they were concerned and did nat want a massage parlor in thls
area. Ne lnd(cated that as far as hls property is conccrned~ It is a modern and extremely
well built development and all the stor~s g-nerate a loc of business~ and pointed out the
Stenderd Shoe Store generates about two mtllion dullars annually and the Stiwyer Schnol
enrolls app~oximately 1~0 stud~nts ranq(ng in age from t$ !0 23 years o` age. He
indicated all of these businesses could be advarsoly aff~~cted by the shabbiness and
undesirable elen~ent of a massaye aarlor. Ne stateci they ~tiad gone to grcat expense to
create an attractive~ well built~ mvdern shopping d~veloprr~ent to drav~ the aver~ge
respectful onaheim citizen; tt~at th~:ir businesses do a lot of advertlsing to attract
businesses~ wh(ch provides more profit to the f;ity lf~an a massage parlor wo•iid; that he
did not b~lievc the City of Anaheim tould encouraga the deterioration af the commerctai
potent~al af this areas by allowing a massage parlor. He referred to the Police
Department report mentioniny approximately 17 massage parlors Incated in Anaheim and
pointe:d aut that within a four or five block area there are three message parlors In this
area~ and tt~ey do not need another one.
Glady, Wallac~~ Secretary to thr Board of Realtors~ stated she was concerned about
property values and stated they have a substAntial investment in tt~eir build(ng. She
polnted out the nrea of Brookhurst where massage parlors have been alloweJ and the
deterioratio~ that has occurred there. She stated they were co~cerned about property
values and protectin~ thet~ tnvestment and she knew what this type of estab~ishment does
to property values.
3/13/78
~
M I NUTES, ANAHI I M C I TY PI.ANN 1 NG COMM 1 SS ION ~ MARCH 13, 1976 7~~ I 8)
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 b~ AND CONOITIQNAL USF PEaMIT I~O. 18QG (conttnucd)
Sendra Merk indicated she was the op~,rator af the selnn ot 246 South Euclld Strent end hed
been thsre for ten ycors and hed ta k an (t from a smell salan to a 14-operator aalon~ which
(s a busy place. She Indic~tcd tl~at wl~en her customcrs found out a mesgaqe parlor was
being proposed~ tliey were upset and slie ~id not fee) they wa~ld comr to the salon ~ny ~^,~r~
if A massage parior was ellaved. S h e reF~rrsd t~ thc arna o' Brookhurst and indlcated she
would be forced Co ~;~ave her bus(ness if ttiis w~s allow~d. She indlcated when her shop is
busy It (s not a quiet esteblishmcn t end felt it wauld be a disturba~ce to a massac~e
parlor.
Jamle Callis indiceted she runs t'~e stylinq sel~m at 24~~ South Euclid; that she used to
work at tt.e beauty cc-Ils_ye which is on 8rookhurst Street Inbctwecn the modeling studio and
two -n~ssage ~arlors~ and thal she k nc~ws the traffic and type of people wh~ patronize these
places and she felt this would be a detriment to thls arca. She indicat~~ they do have
children whn come to their salon; tP~at a lot of thelr customers would be afraid to take
thelr cl~i Idr~n Into th~ area i f the massage F~arlor wes al lowed~ and shc felt ti~ls wrs not
the place for a nwssage parlor.
Dorman 6uttram. Pastc~r of the Fi~st Assembly of God Church. 125q West Broadway~ Anahelm~
indiceted they had Just completed a nr.w facility a couple of manths ego and that he I~es a
petitlon he w~uld Ilke to submlt wh ich was si~~nsd ~y approx(mately 100 friends and
ne I ghbors of tl~e i r church. lie po i n Led ~~u t the re are f i ve reasons he fe 1 t th I s was not a
good location: 1) their church~ an d in connectfon wlth thetr church (s e schoo) one block
west of subJect property; 2) the Ci ty pa~k designcd for femily use o~ Broadway across the
street f rom the churcti and school ; 3) FAI rmont Scl~oul . which is a school near Loara and
Broadway; 4) Loara Elementary Schoo 1 at the corner of Loara and aroedway; and 5) the
numerous family resteurants and sma 11 shops which are ncarby. He stated he di~ not
b~lleve a massage parlor would b~ in thc best intere:.t of the community and he agrred wtth
the cormnents of the local Pol ice Departnk.nt.
Mr. Greenspan indicated he fel[ th e ~c fs goo~ and bad in everybody and everything; that he
presently I~as a massaye parlor~ Th e Tender Toucfi~ at 219 South Stete College Boulevard; he
indlcated he does not belong to a massaye parlor assoc(atton and that tf~(s establishment
is run like a massagr_ parlor should be run, and it is a very nice place and they have
never had any t:ouble wi tfi thc C1 ty . Hc stated his background is good; that he has two
boys In school and has been here alrnost 20 years. Ht stated he expects to open a nice
massage parinr. He indicateJ the peopl@ in oppos(tion arc r(ght~ that there are massage
par{ors he would not go to, ~specia lly the one on Brookhurst. He f~dicated tl~ere are 16
massage parlors fn Anahelm and tha t 10 have been closcd during the last year. He
Indicated there are rules he abide s by which khe other e9tablishments do not abide by.
THE PUf3LIC HEARING NAS CLOSED.
San~ra Me~•k asked what ktnd of gua r antee the petftloner could give that this was gaing to
be a nice massage parlor.
Mr. Greenspan indica~ed therc~ is no guarantee; that he was going to open a nice massage
parlor that anyone could go to. F1G said he did not want to have drapes; that he wanted
people to be able to look in because there (s noth(ng to h~ide. Ne felt those people dn
opposition have not vicited a decen t massage parlor,
Chairman Tolar stated he agrees t~ ere is good and bad in everything~ but that he feit 16
or 17 massage parlors in Anaheim is plenty and felt that wlthin a few miles rad!us there
3e~ 3i~a
MI NUTES, ANANE I M C I TY PLAIIN 1 NG GOMM 1 SS I ON ~ MARCN 13 ~ 1978
'~~ ~ O~
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLASSES 1 b 3 ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1806 (continued)
t s a tramendo~~s number of tfiese es t~b 1 1 shments end he cou I cl not see thet another message
par 1 or is needed In thi s eree.
Mr. Greenspc~n ir~dicated it would not bother htm (f they never opened another massage
parior In Anaheim~ but thst no nne would put thet in writing~ and that his request could
be denled t~day end in two weeks another ane could apcn up.
Chei ~men ~alar tnd(cated thet as long as he was on the Commisstnn~ he was qai~~ to help
Mr. Greenspen get thet wish. and indicated it waa ~nfortunAtP thAt when a p~rson does havc
a n i ca eslab I ishment I t does yet a bad ~eputat ton from other esteb 1 t shm~er~ts.
A brtef dlscussion was held on the opening of rnassagc parlors tn thix area recently.
Jay Taslilr~~ Assistant Pianner~ pointed out there Is an ac~e restrict(on for employees snd
that was the remson the candittonel use ~erm(t wss requirecf.
Commissloner Ba~nes (ndicated ihat to her knowledge no mASSac~e parlors have been approved
ainee ahe has been ~n the Commissian ~ and Chairman Tolar po(nted out those on Hrookhurst
were still In the Cuunty when the properties w~re snner.ed and wc•r-~ nanconformtng USCS.
Mr. Grecnsp.an polnted out that several massage parlors havP been opr.ned in the pa~t year
and severa) have been closed, and Chalrman Tolar polnted uut the ordinance was changed
thrce years ago~ requ(ring a cnndit ional use permit~ ancJ prlo~ to that they went in und~r
a commercial use and that to his knowledye no massage parlors have been appreve~ In the
last three years.
Comm(ssloner Herbst pointed out the Planning Commission is a reconmendinc~ body to the Ci ty
Councll ond that three votes from the Counci I cou;d chanyr the r~commenclatloii~ and that
any declsion made by the Planning Commission could !~e appe~led t~ the Cfty Council; that
due to the f reP enterpr i se sys tem ~ anybody has the ~• i gh t to ask for anyth 1 ng ho des i res .
I t wa5 noted that thc P 1 ann i ng D 1 rec tor or h i s autho~ f zed representat ( ve has determi ned
that the proposed proJect falls wi thin the d~finitlon of Cetego~ical Exemptions~ Classes 1
and 3, as deflned in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report
GuiCelines and is, therefore~ categc~r(cally exemQt from the requirsment to prepare an EIR.
ACT ! OU; Comrni ss i oner Davl d of fe red Resol ut ion Np. PC76-48 and mo~ed for 1 ts passage a~ed~
adopt~An~ thet the Anaheim City Planning Comnisston do~s hereby deny Petitlon for
Condltlonal Use Pesrmit No. ifk?6 on the basis tho~t the proposed use wi I1 adversely affeet
the adJolning and nearby land uses which consist of a church, schools~ a Ctty park~ a~d
num~rous famtly-type restaurants~ and wi II also adversely affcct the yrowth and
dev~elopment of the area in ~-hich it is proposed to be located; that there are a sufficient
numb~r of slmt lar establishr~;nts in close prox(mtty ta subJect locatian to serve th~ needs
of the communlty. and the granting of thP conditianal use permit will be detrimental to
the peace~ health~ safety and general welfare of tfie citizens of the City of Anoheim.
On ~oll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYE 5: COMMI S5 I ONE~RS : BARNES, OAV ID ~ NER~57 ~ KI NG, L i NN, TOLAR
NOES: COMhISSIONERS: NO:IE
A85ENT; COMMI SS IONERS : JOHNSON
3/13/~8
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 13~ 1y78 ~8-183
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTI01~•CLASSES 1 6 3 AND CONDITIO~UIL US~ PERMIT N0. 1806 (continued)
.. ~ . -
Jack Whitm~ Deputy City Attarney, n~esented the pettttoner with the written rlght to
•ppea) the Pl~~n(ng Commisslon's dectsian within 22 deys.
CortKnissloner Davfd asked tt~ose votcing an oplnton In oppnsttlon if they would be opposed
11` the raquest was far the use five blocks away.
(TEM N0. 1
E G ICAL EXEhiPTIQN-CLASS 1 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MICHAEL J. AND JERI J.
.~~ GARAN~ AND BRUCE C. AND OMA LEE ARMSTRONC~ 17yy
-"' `~w East Lincoln Avenue~ Analieim~ CA 9200:. AGENTS:
DAN WILC~X~ 1~3b3 Del Gado Drtve~ Sherman Oeks,
CA 91403 and DOUG H11RTMl1N ~ 3ti4'L San Anse 1 i ne Ave~ue ~ Long 6each , CA 908UA. Pet 1 t i oner
requests pormissl~n to ESTA9LISf1 A RETAIL PURCNASING SERVICE FACILITY on property
descrtbed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land conslsting af approxirnately 0.6 acre
locatad at I:he southeast corner af Miraloma Avenue and Sunshine Way~ havinq approxim+~te
frontages of 173 feet ~n thc southeast sldc of Miraloms Avenue and 442 fent on the east
end northwect sid~:s of Sunsl~ine Way~ and further described as 1290 Sunshine Way.
Property presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIHITEO) ZQNE.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposltton to subJect request, and although
the staff report to the Planning Cortmission dated Macch 13~ 197a was not read +~t the
public hearing~ (t is referred to and made a parc of the minutes.
Doug Hartman~ agent~ indicated he ~~as somc: questtons regarding the Interdepartmenta)
Cammittee recommendations, perticul~--ly the slynal assessmr,nt referred to~ and that he and
his partner are trytng to live up to all regulations. t1e indfcated they were surpr(sed to
find out they would have to flle For a conditionai use permtt.
TNE PUOLIC HEAttING MIAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Nartr~.an how he felt this use would servlce the tndustriat
canmun i ty .
Mr. Hartman replled he understood the building was utilized for warehousing~
manufacturing~ and assembly and that in their busincss they do asse.mble furn(ture~ bu
that the large area would be for a warehouse; that it was not actually a store where
people would come 1~ and buy thinys~ it is a warchQUSing distribution area where things
are brought in and then taken out.
Commissioner N~rbst indicate~ that sinGe thiS property was developed as an Ind~stria)
site~ hc felt bringiny in retail-type traffic Into the area would nut bcnefit the people
alrwaciy in the area; that Mtraloma does head riyht into Anaheim's (ndust~ifi area. He
indicated his particular view of this type of operation compares w(th oth ; types oF uses
similar to thls~ and around Christnws ~Ime and ocher holidays~ traffic does become a maJor
problem with people caming 1~ for special sales. He indtcated this was a problem parcel
anyway~ .fth limited parking~ and dld not lend itself to retail activity.
Mr. Ftartman indicated thei~ opeiatlon is not apen to the general public and that the only
way peopie come in is through invitation by dire~t mail, and that they have a ltmited
3i ~ 3i ~a
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITV PLA~NING CONMISSION, MARC~1 1~~ 1975 7~"~~~
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANO_CON_OITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1807 (co~tinuod)
mombershlp. He indicated they pracurn large.-type Items~ such as furniture. appllances~
etc.
Commissi~ner Herbst reforred t~ thQ arcd In qucstlon f~r a showroom arca and sta~ted It
appeAred if thay wcre going to have a shvwrporn~ (t wda obvto~s they were going to be
selling a product there.
Mr. {iertmen indicatcd the shnwroom area would be to show tt~eir cllents thc types of
mdrehancllse they can purcli+~s~, for th~m.
Commissioner Herbst indicatod he felt they were dealing wlth retall trade !,~ an Industrial
e~ea and they belonged tr- the cl~~vntown area or in a retall commerclal area.
Chairman Tolar ssked Mr. tlartman how they t~a~1 chosen this site~ and Mr. Hartmen replled
they had been advlsed by the rcal estAte rcpresentative when they were buying the property
that this particulAr type of service would be allowed in this buildiny~ that they were
qutee surprtsed to find it was nat allc~w~d. Ile indicated~ concerninc~ th~ trafflc
configu~etion~ it could be a patenilal problem but they dicl not ant(cipate that many
paople into thelr store; f.hat when a person finds a television set. they cail (n to see if
they could yet It for them and then they drop it off at their home~ there is no need for
them to come to the Iocation at all.
Commissioner Nerbst indtcated, unfortunacely~ the Commtssion has seen simllar proposals
which have not turned out to be whet they said they wtre~ and later find out It Is a
retall operotlon In an industrlel xone, an~! he felt that is what this operation would be.
Mr. Hartman axplalned that an individual becomes a rt~ember by tnvttation; that they show
them examples and types of products they can yet for them and then they interv(ew them and
they become a nKmber; that there were nunxrous ways to order the merchandlse~ and that
mail or~ier ts frequently used; ttiat they catl and ask if a particular item is avatleble
and then mail in thelr check and they never have to Game to the warehouse at all. Na
indicated they did not advertlse in the newspepers~ etc.; that the only way they bring
people in is t'.rough Girect mail pieces whtch they send out.
Commissloner Uavid asked hvw they procure the names for thclr mailing list. and Mr.
Nartrt-an repiled that they are fram mailing lists.
Corranissl~ner King offcred a resolution recammending denial of Condittonal Usc Permit No.
1807 on the basis that it would have an adverse effect an the ad;oining land uses and on
the grawth and development of the arPa.
Prior to voting on this resolution~ Dan Wilcox, 15363 Del ~ato Orlve~ Sherman Oaks~
indtcated they basically will be purchasiny agents, that they are n~rchandising
~epresentatives for their clients and that tney charge a fee and secure items for thelr
clients; that they a~e usually large-type items. furnitu~e~ carpets~ appliances~
automobiles, etc.~ and the reason for the sha~rroom is to show the customers the types of
items so that they can purchase for them; that they do not seil anything off the showroom
floc~r~ pe~ se; that this is a new concept in marketiny and people come in through
invitation only~ which are sent out by direct mail And it is regulated by thGm; that they
could tell haw many people wouid come in a certain period and that over an eight-haur day
there would probably be very few people. Ne indicated they interview the people and
explain thelr services and what they can provldc for them and then they contract with the
3/13/78
~
MINUtES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ MAft(.i~ ~~~ 1978 ~$"185
EIR CATEGORICAL__EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITiONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1807 (contlnued)
esteblishment to represent thert; as purchasing agents. Ne ind(cated e lot of business Is
conducted by telephone.
Chatrman Tolar (ndlcated he was cancarned that this establishment would be competing witlr
the ratal) businesses and that th(s (s an industrlal ~rea~ And that unfo~tunately they
were saying they are in competftlon wlth thn reteil busi~essas.
Mr. Wilcox lndlcated h~ felt one of the ma.]or concerns wos the trafflc genereted. He
stated they knvw of oChe~ variances which havc been qrant~~ in the area and referred to
the van converslon eQtabllshment and a reai estate office in the erea.
Chalrman Toler (ndicated he was try(ny to Justify the use and t~yin~ to help; he explained
the use nust be compatlble with the tndustrla) area And that hc cuu~~1 not see thls es
anything buC a retail operatlon.
Conmiasion~r Linn lndic~ted ht had knawn an uperation for years whlch was opereting this
type of business and he did n~~ feel tt~c services t1,ey are offering is beneficla) to the
industriel area; he felt they should be In a commercial aree.
Mr. Wllcox stated th~y had purchased the bulldin9 in good faith~ not reallzing there was a
problem; t~-at they complieci with everything they knew of and thought wtiat they were doln~
was perfectly fine. Ne referred to the fact that Code permits retail purchasin~ servlces
in the ML (industrlal, Limited) Zone subJect to the approval of a conditional use permit.
Ccxnmissianer Nerbst puinted out the re~ail activtties alia~+ed in Ind~astrlal areas are~ to
service that industrial community~ such as a bank~ stationery store, etc.~ but that thls
type of operat(on Is not servicing ~the induscrial area in any way and craffic ts a problem
here~ and he felt they belong (n a cammerclal area.
Chairman Tolar r~ferred to other establishments such as Wicks. where people are buying
right aff the floor~ and tndtcated tt~is bothers ~~Im,
Commissloner Barnes indicated she is against any retail astablishment golny into an
industrial area; that this is a unique part of Anaheim's industrlal area.
Commissianer Herbst ~inced ouc that tl,e van converslon establ(shment Is supposed to be
dotng thelr work inside the builJing.
Commissioner Barnes pointed out she had noticed a problem with the van conversion faGllity
s:o~ing vehicles autside with no screening.
Comm(ssioner Herbst Indicated he was concerned e~bouC the parking since It was establlshed
as a warehouse in the area.
Comm(ssioner pavid asked if the operation ls alre:ady in ope~ation~ and !1~. Wtlcox
indicated they had moved in and had put a lot of inoney into the operacion. He po(nted
denial of this conditional use permit is yoing to i.e devastating to him.
Chairman 7olar pointed out he feit this was a unique business and he did not know if there
were any justlfications for this type of operation in an industrial area.
3/13/18
MINUTES. AI~AFIEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ MARC11 13~ 1978
78-186
FIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPT101~-CL~,SS 1 ANQ CONDiTI~~ l1L USE PERMIT N0. 1807 (continued)
- ._..,_._~
Commissioner Barnes polnted out the only ,justificakion would be if it was to servlce
membars from the industrlal community only.
Commiasloner Oavld asked if e t(me limlt would please the Commtssion. C~mmissic~~er Harnns
asked tf~e petitioner If he wpuld be willing to Itmit his membc ~s to those who work in the
industrlal area~ and Mr. Wilcox. rcpl(ect tf~~t they could not operete und~r thos~
conditions.
Commissloner Ktny offered o resolution to de~y Conditional Use Permit I~o. 1807 and it
fa(led ta carry an the follc~wing vate;
AYES: COMMISSIOr~ERS: UARNES~ NERBST, KINr,
NOCS: COMMISSIOt~ERS: pAVID~ TOLAR~ LINN
ABSEIdT: COMMiSS10tIER5: JOHNSON
Jack Whice~ Deputy City Attc.•ney, explatned the item would have to be continued until the
seventh Cummissi~ncr was present, an~i ChAirman Tolar explained the pctitioncr could
request a continuance for a vote by thc wholc Comnission.
Commissioner Linn polnted out ttie item wou1J have [o be placed 'Far enough on the agenda
for him to be present or they still would have only six members present.
The Commtssion discussed a~pproval of the request subJect t4 several stlpulations and a
time lim(t (n ~rder co allow thP petitioner to prove the operation will be as representnd.
It was noted the Planning Olrector or his authorfzed representative has detiermtned that
the proposed pro)ect falls within thc definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1~ as
deftned in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Guidclines and
is, therefore~ categorically exempt fran the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissloner Uavid offered Resolutlon No. PC78-49 and moved for tts passage and
adapt on, that the Anaheim City planniny Co~rmission does hereby grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 18~7 for a period of two years, at which time an extension may
be granted if it ts determined the use fs being conducted in the manner represented by the
petltioner: namely~ tl~at there will be no sales to che genc~al public; that there w(1) be
no on-site advertlsing to ehe general public; and that adrnittance to the facillty will be
the result of a wrltten invitaxion, with an esttmated maxtmum of 60 persons per day; that
th(s is a untque business and is not intended to consist of commerctal retall sales on an
tndustrially zoned propercy nor to attract the gen~ral publtc to the site and
overburdening the park(ng faciilties; that the showroom of the area will be used solely to
display the types of inerchandise; that the business will not be open to the ge~era) publ(c
with walk-in type t~affic~ but will only be available to those membe~s wh~ have bcen
cont~cted and accepted through dtr~ct mail~ telephone~ or other solicitation; thet there
wil) be no on-site advertising to the general public and no special sales of any type to
attract retail customers; and subJect to Interdepartmental Cortmittee recommendations.
On rol) call~ the forey~ing resolution was passed by the follvwing vote:
AYES: COMMiSSiONERS: BARNES, DAVID, LiNN~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST~ KING
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JO{iNSO~~
Chairn~an Tolar emphaslxed to the petitioners that thei~ operation would be watched very
closely; that If the Commissloners see a lot r~f cars or sales going or~ the conditlonai
use permit would not be renewed.
;/ t 3178
~
MI NUTES, ANAH~ IM ~ ~TY pI.AN~~I NG f.AMMI SS I ON, MARCII 1~. 19~4 78' 1 g7
(TEM N0. 14
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 b 4 PUgLIC NEARING. OWI~ER: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
CONQI ( N L U E ERM N0. 1 0 EDISON COMPANY~ P. 0. Box 23Q7~ Sa~nta Ana, CA
~! ! 92707. AGENT: RQBERT P, SMYTNE, JR.~ 52G2
F~anklin C(rclc~ ~lestm(nster~ CA 926fi3.
Petittoner requests permiss(on to ESTAE3LISH
A WHOLESALE NURSERY WITH WAiVER OF MAXIMUM F~NCE NEIGHT on property descrlbed es a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conststing of approxlmately 2,7 acres located ~t
the no~theast corner of Freedman Wey and Clementine Street~ having approximate frontages
of 670 feet on the north side of Frecdman Way and 170 fcet on thc east side of Clementine
Stree~t. Property presently classified RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTU ML) 20NC.
There was no ono (ndic~ting their presence in o~posltlon ta subJect rec~uest, And althouyli
the statt repc~rt to the Pianniny Canmi„iun JecC.: uarch !;~ 1!?7s tiYOS ~ot r.,~ At th~
public hQariny~ it (s ref~rrcd to anci made a part of th~ minutas.
Robort Smythe~ ayent~ indiceteJ they were informed thcy would neeJ a cnnditlonal use
perm(t after tt~ey lied leased subject property from the Southern Californta ~disan Gompany.
He indtcated thcy have a nursery and landscapioig opers~tion and essenttrlly grow plants for
their own use; that they wQre forced to move out of chelr location in Coste hksa and that
tliey had l~ased this property becausc it was zoned ayriculturel and they thought they
could yrvw treas And planls in cantainers.
tie referrG~ to In[erdepartmental Cortmittee recommendations concern(ny ded(catlon of
property on Manchester Av~enue and street 1(ghttng facillt(es and pointed out Southern
California Edison Company is the owner of the property and they would not be willing to
meet these condltions. He ~olnted out the~e would be no structures on the property; that
they wr~uld be just yrowiny tlie piants and not selling them; ttiat the ~etatl sales for the
year 1976 was about S1~000.
THE PUk~LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commfssione~ tierbat indicated this property is cl~ose t~ the Grand Hotel and across from
Melodyland, and pointed aut some office buildings have been approved for development ancl
was concerned as to whether or not therc would be any storage of equtpment on the site,
such as trucks, etc. He felt the appearance of this site is important.
Mr. Smythe indicated they would parl< thelr trucks on the prc~perty~ but tf that was a
problem they could make othcr arrangements.
Mr. Smythe polnted out they would bc c~pable of screening anything an the property.
Commission~r Herbst pointed aut he has noted properties undsr power lines which have
become unsightly; they were stacked witt~ sacks of manure~ equipment~ etc,
Mr. Smythe indicaCed that unfartUnately he was in the same situation as the ~revious
petitioner concerning the massage parlor and that the reputation wlth nurseries is that
rtnre are unsightly than not. He (ndicated he could furnish further a recommendation from
the State ot Caiifornla regarding the Costa Mesa operation; that they were betng forced to
move because of the fairgrounds.
CommiSSioner Herbst asked how the premises could be screened. He also asked if they would
have access on Manchester~ an~i Mr. Smythe replied that Clert-entine would be the access, but
it could be Manchester~ it d(d not make any differe~ce to them either way.
Chairma~ Tolar suggested that the petitianer stipulate to putting the t~ucks inside and
screening the e~tire area.
3/j3/78
MINUTE5~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING :OMMICSION~ htARCH 13r 1~78
78-18~
EIR ~A7EGORICAL E_XEMP'fION-CLASSES 1 b 4 ANO CONDITIONAL_USE PERMIT NU. i809 (cn~tinued)
ChAlrman Tolar also askcd the length of the lease~ ancl M~. Smythe rep!ird that Southern
Ca1lfo~nlA Edtson Joes n~t give a lease~ that they tssue a ftve•year itcense agreement
which Is actuaily a 3~-day~ payable-in-advance leasc for one year; that thay do heve a
racord of never asking anyone to leave but that the lease could b~ cAncelled tn 30 days.
Commlasloner Narbst asked where the fence would be located, and Mr. Smythe replled tt
would we around the perlrneter.
Commissioner Darnes asked the plans for landscapinc~ for the chainlink fence~ and M~.
Srtrythc Indlceted he would like to have the fence arou~d the perimetcr for security reasons
since it ytves them more usable space. Ile pointed out the plancs themselves are
screening~ and that they wllt have tr~es around thc pcrimeter.
Commissioner Nerbst indlc~~ted he felt that if there was screening along Manchester and
some klnd af lendscaping along Freedman Way, the use would be compat(I~le.
Mr. Snrythe pol~ted out th~re a~e some: restrictions ~egarding the gravel road to sarvice
the Southern California Ed(s~n linos.
Commissloner Ilcrbst tndtcated they were ta!king ~bouc a lang-term usr and he would llke to
see something other than chainllnk fencing along Freedman Way because af t~~e Grand Notel.
Commtssionesr barnes suggested tliat if the ~etitioner ag~eed to set the fence batk along
Clementine and landscape that area nicely and plant scxheth(ng along Freedman Way to screen
the entire operation, she woulci be willing to go with e five-year use.
It was noted that thc Planning Directar or his ~uthorized rep~esentative has determtned
that the proposed project falls within the definitian of Categorical Exemptians~ Classes 1
and ~~~ as defined in paragraph 2 ~f thc Clty of Anahelm Environmentai Impact Report
Guidelines and is, therefore~ categorically exempt from the requir~ment to prepare an EIR.
Mr. Smythe indicated he was still concerned about the cor.~fitions for dedtcatlon a~d street
lighting~ and Jay Titus~ Office Engineer, replfed that the staff is obligated to make
those recommendaiions~ but the Commission has final approval and they cauld be eliminated.
ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offerad Resolution No. PC78-50 and moved f~r its passage and
a~on~ that the Anaheim City Planning Cammiss(on docs fiereby granl Pettti4n for
Conditional Use Permit No. 180g~ subJect to review by the Planning Comnissfan at the end
of a five-year peri~d to decermine whether the use h~s been cietrlmentai to the surrounding
commercisl-recreation area; sub]ect to the petitioner's stipulations to provide a minimum
3-foot wide, landscaped setback along Clementine Street and Freedman Way; and that
Condition Nos. 1~ 3 and 5 be delcted from the Interdepartmental Committae recommendattons.
On roll call, the foregoiny resolution was passed by [hc ~ollawtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ OAVIO, HERa57, KING~ IINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSOrI
Commissloner Barnes offered a motian, seconded by Commissio~e~ King and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Johnson be(ng absent)~ that the request for waive~ of Code requirement for
maximum fence height be granted on the basis that e higher fence than permitted by Code is
necessary for securlty purposes. and the proposed use of growing trees and shrubbe~y would
be higher than the fence,
3/ 13/ 78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 13~ 1978 78-189
ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENUATIONS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERNIY N0. 1573 - Request for appraval of revtsed plans.
The stsff report to the Planning Commisston dated March 13, 1978 was presented~ noting the
sub}ect property is an irregularly-shaped p~rcel of land conststing of approximately 9.A
acres located an ihe north slde of Ball Road~ approximetely 31; feot east of the
ce~terltne of Harbo~ Boulavard; that the applicant (Irvin~ Enkerprlses) raquests app~oval
of revtsed plans (Roviston No. 2) for a recreational vehicle pa~k; that Cunditlona) Use
Permit No. 1573 (to p~rmit a natel and recreattonal vehicle park with waivers of maxlmum
building hetght~ minlmum building setback~ and required slte screening) ~as granted by the
Plsnning Commisslon on Decembdr 0~ 1q7;~ subJect to several condltlons Including
devolopment suFstAntially in Acc.~rdance with submitted plans; and that Revision No. 2 of
the slte plon tndicotos deletion of th~ arlylnally proposed motel and accessu ry commerciAl
uses and an expension of thc existtny recrc~tlonal vehiclc park~ end thc numbcr of RV
spetes woul~ be (ncreased to 323 and 34 spaces would ~pt(onally be us~d f~r tenttng.
Commissioner Herbst indicated thot epprov~l of the tenting arce as requested was nat
relatad to the approval of Conditional Use Pnrmlt No. 1513, and he felt thec portion
should have a public h~arinq.
Commissioner 9arnes indicated she felt It would be the fl~st time this type thing had been
braught before tlie public slnce the Commission has never had one before~ and that a public
heoring should be set for that area.
The eppltcent~ Willlam A. Corn~ ;1G2 Pr(nceton Avenue~ Westminster~ Indicated devetopn~nt
of thls property for a~ avernight facil{ty has bean underway for appr~ximately three years
and that thoy have developed the flryt stage of the plan~ and after considerable revlew
came to tha conciusion It was the best development of thfs property and, from their
tnterpretation of the Code and wanted to proceed with development of thP rest of the park
under the permits they already had. Ile indtcated the portion includfng the camping ground
was sacondary to the completio~ of the proJect and if that was a concern of the Plann(ng
Commtssfon~ they would be happy to dclete that and apply for that separately and have a
publlc haaring.
Cnnmisstoner Nerbst sug~ested delettny that area from the plan and that he would recommend
approval of the revised ptan with that area deleted.
Jack White~ Deputy Gity Attorney~ potnted out that area could be deleted if the applicant
felt that part was not neces~ary at this time; it could be advertised and considered at a
late~ date.
ACTION: Commissloner Nerbst offered a rtbtion, seconded by Commissioner Linn and MOTION
C~R =D (Commtssioner Johnsan being absent). that the revised plans for Condittonel Use
Permtt No. iS73 be approveJ~ subject to deletion of the tenting area which w~l) be
considered at a publtc hearing at e later date.
3i, 3i~a
~
MINU7ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ March 13. 1978 78-190
B. VARIANCE NA. 2S3Q - Request for e rntroacttva exte~slon of ttme.
Commissioner King noted that he had a confllct of Interast as detined by the An~helm City
Ptanning Cammisslon Resolutio~ No. PC76-1S7~ edo~ttng a Conflict of Interest Cude }or thn
Planning Commisston~ and Gove~~ment Code Sectten 3625 et seq.~ tn that he awns Pactfic
TalepF~one Company common stock, and pursuant to the provtsions of th~ ebove codes, hereby
daclares to the Chalrman that he was wtthdr~v+ing frorn the hearing in connectlon wtih thts
ttem and would not teke part tn efther the discusslon nr the vottng thereon~ and thAt he
hod not discussed this mattcr wlth any membe~ of the Plsnning Commission.
Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney, explalned that the subJect request for a rctr•oactiva
extension of tirr~ was on propercy loceted on the north sidQ of La Palme Avenue~
approximstoly 200 feet wcsx of the centerline of Kraemer Boulev~rd ~nd that the appltcant
wes [I~e Pacific Talephonc and 7clegraph Compeny. He ex~+leinPd therR ~re two types of time
extensions: one for compllance wlth conditions~ fo~ which a retroactive extension of time
cen be ~ranted~ and the second fc,r an extenslon of tlme to permlt a use~ which cannot be
retroactive~ and that this request falls Into the latter cate~ory and it will be necesse+•y
that a new applicat(o~ be process~d and a public heartng set.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offsred e motlon~ sesonded by Commissloner Davld and MOTION
~D (Commissioner Johnson be(ng ebsent and Commissloner Y.ing abstafning)~ that the
request for a retroactive extension of time be denteri for Varlance No. 2530~ and thet a
new appllcatlon must bc filed.
C. RECLASSIFICATION N0, 73~4-55(6) - Request for approval of revlsed plans.
r..~~r r
7he steff report to the Plann(ng Commission dated March 13~ 1q78 was presented~ not(ng the
subJect p roperty is Oocated at the northr+est corner of Le Palma ~end Magnalia Avenues, and
that the appltcant Is requesting epproval of revised plans.
Cortanissioner King ~oted that 1ir. had A confl(ct of interest as defined in Rnaheim City
Planning Commissfon Resolutton No. PC76-157~ adoptfng a Confltct of Interest Code far the
Planning Commisslon~ and Government Code Section 3G25~ et seq.~ tn that he ow~s Paciftc
LighLing Corporation common stock and Pacific llyhttng is assoclated witli Ounn Properttes~
the developer of thls property, and that pursuant to the provisions of the above codess~ he
is hereby declaring to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connectlon
with Reclassificafion No. 3-74•55(6) and would not take pari In cither the dfscussion or
the voting thereon, and t,~at he had ~ot discusscd this matter with any r,xmber of the
Plenning Commission.
Willtem Pike~ representing the Cerritos National Bank of Norwalk~ explatned the letter he
hed recelv~d from th~ City Clerk explaining the ection by the City Cou~c(1 an Februsry 7~
1978, was not tlie action he remembered taknn at the Plenning Commission meeting of January
16~ 1978; that he recalled the ~raJect would be permitted to teke ingress and egress from
both driveways and that they would take some accian~ such as striping~ slgning~ or
whatcver~ to preve~t vehicles from drivtng stralght through the pro)ect to Magnolia
Avenue~ and that whatever method was used would be sub)ect to approval by the Traffic
Eng! neer.
The revised plsns were dtscussed by the Planning Cammission~ with Commissioner Hnrbst
polnting out thet the landscaped barrter should be enlar~ed.
3/13/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 13~ 1978 78'~9)
ITFM C (co~ti~ued)
.r~
ACTION: Commissl~ner Herbst offered ~ mc~tion~ seconded by Commissloner Oavid and MOT{ON
'~'~p (Commissioner John~on being sbsent and Comml~stoner King shstalning)~ thet tha
An~heim City Planning Commisslon does hereby recommend to thn Ctty Council that Revislon
No. 1 of the clrculation plans 1'0~ aeclassiftcation NA. 73•7~+~55~b) be spproved~
parmitting Ingress and egreas to subJect prnperty from the adJacent prope~ty to the west~
subJect to a sltght modtficatlan, enlarging the proposed landscfrom drivi~f straight
deslgned to prevent ingress trafftc from the westerly property 9
through subJect property to Magnnlla Avenun~ thereby forcing all incomtng trafflC fron~ tha
westerly prapnrty to turn right~ Into the parking area; that a"right-tur~ only" sign will
be posted on the subJect landscaped barrior and directtanal arraws an~ angled st~lping
wfll be palnted on the pavement. Also~ that a"one-w~y" sign will be posted an the
I~ndscsped berrler facing trafflc treveling tn a westerly direc+~ m f~om Magnolla Av~nue
to prevent trafftc from entnring travei l~nes tntendod far the ~ncoml~h t~afftc frem the
westerly property.
D. CI.ARIFICATfON OF AN AMaIGU1TY IN THE ANAHEIM MUNlCIPAL CODE
it was noted thet Resolution PC78-38 was prescnted for the Planning Commtsstan`s
informatlon only and that no action was necessary.
ADJOURNMENT Thcre baing no furr.her businnss~ Commissioner Devtd offered a motion~
seconded by Commissioner King and MOTIQN CARRIED (Comnlssfoner Johnson bein9
+~bse~t), to adJourn thc mceting.
The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
RespecCfully submitted,
~~~-~ ,~ ~~~,~.~:..
Edith L. Harrls. Se;.retary
Anaheim Clty Planning Lammission
Elli:hm
3/13/78
...~