Minutes-PC 1978/09/25~Ity Hail
Anaheim~ Caiifornie
September 25, 197$
REGULAR MEET I t~G AF T~iE ANANE I M C I TY PIANN I NC C011M1 SS I f1N
._...r_... ~._. ~...
REGULAR - Thc regular meetlnc~ vf the Anahelm City Planntng Commtss(~n was r,alled to
MEETING ordor by Chairman Nerbst at 1:35 p.m.~ September 25~ 197K, in the Countil
Chambcr~ a quorum b~in~~ present.
PaESENT
VACANCY
ALSQ PRESC~~T -
LNAIftMAN; Herhst
COMMISSIOtILRS: Oarnes~ Uavid~ Johnson~ Klnc~~ Tolsr
One seat
Jeck Whitc
Jay Titus
James Kewamur~
Phlllip Schwartze
Annika Santalal~tt
Jay Tashtro
Edith Nerris
Dcputy City Attorn~y
Office Engineer
Traffic Engineerin~ Assiscant
Assistant Direct~r for Pl~nning
Ass(stant Director for Zoniny
Ass~ctate Ptanner
Planntng Commission Sec~etary
PLEDGE OF - The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Commissioner King.
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF -:ommixsioner Johnson ~ffered a rnokion~ secanded by Cammissioner David
THE MINUTES and MOTI011 CARRIEU (one seat being vacant), that the minutes of the meeting
af August 7$, 19~R~ be approved as submitted.
(T~~_ ~~ CON~INUCD PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: YOUNG F. AND
E„J NEGAY~VE DECLARAZ.LQN LUCINUA J. HAHMAT7~ 154$ 4lest Orangewood Avenue,
gE,S,,L~SIFICATION HQ. 78-79,~ Anaheim~ CA 92a02. AGENT; JOHN F. SWINT, 707 West
~ RIAN,~E N0~ 3044 North Street~ Anaheim~ CA 92E05. Property described
~fA1VER OF C17Y COUNCIL as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisti~g
POLIfY N0. 538 of approximately 1.6 acres having a frontage of
approximately 224 feet o~ the south side of prange-
wood Avenue, having a maximum depth oP epproximately
303 feet, being located approximately 529 feer kest of the centerline of Ninth Street~ and
further described as 1548 West Orangewood Avenue. Froperty prese~tly classified
RS-A-43.00~ (RESIDENTIAL/AGItiCULTURAL) 2ANE.
REQUESTkU CLASSIFICATION: RS-72c10 (RESIUENTIAI~ StNGLE•FAMILY) ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER AF (A) REQUIREMENT THAT ALL LOTS ABUT A PUBLIC STREET
A!~U (B; RE~,UIREMENT THAT SINGLE•FAMILY RESIDENCES REAR-ON
ARTERIAL NIGHWAYS, TO CUNSTRUCT A 7-LOT~ RS-7200 SUBDIVIStOM.
SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of August 28~ 197$~ at the request of the
petitioner.
~a-~82 9/25/78
r
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMHER 25~ 19%A 78-783
EIR NEGATIV~ UECLARATION~ RECLASStFI~A~ION N0. ~8-]9-20 ANU VARIANC~ N0. ~044 (contlnued)
~~ ,
It was ~ated the petltionPr heJ requested thax consideratlon of the aforementloned Item be
contfnued to the meeting af October 9~ 197~•
ACTION: Commlssloner Ki~g affered a motlan~ seconded by C anmisstoner David and MOTIQN
~D (one seat belnq vacant)~ that Pet(tions for Reclasstfic~tion No. 78-79-7.0 and
Varla~ce No. 30~~4 be continued to the regularly scheduled mtetinq of the Plrnni~g
Commission on OGtober 9, 1978~ at tf~e request of che petitio~er.
LTEM N0. 7 PUBLIC t1EARiNG. DCVEI.OPf.R: SAND DOLLAR ~EVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT REPORT N0. 21 CO., INC.. 1G371 Beach Qoulevard~ N240, 1luntington
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7-19-'1 Beach~ r,A ~2b47. EN~INEER: P{1NCNAL ENGINEERING,
~(,~~~ICE N0. 3039 IHC.~ 523 North Grand Avenue~ Santa Ana~ CA q2701.
IENTATIILE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10~~76 Property descrtbed es en trregularly-shaped percel
of len~l cons(sting of approximately 17 acres havtng
a frontage oP appraximately 51~ feet o~ the norch
side of Chapman Avenue~ havtng a maxtmum depth of a~-praxtmately ~27 ~eet~ and beinc~ lacat~d
approximately 80~ feet east of the centeritne of Narbor Boulevard. Pro;~erty presently
classtfied CG (COMMERCIAL. GENERAL) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-12~~ (RESIDENTIAL. NULTIPLE-FI1111LY) ZONE.
REQUESTEU VARIAtrCE: ul11VER OF (A) MIN111UM FLOOR AREA r,-~p (a) MIidIMUM NUHBER
OF PARKING SP/ICES.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: A 50-LOT~ 2~~9-Ui~IT~ RM-1?_00 SU;.~IVISIqN.
Ix was noted the p~tltioner had requeste.d consicleration of the aforementioned ttem bP
continued to the meetlny of Octobcr 2j~ 197$~ in order for the petitioner to submft
revised plens and for staff to readvertise subJcct petition.
ACTION: Commt~sioner Totar offered a motion~ seconded by Corm~issioner Barnes ~nd MOTION
CARRIEU (one seat befng vacant)~ that consideratian of Environr~ental Ir,~pact Report No.
219~ Reclassification No. 78-J9-9. Variance No. 3~39, and Tencetive Map of Tract No. 10476
be continued to the regularly schedulecf ineeting of the Planning Commission on October 23~
1978~ at the request of the petitioner in order that revised plans be submitted end the
petition readvertise~.
ITEM tJO. 11 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: WS-ANAHEIM~ 318 West Qall
~IR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLAS5 3 Road~ Anaheim~ CA 92805. Petitioner requests W~11VER
VARIANCE l10. ,~0;0 OF PERMITTED STRUCTURES TO PERMIT A MOBILE SNACK BAR
on property described as an i~regularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 3.8 acres havi~g
a frontage of approximately 34a feet on the east side of 41est Street~ having a maxtmum depth
of approxlmately 555 feet. bei~g iacated approximately 77; feet north of the tenterl~ne of
Ball Road, and further described as 8$8 South West Street. Property prescntly classified
C-R (COMMERC{AL-FECREATION) ZONE.
It was noted the petitioner has requested that consideraxion of the aforementioned item be
continued Co the meeting of October 23, 1978, due to the petltioner being out of town on
hustness mstte~s.
9/25/78
~
~.
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIN6 CUMMISSION~ SEPTEMOER 2a~ 1978 7F3-7A4
EIR CATEGQRICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS~3 AND VARIANGE NU. 305A (continued)
ACTION: Commtssion~r King offered a motlon~ sec~nded by Conmisstoner Davict ~nd MOTION
t~'~ (on~ scat being vac~nt)~ that conslderatlon of Varla~ce No, 3050 be cnntlnued to
the regula~ly scheduled meeting of thc Plenntny Cortmisslan on October 23~ 197a~ ~t the
request of the pctitianer.
ITLM N0. 1 Presentation by the OranyP Gounty Environmenta)
~~~~ME~JUMENT TO TIIE Manogemcnt Agency on a proposa) to an~end the
ORANGE COUNTY GENERIIL PLAN Orange County General Plan to change the destgnation
of 1600 acres in Coe! Canyon frorn Reservc to Rural
Resid.r,ntiAl,
Ph(Ilip Schwartze~ Assistant D(rector for Pl~nntny~ exple~(neJ that a copy of draft
Environmental ~mpact Reuart No. 10~ has been recetvr.ci reqardtng the Lend Use Eler~ent of
the County General Plen for ap~~roxtmately 160(1 acr~es In Coal Canyon to be chenqed from
Reserve t~ Rurai Residential~ and tl~at staFf from tt~e Orenye County Environmental
Managemcnt Agency would make A brief presentati~~.
Jim Tsu, Cfiief pf Element Plannin~ B~ancii wt[I~ the Environn~ntal Management Agency which
is tn cherge of process(ng Genere) Plan amencima,nts~ ex~lained that unfortunately at th(s
time the County is stfll worl:(ng an the Generc~l Plan amendment; that the emendmcnt wt~s
submi[tcd in early February and the County Planning Cammissi~n hod indicated at that t(me
there was not adequnte staff time t~ process the rroJect, but thnt thc Board of
Supervisors had declded Lo retatn a conSultant to work on the proJect an~ the consultant
had been retalned and is currently wc~rking on the proJect~ but has not comE: to a po(nt
where alternatives can be prese.nted. 11e stAted the ap~lic~nt. has f(led the Application to
chan,ye the land use from generel ayricultural to rural residenciai deveiopment~ which is
ve ry low density, rangin~~ in size from 4 to 20 acres. Ile stated thts is a density range
which the Lounty General Plan I~as for Lheir stecpest and worst terrain areas. He stated
tl~e current General Plan sGt~edule calls for firal Planning Commisston recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors on tt-e 23rd of October~ 197~i, anJ tlie Board ts scheduled to hear
thts matter an the 29th of November~ 1q7B and they expect attion by that date. He stated
the consultant ts supposed to fave a complete report to the County by the end of this week
and thefr staff report to the Planning Commission will be presented Nonday~ October 2nd~
and the flnal Comcrission heariny date would be October 23rd. Ne stated there is a
possibility the matter would be continued by the Plt+nning Commissian to another date. but
it is not scheduled at the present time.
Conrrtissioner Johnson felc since complete information and the al[ernatfves cannot be
presented at this time~ the M aheim Planning Commisston cannot give their opinion or
recammendation until thcy see what is to be presented; that tt ~s herd to f4rm an opinion
without al) the informaCio~. ~nd wondered if hearing this at another date would be more
advanteyeoua.
Chatrman Herbst stated he felt the Planning Commission could express their concerns; that
he recognizes Coal Canyon is ihe far end of Anaheim's sphere of influence and it is
projected for development many yea~s in tl~e future when it cen be properly serviced by
Anaheim; and that area may or may not comc into the City of Anah~im~ depending upon what
happens inbetween~ but we cannot Just leapfrog over to that area and say it is going to be
a part of the City of Anaheim. Concerning the draft EIR, he stated it appears there are
some extreme problems on how this area !s gofng to be serviced~ such as sewers~ water,
schools~ electricity (even though Edison says they can service it), flre protection~
police protection~ etc.; that the report aas very sketchy~ indicating that if the area is
developed, it might be able ta be 3~rviced. He stated if this area is going to be
9/z5/78
MlNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ SEPTEMpER 25~ 197E~
PROPOSEn ANENDMENT TO TIIE ORANGE COUNTY .GENERAL PLAN (continued)
devetape~i~ the City c,f Anehelm wnuld naturally
with A~ehelm's codes so that aren can later be
very prernature at thts time.
78- 785
like to sse It develope.d In conJunctlon
,joined. but It looks ltke the proJect is
Commissioner Barnes stateJ slie would 1(he to he~r the County's concerns, pa~ticulerly
regardiny water end sewage dlsposal~ pointing out the EIP,~ althaugh it Hes very vague,
seemed to oolnt to the fact that there would be some drainage and wa;er supply problems.
Steven Ray~ 811 North Broaciwey~ Santa Ana~ wlth tiie Orange County Plenning Gepartment~
pointed out the proJect area is located in what is called the Reserve area of [he C~unty
in whfch urban l~nd use identificatio~s cannot be impiemente<i until that Reserv~
deslgnatton is removed. He stated there is a set of primc cri[eria to be addressed by the
applicent which has to be eveluated by Che County tn deciJing wf~ether or not to remove the
Reserve deslgnat(on from this proJect site. 11e stated basically the informatlan submitted
to the County is s(mtlar to the InfnrmAtinn (n thr F~IR rP~7prdin~ sPrvic.~s, an~1 the first
criteria involved is decldin~,base~l on the tnformaxion submitted,whether the services for
water~ sewage disposa) ~nd sewage treatment~ sct~oal~~ fire protectian~ etc.~ would b~
available at lhc time the proJect site is dPVeloped, lie stated, unfortunatsly~ the
County's steff report is not complete. but preliminary indicntions are that there dre a
lnt of problems in the area and a lot of furthe~ work secros necessary in ard~r to be sure
the services will be: available at the time of develnpme~nt. tle stateci chey would 11ke to
rely on some sorC of Imple~nent~~ton scheme provideci by the applicAnt as to what the
developmen[ will actually look like, but~ unforcunately~ thcy have not been g(ven any
speclfic site plan for development.
Chdlrman Herbst polnted out that r>roblems with development in ttie canyon area by th~ City
of Anaheim have been primt~rily with roads and accessibillty to these areas with st~eet
grades that do not exceeri 10~ for flre p~otection~ and this area is getting Into the
~oughest part of Santa Ana Canyon~ pointing out it is about doubje what the C(ty of
Anahelm has been dealing r+ith~ and that th~ canyons are much deeper and greater.
Commissi~nPr Tolar f~)t dtscussion of this matter at this time ts not necessary since the
repdrt subnitted by the County will actually discuss these problems. He felt stnce the
E!R is so vague and there is no specific plan~ the matter should be tabled until reports
are complete and the Planning Comrnission can make a dctermination as to whather or not it
would be conduc(ve ta the City of Anaheim to takc that area Into tl~e City.
Commissione~ Lar~es felt the Ptannin9 Commission should give the Orange County Planning
Cortmissio~ some of thetr rscomrnendattons; that if they are going to allow the development,
it would be our chance to tell them if the Citv does annex that area thet we would like it
developed to Cicy of anaheim standards~ but there is no way ta yet the services to them
now or a*_ any time in the near future.
Gommissioner Tolar pninted out Coal Cany~n is four or five miles beyond the Anaheim clty
limits and there is sttll discussion as to whether or not the adJoining properties arp
gaing ta be annex~d to the Ctty of A~aheim~ and he felt any discussio~ regarding land use
planning. whether ~t be estate zoning or whatever, is premature; that if this area is
developed to City Qf Anaheim standards and our property lines abut Coal Canyon, then
annexatlon could be looked at at that poi~t~ but these reports are ve ry sketchy and the
Planning Lortmtssion needs a lot more informt+cion befa~e giving any guidelines.
Mr. Tsu pointed out that accordtng :o County processing procedures~ the first thiny a
develope~ has tc do is apply to the County for a General Plan amendment for any
development If the General Plan has designated agricultural uses~ unless he wants to
develop agriculturally. After that is done~ a zone change has to follow which changes the
9/25/1a
~
~
78-786
MANUTCS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEP7EMBER 25~ 1978
PROPOSED AMENGMENT TO THE ORAfIGE COUNTY GENE ML PLAN (continued)
zone to residentlal; then a tentatlve tract mep ts tiled enci then bullding per•mits
obtalned~ s~ it is A very long process. end et the beglnnln,q stages the tnformetion is not
ve ry deflnitivc and a ve ry datniled develapment plen ts nat requfred.
Commissloner Barnes asked hov+ thc County felt ehout taking ~his area out af the Reserve~
and Mr. Tau replled it would havc tonbis~ex~ectedYfrom thencansultAntssthendthetstaffawill
of Supcrvisors; that a recommendati P
make a recommendation~ aftcr revlewo~isgin~°W~~~tmakes~re~~~~+-~~~atlon~to~theeDoardnof~
Commisslon~ and xhen the P1anning C ~n u from the cansultant
Supervisvrs. He stAted thNre has been some p~eliminary p t
concerniny the water anJ sewec+e ~i~obfe~valdofhlh~e Rese~ve'designt~tlon.beHehindicatedhthls
not been enouyh evidcnce to ~USt y
does not mean th~ feneral Plan lanJ use canno~ be chanc~ed; that the Reserve desic~nat an
would simply put a lld on development; thaeA~ig not~y~tercady~to`behdeve~loped because of
agrfcultural to so-nething else~ but the ~r
the wate r and sewa~ae prab 1 ems .
Corm~issianer Johnson felt since ~~nnina,Comrisslon~'sdch`ancettosreaffirm theiraposition~
sphers of (nfluence~ it (s the Pla 9
even though they do not have adec~uChent~c~seethat comashunder ourgsphere.~ofhlnfluence,ande
recorm~e:nded th i s be F~andled as any 9
be developed close to thecM~hinLabthe~LitYSatnaelater ttime~,tand~thecstendards wauldenotr
whether or not thts area
hurt the development.
Phillip Schwart2e polnted o~tat~tpon~L~~Ltie~CitySCoun~cil anJ polnted outethefP enning
action~ but they cauld offe
Departrt-ent staff would be matlantbecomeslavailabi~,sotthat~theiCitymaA~~~espond totthe
presentation as more Infor
draft EIR and esteblish a a~neiyfromhthissmeetingnwoulci be presentedhto theeCity Councile
the comments staff had obt i ro ect seems to
and would reflect the statements that the EIR is sketchy and the entire p J
be premature.
Chairman Vierbst potnted nut if th~ePnonanswe~smtosthe^problemsCOrt~lternstives presented.
could not be done because there a
Jack White. Deputy City Attorney, polnted out the Planning Cornnlssion is not being asked
to c~rtify xhe report~ but simply to meke comments upon it; that they are given the
He stated
opportunity to ~~e^ulatedhthrough the various agenciestand aneoppo~tu~ityyis given to
the draft EIR Is c rc
comment and sinr.e this area is in Anaheim's sphere of influencs. Anaheim is one o t e
most impnrtant agencies to which th~ana~ementtAgencyuthatdsuffici~entndetall,lsb~otrgiven~d
to the Orange County Envtronmental 9
in this report.
Cortimissioner earnes (ndicated she wou~lb~~~k~ihe a°ea af w~aterequalityrand thetsecond areah
she felt w~re extremel, lacking: on 9
bein9 schools. She felt the i~P°the~su r~ly ofvwate~and~thetVista Del Rio~WatereCompany•
She sCated
She alsa felt comments ~egerd ng PP
were very misleading i^ dd~tssedrthensewage iseuahveryevagueiyedwhich~seemed to indicate
the wa'~.<~.' qual i ty also a
there wouid be problems with~paheimisince the desiltingiandiperc latingrbasins~aee,there.
Orange Gcunty~ particularly ,
9i2si~a
MINUTfS~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 25~ 1978 78-787
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY GENER~L PLAN (contt~ued)
Chairmen Flerbst polnted out there are als~ concerns from thr. pol(ce and sherlff
dape~ ^~ents indicatin~ thcy could not servlce thr, area.
Mr. Tsu potnted out any comrt~nts concerning tl~e draft EIR would ba very hr.IpPu) to their
Planntng Commission's docislon; that the EIR is currently being revlewed by the pubilc tn
tts publtc revlew perlo~ and that period wauld end October Znd.
Chairman He rbst tndicated he felt the consultanks working on the ~IP. are leaning ve~y
heavily towards Anahelm serv(cing th~ ~rea~ such as schools, fl~e e~~ poltce protectton,
etc.~ and the County ~ire Depnrtment has indlcatcd there ls no way they can serviGe these
areas for many years. Ne potnted out all the grAde schools ln the canyor~ a~ee ere now at
cepacity end even thou~~~ there ere schools planned at son-e ti~e in che future ~t Weir
Cany~n~ schoo) facllittes are Inad~quete. Ne stat~d this area ts seven mlles from the
noarest f(rc. station and thr.~rc Is no wey A~aheim caulcl help them. Na steted~ ayatn~ no
altnrnetives are gtven on how to s~lve the prublertr3 and felt the EIR sliould be more
gpeclfic. Ne potnttd out he had noted an~tFier problem in the rep4rt concerning seismtc
problems; that there fs a fault runniny through the micidle of this property and as the
repart indlcate3. this c~uld c.reate maJor problems if an ea~thquske occurred~ and stated
it waa q~est(onabl, whether or not ttiis aree is buildabl~. F1e pointed out the Plenniny
Cortmiss~on had no. ~~~d suff(clent tlme tu revicw thc rcpor: and t;iese prablems were noted
In a few minutes' revtew of the report.
Mr. Tsu painted out Qrange County fire protect(on agencies heve indicated itre protection
is definltely a~roblem; that there is a letter to thc Planntng staff (nd(cating they are
not recomnending the Reser~e status ba removed because of Che fire prot~ction problem.
Cheirman Herbst tndic:•^d if the County decides to proceed wtth this proJect~ he would
like to see a tull-fle~y~e~i EIR pr~sented for the Planninq Cammission's review and felt
with the famlltarity tlie C(ty of A~aheim has had with the canyon dreas and the studies
that have bePn made, tt~cy woulcl probahly Ne able to yive some valueble input *o ttiis
develop~nt~ but rtght now the report is so sketchy and there are so many prublems, hc
would recommend that this matter be tabted until such time As the problems are salved.
Mr. Tsu lndicAted that (f the Planninc,~ Commission wish~ci to make a recam-endatton to the
Orange County Planninq Lommisston, he would certainly bring that information to the
Gommlssion and Board of Supervtsors' attentton and suggested a recomrne~ndetion could be in
the form of a letter,
Chairman Herbst indicated he felt it should be passed on that thc Plann(ng Comm!ssion
feels this project is very premature and cannot be adequately served by anything~
especially the public servlces~ and u~stil such time as it can ba serviced. the matter
should be tabied and wfien the applicant can show they can serv(ce: tt without expense. to
other taxp~yers in the area~ then thc Planning Cortmission should bc wllling to luok t~t the
project.
Commissloner Johnsan felt a sfatement shauld be added that ~ftentiries when property is
developsd nrematurely. one of the b(ggest problems is se~vage a~d se.wvage treatment. and
this could be a tremendous problem to the City of Anaheim.
Chai~•man Nerbst pointed out this would not only be a probfem for Anaheim~ but for most of
Orange County; that this is a settling ba~in for all underg~ound storage in Orange County
and the runoff runs (nto the Santa Ana Rtver a~d into the head of this settling basin. He
did not think the Commission was ready to make a recorrwnendation except that this is
premature,and if the County decides to take it out of the Reserve desfgnation and glve the
9/25/78
~
~
,
~
MINUTES~ ANN~IEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ S~PTEMBEft 25~ 1978 78-7S7e
P„~QPO,~ED AMEMDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLA~1 (contlnued)
applicant th~ opportunity to improve thn ara~~ the criteria as st~ted should be adhered
to, and tha Planntng Commia~ion would like to see the ftnel EIR.
Phillip Schwartze pointed out the Plenning Departnent st~ff wlll crittque thn draft EIR~
but bec~use the ttme freme was limtted and the fact th~t the Ctty Councll meeting for this
week has bPen canc~lled~ they h~J t~.rauc~ht thts sketchy repdrt tn the Plenning Commisslon
for conment. Ne steted staPf would be forwsrdf~g the document and the results o~ today's
meeting on to the County end will point out to them tho tnformatlon from the Clty Council
will be followiny.
Comnissioner Barnes thankcJ both Phillip Schw~rtze end the County r~presentotives~ stating
this was the firSt time In three And ~~s-helf years she has been on the Commission that
the Conml3slon h~s Itad a chance to t31k with the County and indicated she would like to
see th 1 s type of th i ny more of tcn,
Chalrman Herbst polnted out the Anahe(m City Planniny CoMmisslan has hnd qulte d few years
of exNe~lencc i~ helping to develnp in the Anahetm Hllls area and some of the probinms
they have gone through could be passed on for the Councy's tnfo nnatian as dcvelopment goes
fu~ther out into the cenyon.
Mr. Tsu tndtcated ha appreclated the conxnents by the Commisslon and apolo.~t2ad for not
having adequate Information such as alternatives to present beGeus^ the consultants h~d
not flnished their work.
(TEM N0. 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING. OWN~RS; ALBAN
~"~~7~'f~VE DECLARATIOf~ AND BERNADIH~ HOLTZ~ 14~1 East I ~vine Boulevard,
RECL I C ON 0. 7-J9-S Tustin~ CA 92630 and FREp W. AND PATRICIA B.
CO~IDI_ONA _USE PERM T N0. F385 MORGA~~T1iALER~ 22b5 VJest Broadway, Anahetm~ CA
9t804. AGCNT: TiIE ROBERT P. WAF ~IMGTON COMPANY~
16592 Hale Avenue~ Irvine. CA 92714, Property
dRSC~lbed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of lend cansisting of approximataly 4.7 acres
located south and west of the southwest cornar af Lin~ofn Avenue and Rio Vista Street~
having approximate fro~tages of 488 feet an the sauth side of lincoln Avenue and 73 feet
on the west side of Rio Vista Street~ being located approx(mately 195 feet west of the
centerline of Rio Vista Street and 180 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
Property presently clessifled RS-A-43,000 (RESIOENTIAI/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
REQuESTED CLASSIFICATION; CL (CO-1MERCIAL~ LIM17~0) ZokE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO PERMIT A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT.
Sub)ect petition was continued frum the n+eetings of July 31 and August 14 and 28~ 1978~ at
the request of the petitlo~;er.
There were four pe~sons Indtcating their p~esence in oppositfon ta subject request~ and
although thc steff report to the Planning Commission dated September 2;~ i978 was not read
at the pubiic heartng~ ic is refe~red to and made a part of thc minutes.
Walter Coursen~ ~epresenting The Robert P. Warmingtan Company. agent~ indicated the
proposal is far a convenience center to service the local cortmunity and felt the. plan
which incorporates good planning principtes~ es we11 as marketing sensitivity. is a very
good plsn. He indicated they had read the staff report and feel they wTil be able to
comply with the conditions. He referr~d to the Traffic Engineer's recommendation that the
9/25/78
~
~' t
~
i
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COhtMIS510N~ SEPTEMBER 25~ 1918 78-788
IR N TIVElpECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATiON N0. 1~-79-8 ANQ CONDITIONAL U~E: PERMIT N0. 1885
left•turn lane not b~ alloveed for thls property and stated they feel very strongly that
this left•turn pocket is very (mportsnt to thc marketability of the pro)cct. Ne potnted
out chere ara a number o} other conditlons occurring tn this ~rea and it n-ay not be as
d~+ngerous at the Traffic Engtneer had tndicated. He pointed out the tr~ffic signals at
both tho off-ramp and coming over the hill wlil create a situatian wh~er~ the cers will be
stoppad end wtll not have th~ momentum comin~ down the hill. He stated if the left-turn
lane is not nllowed~ there wlll be a more d~nc~erous sltuation wliich could occur where
pe~ple have missed the turrr nff at Rlo Vista and woulJ go beck down the hill and attempt
to make a U-turn and con-e bACk to the prop~rty. He stated the 1Gft-turn lane would
probably handle only onc-th(rd or less of the trnffic inta this site.
He referred to Conditton No. `~ of the Interdepartmental Commlttee recomme+ndatlons
referring ta the block wall to be constructed elong the westr.rly portian af the prope~ty~
end indicatad they were not totally oproseci to th~t; thet they have e large am~unt of
lendscapin, planned alanc~ the westerly boundary and felt e black v+all would htnder or
obstruct r.he vlew c~f potentfa) customers coming intu the slte and they would ltke to see
that condition relleved, If possible~ and hove open-type fencinc~. Ile polnted out he and
Frank Harlan with Coldwell Oanker~ who will be merkcting the pro,ject~ and Wils~n Woodman~
the architect~ were ~>resent to answer any questions.
Nenry Covper, 27?1 Purlton Plac~~ Anahelm~ Indtcated he had rev~ewed a copy of the plan
and thought the plan was beauttful for the developer only~ but did not give any
co~sideratton to thc people whp llv~ tn those five houses which abut the proposed project.
Hc polntAd out there is no b~iffe~ zone betwcen this pro;ect end their back fer.ce. He
indirvted tl~c pctitloner has a~ked to be relieved of the fencinq~ but the oppositton
belie~~~~ li-faot fc~nce would ~ot bc hiqh enougt~. Ne polnted aut there ~re 22 pArking
spaces a~, ~•.ent t~ t:t~ei r back yards and he did not know whetlier these were Rroposad for
patrons or employer~~, but the~ arc ayainst the fence and the(r back. yards are not ve ry
big. He stated th~y~ ~ould Itke to knaw what is b~ing proposcd for the 8200~square fooC
buildi~y end referred to thc Ralph's Market at Sunkist and lincoin~ potnting nut he had
discussed that prajer,t with several pcuple wtio live ncar thAt market and delivertes and
cleaning are being done at j:~0 a.m. and those peo~le cannot sleep. He pt~inted out ti~ey
already have enaugh nolse from thc freeway and did not need any mc~re noise.
He referred to the parking spaccs tvith plants proposed~ and asked tf the plants will be in
portable planters or permanent. He Indicated his home is the third one from thc east,
moving west~ anci thc seGOnd t~ath bin from the left slde is right ~utside his dtning room~
and felt that could be a problem. He polnted out there could be a noise problem and wtth
people throwing trash into the bins~ probably some of it would go over the wall~ pointing
out the wall is only 4-1/2 feet high in his back yard. Ne indicated there are swirtminc~
pools along there and was concerned somc~one could throw bottles or other objects Into the
swimming p~~ls. He felt traffic into this area would be bad with big trucks and there
wouid also be pollution from the hig trucks, tle indtcated if th~ larae area ts yoing to
be a market, they wou~' have refri~~eration and air conditi~ning on thetr roof and when
thos` are running at night and all morniny~ r.hey would not be abie to sleep. He stated~
agein, the plan is beautiful for the people who drew lt, but it does not satisfy the
oppositlon's conclitio~s. Ne felt the no;'~:e conce~ning the drive-through restaurant was
misleading sin~e the drive-through ~estaurant is on the other side of the proJect; that it
is on the northeast corner and the residsntial properties are on the southwest corner.
Ed Carson~ 2725 Puritan Place~ Anaheim~ stated he h~d a lot of questions concerning this
praject~ and one is the elevation, potnting out the l,st proposal was going to have fill
dirt to make it about 3 feet higher than the existing fill~ and pointed out a 4-1/2 foot
fence wlth 3 feet of fill dtrx woutd create a situation with people looking down into
their back yards. Fle indtcated he was also concerned that there was no buffer zone along
9/25/i8
,., .
,; ~
'~, ,
M 1 NUTES. Ai~ANE IM C ITY PLANNI NG COMMI SS I ON ~ SEPTEMdER 25, 197t3 ~'p-7~9
EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~8-79-0 AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. !~
the gouthern bound~ry dnd falt they were trytnq to put toc~ neuch proJect on the slCe. Ile
indlcated th~ doveloper had not presented plans concerning 1 ightiny Por the parking lot or
the I r oparet I ng hours wh) cli tluy cou 1 d not do beceuse they d i d not know who they wou 1 d be
leasing tho stores to as yet. ~ie pointed out there are already four resteurents et this
intersectfon: e drive-through hambu~gnr-type plece~ a sandwich shop, A Carl's Jr. and
another restaurent. In addltlan~ there is also a 7-Eleven Market, en Alpha Bet~ Marl;et
and two servi ce s tat (ans ~ etc. ~ so he fe I t there arn plenty of bus 1 nesses to accormn~date
the netghborh~d. He polnted out there was no indicatlon frorn the petltloner concnr~tng
the dreinage problem and whether {~e would n~et the condition requl~Iny on-sitc dralnage
towards lincoln~ whlch would splll Into the Lincoln storrt~ drain. I~e polnted out ti tl~ls
pro)ect is approved~ he would expect e higher fence thnn the 6-foot wall raqutred, but he
was very opposed to not hbving a buffer zone beceusa he felt it would devnlue his
p~operty. He stat~d hc realized the property owners have to d~velop someth(ng to get
thelr rr~ney out of the property~ but it gets a ltttlr. tlresnme tu see pP~ple buy up
1 rreguler pieces of land at bargain prices and then try to make a fortune on them. He
Indlcatad he wns not against cApit~l i sm~ but felt th(s proJect was Just too much.
Maury Mi l ler indicat~d he was the proprietor of ~he drive-in restaurant on the corner of
Lincoln and Rio Vista and Ind(cated there are a number of restaurants In the area already.
He polnted out for the qreatest number of hours of the day both his restaurant and Carl's
J~. ar~ Just looking at each other because this area does not apparently thrlve as much as
the traf~°ic would ineflcate. Ne indicated he was not In opposition to In~provement of the
property, but stated in tl~ event a left-turn lane ;s 4rovidcd for the sl~opptng center,
he~ as the existiny property owner and ~pcrator~ should be provided with the same access.
He lndicated he would recammend further study be given as to the feasibil(ty of this area
being ~ble to compat(bly entertain another drive-thro~gh restaurant or food estAblishme~t.
M~. Coursen indica[ed there appears to be three maJor concerns of the property owne~s and
fhey~ the developers~ are sensitive to these concerns. Conc~rning the wall at th~ rear of
the property, he stated they would be w111ing to build a wal l G fe~t hlgh if that would
satisfy t~e conditi~n as far as bufferin,y the commercial from the residentlal. He
tndicated they definltely want to buffer the two properties and Pelt a 10, 15 or 20-foot
landscaped area is not feaslble with the way the site Is lAid out~ nor does it make
p~act(cal development sense to have a 6-foot hiyh wall and a certain artr~unt of landsceping
3nside that. He felt as far as the nofse goes. they could cenditlon the pick-up and
delfveries to speclfted times and they ~ould direct all llght~ng down and towards the
~nslde of the development to shield any lighting overflow into the residenttal proNCrties.
He po ( r~ed ou t the arch i tect cou 1 d d i scuss the type of mate r i al s go i ng to be used i n th i s
development~ or they could bring back a si te plan for revtew as to the specific detai ls.
Concerning the dralnage, he indicated they would comply with the conditio~s of the staff
report and the dralnage will be out to Llncoln Av~nue if the Direttor af Public Works
des i res i t.
TF~E PUBL 1 C NCARI NG WAS CLOSED.
Chalrma~ Herbst pointed out it has been the Planning Commission's policy whenever
eommercial ~s abutting residential that a 20-fc~ot landscaped buffer be prov(ded~ and he
would have to agree with the opposltion in this situation that no consideretion has been
gi ven to the homes at the rear of che prop~rty; that they have located thei r trash back
there and al l del iveries are located aJJacent to the back yards of these homes. He
i ~dicated he had wal ked the s i te and these homes do have sha 1 low back yards and he di d not
feel Che developer had ~tven any consideration to these property owners.
M~. Coursen indicated they were not aware of the Planning Commission's poltcy regarding a
20-foot landscaped buffer or they would have included it. H~ indicated dtscussians with
9~25i~a
.~
1
~~
Y' 8-
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS101~~ SEPTENEiEa 25~ ~q78 >>g~
EIR -~~GATIVC DECLARATION aECIASSIFICATION N0. 7g'79'a ~~~~ ~Q~~Q~T~Q~~AL USE PERMIT FIO. IFiB;
staff had indlceted they wanted 4-foot pl~ntcrs w~th tr~e walls In them, F1e also
Indicated only ~~"1°~ointed outttheswhole~site~abutsdresidcntit+lhpropertieg~mi ly homes~
anJ Chelrman Nerbst p
Mr. Course~ ~tated they coulerrbufferethan a~2flhf~ottstripswhlchPnoboAy can~useeeS~ which
h~ felt would prAVide a bett
Chairmen 1lerbst indicrted he woul~ disayree and I~e was not going to bend on the lendscaped
buf fer; tt~at tht: P 1 ann 1 ng Commi ssl an has bee~ tlirough th i s many t 1 mes and space Por sound
reduction in ~ddixion t~ a well is the best solution. He statecl all the trafflc generated
for Jeliverins (g ~~r~e~~ ~nd~aiconc`e~-tethat,wl llsnot'~protect th~elntagritydof~the~u9ht
this ts a very pao P
reslcie~tlal araa.
Commissloner Tolar indicatecl there were other points which the developer had totally
ovarlooked ln rela ti~nshir to ~ther plans that have been beforc the Planntng Commtssion on
thls same lot. H e stated thc Planniny Commission recogntzes this is an irregularly-shaped
ptece of property and It Is commerc(ally zoned~ hut that In previous discussions on
proposed developments~ projccts liave bren turned dawn with icss denslty than proposc+d here
for the same bas(c reasons. F4~ d1J ~ot feel thc developer h~d lcarnecl anything from the
previ ous heir) ngs .
Mr. Coursen Indicated he did not realize th e comDlete piece of property had been
considered in pre viuus heArings~ pointing o ut there are two ~roperttes and this proJect
has 21~G c~verage. which he felt was n~t very dense.
Commissi~ner Tolar stated t1~at 21~ coverage is no[ the point; that Chere are circulation
problems he:rc wi th the left turns onto Lincoln and there was no way he was go(ng to
suppc~rt that; and also that he ls not going to support the proJect without the 2~-foot
landscaped buffe r. Ne pointed out there is anather item on the agenda today which would
indlcate the Planninc~ Commission daes not bend on that rule~ pointing ~ut this was for a
matel slte and it was sent back to the drawing board to accomplish this same buff~r~ and
now this proJect is talking abo~~ti~ore density than was turncd down last time. He
indtcated he recognized the aw~er of the p ropeety hwith thattlogic~vbutpnctEatrtherexpense
wants to develop it, anJ he is totally in symp thy
of other people. Ne re"erred to the ftve property owners and indicated that even though
there are only five~ the Planning Comnlssion has learned by mistakes. He referred to the
Ralph's Market a t Sunkist And Lincoln~ stating even though the landscaped buffer was
provlded and there is less density than p ropc-se~ on this proJect~ that a~ea (s overcrowded
and impacted wit!~ traffic circulation probiems he did not feel could be rectified. He
indicated this proJect shaws left turns onto ~i^r~~it with that trafficncirculetion or
trafflc over the freeway, and he could not suppo
without the 20-foot landscaped huff er. H e tndicated he did not know what It would require
to change these, but felt it wauld be a lot less dense bullding on this particular site.
Chatrman Nerbst indlcated the Traffic Engineer was deftnitely opposed to this left-turn
pocket and polnted out th~n~r~heebridge,istatin9tthatpthe~cf areeatfewf thingsi tn thattarea
on-ramp and the overpass
that definitely impact the praperty.
Commisslone~ J ohnson asked Mr. Cou~sen if he would 11ke to take this pro~ect back
dreiwinC ~°issionerseandirespon~iin the~sansehwayhconcerningGthose threeuareas~eand1aakc..yif
other
he woul d 11 ke a vote today or a con t i nuance, .
9~zsi~a
.~
.~
y
P
MIt~UTCS~ ANAHCIM C17Y PI.ANNINr, CAMMISSION~ SEPTf.MBER 25~ 197~ 78~791
EIR NEGIITIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-$ AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. IaflS
Mr. Cour~en indicatod he appreclnted the cannents end certainly understo~d the situatlon
concerning thc left-turn lane. Ile indlcrted they hrd discussE~d thfs wlth Paul Singer and
he had (ndiceted thet if the Plenntng Cortmtsslon and City Counctl passed the proJect, he
would approve it, but he did say he wes ~pposed to the clrculntion. Ile referred to the
20-foot landscapcd buffer and lndtcated he was tgn~rant of th~t situatton stnca ln his
moettngs with staff~ It had never becorne an Issue and they certainly would not have
brought s~xnething tn bPfore the Corxnission had they knawn. I~~ indicated he would llke to
request a continuance to redesign th~ proJect.
Commtsslo~er Barnes potnted out thc City Cou~cll had just ~ecently denled a proposal
Including a 20-foot lendscape~i buff~r with some other landscaping ancl Hanted him to
realize th~ Planning Commission has really stuck to that pol(cy and want to protect the
people es much as possible. ~`~ Indtcated she felt the same way as the other
Commisstoners and felt the pro)~c.t could t~e redeslgned wlth maybe not ns much on It as he
would like. She Indlcatecl the Planning Cormiisslon had nat been fooled by the reftrence to
the d~ive-thraugh restaurant and wanted ~he oppositlon [o know th~ Planning Commission
reeltzed this is goiny to the Cl Zone because it is not sutted for anything else;
therefore, there will be commerclal development~ but a drive-through restaurant has
certain other requlrements than Just plaln comrt~rcial,so that was the reasan th(s nad been
potnted out In the staff report.
Commissloner Johnscm indicated the area fecing the restdences was almost an alley effect
which would be the back door to all the sto~es and felt when thls p^oJect ts redesigned~
they should treat those resldents as custon~ers. I~e indlcated he was not ask(ng for a
front facade~ but th(s plan for a long buildtng suddeniy strtkes hlm a 1(ttle cotd~ even
though hc realized tt is a long~ narrow lot and ts ~otn~ to have to have some exceptions~
and lie belleved the oppasition appea~ed to be reasonable and would accept some excepttons
in order to accortxnodate the propcrty.
Mr. Coursen indicateJ he understood and agreed, but the proJPCt is designed to have less
impact given the fact those are emnloyee parking spaces. ~1e indicated the rear of tfie
buiiding is not golny to be Just stucco~ but will be architecturally pleastng.
Cortmissioner Tolar asked the proposed usc for the large ~200-squar~ foot building~ and Mr.
Coursen repl(ed they do not have a 100$ praposed user, but have thought about the
possibi{tty of a large drug store or something stmiler to that.
Commissioner Totar indicatecl they should give thought in redesigning the pro)ect to some
of the concerns the Planning Commission has had with other proJects abutting ~esidential
areas~ and those are the trash~ Jelivery, cleaning and truck service for markets and drug
stares, pointing aut these uses have created major p roblems tn the past. He pointed out,
for example~ at Ralpf~'s even a fence has not been sufficient for overcoming the delivery
and truck service, pointing out they clean the park(ng lats and deliver in the middle of
the night~ and 20-foot landscaped buffers will not eliminate that noise. He felt the
owner of the prope-ty and staff could offer suggestions and txplain t~ow a prevlously proposed
proJect was turned arounJ so that the truck cleliveries were in the rear away from the
residenttal areas.
Mr. Coursen indicated he had a feeling for what the Planning Commissicn rrants a~d will
take care of the problems. Ne asked if the Planntng Commission is totally opposed to the
left-turn lar~e onto Llncoln.
Commissioner Tolar indicated he could not answer for the Planr~ing Commissian, but that as
one individual, ne would not support the ~ro}ect with left t~: s onto Llncoln~ and
9/25/7$
~ ~:
~..
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 25~ 1974 78'792
EIR NEGATIYG DECLARATIO~~, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-)9~~ AF10 CONOITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 18~1
Chairmen Ha~bst indiceted he woulci like input from the T~affic E~gineer~ but right n~w
wtth hts recomnendatlo~ he could not vot~ far It.
Jemes Kawemur~~ Assistant Treffic Engl~eer~ prese~ted ststtstica) information concernt~g
the left-turn Ingress and egress on this pa~ticular property. He I~dlcatec~ the pusted
speed ltmit on L1nGOln Avenue Is 45 mlics per hour; hawever~ in 197~+ a speed survey
Indicated 85`~ of thc trefflc te gotng S5 mlles per haur aver the freewey~ or an sverage
speed of kQ mtles per hour. Ne str~ted et that time the avPra~ye dalty t~efflc on Lincaln
was 18~300 vehlclGS end tn 1~77~ the ave~~ge drily treffic on Linceln was ?.5,40f1 an~ they
have not co~ducted a recent sp~sd surve:y, but the Impression is that th~ speeds are very
high along that property. He pointed out Lincoln Avcnue in that rrea h~s a bike route and
is ciestynated on the mostcr ptan rs ~ hik~ r~ute, which would present addltlonel safety
factors for the bicycle rtders. He stated therQ Is an exlsttng island approximatety 3~~
feet from Rto Vista and the transitlon to r.he on-ramp of the freew~y is about 270 feet
from the intersectlon. f1e st~ted if he were designiny a left-turn pocket onto the
property end still tryiny to provide for left-turn at Ltncoln e~st onto Rlo Vista
northbound with a 100-foot trans(tlon~ you would be cutttny down substantially on thc
left-turn storage Gapacity. Ne statcd, In other words~ if ther~ wr~s a left^turn access~
it would prabably be peneliztng those people wanting to make a left turn off Lincaln on:o
Rio Vista. Ile stated. gencrally speakine~~ the Trafflc Department opposes any type of
left-turn eccess Into the property.
Chairman Nerbst asked if the Traffic Department had any obJecttons to exitinc~ unto Ltncoln
from the property making right-hend turns, and Mr. Kawemura stated thcy have na ob,~ections
to that proposal.
Mr. Coursen indicated they would probably need a wesk to redesign the proJect~ and it was
point~d out the proJect should be continued to the October 23rd meeting.
Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner~ polnted out if the block wall aclJacent to the Orange
Freeway wFr~ deleted~ it would require a variance and this matter wauld have to be
readvertisPC1.
AGTiON: Commissioner David offared a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Barnez and MOTION
~iT~D (one seat being vacant), that conside~ation of Petltions for Reclassiflcation No.
78~79-8 and Conditional Use PermiC No. 18a5 he continued ta the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning Cemmission on October 23, 1978, in order f~r the pctitioner to
submit revised plans.
9/25/78
~,' ,,T
MINUTCS~ AMAkEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 25~ 197H 1~~793
ITEM N0. 4 CON7INUED PUDLIC NCARING. OWNf.PS; DAVID S. ANI)
Elit VE UEClAR11TI0N MARION GRAFF COLLItiS~ 1n77 west Bel! Road~ An+~h~im~
V lANCE N0. 3A CA ~~E'12. AGENTx W. EARL GARR~ JR.~ 1650 South
1larbor Boulevard~ Anehelm~ f,A ~T.~02. Petltto~er
requests 11AIVER OF MIIJIMUM NUMDER OF PARKI!~G 5PACES TO
CONSTRUCT A 110-UNIT MOTE.L on property descrlt~ed es an Irregulariy-shaped pe,rce) of Innd
canaisting of approximately 1.3 acres having ~ frontage af epproximately 3~?. feet on the
southwest sidc of West Street~ h~vtng a maximum depth of approximet~ly 21+9 feet, being lucated
t+ppraximately 39S feet northwest ~f thc ccncerlfnc of ~all Road, end furth~r desr.rtbed es 9~5
South West Strect. Property ~rPSently classtficd RS-A-l~3~~~~ ~P~ESIDCNTIAL/AGRtCULTURAL) ZONE
with A resolutlon of intent to the C-R (CQMMERC111L-RECP,EATION) Zf1~lE.
Sub)ect petltlo~ was continued from the rn~ettnc; of Au~ust 2P~ 1~1~, for the submission of
revised plens.
There was no one indicatiny t~ietr presen~e in opposition ta suh}ect request. and although
the staff report co the Planning Commission dated SeE~tecibc~r 2;~ 1~7~ w~s not read at the
publtc h~Aring, it is referred to ~nd made a parc of tlic minutes.
~arl Garr~ agent. was present and pointed c~ut this pro}ect has bePn redesic~ned and the
~umber of units had hcen reduceJ tu 1~2~ dnd presented a renclerin~ of the pro)ect a~id
indlcated he would bc hapry to answer any questions.
TIIE PUbLIC HEARIIlG WAS Cl!)SED.
ACTIOP~: Commissioner Y.ing offercd a rnotion~ seconcled by Commissioner Tolar and MOTI0~1
C R EU (one seat being vacAnt)~ that the Anahcim City Planning Commission has reviewed
the proposa) to construct a 102-unit motel with waiver of mininaum numbr.r of parking spaces
on an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxir~ately 1.3 acres havtng a
frontage of approxin-ately 3~?- feet on Che southwest side of West Strect, having a maximum
depth of approximately 249 feet~ and being located approximately 39i feet northwest of the
centerline of Ball Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the
requirement to pr•epare an environmental impact report nn tt~e basis that there would be no
signiflcant ind(viduat or cumul~tive adverse environmcntal impact due to the approval of
this Negative Declaratinn since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for canmercial-recreational land uses corm~ensurate wlth the prnposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in thc pruposal; that the InitiAl Study submitted by
the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impacts; and that the Negative Declaratian subscantiatirvg thc foregoing findinqs is on
file in tha City of Anaheim Planning Department.
Mr. Garr referred to the mention in the staff report concerning the circulatian element
and askeci tf Anaheim was still interested in that~ and Chairman Herbst pointed out the
City is no longer interested since that area will be set for publtc hearing in connection
with a General Pla~ amendrr~nt and will b~ deleted from the Gen~ral Ptan Circulation
El~ment.
Commlssioner King offered Resolution No. PC78-218 and moved for its ~+assage and adoption~
that the M aheim City Planning Commfssion does hereby grant Petition for Va~rtance No. 30~2
on the basis that the Planning Commtssion has approved parking variances for motel uses in
the past on the basis that a certain percentage of guests arrive by transportatton modes
other than private automobiles and c-n the basis of the irregulPr shape of the parcel~ end
subJect to Interdepertmental Committee recortrnencfations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution wa~ passed by the following vote:
9/25/78
~~ .
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISStON~ S~PTEM6ER 25~ 197A 7b-794
EIR N_EGATIVE_DECLARATION ANU VARIANGE.NO. 042 (cvntinued)
AYESt COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVIU~ NERB5T~ J011NSON~ KING~ TOLAR
NOESt COMMISSIONERS: NQNE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE
VACANCYs ONE SEAT
ITEM NO.~ CONTINUED PU~LIC NEARING. OWNER: KALYANJI MOTA~
~,~, NECATIVE DEGLARATION 2~12 West Llncoln Avenue, Anahelm~ CA 92801. Property
1~~,~,.SSIFICATION N0. 78-79-12 descrlbed as a ~ectengularly-shaped parcel of land
V~AIVER OF COUE REQUIREMENT consisting of approximately 0.7 acre hevin,q a frontage
40NDiTIONAL U E ER . 1$8fi of approximately 95 fcet on the sauth side of Lincoln
Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approximately 330
fe~t~ being ~o~ated approximately 106~ feet east of
the centerline of Beach Boulevard~ and further de~~crlbed as 2912 West Lincoln Avenue.
P~operty presently clessifled RS-A-43~000 (R~SIDENTIAL/AGRICIILTURAL) ZON'..
REQUESTEU CLASSIFICATION: Gl (COMIIERCIAL~ LIMITLD) ZONL.
REQUE5rEU CONDITIQNAL USE: TO EXPIWD AN ExIS71rIG MOTEL WIT11 WIIIVER OF
MINIMt!;~1 STRUC7URAL SETUACK.
Sub]ect petitlo~ was continued from the meeting of September 11~ 19Ja~ at the request of
the petitloner.
Thera was na ane indir.ating their pr~senc~ In oppositian to subJect request. and although
the staff report to the Planning Commisston dated September 25, 1978 was not rnad at the
public hearin9, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
6ob Shah~ Civil Engineer~ 523 North Grand~ Santa Ana~ stated the revised plens show a
reducClon of one unit and an adequate turn-around area pravided at the end of the
driveWay.
TNE PUBLIC f1EARItIG WAS CLOSED.
Camiisstoner Barnes asked if the 11nen room ts on the second story~ and Mr. Shah replted
that it was. He stated the clea~ance of the building is 10 feet, G tnches at ceilfng
height and would be adequate for most campers.
Commissioner Johnson stated this is an ingenious plan, but he was concerned about the
turn-around area~ pointtng out that drivers of large campers wauld noc know the height
limitation when they enter the drtveway and this could create problems.
M~. Shah stat~d that unless chere was an air-condittoning unit on top of the vehicle~
thPre wouid be no problem and that the larger units wuuld have to back up into an empty
parking space in order to curn around.
Gommis~toner King stated the Traffic Enyineer has indicated the proposed cul-de-sac
located to the south will provide adequate turn-around.
Chatrman Herbst asked about trash pickup~ and Mr. Shah indicated it wauld be picked up on
the street.
Ghairman Herbst asked M~. Sh~h what hardship exists concerning the 2-foot ~etback watver
versus the 10-foot setback required by Code, and Mr. Shah replied the h~rdshtp on that
9/25/7a
~
~ ~
,~
MINU7ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SCPTEMBEfI 25, 1g78 78~795
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICAtION N0. 78-79-1?. AND CONDI_TIONAL U~~PERMI . 1 86
perlic,ular rayuest wou1J be that thc ~reA would bc vcry dtfftcult to mrlntain ~+n~ th~t nn
one from the mote) would bc able to see It.
Commissloner Barnes stated the hardst,~p must deal wt~h the property itself and she dld not
think t~iat hardshlp would be ~dequatF and felt thc properly is not ldrge enough for what
(s bei~g propoted. Shc stated she would like to sec this property developcd. but felt the
woiver should not be permltted ~Ince other similar requests h~~vc been cienied.
M~. Sheh stated the petltloner could provide the 10-foot setback by e reduction of the
number ~f units.
Jeck White, Deputy City Attorney, explained the Planning Cortmtsston could approve the
reclasslfication an~1 condittonr+l use permit and deny the request for walver of code
requiremcnt of mfnlmwn structur~l setback, and requcst precise plans be approved by the
Planning Commlssiun prior to the issuance af buildin~ permits.
AGTION: Comnissioner Kiny offe~ed a motion, seconded by Co~rmissioner Davld arid MOTION
~~~0 (one seat be i ng vacan t) ~ that the Anahc 1 m C i ty P 1 Ann i ng Corn~ni ss i on I~~s rev i ewed
the proposal to expand an exist(ng motel with walver of mtnln~um structural setback and to
reclassify the zoning frorr, the RS•A-43~0~0 (Restdential/Agricultural) to CL (Commerclal,
Limited) Zone on a rectangularly-sha~ed parcel of land conststing ~f approximately 0.7
acre having a frontage of approximetely 9S feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue~
havi~g ~ maxtmum depth of approx(metely 330 feet~ being locatr.d approxlmatcly ~nGo feec
eas[ of the centerline of deach Boulevard; and does hereby approvc the Negative
Decl~ratlon from the requirement ta prepare an environmental impact report on the basis
that there would be no signiflcant Individual or curnul~tive adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of this Negetive Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan destgnates
the subJect property for general commercial land uses cort-mensurate w(th the proposal; that
no sensitlve environmental impacts are Involve~ tn thP propasal; that the Initial Study
submltted by the petitloner indicates no siynlfic~ne individual or cumulative adverse
environmc~ntal impacts; and that the Nryative Declaration substsntiatin~ the foregoing
findinys (s on fllc in thc City of Anaheim Planning Department.
Cortmissioner King offered Resolution No. PC73-219 and move~ for its passage and adoption~
tl~at the A~aheim City Planning Con~mission does hereby grant Petition for ReclASSificatlon
No. 78-79-12~ subject to I~terdepartmental Committee recortrnendations.
On roll call, the foregol~g resolution was passed by the follawing vote:
AYES : GOt4M I SS 10NER5 : BARNES ~ OAV I U, HERBST ~ JONNSGN, Y.! IIG ~ TOLAP,
NOES: CQMNISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMIIiS510NER5: NONE
VACANCY: OPJE SEA7
Commissioner King vffered a motion. seconded by Cortmissioner Oavid and MOTIQN CARR1Ep (cne
seax being vacant)~ that the request for waiver of Code reauirement of minimum structural
setback be cfenied on the basis that the petitioner stipulated at the public hearing to
abide by the Code and provide a 10-foot setback~ a~d there are no special ctrcumstances
appltceble to this particular property.
Commission~r~King offered Resolution No. PC78-220 and moved for its passage and adoption~
that the Anaheim City planning CommiSSion does hereby grant Petition for Condlttonal Use
Permlt No. 1n86~ in part. sub)ect to the petitioner's stipulatfon that the number of units
wil) be reduced in o~der to provide the 10-foot setback requTred by Code and that revised
9/~5/78
~ i
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 25, 1978 78-~~~'
E~~R NCGATIVE ~ECLARATION. aECLASSiFICATION N0._Z,O-~ -is_a CONDITIONAL U,~f pERN,~ ~886
ptsns shall bc submitted to tlie Planning Cornnlssion for epprovel prior to the issu~ncc of
buildlnc~ permits~ and subJect co Intordepartmental Committee recommendattons.
On roll calt~ the f'oragolnc~ res~lutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; E~ARNk:S~ DAVID~ 11ERBST~ JQtI~IS~IJ~ KI~IG~ TOLAa
NOES: CONMISSIONFRS: N~NC
ABSENT: COM~IISSIONERS; I~OIdC
VI1Cl1UCY : ONC Skl1T
ITEM N0. G CONTINUFG PU4LIG HEARiPIG. OWNER: LEE 0. WEBB~
F,,~R GA?EGORIGAI. kkEMPT_12N~CLl15S 5 5n; North Tustin Avenue~ ~17~, Sanr~ Ma~ CA 92705.
VARIANG~ N0. 30~~7 Petitioner requests WAIVfR OF (A) MINIMUM FRO~~T
SE:TBACK At~D (d) MtNIMUM NUMDER OF PARKING SPACES
TQ CONSTRUCT A M01'EL on property descrEbecf as a
rectanyularly-shaped pprcel ~f land consistinq of ap~roximately 7.~ acres having a
frantage of approxin~atc~y 5~C feet on the: east side of I~arbor Boulev~rd~ havin~ a maximum
depth of ~p~roximately 250 feet~ bein~ l~cated ap~roximately 1fi0 feet no~th of the center-
line of Orangewood Avenue~ and furthcr described As 20~0 South Nerbor Boulevard. Propcrty
presently classiflcd C-R (C4M11CkCIAL-RECREA7I~~J) ZQNE.
Subject pc:tlC{on was continued from the meettng pf Sept~mber 11, 19?a. in orJer for tl~e
petfkioner to be present.
There was no one t~dicatlny thelr presence tn opposition tA subJ~ct request~ and although
the staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 2';~ 1978 was not read aC the
public hearing, it is referred to and rnade a p~rc of the minutes.
Lee Webb. the petitione~~ indicated the request for walver uf tt~e front setback is for the
construction of an 8-foot by 10-foot rubbisn bin on eech end of the 500-foot parcel, which
would project into the s~tbock area; chat the City requires a very large transforrnGr a~d
they w~uld construct the rubbish areA in front of cF~e transformer and landscape it with a
berm that will obscu~e it from view of the street; that they have used the rubbish bin
pickup on the street in their last two p~aJects and it has been very successfui and only
takes a rnatter of seconds compared to minutes for ptckup if the truc~:s h~ve to car~e onto
the property; and tliat they have clearance from the Sanitatlon and T~affic Departments
subJect to the Planning Cammissio~'s appraval.
fiegardin,q the parking waiver~ hc stated they have lS~i parking spaces for 150 units; thrt
there (s a coffee shop and lounge which is desiyRed primarily for the purpose of serving
their guests at the motor inn, but they cannot guarantee that people will not come in off
the strect; thaC it has been their expcrience that approximately 70$ of their parking
spaces is probably the most that is occupied~ especially in this area~ since they rely
heavily on convention center busin~ss and tour business.
TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEO.
Chalrman Nerbst pointed out the trash receptacle far the ~estaurant would be quite a
distance away from the area where the trash would be picked up and that the restaurant
would create a lot of trash.
Mr. Webb stated the trash from the motel and the restaurant would be about equal. fle
stated al) the trash would be transported to the containers from wherever it is
~i2si~a
r. .
~. f
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 25~ 1~78 78-~q~
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0.,~04,Z (continucd)
accumulated; that therc wauld be temporery bins in tf~e vicinity of the restaurant, dnd
Chalrmen Herbst poYnted out those temporary bins a~e nat shavn on the plans.
Canmisslaner Barnes tndtcated she was also conc-rned about the tras~~ p(ckup; that Harbor
ts a very busy street and shc dld not thlnk trash trucks st~pping on Harbor would be very
safe end that ather developers rre ~equ(red to place trash conteiners on the property
(tself. She stated sh~ could not be In fevor of this even thou4h she r~allzed a large
transformer would be required.
Mr. Webb stated the~e was one laryc [ransform~r requtred end they w~uld h~ve to build a
veult for the transformer. He pointed out that the outside lane on Harbor is 22 feet wide
and there w(11 be adequate room far the trash trucks to stop w(th,out ubstructing traffic.
Ne stated the Tr~ff(c bcpartment had me~e e sCudy of thc samc s(tuatton on Oall Road~
wh(ch has more traff(c thnn Harbar~ and found because the lane is wid~ enough to stop to
pick up the trasl~~ there were no obJectta~s to it a~d there have been no problems and the
trASh ts picked up (n a metter oP seconds. He stated they ere proposing to put thls
receptecle within 10 feet of the curb and ar~ proposing a berm hi~h enouqh for some
plents. He steted the tresh truck is quite large snd tf It cames onto the prope~ty and
has to turn around, it ts quite a chore and IC Is a probl~m when there is an enclosed
courtyard. HR stated they could p(ck up the trash ~n the street and be ~one before they
could come onto the property.
Carmissioner David as~ed if this was an unusual request~ polnttnq out the appllcanc had
stated the same situation exist~ currently on dall Road.
Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ explained the probl~m in this instance ~s that thls is a
speclal setback area and the d~veloper has ~he option of setting Che building back 50 feet
with a t0-foot landscaped area or setting the buildtng beck 35 feet with the 35 feet
totally landscaped~ and in this case hs would be encroaching into the toCally landscaped
area.
Cvmmtssio~er King asked wt~at was planned for the 31-foot arca Just north of the 7-foot
walk parallel to Harbor 6oulevard, and M~. Webb replted that area w~c~uld be landscaped.
Commissioner King suggested wldening the walk with heavier concrete so that trash trucks
could come onto that area~ and Mr. Nebb indicated they would hav~ no obJecttons to that.
Jay Tashiro explained if the trash b(n ts located bet~tnd the setback and if tt is
accept3ble to the Sanitation Dlvision to pick up the trash on the curb~ then it is
acceptable to the Pianning Department; hc~wever~ in tt~is case the trash bin would be
located in the requir~d setback area and is a viulation of the C~de. Ne stated it appears
the applicant has talked with thp Sanitation Dtvision and the plan is acceptable to them.
Commissinner Johnson stated it appears they would have to cor-e in and get the bins because
they could not get a truck close to the bins~ and he believed they would be tnclined to
lea~ve the bins next to the curb and the bin enclosure would bp left empty most of Lhe
time. H~ stated he was opF~osed to thts idea.
Commissioner Tolar felt the problem is that th: Plann~ng Cammission has never approved a
proJect like this and tt~ought probabiy the proJect an Bal) Road was approved before he was
on the Commission~ an~i traf~tc on maJor boulevards is a lot hiyher now than tt was when
that project was aRproved. He felt the ~easo~ for the problem on this proJect was becausc
there is tou much development proposed on the property and adequate circulation cannot be
pr~vided on-site. He felt any proJect of this magnitude that ts going to impact the area
like this proJect will should have circul~tion provided on-site~ and it is up Co the
9/2S/78
~
'~ ~
MINUTES~ NNAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMDER 25~ 1978 7B'798
€IR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTI01~-CLASS 5 ANU_VARIANCE N0. 3~~~7 ~~ntinuod)
doveloper to plan the developn-ent so thnt circulat(on is on the property and the trash
bt~s are off the matn boulevard so that there ere no trrst~ trucks ptcking up trash on thr
street. Ife stated even though Nerbor Is widP enougt~ at this location~ h~ would not pgrco
with this plen and th~t circulatlon should he provided on-site rather than on a publlc
thoroughfare.
M~. IJebb potnted ~ut the Tre~fflc Qepartment has found no problems with the clrculatlon as
proposed.
Commissloner Tolar stateci I~e did not have any problem wtth the use nor with the parking
waiver because lie rcaliTed a lot af pcople a~e flying and/or bussed In~ and even felt
there is merit to t~~e Cortmisston looking tnt~ the required parking for motels and hotels.
but he could not support this plan wlth the sAnitation prnblem wiCh a resteurant ~n-stte
and haviny the tresh bins on thc street sittlnc~ an thc ~urb.
Mr. Webb asked if the Commission would be amcnable to the plan suygcsted by Ccxnmtssioner
King of wldening the walk,
Commisstoner aarnes Indicated she would not be In favor of tf~e idea of encroaching further
into the lendscaped area bYbP~~Ve~d"~Lalsualmostu250ffeethframuChe•restauranttto the these
are a foot by 6wfoot trash
nearest trasl~ bin, and feit this Is a vcry pc~or pl~n.
Mr. Webb stated he would ~ut the trash b(ns inside the courtyard near the recreatlon area
and pointed out the locatlon on the plan. He stated this ls r.he location proposed by the
Sanitation Divisian, but they were wi111ny to go ~long with this proposal if approved by
the Planning Commission.
Jay Tashiro stated that relocatio~ of the tra~h bins would probably eliminate sane of the
parki~q~ and Commissioner Tolar indicated he had no problem with the parking waiver~ and
Chairman Nerbst state~ a jot of the guests would walk from thetr rooms to the restaurant.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the 35-foot setbdck, wondering tf the driveway might be
located there lengthwise~ and Jay Tashiro replied that a~ea c~uld only be utfllzed for
landscaping.
It was noted that the Planning Dtrectar or his authorized representative has determin~ed
that the proposeJ proJect falls wtthin the definltlon of Cetegorical Exempti~ns, Class 5~
as deflned in paragraph Z of the City of Anaheim E~vironmental Impact Report Guidelines
and is~ therefore, cateyorjcally ~xempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC78-221 and moved for its passage and
a~opt~Ton~ that the Anaheim City Planning Cornnissian does hereby grant Petitio~ for
Variance No. 3047, in part~ denying waiver (a) on the basi~ that thc petittoner sttpulatec'
at the public hearing to abide by the Code requirements; grenting waiver (b) on the hasEs
that the Planning Commtssion has granted similar requests previously on the bas(s that a
certain percentage of the guests arrive by a transportation mode other than private
automobile; subject to revised plans being approved by the Planning Commi~sion prior to
issuance of buildtng permits; and subJect to Inte~departmental Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the fo~egoing resolut(on was passed by the followin9 vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: dARNES~ DAVID~ NERBST~ JOf~NSON~ KING~ 70LAR
NOES: COMMISSiONERS: NQNE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
VACANCY: ONE SEAT
9/25/78
~ i
M I NUTES ~ Ai~AtfE 1 M C I TY PLANN 1 NG COMM 1 SS I ON ~ S~PTEME3ER 25 ~ 1!~7~ 7A' 799
EIR CATEGURI~AL ::XEMP710N-CLASS S AND VARIANCE N0, 30W7 (cuntinued)
Ja k Whlte~ Deputy Cfty Attorney. p~e:ented the petiltioner with the written rlght to
appeal the Planning Commissinn's declsion or any part of the Planning Commission's
declslon within 2'2 days.
(TF,;1 N0. 3 PUE3LIC HEARI~lG. OWNER; NE~YRY L. FQUCHEa~ 3326 West
k N E DECLARATION Lincnin Avanue~ Anahetm~ CA 9[E01. AGEtIT: DONALD
~,fCLASSiFICATION N0. 7'7`~'~_~ W~l.~~~M DOTY~ 54~'~ Commcrcial Drive~ Hunttngton Beach~
Vl1R1~ . 3051 CA 92649• Property descrlbed es a rectangularly~-
ahaped parcel of land consistin,y of approxtmately 2.~
acres having a frontage ~f appr~ximately 303 feat on
the west slde of Wesccl~est~r Qrive~ havtng a maximum depth of appraximAtely 333 felet~ being
located approximately 296 feet g~~tprivethePropertYipresentlycc'assified~RSnA-43~QQOr
described as 125 South Westcheste
(RESIDENTIAL/AGRICI,LTUKAL) ZONC.
REQUESTEU CLASSIFIGATION: RM-120Q (RESII)E~~TIAL~ MULTIPLE-F'AMILY) ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (.A) MINIMUM LOT AREA AP~D (H) MAX.IMUN BUILDIMG NEIGFI~~
TO COtISTRUCT A 7Q-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLE.X.
There was no on~ indicating thelr presence fn opposition to subJect request~ and although
the ataff report to the Plannin~ Commissic,~ datecl September 25, 1°7~ was not reed at the
publlc hearing, it is referred [o and m~de a part of the minutes.
Bill Ewell~ architect, 1~+~+~ Sautl~ State Colleye Boulevard, Anaheim~ explainrd the waivers
requestad are necessary because tl~e parcel of lac.d to b~• utiliz~d Is part of n larger
parcel and the current owner has chosen to retain the srnall porti4n adJacent to Lincoln
Avenue and uevelop it as commercial~ but was not crrepared to rez~ne the property at this
time, a~d in dtviding the narcel an RS-A-~+3~~~~ parcel is creat.ed which is smaller than
allowed by Code. He stated thp Qroperty is designated for•~~eneral comrr,~rc(al uses on the
Anaheim General Plan.
THE PUbLIC HE~RIlJG WAS ClOSEU.
ACTION: Ca-missloner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION
C R ED (one seat be~ng vacant)~ that the An~iheim City Planning Commission has reviewed
the proposal to reclassify the zoning from the RS-A-~+3~~~~ (Residential/Aqricultural) to
the R.M~-1200 (Residential. Multiple-Family) Zone *_o ~onstruct a 70-unit apartment complex
with waiver of rninimum lot ar~a and maximum building height or, a rectanc,ularly-shaped
parcel of land cansisting of approximately 2.3 ac:res having a frontage of approximately
3Q~ feet on the west siae of 4lestchester Drive~ hnving a maxtmum depth of appraximately
333 ¢eet, and beiny l~cated approximately 296 faet aouth of the centerline of Lincoln
Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Otclarotion from the requireme~t to p~epare
an envir4nmental impact report on the basis that there would be no significant individual
or cumulative adverse environmencal impact aue to the approval of this Megative
Declaration sinc~ the Anahefm General Plan designates the su6)ert property for medium
density resi~fential land uses commensurate with the prapasal; that ~o sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the I~itial Study submttted by
the petitioner indicates no significant indtvidual or cumulative adverse environmental
im~ac:ts; and that the Nec~ative Declaration substa~tiating the foragoing findings is on
flle in the City of Ana-~eim Planning Department.
9/z5/78
~~ ,~
hiINUTES, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNtNG COMMISSIAN~ SEPTEMUER 25~ 197A )8•8QU
EIR NEGATIVE pECLAaAT10N~ REClA551FICATION N0. 78-79-15 AND VARIANCE N0. 3051 (tontinued)
Comrr,'ssioner King offare~ Resolutlon No. PC7C-222 and movcd for its pessege and adoptlon,
that the M ahelm City Plann~nry Commisslon doas hereby grant Petition for aeclessificetlon
No. 7fi-79-1y. subJect to Interdeperr,mental Committee recanme~detlons.
On roll call~ the fo~egoinc~ resolution was possed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES~ DAVID~ HERBST~ JOHNSON~ Y.ING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NAfJE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NO~~E
VACtiNCY; ONE SEI1T
Cortmisslonor Kln~ offered ~ solution No. PC78-2"L~ and moved for (ts passoge. end adoptlun,
that the AnaF,eim Ctty Plann(ng Commiss(on does hereby grant Pet(tion for Vrriance No. 30y1
on the besis thmt the remna~t parc~) is deslgnAt~d on the Anahelm Ge nerAl Plan as
commerclal ~nd the property will be rexoned cum~ierctal tn the futu~e, and subJect to
interdepartmental Committer. reconmenc~atiuns.
On roli call~ the foreg~inc~ resulution was passed by the followlny vote:
AYES : COM~II 55 I ONERS : BARt~E:S ~ DAV I 0~ NERBST ~ JOHVSON ~ KI Nf, ~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONCRS: NONE
ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: NONR.
VACRNCY: dNE SEAT
YEM N0. 9 PUt3LIC HE:ARING. OWNERS: CNARLES wl. AND GLENDA J,
~IR CATEGORICAL EXENPTION-CLASS ; YONCLS~ 1~+0 El Oarado Lane~ Anahe(m~ CA ~2807.
VARIAIJCE N0. 3048 Petitioner requests WAIVER OF MINIMUM STRUCTURAL
SETBACt'. TO CONSTRUCT A MULT I-PURPOSE GAME l.~.JURT on
property des~~rihed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel
of ~end consisting of epproxirnately 1.0 acre located et the northeast corner of Ce~ro Vista
Orive a~d E1 Dorado Lane~ h~vin~ approx(mate frontages of 177 feet on the nc.rth side of
Cerro Vista Ortve and 19!~ feet a~ the east sidp af E1 ~orado Lane~ and fu rther descrtbed as
140 E) Darado Lane, Property presently classified RS-HS-43~~~~(SC) (RESIDEh071AL~ SINGIE-
FAMILY HILLSInF-SCENIC CORRIUOR OVEHLAY) ZONE.
There was no one ind(cating their presence in opposltion Lo subJect request~ and althaugh
the staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 25~ 1978 was nut read at the
public hearing~ it ts referred to and rt-ade a part of the minutes.
Charles Vowels, the petitioner, indicat~o he is requesting the variance in order to
construct a pacdle tennis court on the northeast corner of his prapc rty, 3 feet from the
north property line and 10 feet from the east property line.
I t was noted the N i 11 ano C~anyon Mun i c i pa 1 Adv i sory Cammi t tee (HAC~AC) rev i ewed the above
proposal nn September 12, 1978~ an~+ wi th ten mem-,ers present. voted unanimously to
~ecomnend approval subject to downlighting being utflized in the .ourt area.
TIIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CIOSEU.
Comnissto~er Nerbst asked w!~at type of lighting is p~oposcd~ and Mr. Voweis indicated
there wi 11 be four tennis court type 1 ights and thel- wi 11 be di rected dow~ward. He stated
a ptcture af the pronosed lighting was aubmitted for the file.
9i25i7s
.,.
~, .. ' , ~
MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ SEPTEMBCR 2y~ 197Q ?3-301
EIR CATEGORICAL EXENPTION-CLASS 5 AND YARIANCE N0. 30~8 (cn~tlnued)
Canmtsslono r Uavid a3ked if the net~hbors hed bcen tonsulted~ and Mr. Vawels replted he~
heJ A lecter fram the nelghbor t~ the~ nort;. Indlct~ting he was in eccordance with the
raquest. H Q prosented thdk letter for the fil~.
Cortmissione~ ~srnes clerifled the vartance ls for the Pence ~nci llqhtin~ only and there
would be no othcr structu~es, and Mr. Vawels replted th(s was carrect.
Canmisslone ~ Johnson asked what type of fencing Is proposed~ and Mr. Voweis repl(ed it
will be slmi ler tu other kennis court fencing; that it will be yelvanized steel or
sometl~iny simliar witf~ b1ACk vtnyl.
Comnisslone~ Barnes pointe~l out thc Planntn~ C:.r:~,!~si::r ;;:.; .;;.Nrove~ waivC~~ fu~ ~esnnis
courts ir. this aree, and Jay Tashiro~ Assoclate Planner~ explained the neighbor to the
north dIJ re cetve approval for a tannls cuurt.
(t was note d that the Plannin~~ Dtrector o~ his euthorized representetlve has determined
that the praposed proJect falls withtn thc definitlon nf Cetegorical Exemptlons~ Class 5~
as deflnecl in pAragreph 2 of the City of Anahefm Environmental Imprct Repart Guidelines
and Is~ therefore~ cetegorlcAlly exerr,~t frc~m the raquirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Corsmissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC7A-22u end moved for (ts passage and
a opt on~ t h at thP Anahcim Ciky Planning Commissian does hereby g~ant Petikion for
VariencG No. j048 on the basis that simllar requests hAVe be~en granted in the past In thts
area~ and subJeck to Interdepartmental Comnittee recormiendations.
On rall cal l~ the foreyoing res~lutlon was passed l~y the following vote:
AYES: CONMIS510NERS: flARNES~ DA~110, NEP,BST~ JONNSON~ KIIrG~ TOLAR
N0~5 : COMMI S510NEAS : NONE
ABSENT; CAMHI SS I ONCRS : NUNC
VACANCY ; ON E S EAT
RECESS 7here was a ten-m(nute recess at 3:3~ p.m.
RECONVEt1E The meeting reconvened at 3:40 p.m.~ with all Cortrr~issioners present except
one seat bei~g vacant.
ITEM td0. 10 PUBLIC NEA~tItIG. OWNER: MARIE ROYBARK WH~TE, 866 South
EIR CATEGORiCAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 N~st Street~ Anaheim~ CA 92802. AGENT; AOAM ENGINEER-
VARIANCE N0. 304~ ING~ 12753 Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove~ CA 92640.
~etit(oner requestg WAIVER OF M~{NIMUM STRUCI'URAL SETgACK
Td COWSTRUCT A USE:D CAR SALES Bt-ILDING on property
described a s an irregularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of appr~x~mately 3.0 acres having
a frontage of approx(mately 65G feet o~ the east side af West Strett~ h~ving a maximum depth of
approximate ly 416 feet. being loceted approximately 320 feet s~uth of the centerltne of South
Street~ ar~d further described as 866 South West Street. Property presently cl~ssified ML
(INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) =OME.
There was no one ind(cating their presence tr- opposttion to sub)ect reqvest, and although
the staf f r~port to the P1 ann I ng Corm~i ss i~n dated September 25 ~ 1978 was not read at the
public hearing, it Is refP~red to end made a part of the minutes.
9/25/78
~
a.
~
Ml1~UTES. ANAIICIM CITY PI.Af~NING COMMISSION~ SEPTCMDER 2>~ 1~78 78-302
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND VARIANC~ N0. 3049 (contfnued)
--..
Commissioner King declered ta the Chelrman that I~e had a canfllct of Inter~st as defined
by Anehelm Clty Ptanning Conmisslon Resolution PC7(~-157~ ~+clopti~g a Confllct of Intcrest
Code for the Plann(ng Conxnlssion~ and Government Cade Sectlon 3625 et seq.~ in that his
vote would be blasad as the petttioner ha~ ctlve~ him more than falr treatment In the past
an~, purauant to the provislons af tha sbove codes~ he wAs h~reby dec;lAring to th~
Chairman he was Nithdrewing f~om the h.;artng (n connccti~n with Item No. 10 and would not
take pert In elther the dlscusslon or the vating thereon~ and th~t he had not dtscussed
this matter with any member of the Plannlny C amnlsslan. TNEREUPON~ COMMISSIONER KING LEFT
THE COUNCiI. CHAMBCR AT 3:40 r.m.
R, f., A~t~ma~ 1?1~+1 fiurns DrIvQ~ GArd~n Grov~, exnleined Mr. Oeabe from Jack Nhlte Pontlac
wes elso prese~t to bnswer any qucstions a,iJ explAined this is a re~uest for waivcr of the
setback requlrer~ent because af the odd-shaped parce' indicattne~ they wtshed to plece the
building In its most strategic lacation in order to .Ilow clear view oP the lot end more
customer par~.ing~ and also allow for surveillance of the seles lot. He indicated they
would dlso be provlding s~nitary facilltles for the convcnience of the salesrr~n.
THE PUULIC HCARING WAS Cl.OSEU.
Chelrman Nerbst asked if addttional siyni~g is praposed, and Mr. lldams replied there would
be no additlonal sl-~ning.
it was noted that the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined
thbt the proposecl project fella withtn the definition of Cateyorical Exemptlons~ Class 3~
as defineci in parag~aph 2 of the Clty of M aheir~ Envtronmc~tal Imp~ct Report Guldettnes
end is. therefore~ cete,yoricaliy exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
AC710N: Gommissto ^r David offered Resolution No. PC7~-2Z~ and moved for its pessage and
a~tTon, that tne Anahelm City Planninn Commiss(on does ht~reby ~~rant Petiiton for
Vartance No. 3049 on the basis c,f the triangular st~ape of the property a~d that adhering
to the 50-foot sett,ack ~equirtment would be a loss of usable land~ and sub)ect to
Inte~departmental Cammittee recammcndations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by thc following vote:
AYES: C~JMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ QAVID~ HERBST, JOHNSc1N, 701.AR
NOES: CO~IMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: KINf~
VACANCY: ONE SCAT
COI~IMISSiONER KIMG RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL CHAMaER.
9/25/78
~
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER_25. t9)8 l8-803
N N0. 12 PUBLIC IIEARING. OWNERS; DALE E. AND SARAH ANN FOWIER,
~1R CATEGORICAL EXEI~P~TION-CLASS 1 3176 East La P~1ma Avenue~ An~helm, CA 9?.fiOG. AGENT:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~t~9 CRCVIER IMPORTS~ INC. ~ 1~16-H Sherard Street, Anahelm~
CA ~2~i06. Pet(tloner requests perm(sston to ESTABLISN
AtJ AUTOMOBII.E SALES~ SERVICE AND RESTORATiON FACILITY
on property described as a rectangularly-sheped parce) of lend consisting af epproximately
5.2 acres located et the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue end Shepard Street~ hevinq
approxlmate frontaqes of ~+4~ feet on the south side of L9 Palma Avenue and ;10 feet on the
west s(de of Shepnrd Street~ and further d~scrtbed as 31f;? f.ast LA Palma Avenue. Property
presently classifled M~ (INUUSTRIAL~ Lih!ITE~) ZONE.
Ther~ was no one indlcatin~ thetr nresence In oanositl~n to sublect reauest, ond althou4h
the s taf f report ta the P 1 ann t ng Commt ss i on dated Septsmbe r 2~; ~ 19 )8 was not rsad at the
public hear(ng~ it is referred to and rsk~de a p~rt of thc minutes,
Jay Trshiro~ Ass~ciate Planner~ Indicate~i a teleqram h~d been recefved from Kilroy
I~dustries indlcating opp~sit(on.
Randy kma~ 95U Oranqethorpe~ Unic L~ representtng Crevier Imports~ inc.~ Ind(ceted the
petittoner wishes to move his er.isting business which is at the ~ear of the Fowler
Industrtal Park to the front with ~n adcSress on La Palma Avenuc in order to have a larger
faci I ity and that there would be no char~yc~ in th~ existing use.
THE PUfiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisstoner Barnes stated the previous use dld not allow sAles and this request is for
sAles, so Chere ls a change In the use.
Mr. Ema steted h~ was not aware of the ss~les, pointing out the previous {~ermit wa~ granted
for an automobi le repal r and service faci 1 ity~ and he was not sure whe[her or not the
sales were for parts or ~utomobiles.
Commissioner Tola~ read paragraph (13i of the staff report as follows; "The proposed
condittonal use permit differs from petitfoner's existtng conditlonal use permit i~ that
the feci l I ty sl ze has bcen incrPased f rom 1~20 ta 7200 square feet and the p~oposed sale
of automobi les has been added to the praposed use."
Jay Tashiro read the telegram from Ki 1 roy Industri~s as follows: "Pieasc be advised that
Ktlroy Industries and Long 8each leasing Corpc,ration o~pose the proposcd CUP on the basis
that It is not compatible with th~ present use of surrounding area that includes
aeraspa~cr~ affice~ enginezring and c~nputer related activities."
Commissio~er Johnson pointed out tu the petitioner tl~at the probl~m in this request is
that thA petitioner wants to b~ permitted to sell autamobiles and this does create
protiems in the i~dustrial zone.
Mr. Ema stated thc petitloner is dealinq tn the service and ~epair of Ferraris and
Maseretis~ Qo the sales wi 11 be very 1 imited.
Commissione~ David asked why such a large area is needed, and M~. Ema ~eplied that i~e
needs the area because of the service portlon af the business.
Commissioner Tolar statcd he did not view t.his request as being anythiny different than
the one granted two weeks ago. He statcd indoor storage of these vehicles would be
imperative and the only way he would support the use would be with a time Itm(t,
9/25/78
!+ "'*
,~ "~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS{ON~ SEPTEMBER 25~ 1978 78-804
EIR CATEGOaICAL E XEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANO CONOITIONAL US~ PERM17 NA, 1889 (contl~ued)
Chalrman Herbst Indicsted he thought this use is drasticalty differonc than the one
prevlousl approved bncause af the street expasure at this locatlnn ~n edditton to the
sha+room~ and he zould see th(s turning fnto a used automobile snles roum.
Commis~foner Tolsr pol~ted out the area Is only 120Q square feet and would be ifmited to
the sale of Ferre~(c and Meseratis.
Chalrmdn Nerbst Indiceted thls is (n sn Industrial area and would be an encroachment an
the visibllity and expasure for retail sales to maJar strects In the industrlal arce. ~le
felt thts use bclongs in an industrtal ere~ for the restoration of automobiles~ but not
for the sale of automobiles.
Commtssioner Tol~r po(nted out the petittoner of the p~evious request has stl~ulated hts
sales were Incidental to his activity~ with '10;, of I~is ~ctiv(ty beiny restoratton. He
stat~d that the restorati~n of automob(Ies could not be done tn a cormercl~l area and he
did not knaw where this type of use could be located.
Chairman Nerbst f elt thc petftloner's present locutlon At the back of an industrlal
complex was the rtght place for the use~ but w(th 91ass showrooms in the front, It would
indicete the restoration (s not the prlmary functlon.
Commissioner barnes stated she had voted in
the petltioner had said he would be loaktng
conditlonal use perrn(t for a certain length
bc dane (nslde and all automobiles would be
would be no additlonal signing.
favor of the req~est two weeks ago~ but that
for another location and only wanted the
of time and he had stipuleted all work would
stored insi~fe the Fac~lity~ and also there
Commissioner Johnsnn stated this business is alr~ady established in thts drea and hp old
not thlnk the front of tne bu(lding could be zoned any differently than the back of the
bullding~ and the petitioner is anly wanting to move his operatio~ to the front of the
complex. He Indicated he would have a hard time voting against tiie request.
Chairman f~e~bst felt iL fs obvious with the show room that they want to show off the
autartatiles~ and he felt this tyNe of automobile sales is not compatible in this. arae. He
polnted out the Planning Comr~ission and City of Anaheim have bcen getting a lot of flack
from the Chamber of Comme~ce arsd other industrialists for allowing sales which are not
comRatiblc in the industria) areas.
Commissioner Tolar asked how thc customers are attracted~ and Mr. Ema replied that the
custaners are found by word of mouth; that they have no signs and buyers come from the
east a~d all ovee~ the world because *.his is a ve ry limited product.
Gommissioner Tolar felt the petitloner is ~sktng legally for what most people are doing
illegally; that most restoration fac.ilities of automobiles probably setl them as
incidenta) sales as they develop buyers fo r them.
Comnlssioner Barnes polnted out this issue is brought up constantly by the Planning
Cummission concerntng retail sales in th~ industrial area and the Commtssion has
determined that they are going to have to take a stend.
Cortmisslaner 7olar ind~cated his stand would be if the sales are incidental, that he would
consider thai 90~ of that petltioner's incdme is primariiy restoration and se~vice with
sales as incidental. He refe~red to a furniture stare where 90$ of their income hrould be
from retatl sales, which would be a differant situation.
. 9125/78
~ ' ~~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 25~ 1g78 7~-805
EIR CATEGORICA6 ~XEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONQITIONAI. USE~PF:RMIT NQ. 1A89 (continued)
Commissioner Barnea st~+ted the Comnissfon cennot control wheth~r o~ not the sales ere 904j
tU~~ or whetever.
Commissioner Taler stated the use could be controlled with a time limit.
Cummissioner Barnes polntcd eut inciustrlalists cir(ving along the streets in An~heim trying
to loct~te their buslnesscss are going to sec the ret~+ll sales of dutonabiles In thts
bullding~ and it ls In one of Anahelm'a prime industrlal ereas.
Commissioner Tolar inciicated hE understood Conmissloner B~rn~s' posttlon, but ttiis
patttioner cannat restarr Aur.~mobiles in the commercla) zonF and hts sales are incldental.
and this (s no citfferenk thari anything else that has been ellvwcd In the industri~i drr.a.
He did r~t thlnk the petiti~ner would sell t2 vel~icl~s ln one year and he could not
envislon that sflles could be the prlmary functlon.
Commissioner Dav(d polnted ~ut this is an Industrlal area and asked why the bullder had
constructed a building with a shawroom ar~a which has the as~ect af a commerclal
enterprise.
Commtssioner Johnson stated Industrial businesses have showrc~ans to merchandise thelr
products whether they be pumps~ molds~ etc., And the dtfference is the volume. He stated
the Chamber of Commerce ts arguing about the retall seles where thausands of customers are
coming into ~~7 (ndustria) aree. He steted he would be i~cllned to suppnrt .his request
because the petitloner will have less customers in a year than even an InduSCrial user.
Canmissioner Davld asked haw many cars would be scrviced~ and Mr. Ema replied there are
only about 1~0 of these automob(les in Southern Cdllforni~~ with Maserati sales in
Caltfornia last yea~ amounting to three vehicles.
Cammissioner Johnson indicated the nnty concern he has ts with the naeure af automotive
uses in this area~ but that he is not worried abnut the volume of customers.
Commissioner Tolar felt Che concern Qf the Chamber of Lommerce and others is the ~~ses
similar to Wickcs and Mr. Jim's~ etc.
Chalrman Herbs: asked if the service of these automobtles was permitted under the prevtous
condttiona) use permit~ and Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ replied that Conditional Use
Permit No. 1837 was to permlt an automobile repair and service facility.
Cortmissioner Johnson stated he int~nds to support the ChAirman i~ his position regarding
retaii sales in the industrial area better in the futu~e and ag~ecs with tha~t posltion~
however, he was not sure this (s the place to take a stand.
Chairman Herbst felt moving into this type of str~+cture with glass showroom capactty doe~
not ring true with what *.h~y are ~equesting a~d felt thls would definitely downgrade the
indusrrial area. He stated that being in the back of the compiex was no problem.
Mr. Ema potnted out that rrbst I~dustrial complexes taper off in the back units and are a
lnt smaller and they need ta expand the squa~e footage to handle the servtce portton of
the business,and that the petitioner does not particularly want peopl~ to know what his
business is becausc they Nould disrupt his worktng day if they were stopping tn just to
look at the vehicles.
Commissioner Barnes stated since the petitioner wants to expand the service po~tion of his
~usiness, she could support the use.
9/25/78
~
~
~
~`
MINUTES, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEM4ER 25, 1978 7~-g06
EIR CAT~GORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1884 (contl~ued)
It wos noted that thc Planniny Dlroctor or his authortzed representAt(ve h~s determined
tl~at tho proposed proJect fa~lls within the definitlon of Ct~tegorical Exemptions~ Class 1~
as def(ned in pard9cate orically exemptffromhche requirementAto'prepereeanrE~Ruidelinea
and Is~ therefore~ 9
Commissioner Barnes offerecl e resolutlon granting opproval of Condltlnn~l Usr Permit No.
18a9~ in part, eltrninating the sales~ because she felt It would heve a had effect on the
industrlal area. She stated shc did not like to do thls becau~e she knows how hard it is
for people to get st~rted in busines~~ however~ siie felt thc Inte~rity of the Industrlal
area has ta be protectcJ. She polnt~ ~ out meetings are belnq hcld~ prohnbly next month,
on this issue and there are some Indicac,(Uns tl~at thc Lity af An~hetm has lost industrtal
cllents because of this prul,lem wlth i~ivin~~ ~nmmerclal use In the lndustrlal areas.
Mr. EmA steted there does exist qultc a few busine5ses in this are~ which have sales~ and
~eferred td boat dea~eaSduerto,thc~valuepof~theCautomobilesdandttl~eusalessportlonnwouldVe
an outd ar display
only be for extra income.
Commissionar Johnson asked why a new condition2l use permexplainedpthecneri'permttilsWAs
the same property, and Jeck Wh(te, Deputy City Attorney~
nacoss~ry Gecause this is thatftheepropertt~twi118be developeJrsubstanti~llyhln accordance
conditions of approval s
with plans submttted wtiich Identify certain units.
Camnissinner T~18r shetsales wGredincidentalrandhfelc5thisipersonewouidibepden(p~d s~~es
because he thouelh t t
privilegr_s pnJayed by other businessr_s in that area.
M~~ ~m~ ~xp~aineduct~s(nce thisel5 afvery nrldeeoriented type~bustnessesteem and pride
beh i r~d the i r p ro
Chatrmaiut~;~bstAp~~~aydTashiroeexplainedethe~Code,~llow~~i5~asales,esry~onghashth~re is a
manufac g.
reteil autiet at anneher location.
Commissioner J~hnson statr_d this Is hav the boat dealers~ etc., arc altawed and they
violate the tndusLrtal zone much wars~ than this petitioner would, but are allowed because
they have dealers and distributo~s scattered in other cittes.
On ~oll call, the foregoing resolutfon FAILED TO CARRY wikh a tle vate:
AYCS; CONMISSIONERS: BARNES~ HERBST~ KING
MUES: COMMISSIONERS: DAVII)~ JOI~NSON~ TOLAR
A65ENT; COMMISSIONER5: NONE
YAGANCY : OI~E SEAT
~ornnissioner Tolar offered a ~zsolution for approvat of Conditfonal Use Permlt No. 1889 as
prnposed for one year nn theebio^S o~~vehiclestshould beepermittedaintthehindustrialuzonef
tf~e property and that restor t
Annika 5antal~hti. Assiscant Oirector for Zoniti~g~ explained the previo~~s co~dltional use
pe~mit was allowed fo~ a period of two years~ to expire o~ May 22~ 19~0~ and suggested
that this resolution be tied to that same period~ and Commissioner Tolar indicated that
should be ir~corporated Into his resolutfon.
9/25/78
~~
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSIAN~ SEPTEMBER 25~ 1978
.~
78-a07
EIR CATE.GORICAL EXEMPT~~N-~LASS 1 AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1A89 (conti~~cd)
On roll cail~ the foregoing ~esalutton FAILED TO CARRY by the follawinq vote;
AYES: COMMiSS10NERSs
NOE~: COMMISSIONERS;
A65ENT: COMMISSIONER5:
VACANCYt ONE SEAT
JOHNSON~ TOLAR
BARNES~ OAVID~ HERBST~ KING
NONE
Commissione~ Barnes offered Rnsolutlon No. PC7b-22G and moved for its pass~qe end
adoptton~ that the Anahe(m City Plenntng Comnission does hereby grant Petitton for
Condltlona) Use Permit No. 18~9~ in port, eliminating the requcst tor sales of
autamobilos~ for a pe~lod of 2~ menths, to expire May 22~ 19~0~ with possible time
ex~enstons; sub]ect to the petittoner's stipulatton thet all work end storage w311 be done
instde the fac(1(ty; and subJect to Interdepartmental Commlttee recommendations.
On roll call~ the foregolny resolution was passed by ehe following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEftS: BARNES~ NERBST~ JOHNSON~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: QAVID
A9SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
VACANCY; ONE SEAT
Commissloner Johnson stated he was going to support this conditional use permtt since thc
percentage of sales ca~not be determined by the Planning Commlssion.
Commtssioner Tola~ indicated he supported this resolution because he felt the petie(oner
would go ahead ~r(th his sales anyway.
Commissioner Davld indtcated his negative vote reflected his feeling that the Code should
be changed rather than the Commisslon trytng to find ways to pernit such uses and the
Planning Lc~r-misston shouid make a stand. He also f~lt the servicing of the automabtles
would be considered a retall business.
Jack Whtte. Deputy City AtCorney~ presented thc petitioner wlth ~he writtcn rtght to
appeal a~y part of the Planning Comn:ission's declslon wtthtn 22 deys.
Commissbs~er Johnson potnted out the petitio~er would be allowed to have 15$ sales, and
Jack Whlte polnted out the resolution does not allow any sales.
Mr, Ema asiced wi~-ere the smali business man with his type ot business~ the restoration
servtce and sales~ could locate tn the City of Anaheim~ with Chairman Herbsi potntin~ out
it would have tn be in the hcavy carrr+erclal zane~and Jay Tash(ro pointed out there are
heavy camiercial zones and referred to s~me on Anaheim Boulevard. Nr. Ema pointed out
those ere exlsting structures.
Chairman flerbst pointed out there has been a lot of pressure on the Planning Commtsston
because of the comrnercia) useS Yhat hbv~ been allowed tnto the prime industrial ~reas.
9/25/78
~ . ,~`
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANHING GOMMISSION~ SEPTEM6ER 25~ ~978 7g•80$
~T~ ~~4~_~ PUBLIC HEAttiNG. OWNERSt FRANK AND LORETtA KR~CMAN~
FLIR CAT~I~AL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 15~7 buena Vista~ San Clemente~ cn 9?~72. AGCtIT;
~ONDITIgNAI. USE PERMIT N0.^1-~~ LEC'S MANDARIN RESTAURANT~ 2610 West la Psima Avenue,
Anahelm~ CA 92n~~. Petttioner rnquosts ON-SALE BEER
AND MINE IN AN EX~STING RESTAURANT on property
described as a~ irr~yularly-shaped parcel of lend conslsttng of spproxim~tely 2.7 ++cres
loceted s~uth and west of the sauChwest carner of Ls Palm~ Avenue and Maqnolia Avenue,
h~ving sppraxlmete frontages of 105 fcct on the south side uf L~ P~lma Avanue and ~~57 feet
on the west side ~f Naynolia Avenuc~ having a maxlmum depth af approxtmately 240 feet~ betng
locatod approximately 185 feet snutl~ of thc centerltne of La Pelma Avenue and 185 feet west
of the centeriine of Magnolia Avanue~ and furthe~ described as 2h10 West La Palma Avenue.
Proper'ty presently classifled CL (C0~IMERCIAL~ LINITCp) ZONE.
There w~s no one InJicatin~~ their presence i~ ~pposltion to subJr.Ct request~ and although
the s taf f report to the P 1 ann ( n~J Gomrrii ss i c~n Jated Scptcr^S~c r 2; ~~97~ W~s ~t read nt the
public hcering~ it Is referrecJ to and m~de a part of the minutes.
Ms. Lee, operaCOr of Lee's Mandarin Rrstaurant~ was present t~ answer a~y questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARIt~G WAS CLOSEU.
Cortmissioner Bernes c2erifi~d that the beer and wlne would be s~rved In canjunction with
the servlce of food, and Ms. Lee indicated thls was correct.
Commissioner King ve~ifled the hours of operation as Sunday through Thursday 11:3~ a.m. to
i0;00 p.m. and Fri~iay and Sat:i~~~ay 11 :30 a.m. to 11 :~0 p.m. ~ ancl Ms. Lee Indicated thts
was ca~rect.
Commissloner T~lar asked the length of the lease~ with Ms. Loe indtcatinq they have a two-
year l~ase with a three-year option,
Comnissto~er 7olar lndicate~i he would like to see ttie use tleJ Co a time limit; otherwise
the beer and wine could becarne somett~ing else if this owner were to move.
It was noted that the Planning Director or his outho~-ized representative has determtned
that the proposed proJect falls wlthin the definitlan of Categoricat Exemptions. Class i,
as defined in paragraph 2 of the Clty of Anaheir~ Enviro~me~tal Impact Repurt Guidelines
and is, therefore~ categoricAlly exempt from th~ requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTlON: Commissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC78-227 and maved for its passage and
ac~op '~on~ ~hat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for
Condttiona) Use Permit No. 1~90 for a period of two years~ subject to review by the
Planning Commission for possible extensions of time upon request by the petitioner;
subject to the petitlone~'s stipulation that the hours of opera'~on shall be Sunday
through Thursday 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday 11:3~ a.m. to 11;00
p.m.; that the beer and wine will be served in conJunctlon with the service of food; and
subJect to Interdepartmental Comnittee recommendations. '
On roll call~ the foregoing resotution was passed by tt~e following vote:
AYES: COMF115SIONERS; BARNES, DAVID~ FIERBST~ JOfiNSON, KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COhSMISSIONERS: NONE
VACANCY: ONE SEAT
9/25/7$
~~ ,~
MINUTES, 11NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMDER 2~, 197A 78-809
ITEM N0. 14 PUDLIC HEARING. QWN~RS; STANLEY At1U IONE KRELL~
~t~~~ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 P. 0. 8Ax h7611~ Los Angeles~ CA 9c1067, AGENT:
~ONpIT~[~111 USE PERMIT NQ.~~.9T" JOSEPFI ANTFIONY NOTARO~ 12762 Audrey Circle~ Gerden
~ Grove~ cn 9xGao. Pettttoner requosts ON-SALC QF
WINE IN AN EXISTING BEER BAR on property descrtbesd
as e rectan~ularly-shapod porcel of land consisc(ng of approximat~ly O.~i acre locat~d at
the southoast corner of Orengewoc>d Avenue and Mallul Drive~ heving approxlmat~ Frontsges
of 138 feet on th« south side of Orangewood Avcnue dnd 125 feet on the esst side of Mallul
Drlve~ and further described as G28 West Oranyewood Avenue. Pr~perty prasently clessified
LG (COMMERCIRL~ GE~~ERAL) ZONk.
Thcre was no one indlcat(ng thelr presence in opposittan to subJect request, a~d although
the staff report to the Planning Cor-mtssion ddCed September 2S~ 197E wes nat read et the
public heertng~ It is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Joseph Notero, agent~ was ~resent to answer any ~uestlons.
THE PUDLIG HEA~IWG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Barnes asked why a permtt Is needed for the salc of wine when he alresdy hds
a permit to sel) bper~ and Mr. Notaro replied that his lice~se was tor e beer ba~ and did
not allow him to sell wine.
Chairman NGrbst askr.d the huurs of opr.ratlon~ and Mr. Notaro replied the hours of
operation would bc from 10:0~ a.m. to 2:00 a.m.~ seven days a week.
Commtssloner King incllcated he did not feel this use woulcl harm anyonn since it Is in the
center of a complex.
It was noted that the Planning D(rector or his autharizecf representative has determ(ned
that the proposed proJect falls within the deflnition of Categoricai Exemptions~ Clsss 1~
as defined in paragraph 2 of •he City of Anaheim Envtrqnmental Impact Report Guidelines
end (s~ therefore, cate9orica~ly exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
AC7lON: Ccxnmtssioner David offered Resolution No. PC78-228 and moved for its passage and
ado t op i n, that the Anaheim City Planning Commissidn does hereby grant Petition far
Conditional Use Permit No. 1A91~ subJect to the petitioner's stipulation that thr hours of
operation shall be from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.~ seven days a week~ and sub)ect to
InterdepartmEntal Commtttee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYE~: COMMISSIONERS; 9ARNES, DAVID~ HERBST~ JOHNSO~J, KING, TOIAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
VACANCY: ONE SEAT
9/25/78
MI NUTE S~ AtU1HE IM C I TY PLANNI NG COMMI SS ION ~ SF.PTEMBER 2S ~ t978 78-81~
1TEM N0. 15 PUF3LIC HEARING. OWNEa: ~UCLID St1t1PPING CENTER,
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12~3 West Ball Rosd~ Anaheim~ CA 9280-i. AfENT:
GZIA~T~1~A~ -FIO. 18g2 WIl.l1AM dOHERTY, l~i(,(~2 Frenklln Avenue~ Tustin. CA
92G80. Petitioner requests permisslon ta ESTABLISN
RACQUCTl3All COURTS 1~1 A HEALTN CLUB on property
descrtbed as an lrregularly-shaped parcel of land consl~tfn~ of approxlmately 2.Q acres
having a frontey~ of app roximately 20 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue~ having a
maxlmum depth of apprnxirr~tely G0~ fect. end being locdted approxlmately 9A'1 feet east nf
the centerline of Eucltd Street. Property presently cl,~:sifled CL (COMMERC111L, LIMITED)
ZONE.
1'here was ~o one indicating thefr presence (n opposition to subJecG ~equest~ and elthough
the staff report to the Plenn(nq Commisslon dated Septr,mb~r 25, 1918 was n~at read at the
publlc hearing~ (t is referred to anct made e part oF tl~e minutes.
William Doherty, agent~ weg presenl to answcr any questlons.
TNE PUBLIC HCARII~G WAS CLOSCD.
Chairman Nerbst clarifled tlia[ the hours of operation were as indtcated in the staff
report~ and Mr. Doh~rty sCated he agrees wlth those hnurs of operatton.
ACTION; Commissioner Johnson offered a motion~ seconded by Commission~r David end MOTION
~~0 (one seat being vacant)~ that the AnAhelm City Planning Comm(ssdon has revir.wed
the proposal to permit racquetbail courts in a health club on an irregularly-sl~aped parcel
of land consisti~g of approximately 2.~ ~cres having a frontage of approxirnAtely 2~ feet
on the south sfd~s of Kateila Avenue~ having a naximum depth of approxirnetely 60~ feet, and
betng locateci 900 feet east of the centerllne of Euclid Street; and does hereby approve
the Negative Declaratlon from the requirertient to pr~pare an environmentAl imp~ct rtport on
the basis tl~at there woulel be no s1~7nificant Indivtdual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to [he approval of this Negative Declaration sinr,e [he Anaiieim
6eneral Plan dest,ynates thc subJect property for general commercia) land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitlve tnvironmr_ntal impacts are involved tn the praposal;
that the I~ttial Study submitte~i by the petiticmer indicates ~o si~nificant i~dividual or
cumulaCive adve~se environmental Impacts; and that the Negatlve Declaration substantiating
the foreyoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Pianning Oepartment.
Cammissioner Johnson offered Resalution No. PG7~-22~1 and moved fo~ iks passage and
adoption~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planniny Camnission does hereby grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1892~ subject to Interdepartmental Committee recoim~endations.
On roll call. the foregoing resoluti~n was passed by the following voke:
AYES; COhU115SI0NEP,S; BARtIES, DAVlU, I~ERBST, JOHNSON~ KIt~G, TOIAP,
NOES: COMl1i5SI0NERS: NONE
ABSENT: GOMh11S51oNEas: NoNC
VACANCY: Ot~G 5tAT
Commis5ioner Johnson indicated he had offered this resolutton because he knc~ws the
petitioner and this is e fine club and he has a similar operation at the corner of Eucl(d
and Catherine Streecs.
Cannlssioner King indicated it was his understanding that the racquetbal! courts are
inside the facility~ and Mr. Doherty reFlled that they are all enclosed.
9/25/78
~
« ~,
~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION. SEPTCMBER ?.5~ 1978 ~g"a~~
EIR NEGi1T1VE DECLARATION ANI) CQNQITIO~WL USE PC~MIT N0. 1892 (contlnued)
Ccm Issioner Barnes quastlo~eJ the chfld care center In conJunctlan with tl~~ racquetball
courts~ and Mr. Doherty r~plied a child care center would only be for those people using
the facility and Iimited to about o~e and one-Malf hours.
Commiaslor-Gr Johnson eskc:d ebout the pArking and spaces provldrd and hcaw it compt~res wlth
the cu~rent operatlon~ and Mr. Onherty pointed out there Is plenty of parking In this
center.
ITEM N0. 16
RECOMME~IUATIONS
A. GkNEft~tL P~AN AtiEi~Dt/CNT t20. 14~' ' LAtlU USE: AND CI~~I~IATI(l~t ELEHENTS - Request to
aet or pu c ~ar ng.
The steff report to thc Planniny Comml~slo~ dated September 2'', 191b wes presented~ noting
thc request for initiati~n of a Generai Plan ~rt-endment for tlie following areas:
I Rectangularly-shnped area consisting of app~ox(mately 17.0 acres on the east side
of Dal~ Avanue, bordered on the north by the SantA Ano Freeway.
II Irregularly-shaped area consisting of approxirnately 11.9 acres et the northwest
corner of La Peima and htagnolia Avenues.
III Rectangularly•shaped area consisting of approximately 33.~ acres on the east and
west sides af WeSster Avenue between Orange Avenue and Ball Road.
IV Rectangularly-shaped area consisting of appraxtmately 10.5 acres at the northeast
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Muller Street.
V I~regularly-sh~~ped area consisiln~ af approximately 67 acres on the west side of
Ma~chester Avenue~ south of Lincoin Avenue.
VI Rectangularly-shaped aree consisting of approximately tW.7 acres on the west side
of Walnut S*_reet, located approximately 650 f~et north c-f the centerline of
Cerritos Avenue.
V'i RecCangularly-shaped a~ea cnnsisting of approximately 15.5 acres on the east side
of Acacia Street, located approximately 1300 feei s~uth of the centerline of
Orangethorpe Avenue.
YIII Rectangularly-shaped area consisting of approximately 17.6 acres at the southeast
corner of Vermont Avenue and East Street.
IX Rectengularly-shaped area conslsting of approximately 34.2 acres on the west sid~
of State College Boulevard. located approximritely 715 feet north of the
cente~line oP Ball Road.
X irrcyularly-shaped area consisting of approximately 37.6 acres at the northeast
corner of Wagner Avenue and State College Boulevard.
XI Irregularly-s~haperi area consisting of approximately 2.5 acres an the north side
of La Palme Avenue b~etween the Orange arod Riversid~ Frceways.
9/25/78
,~ ~p~
~
MINUtES~ ANANEtM CITY PIANNINC~ COMNISSION, SEPTEMBER 25, 197g 78'8~2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 148 (contt~ucd)
XII Rectangularly-sheped area consiscing oP approxtmately 13.3 ~cres at the northwast
corner o~ Linc~ln Avenue and Rlo Viste Street.
XIII Rectangularly-shaped areas conslstlnq of approximately 22.9 acres at the
northwest corner of Orengethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard and 4.t +~cres at
the southeast carn~r of O~angathorpe Ave~ue and Kreemer 6n~ilevard.
XIV Irregularly-shaped area conststing of approximately ?.8.a ~cres located on the
east and west sides of Tustin Avenues~ north of Santa Ana Cenyon Roed.
XV Rectangularly-shnped ~reas consisttng ~f approximataly 3.9 acres at the northwest
corner ot Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive~ 13.E~ acres at thc northeast
corner of Orangethorpe Avenue a~ Kellogg Drive~ and 1.5 acres at the north~east
corner of Orang~thorpo Avenuc and Post Lane.
XVI Lakevfew Avenuc/Gresccnt Orive between Santa Ana Canyon Road and Nohl Ranch Road.
XVII "Fantasy 41ay" between Ball Road and west Street.
AGTION; Commissioner King nffered a motion, secondcd by Commissioncr Davicl ~nd MOTION
CAR IEQ (one seat befng vaca~t)~ tliat the Planniny Commisslon has determined a General
Plan amendment study would be approprlate at this ttme for the 15 land use areas
previously mentioned and for the two Circulation Element areas (Are~s XVI and XVII), ~~d
that a publ(c heariny should bc: set fo~ November 20~ 1~78.
B. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - SECTIONS 18.01.1y0 AND 18.b6.06Q.~233~ AND ADOING A NEW
The staff repo~t to thc Pla~ning Cammission dated September 25. 1978 was prese~ted Nith
the accompanying draft ordinance regarding recommended Code amendments. The rtport noted
there has been continuiny concern expressedthatthe City parkingstandardfor drive-through
restaurants is too stringent; that the present Code standard for drivc-through restaurants
requirea one parking space per each 50 sg~are feet of gross floor area which includes
drive-in restaurants and restaurants w(th outslde walk-up order windaws~ but daes not
inelude "fast-food" restaurants which are developed to the one space per 125 square feet
GFA standard required of re,yular sit-dovrn restaurants. Staff has conducted ~ field survey
of exlsting drive-through restaurants, both with and without parking waive*~~ and
observations tndicated the present p~rking standard is adequete for thp busiest and most
successful restaurants at the best locations, restaurants doing a more typical level of
business had a small surplus of parking, end where large wa~ivers of parking had been
granted~ parking was inadequate and circulaiion problems had developed; thar poorly
Jeslgned drive-through lanas can cause parking and circulation prnblems; and that
restaurants botF~ wlth and without drive-through wtndows seem to require more parkiny than
normal sit-down restaurants. It is staff's opinion that the Code be amended to remedy tht
above prob 1 ems .
ACTION: Comnissioner King uffered a motion~ s~conded by Cammissione~ David and MOTION
A~ ED (one seat being vac~nt)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dces hereby
recommend to the City Council that the accompanying ~draft ordinance be adopted~ amending
Sections 18.01.19Q and 1~i.0~~.~60,~233~ and adding a n~w 5ecCio~ 23.OE~.0~0 concerning
"fast-food" restaurants.
~~2s~~a
_.~
MINUTES~ ~
ANANEIM ClTY PLANMING COMMISSION~
SEPTEMBER 25r
~91~
78-813
C. GONDITIOt~AI usl ~ERNIT M0. 163~ - Rr~u.r,st f~r ~ retroactive extensi~n af tlme.
Rey Spehar~ representing George L. E~eauregard~ lessee~ was present and indlc~ted Mr.
BeamityNo~ 1h35eln~order torcompletevthe~requieementsnsetnforthlin the resolutlon1 Use
Per
Thc staff repnrt to the Planning Commission deteci Saptcmber 2`i. 19~1f~ was presen~ed~ noting
the SubJect property is an i~reyularly-shaped parcel of land consist(nc~ of approximately
three acres located southeast of the southeast corner of I.a Palma Avenue snd Imperial
NighwAy~ and th~t Resolution No. PG?6•153 Wes adopted in ~on~c~ttion with subJect
conditl~nal use Qermit requlring certaln conditlons be comp~ted wtth within ane yoar.
AL710N: Commissioner Tolar ~~ffere~t a motion~ seconded by Commis~loner Kin~ and MOTION
C~U (~nc seat being vacanl)~ (hat Lher~ntPdiA on~Yvearnrxtens oniofttlme~sretror [ive
that Gnndi liu~~al Use ('crmi t No. 1~35 br ~
to August 16, 19/6 and to expire August 17~ 19~1`~•
D. AEiANDONMENT N0. 7~-6A - Rcqucst to abandon a parti~n of excess raad and publ(c
ut ty easement a ong the north side of Orangewo~d Avenue from 1152 fe~t ± east of
to Anaheim aoulevard.
The staff report to the Planning Cummission dated Septcmber 25~ 1~17~ was presentcd~ noting
;hat on August ~. 197~~ the Anahelm Gity Cauncil by Rcsotutton No. 78ft-;05 approved the
sale of the excess easement to the applicant in the amount of $172,84f~,0~3 and authortzed
the City Cng(neer to initiate and process the abandonment of said easement; tliat the City
acqul~ed the sub}ect road and tlie public utility easement from FelSCaff Foundetion by
Council Resolution No. G5R-~~9 dated Decemher 2f3~ t3b5, us(ng funds tn the amount of
$168~619•95 from Section 2106 Gas Tax F~nd. and that the subJect property recomn~nded for
abandonment has been recordPd as pubtic riqht-of-way uf record~ therefore~ the lend would
need to be declared excess to the needs of the City and no longe~ required and be
abandoned ahdgv~c~atedGQ~egorically exemptnfrometlieere9 irement efQangenvironmental impact
,ndi cates t
rPport.
ACTION; Commissioner David offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Johnson and NOTION
CARRIEO (one seat beinc~ vacant). that the Anaheim City Planning Canmission does herc:by
recortn-end to the City Council thai Abandonrt-ent No. 78-bA be approved.
E. AoG~DeNME~,~ 8{_7Anorth9of5tQtLaaPalma~Avenue~sappr xir+atelyt535t67efeet~west of
Tustin Ave~~ue.
It was noted khe applicant~ Charles E. Stine, has requested subJect abandonment; that this
request has been reviewed by all departments of the City and affected outside agencies~
and ~pproval is reco~+~"~ended; that the subJect easement has been replaced with a new
easement in the prope~ location and the ~ew deed has been recorded; and that the subJect
deed needs to be removed as a cloud on the title, inasmuch as the rxisting easement, in
its present location, cuts diaqonally through three separate parcels established by the
~ecordation of a parcel map and that this was caused by an apparent erranecus east/west
dimension provided by the applicant's enginee~ at the time of acquisition of the sub)ect
9/25/78
~~ .
; ~ '4~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPT
ITEM E EMBER 2S~ 1g~~
......,,,. (ccntinued) 78-814
eesement; and that en e~vfronmenca~ revlear of the :ub)~ct re u
citego~fc~lly axempt fram the raqulrement of
tMa flling of an envlronnwental fmpsct~raport.
ACTION: Co~mitsslone~ Tclar offo~ed a
~D (one saat being vac~nt) ^1qtton~ seconded b
~a~p~miend to the C([y Counctl thsthAbendonment~r$_City P~Ann~lnts~toner D~vfd eRd MOTION
~ ~A b~ A 9 onrnlasion does hereby
pp roved.
AOJOL'RNMENT Thero ba(n
y no further buslness, Com~,~gs~~n~r pavid off~~~d ~
~`.`.~ndrd by Comm(ssioner Ktng er~d Mi , i0N C/1RRIEb
that thc r-~etl~~ h„ ~c~~nurnnd. motlon~
(one sest being v~~ant)~
The meeting was adJourned ~t 4;2~ ~,m~
EI,H:hm
Respett~ully submltted~
% ,
- c('L.t.l -~`" ~/1,1~t . .r.
~d~th L. liarrts~ Secretary
Anhheini Clty Planning Comnl~ston
9/2:/18