Minutes-PC 1979/02/26i~
.
Clty Nell
Aneheim~ Ca1lPornia
F~b rua ry 26 ~ 19 79
REGUI.AR ME.ETING OF THE ANAII~IM CITY PLANhIING COMMISSION
RECULAR - The rngul,~r mee.ting of thc Anaheim Clty Planninq Commtssion was celled ta
MEfTING order by Chai~man Herbst at 1:30 p.m.~ February 2G~ 1379, tn the Gauncil
Chemb~r~ a quorum betng present.
PRESENT - Chairman: Nerbst
Gommiss(oners: Ba:~nes~ BusharP~ Uavid~ Johnson~ King
Comm~ssioner Tolar arrived at 1:3; p.m.
AaSENT - Commissioners: Nonc
ALSO PRESENT - Jac!: Whit~ Ueputy Gity Attorney
Jay Titus Office Engineer
llnnika Santalahti Asslstant Director for Zoning
Robert Hennirqer Assistant Plann~r
Edith Narris Planniny Gommisalon Secretary
PLEUGE OF - The Pled~e of Allegianc.e to the Flag was ied by Cammisstoner Jc~hnson.
ALLEG I At~CE
ITEM N0. ; Pu~LIC NEARIr!G. OwNER: TEXACO-ANANEIM NILLS~ IN~.,
fIR VE DECLNRATION 3$0 Anahelm tlills Roed~ Aneheim, CA 92807. AGENT:
NO 0 E ERMI 0. ty5o AI~AtiEIM HILIS. iNC., 3~ Anaheim Hl i ls Road~ Anaheim,
CA 92807. Petitioner req uests permission to ERECT
AN OFF-SiTE TRACT IDENTIFICATION SIGN on property
described as being on either side of and in the medium betwaen the oppostng lanes of
Hidden Canyon Road, approximately 210 fPet southeast nf the centerline of Serre~o A.venue.
Property pr~sently classified RS-A-~3~000(SC) (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICUi.TURAL-SCENIC COF:RIDOR
OYERLAY) ZONE.
It was noted the petitloner had requested a continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissfane~ Davld and MQTION
A R ED tCommissioner Tola~ being absent). that consideration of Petition for Conditional
Use Permlt No. 1950 be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of the Planning
C~mmisslo~ on Ma rch 12, 1979, at the request of the petitioner.
79-141 2/26/79
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY 1'll1NNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUIIWY 26~ 1~79 79'142
1 TEM N0. PU~~.I C NEARI NG. OWNER: AR~ELL A, wN ITWER,
E R RICAL EXEMPTIQN-CLASSES 1 b~ W19 Jeanlne Drlve~ Unit B~ Aneheim~ C!1 92Fi0G.
VAR ANCE N0. 30 Petitlonrr requests WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER
AND TYPE OF PARKING SPACES TO RETAIN A ROOM
ADOITI01~ IN AN EXISTINf, GARAGE an property
descrfbed as an irregulnrly-shaped parc`~ of land cnnsisting of dpproxtne+tely ~.6 acres
loceted et the southeast corner of Jackson Avenue and Heth Street and thc southarly cul-
dn-sac term(nus of Jaaninn Drive~ having spproxime~e frontages of 20~ feet on the south
side of Jacksan Ave~ue~ ;~~9 foe[ on the east sid~ of Beth Strcet, and 274 f~~t on the west
stdc of Jeanine Drive, an~i furtl~er descrlbed as G1~ Norlh Jeanlne Drive, Uni t D. Property
presontly cla~sifled RM-120t? (RESIDLNTIAL~ MUt.TIPIE-FAMtI.Y) TONE.
It was noted that the petitioncr had requested a four-wePk continu~ince.
ACTIOti: Commissloner David offcred a mocion~ 5econdecl b~ Commissioner King and MnTION
~t E~D (Commissloner Tolar be(r-g absent) ~ that considerAtion of Petition fo~ Vert+~nce Ilo.
3077 be continusd to the regularly-scheduled n~eettnq nf the Planntng Gomm(ss ipn on March
26, 197~~ at the request of che petitioner.
17E:M NQ. 1 READVCRTI SEU PUEiL I C NEARI NG. ONNERS : I RENEO G.
~C~LGORICAL EXEMPTIQI~-CLASS 1 ANU EMELITA A. MUNOZ~ 1303 Jasmine P1 ace, Anaheim~
WAIVER OF CUDE. RE UIRENE-JTS CA )2~>O1. Pet(tioner requests permis sion to
CONDITIONAL USE PERht T NO 1~45 ESTAEiLISfi A HEALTFI SPA hND fMSSAGE PARLOR 411TN
WAIVER OF (A) I111dIMUM NUM8ER OF PARKI t~G SPACES AIJD
(a) LOGATION OF PARKING SPACES on property
described as a rectangularly-sl~apecl parce) oF lend consisting of approximat~ ly b15Q square
feet located at the soutl»vest c~rner of Lincoln Ave~ue and Bust~ Street~ h~vi ng approxlmate
frontages of 50 ~eet on the soutf~ side of Lincoln Avenue and 125 teet on th~ west si~ie of
Bush Street. and further describe~i ~s y24 East Llncoln AVP.IIUC, Pro~,erty pr~sentty
classlfled CL (COMMERCIAL. LIM;TEU) ZONE.
SubJeet petitlon was continueci fram the meeting of February 12~ 1979~ to edv~rtise the
correct locatlon of subJect property.
It was noted the appllca~t was not present, but later determineJ that the pr-operty vwner
was nc: present; however~ the operator of chc Proposed use w3s prese~t wi th her real estate
agent. This item was heard follawiny Item No. 7.
There we~P approximately 2!; persons indicating their presence in opposition to subJect
request~ and although the steff report to the Planntng Commission dated Feb ~uary 26, 1979
was not ~ead at the pub l ic hearing, i t ls referrecl to and -rade a part of the m(nutes.
Corrmissloner 9ushr~re Indicated he had a possible conf) ict of interest as deflned by
Anaheim City Plar.n(ng Comm(ssion Resolutic,n No. PC7F-157~ adoptiny e Confliet of Interest
Code f4r the Plenning Comm(sslon, and Government Code Section 362 ~~ et seq., In that he has
a contractual relationship wlth the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency a„d su~Ject property is
located within the redeveloprnent area~ and~ pursuant to the provisions of tt~e above codes~
declared to the Cha(rman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connectlon with
CondiYional Use Permit Na. 194~ and would not take part (n either the discusslon or thc
voting there~n~ and had not discussed this matter with any mcmber of the Planntng
Commisston. TIIEREUPO~l. COMMISSIONER BUSHORE LEFT THE COUNCIL CIiAMBER.
2/26/79
MINUTlS. ANANEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEURUARY 2G~ 1~)79 79•143
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANU GONDITIONAL USE PCRMIT N0._ 1945 (continued)
1lurlcl ReeJ~ (,121 Euco~y~tus Drive, 1lnaheim~ rcaltnr• rcp~esentlny the bvyer~ stated It was
her f~c~iny most people I~avc the usual viow of m~5sage parl~rs and he~lth clubs, but that
lier clien~ Is a reflned I~idy and is nc~t ~iilnking in thr,se s.~r~e tcrms of e trouble-ms~kin~
mnssaye parlorandplans to have a nice he~ilth spA wlth st~am room and Jecuzzi~ and thAt
this arca is a business are~i a~d she did not fccl this usc would bc detrimenta) to the
area.
Suncha Ob~ rt ~ o~eratar oi` the p roE~o~ed bus i ness ~ stated shc woul d 1 i ke ta purchasc the
subJect praperty to o~erate a health spa en~l m.~ssegr.. ~arlc~r w~th Jac~~~zt and seuna. Sha
expla(ned she ~~~+t a Ilc~nse for massa~~e and also coshetolUC~y in order to ylve fnclals.
etc. ~ and that shc has ov~~r t~n years' experie~ce,
Earl Rhoads, 121 North Vir.c St~cet, A~aheim. ;~iemher of thc Project Area Committee lF'A~)
and inrnedi~~l'r. Past Preslrlent of the East Central Anaheim Nelghborhood Im~rovernent
Assoclation, stated that .~s •'~ ~*+~~~r of PIIC they had rr_vicwed the dr.s(~n for developmen[
of downtvwn Anahelrn ProJcc! Arca and r:a~f thc follow(n~~: "Thcre are Some residential
ne ( yhborh~od parce 1 s e~~st r.~f the ra i I roacl t racks i n the Pro ject Area and these areas seem
to be qui te hea'thy and 5hculci be rstained an~ strenychened," Ile stated further than that
(ena [hi s Is the reasun for thc two hats) ,"the des i ~n far deve lo~ment 1 dent i f f ~s for the
planning that there r~k~y be ;ur~c~ c~mmr.rcial aites alor~g East Lincol~." IIP stated~ hnwever~
In ttie deslyn for ~evcloprne~~t, tf~osc areas are identifie~l as being cast uf Dush and not
west of E3usl~. Ne p~lnted out thls area is shurt nf h~using and this is a nice rrsidence~
and suggested that {L be retairie~l for resider.tial use.
Mr. Rhoads state~l there w~s supposeJ to have been a letter submitted to thc Cormnission
from the netyhbonc~~od i~q~rov~.me;nt association indicatin~~ their o~p~sitiun and apologized
that it had not been recPivP~i a~d point~~ ouc there iS a letter included from the Pr~ject
Area Committee indicatiny tl~e~i r opp~~sltion, f1e stateci the neiyhborhood improvement
assoclation lias ~one to ~~reat lenc~ths to improvc tl~e area and want~ to keep it on the
upswiny. and felt reyardless of ~•ihat the petitioi~er I~as stattd. an undesir~~ble element
wi 1 I be b ~ouyht into tlie nei yt~~,c~rhooci,
Don Sherman~ 12~ South Uusl~ Strc.et. Anaheim, stated hti lives approxlmately one-f~alf block
frori sub ject property and has two chi ldren whu ~~lay frePly up and down the sidewalks and
in their yard. Ne ~~resented two l~[ters from neiyhbors opposing the vro,j~ect who eoula nat
attend the meetin~~. fle felt --ega~dless of what tf~e peti tioncr has indicated, he did not
want the ~lemc:nt that may be t•rouyht lnto the r,elc~hborhood hy ~ massage parlor. He also
was co~c~erned about the a.~ricin~g an Kush Street and inclicated the parking sttuatlon is
already bad and felt thc overf lai from this busines~ would add more parking and traffic
(nto ttiei r neighborhood. Ile stated there is a great n~nber of small children in this
neighborhood and they do have a tendency to occasinnal ly rur+ into the street, and for this
reason he felt v~ry strictly opposed to th(s use. He stated he agrees with the prevtous
speaker ~eyarding the quality of the nei~~hborhood and pointed out he has seen it slowly
upgraded ln the last two years and wouid 1 ike to see further improvements.
Mr. She~man referr~d to the co~mients in the staff ~epo~t concerning crime and Indicated
there have not been any crimes in thelr area i~ the Itast two years~ and he would like to
keep it that way, and fe{t this type af use would set a bad precedent far this type
bu,iness in a residentlal area~ even though it is c~mmercially zoned property.
EdMrard Mino~, 220 North Vine Street~ Anaheim, former member of the Alpha ProJect
Committee, stated he ag-'eed wi th Mr. Rhoads and added personal ly he felt this use should
not be al lowed because we are redeveloping Anahelm on the west side of this property and
It seems this use would seart tearirg down the east side, He referred to the housing
problem and suggested this st~ucture be r~~aintained for residential purpases. He felt this
2/26/79
~r9• i aa
MINUTES, AI~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FE4RU!-RY 26~ 1973
Ela CATEGORI CAl EXEMt'TION-CU1SS 1 ANO CONDITION11L US~ PERMw I.___T N0._ ~~~+.~ ~continucd)
use would tc~ar da+n`property values af the propertles surrounding it~ thercPura~ affectfng
the entlre city f~om a t~x sta(eP~is<<on~structedrand~Lircol~rAvcnueais reallgnedut that
when tlie proposed shoppl ny cen
•ddttlonal traff(c W>>>rb~eb ~°zi~willtbetputainaat ~~~~~e~t~Ateuand1lndlcnted~this could
menttcros th~f the spa o he pointed out
mean It mlghC never bc installed. Cnncer~ing tl~e Pallce Depnrtn~cnt report,
the Police Denortment Is alreadY c,verburdened and tt~ls use would further ~'-d~i ~Q t{etalso
burden. tie agree~ t,hat tl~e ~se woulcl n~t be good far th~ chlldrr.n in tt~e nrea.
asked if the employees of tlils facility would be liccnsed hasical~therapi~t~~ He men~toned
would prescrfbe treatment at tliis facility racl~er than a p y.
that Anohclm h~s 1~1 rnassage Pn~~ersro j`d'~iPronenarca~.c He('stAt~d~l~e thought~itswauldtbe a
thAt theY might eventually a11 ~ p~ h,• P~lice Department ar+cl taxpayers of the Gity
mistake for the are.i anJ ~ ui5scr•.lcr. t. t
of Anahcin.
Nancy Renzo~ 111 South I~usl~ 5trect, Anah;;~Linc~~uuttthat slieitiadnobtained~thesc~signatur~s
slgnatures and Icttcrs from nelclhbors~ P .~
on the previous day and all the people sl~e had contacted were ~pFiQSeand I~aseaufevexyear-
three. She stdted shc lives directly next door to subjeGt rropc~~Y and she did not think
old daugfiter who plays {n the frunt yarcf apnroxir~atclY 5Q feet aweY,
this type use bclon,ys in I~er neighborlioodSedstiilscrequestto She~askedethc sizenofgthcer
Indicating tI~P Folice Departn~ent had opp
structure. inclicating she tl~ouyht lt was ap~roxim~-tely thc same size as hers~ whlch is
appraximately 900 squarc feet~ a~ie~~~h~~p~ansWShow'~the~structure ast1;00isquare,feet anda
structure of this sizc: (lt was
that It was previously a durlex), Mrs. Kenzu pointe~f out thls area i~ in the
redevelopment area ard durin~, tl~e next year the adult h~°uset~hould~bchallowediat thts
relocated frorn thc~ area. an~ she di~J nut [hink this tYp
location.
Gr. Warren I~ol l i ngsworth st f ~em sub 'ecti p~opertycand~ t`~att~he E i vcsLatc201 ~NorthhRose ~
directly acrass the street 1
wliich is in the same ~eiyt~ba~rl~oovid`N12ePa~king~spaceshwhhch wassqui teeanhexpenSecand that
bullding. lie was requlred t p
the other professional offiuewhenlthei~ ~otshareefulborhepfindsetheirttenantsbarerparking
ordinance was effective, an
in his lot an~ it is ~~a~~iii~ilU[.P~HeGSt~tedshc"was~adJressinyitfieeissue~on thatnpoin~t re
pe~~le parking in hls p y
o~ly and not on tlie rnc~ral aspects.
Ms. Rced, represent(ng Mrs.e~ba~ ~'tfieaemployeeseat this~establ ishment wi l tt~eyqual ifleds~
in th~~s instance. She stat
licensed masseuses. She felt the is~ue of using thisWasrzonedecortmerciailyncandeitbw u{d
settled by the Planniny Commisslon w1~en the property on the
be impos~ible having a far~ily liviny tn tf~e ~esidence and having childre~i P~ay She did
blacktop ya~d, explalnin~~ that the entirP back yard 1~as been paved for parking.
not fe~l tt~e parents of the chiudr~enotr~bella prob'lerrrh~CAncernan91the spambaingefPstalled n
Lincoln Avenue~ so felt that wo located in the structure
at a l~ter date~ she pointed out currently there Is a t_..uty shap
She explained the building is
wl~ich must be relocate~ befure the spa can be instelled•
1~00+ square feet and thanewithetherexistingcbeautydparlorelt there would not be any m~re
traffic with tt,is use t
TNE PUBIIC HEARItJG WAS CLUSCD.
2/zb; 79
MINUTf.S~ ANAMEIM CITY I'LANNING COMMISSIAN~ FCEiRUARY 26~ 1979 7~'1~5
CIR GATEGORILAL EXEMPTI~N-CLASS 1 I1NU CUNDIT~ IOt1AL USF. PERMIT N0. 1945 (contlnued)
Commissioner Tolar stated that a c.onditlonal use parmlt goes wlth thn praperty and not tlie
operator~ anJ evci~ thou~~h thc pctitianer wauld operatQ a unlque bus(ness wl~icli would not
be a cletrimant to the nelyhbarhood~ ff 9I1P. elected to mc~ve, another aperetlon c~uld go
Into the property which could become a public nu(sancr,.
Ms. RQed sCated lt was t~er underst~ndtny that if A use becort-es a nuisance~ the permlt cen
bc ravol;ed.
Gwrnnissianer Tolar state~d that waa cor•rect~ but it (s difficult to palice these typ~s of
thinc,~s and that the Clty is trylny dtllyently to revitalizc the downtown area and Lincoln
w( 11 be real igneJ and wl l I be an Intrlcake Nart nf thc inyress .~nd e~ress ir.to th~
dawnCawn area~ ana he felt somc of these businpsses will became pASS~. Ne statad hc would
llkc to belleve thlc City (s procaressive an~i will put some of these spot-toning type
situatio~s toyetl~er. Ne statad the parkin,y would be A problert~ on kiush Street an~' ll~~
traffic impact would be~ a maJor i~sue If tl~e operatur decided to move or trted to
supplement hr.r income by adding ~tf~cr uses and advertising for mar~ business and the
parking situattun could not be cantrolled. Ne statc~d he could not supporK the use because
of the traffic anJ parkln~a pr~blems which could be creaCed.
Ms. Reed stated she un~ierstood what Commissloner Tolar was saying an<f pointed out the
existiny beauty shop coulci n~c~ve out and a(aryer operation could yo fnto the structure.
Cortxnissioner Tolar ~.~inte~l out tl~e beauty shop Is regulated as to xhe number of operators
end size of ~peratian by the number of parkiny spaces~ etc. He statpd evtdently thls
car~er was not conJucive enough for the beauty shop or it would not be moving~ which
proves there is a limited anx~unt of conrnercial use w;~icfi could ya Into this siGe, and f~lt
th(s use would be a mistake. He felt if this corner were canduc(ve to the walk-in type
t~affic, thc operator of the beauty stio~~ woul~f be cryiny to purchase the property rather
than relocating.
Ms. Reed ~ointed out the beauty sl~op opcrat~r will be asked to move if the property (s
sold to M~rs. Obert ano is devcloped into a health spa and massage parlor.
Commissioner k~ernes referrEd to the letter from the ProJect Area Committee recommending
that this use be denled because of its incompatihility with the proJect area plan. She
stated as pianners tlie Planning C~mmissicx~ is suppased to try and dectde if this is true
and if they feel in the interest of c~ood planning that this use belongs at this la~ation.
She stated [here are three thinys against ~pproving thls request: 1) the letter from PAC,
2) some of thc Commissioners feel it does not belong ln this arca and is rot compatible~
ai~d 3) the parkii~g is not adequate and there would be potential (ncreased parking on Bush
Street whi ch is al ready a ~najor pr~b lem.
It was noted tlie Planning Director or i~is authorizr_d representativz has determined that
tlie proposed project falla within the definition of Ca[egorical Exemptions. Class 1~ as
defined in paragrapti 2 of the Clty nf M aheim Environmental Impact Repo~t ~uidelincs and
i s~ therefore ~ cateyor( ca 1 ly exempt f rom the requi rement co pr~pare an E I R.
ACTIQN: Commissioner Barnes uffered a motion, seconded by Commissianer King and MOT10~~
CA~ R~tIED, t~~ ~t th~; Anaheim C1ty Planning Commission does he~Gby deny the requeat for waiver
of Code requirements on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to
this property and sOmilar requests have ~ee-i denied due to the lack of parking on other
properties in the same vicinity and zone.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mrs. Obert if she had operated other massage parlors, and she
replied that she aperated one at Ma~i~a del Rey.
2/26/79
~
_..______~_~ -
X
79-146
MINU1'fS~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FE6RUAaY 26. 1979
EIR CA"~EGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS i AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0._1945 (continued)
CommisAloner Johnson polnted out It Is hls feeliny thut n-assogc parl~rs in thr U~ited
States have a~flffcrent conn~t~tio~ tt~an In other countries and he wanted the petltloner
tn be ar+are th~t the Commission has to consldRr the Informatlon tht~t Is presented. He
asked whet the hc~urs of operatlon would bo~ and Mrs. Obert repl ied tt~ey would bc from
10~0~ a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Commissloner aarnes offerrd Resolution Na. PC73-37 a~c1 ~vcd for its passacie and adoptlon~
that the Anahelm Clty Planning Commission dnes herc~y deny Pekitlon for Condltion~l Use
Permit No. 1945 on tl~e basls that the site is lo~atecl in the Alpha proJeCt aree and thc
Project Area Committe~ has dtterr,iined tha use would not be competibie with the surrounding
area~ and an the besls that add(tianal traffic and parking in the are~ would have a
detrimental lmpact on thc surrounding residential arca.
On roll call~ tI1C (urnyulny rc~olutton wA~ na4ct+d bV the foliawiny vote:
AYtS : COMMISS I ON~:RS : BARtik:S ~
NOES : COMMI SS I ONERS : NOf1E
Af3SCI1T: GQMMISSIOPIERS; BUSIIORE:
UAV I U~ ~IERBST ~ JOHNSO~~ ~ iCi UG ~ TOIAR
Jack White~ Deputy Cicy Att:~rncy~ presented the petitioner with the written r(ght to
appeal the Plannlny Commisston's decisio~~ within ?.2 days ta the City Councii.
Chairman Nerbst stated there arc otl7er arcas in the City of Anaheim which he felt would be
conducive to this type of use wtiich cb not abut r~sidential areas.
RECESS There was a ten-minute recess at 7.:>5 F•m•
REC~tIVE11E 7he rneettny was reconvened at 3:05 p.~n, ~ anJ Commissioner [3ushore returned.
Comn~sstoner David indicated his concern regarcling paragr~pf- (ln) of the staff report in
connectlan with Condition~il Use Permit No. 1')4~ in that ttie Anaheim Pol(ce Departmen!
indtcates ttie Gity curs•ently lias 19 licf~nsed massage ~aflars and that these uses generate
many enforce elt penteralsstatcrr-etntsesucl~~asethi~s~are~t~tallyf irrelevanioto'tl~nal use
permit. He f 9
deliberations and should iiot be considered.
It was noted the Comrntssion I,ad not discussed this state~nent end did nc+t cansider it in
their deliberations.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Uirector for Zoning~ staced this issue has come up befo~e and
comments were made that tf~eir c~rrespondence was not read and introduced into the minutes
and the reason is ve ry clear~ and that is that thr. writer is not present to ansv~r
questions. She explained staff does encourag~ anyone who gives the Commission any
correspondence to be presen: to answer any questions.
Chairman Herbst stated the Commission had not mentinned tliat particular item~ but it is a
part of the record because it is mentioned in the staff report, and he felt the Police
Departme~t should send a rep~esentative ta thP meeting to dtscus$ ~esentttsuchnstatement
fatrness to the applicant. Ne felt if thc re re3entative is not p ~
should be left aut of the staff report.
Commissioner Bushore felt a motion should be made that if the Police Department has
anything to add to the presentation, they shoutd be present.
2/26/79
MINUTE5~ ANAItE1M CITY PLANNING COMMlSSiON~ FEBnUARY 2fi, 197~ 79'1~~1
FIR CAT~GORIGAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANO CQNpITIONAI USE PCRMIT NQ. l~~i~ (continued)
Commissloner Johnson fclt that wo~rld bo treadtng on dange~ous ground becau~e if the Pulicc
Department had been present to reaJ the letter and had t~tken e posltion against the
petitiqner~ It would bc t:erribly bia~ted.
Chalrmen Nerbst stat~ci iC was hts feeling thet lf thc Pollce De~partrnnnt has any:hing
cri tlca) to adct~ thsy shc~ulJ be hsre~ but not )ust to make a ger-k~ral assessme•nt of other
m~ssaqc ~arlors.
.lack White stake~l whetl~e~ the report is written or a police represeniat(ve Is present~
they us~.~ally refer t~ a~~urvey of oth~r n~assaye parlors and ~ceivlties chat are takiny
place there dncl It has n~~ relever~ce to the prospective Applicant. He felt if they have
snmething that pertains to this part.Icular applicant and w1iaC [f~c:y wuuld be doinc~ at this
locatlon or ~+nother I~cation~ chat may have son~ relevanc~~ but he felt to say that we
I~evr 19 iiid55ey~ ~.ar~ora ~snc' illiclt attlvttiNs +~t 1? ~r tf:.,f rh~~m ~in~c nor F1AVP. any
bP.~rin~ on the requcst and, thcreforc~ t~ hav~ them st~~te that would probably ~nly be
inflart~t~ry and have no ~~alue. ~ie tclc thcy should nat ylve any tnput unless they have
knowleefge c~f a specific i~idiv(dua) c~se.
Ccxnmissioner ~ushore offercd a ~~x~tion~ seconded by Gonvnissloner David end MQTION CAItRIED,
that i f the f'ol ice Depa~•tmcnt ~r any ather depa~trr-~~t h~s anv speci f t c I nformat lon
reyarding a specific ap~licatlun or applic~nt, tl~en tt~c~y shc~uld personally present that
(nformatir~n at Che pu5iic hearinc~.
Conunissioner UaviJ as'Recl th~+t that ~artic~lar ~rtion of the minutes be forwarded to the
Chief of Police for I•,is Inforr,~atl~n.
17EM N0. 2 CONTItiUEU PUBLIC HEARI~~G. OWNERS: JOI~AT'HAN 1'. Y.
EIR t~EGATIVE pECLf~:tATiOiJ YEN~ ET AL, 420 South Beach Boulevard~ AnAfielrti, CA
N'~;~7~'Z7 92b04. ProE?erty describe~ as a rectangulArly-shaped
~~T)~~iU CMLN parcel of lanci cons(stiny of approximately 138 feet on
CONUITIUNAI USE '~'ERMIT N0. l;i3f~ the east side ~f Geach Uoulevard~ hav(nn a maxlmum
deptli of approximately 23~ feet~ being located
approxiniately 52II feet ncrth of the centerline
of Oranca~ Aven~~e~ ~nd further described as ~~20 South Beact~ Boulevard. Property presently
ciaxsifled RS-~~~~+3,0~~ (RESIUE'~TIAL~AGRICULTURAL) 7.ONE.
REQUESTED CLA`~SIFIGATIOF~: CL (COMMkRCIl~L~ LIMITEU~ 20NE.
REQUESTEU CO~JDITIONAI. USE: TO EXPAI~U AN EXISTING M~TEL WIT~H WAIVER OF MAXINUM
STRUCTURAL ~IC Q GHT.
Subject pe~ition was con:inued from the r~etinys of J~nuary 2y and Febr~~-ry 12, 19J9, at
the request of the petltioner.
There was no one indicatiny their pfesence in oppnsit(~n to subject request, and although
the staff r~port to the Planning Commissian dat~d February 26, 1979 was no: read at tfie
publlc hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Jonathan Yeh~ rep~esenting thc Ar~na) hbtel, 420 South Beach Boulevard~ stated this is an
existing 11-unit motel and they ti~ish to add more units; that the original plans were
submltted two woeks ago and the Planning Commtssion had made su~Gestians and the modif(ed
plan is being presented, and f~dicated he wished to thank the Commisslon for thei~
suggestions.
2/26/79
MII~UTES, At~AllCltt CITY PLMINING CQMMISSIOH~ FEE3RU~RY 2G~ t~79 79-148
EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATIOti. RkGlASSIFiCATICN N0. 7~3-79-27 Ai~O COFIDIT101~AL USE PER~!IT N0. 1~;6
TNk PUULIC HEl1RING 41AS CLGSEU.
Ccxnmissianer King rE.ferred to the Traffic Lnc~(necr's rec~~mmenci~tic~n that one driveway be
close~~ and Mr. Yeh Indic.~ted they coulcl do that with no problem.
Commissloner Etarnec~ Indicated she felt th(s plan is a constd~~rable improvement over the
orlylnal plan.
AC710N: CornmisSi~mer Darne~ c~fferecl a motion~ secundcd by Commissioner King and MOTION
C RR~ED (Commtasioner Tolar bainy ~bsent)~ that. thc /1nah~efm City Planning Commisslon has
ruviawed the proposal to rcclassi fy subJr.ct property frc~r,~ the RS-A•1+3~'l~n
(Residcntial/l1c~r(cult~~ral) to tf~e CL (C~mn~erclal ~ Ltmit~~d) zane to expand an existlnq
motPl with waivfrs of rnaxiinum wel i heinht. maximum structural I~eight. permitted
encroachments liito required yarJ, and minimum l.~ndscape:d are» on a rectangularly-shaped
parr,el of land consistin~~ of approximately ~.8 ~cre haviny ~ frontage of approxlmately 138
fcet on thP cast siJe of aeach F~uulevard, havtng a m~,ximurn cleptti of appraxlmately 23~
feet, and beiny located approximately ~2ti feet nortt~ ~f the centerllne of Orange Avenue;
and does hereby approvc tl~e Negativc Uecla~atio~~ from t~~e requlremcnt to prcpare an
envtronmcntal impact report on the basis thet therz would be no signiftcant individual or
cumulative ~dverse cnvironmental imp~~ce due to thc approval of thls Negative peclaratlQn
s(nce tha Anaheim General Plan desic~nates the subJect property fo~ genernl commercial land
uses commensurate with the prop~sal; that no senslttve environmental impacts are involved
in the proposal; ttiat the. Initial Study submitted by the petitioncr indicates no
signlf(cant individual c,r curnuiative adverse environr,iental inpacts; ancl that the Negative
Declaration substanti~tiny the toreyoiny findings 1, c~n filc in the City of Anahefm
Planning Depart~nent.
Conmissioner tiarnes offered Resalution N~. -':7~-3~ in~i muveJ for its passayt and adoption~
that the Anahetm City Planning Co-rrnissiar~ does hereby grant Petttion for Reclassificat(on
No. 78-79-27. subject to Interdepartmental Cor~mittee recomrtx~n~iations and subJect to the
petitfuner's stipulation t~~ close one Jrivc~way.
nn roll call~ the foreqoiny rc:salutio~ was passeJ by tt~c following vote:
AYCS : COMHt SS I O~IE RS : BARNCS ~ 13USI~ORE ~ DAV I D~ NER(35T, JOH1~50~~ ~ K I t~f,
NOES: CUMMISSI~;~ERS: I~O?~E
AB;EWT: COt~.-11 SS I OIIf:RS : TOLAR
COf4MISSIONER TOLP+R AP,alVEU AT 1:3~ P.M.
Commissioner Barnes offered a motlon~ seconde~ by Commissioner King and MATIOtI CARRIED
(Commissioner Tolar abstatniny, havin~~ not been present far the enti~e hearing)~ that the
Anaheim City Plann(ng Conxnission does hereby grant waiver (b) ~n the basis that the
property to the north of subject ~,roperty wilt eventually t,e reclassifled and developE~d as
corm~ercial property and tf~e walver wauld no lonyer be necessary~ and denyfng walvers (a) ~
(c) and (d) on the basis that revised plans deleted tne requirement for said waivers.
Commissioner Joi~nson asked if the recommendation that ~ne driveway be Glosed was included
in the orig(nal proposal~ and Robert tlenninger~ Assistant Planner~ explained ihe original
plans show~d only one driveway and thc plans presented t~day are the existing conditiari
with no modtfications to the front poriion of the property.
Comm(ssiuner Johnson stated the petitioner has bee~ ve ry cooperative and has modifted the
plans extremely and he was concerned that addinc; another condition today ~vould hurt the
2/26/19
MINUTE5~ ANANEIN GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ fEfiRUARY 26~ 1~7~ 7g~1~~9
EIR NEGATtvE nECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATIpN 1~0. 18-79-27 AND CONDITIONAI. USL_PERMIT NO. 1 6
~._...__ - ~ --- ---- -
proJect~ ~nd asked the {~Etitionar (f he fclt thc ciosiny of the driveway would hurt hl;~
praject~ and Ilr. Yef~ re~pl(ecl that it would nat.
Commissionor ~a~nes offcred Resolutlon No. PC7~•3~ and rmved far its passa~~e and adoptlo~~~
tl~at the Aneheim City Planniny Conanisslor~ ciucs hcrQby yrant Petitlun for Conditlonal Use
Pe~mft tJo. 133G~ in pArt~ subJect to the petitioner's stipulation to close one of the
extst(ng two ariveways. And subject tA Inkcrdepartmental Lommtttee reconnnendations.
4n ratl :ell. the foreyalny resoluciv~ was ~+~ssed by tl~e fotlowing vote:
AYESt COf~M{SSIONEaS: BARI~ES~ ~USIIORE~ DAVIU~ HLRLtST~ JOIINSOt~~ KIl~G
NGES: COM-~II SS I OIJERS ; NONC
At;SC"T: COt1"lS~lO!lEP,S: NOt~lE
ALiSTAI t~ ; CONf115S I OtJERS : TOIAR
I TEM NQ. 3 CONTI NUEQ PUBL I C ~IEAItI NG. OWNERS : ER4E57 A. AND
tlk~ N~GATIVE UECLARATI011 DUNNA aRGWN~ '1'12~+ South Lewis Street~ Anahelm~ CA
RECLASSI ICATION N0. 7-79~2~ 92go~. AGENT: INVE570RS U~VELOPMEt~T OF QRANGE
C01111TY~ INC. ~ 13~-~ t~orth Grnnd Avenue~ Santa Ana~
CA 927~1• Pcti~ioner requcsts reclassificat(on of
praperty descrlbed as an Irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of approxlmately 0.8
acre having a fronca~e of approximately 19(1 feet on the east side of Le~is Street, having
a maxlmum depth of approxima~ely 217 1'cet~ beiny loceted approxirt-ately 1160 feet south of
the centerline of Orangewood Avenuc~ 7nd further described as 2224 South Lewis Street,
from the RS-A•43~Qc)0 (RESILENTIA~/AGRICULTtiRAI) to the RM-120~ (RESIUENTIAL, MULTIPLE-
FAMII.Y) ZONE.
Subject petltlon was cantinuec from the ~neeting of February 12~ 1~79 at the request of the
pe t i t f one r.
There was n~ one lndtc~~ting their presence in opposition to subject request, and althaugh
the staff repurt to th:: Pla~ning Commission ciated February 2G~ 1~7~i was not read at the
publ+c hearing~ it is referred ta and made a part of t`~e minut~~s.
Jack Davis~ Investars Development of Orrm ge County` Inc.~ agent~ was present to answer any
qu~st(ons.
TNE PUDLI C NEARII~G WAS CLOSED.
Commissio~er Kf~g referred to the 7~°foot, "n~ parking" area along lewis Street adJacent
to subject pfope~ty and esked the petitioner if he understnod less {~arking would be
provided on the street~ and Mr. Davis replied that he understood, point(nq out that 75
feet wouid have a red curt,. He stated he would prefer to forestall that condition until
the property to the nc~rth is dedltated and improved with curb and gutt~r. He poln[ed o~~t
the trash could be picked up ou: nf the: traffic lane un L~wis Street until that property
is develaped.
Chairman Herbst asked if the City could designaee the area f~r "no parking" on trash pick-
up days only~ a~d Commisstoner Johnson felt that would be difficult to poltce.
.lay Titus~ Office Engineer, explained the prnperty to
fret~ but not improved. Ne explained Mr. Oavis will
be the ssme as the property to the north and he wi 11
devr'ops.
the north has been dedtcated to 35
dedicate a~other 15 feet and it wtil
be pu~ttng in curb and gutter as he
2/26/19
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLAN~~ING COMMISS~ON~ FEdRUARY 2G~ 1979
C I R ~~CGATI VC UECLAMTI011 ANO RECIAS~ ! ~iCAT10~~
Chairman Herbst
petltlo~er try
lowis Str~et.
felt everyth(n7 has bsen done
t~ work out some~hin~ with the
that could be done end suygested !he
Clty reyardinr~ the na-parking erea alonq
ACTION; Commissloner JoF-nson offe~ed a mation~ s~condsd by Commissioner King and MOTION
CA- RRIED~ tt~at the Anahe(m Gity Planning Cornr~ilssion hAS reviewed the proposal to reclossify
subJect property from the RS-A-43~000 (Residentlal/Agricultural) ta the RM-11.0~)
(Residentlal~ Multiple-Famlly) Zon~- on an irregularly-shapeci parcel uf land consisting of
approxlrnntely ~.~ acrc haviny a frontaye of ap~~roximately 18~ fect on the east slde of
lewis Street~ haviny e max(mum dcptl~ nf approxlmately 217 feet~ and be:ing lacatnd
approximatcly 11(~~l fa~t suuth of tl~e ccnterl ine of Oranyewood Avenu~:; and does hertby
approve the Negative Ueclnration frprn the requirem~ent to ~repare an environmental impect
~~CNurl un liie: i~ayi~ ll~~t ll~~rn wou1.J l,~ ~~o s(ynlfteaiit lndtvlc3ual or tumutatlvc advcrsc
environnx~ntal lmpact duc to tl~e approval of ttiis Wegatlve Qeclaratlon since the Anahelm
General Plan deslgnat~s the subJect property for medium density residentia) land u:ex
commensurate with the proposal; ti~at no sensitlve P~vir~nnMnt~l imhacts are ~nvolved in
the propos~l; tliat Ciie In(tlal Study submitted by the petit~oncr indicates na s(ynificant
indtvidua) or cumulative adverse envlronmentai 1mp8Ct5; ancf that the PJegative Declaretlon
substenttating the foregoiny fincfinys Is on flle in the City of Anaheim Planning
Department.
Commisstoner Johnson offered Rnsolutlon F,~. PC7'1-~+4 and moved for its passar~e and
adoption~ that the Anahr.im Clty Plannin~; Commission d~es herPby gr~nt Pe:ition for
Reclassificatton No. 7t~•73~Z3~ subject to the property being develo~ed substantially in
accordence with prec(se plans as presenteJ, and ~ubJect to the co~dition that a minimum
75-foot, "no parking" area be provided along Lewis Street adjACent to subJect property to
effect trash ptck-up unless the petitioncr is able to wo~k out a suitable arrangemenC with
the Streets and Sanitatio~ Ue~artment, and subject [a Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations:
On roll call~ the foreyoiny resoluti~n was passed by the followiny vote:
AYCS : C011M1 SS I O~~E.RS : BARI~ES ~ BUSiiUitE ~ DAV I ll, ilEF~iST ~ JOIiPi5011 ~ KI tIG ~ TOLAR
NUE5 : COHMI SS I ONI: RS : NOt~E
At3SEtIT: GOMt1155101JER5: NONE
Comm(ssioner Kln~ statec~ land isscarce and property is expensive and tl~ere is a shortage
of housiny in tl~is area~ an~l pointed out the petiti~ner in this case h,~d ~equested only 1$
unlts per acre and 36 units per acre are allowed. Ne felt efficient wce o~ this property
calls for more density.
Choirman flerbst felt density of projects should be discussed at a wark session and poi~ted
out the density depends Upon what the developer wants to develop. Fle stated he did not
feel this particular property lends itself to hiyh density because of its sizc and shepe~
and pointed out alsn that circulation must be provtded.
Commissioner Y.fny felt the Commission is always aware and cautious of putting too much
development on propsr[y and felt maybe they should be leaning the other way when there is
an opportunity. Ne asked if tiie E~etitioner was aware of ttie fact that he could have put
36 units o~ tlils property and pointed out law-to-moderate fncame people do not have a
cha~ce t~~ vwn a home~ and also the elderly on fixed incomE:s are losing the(r homes because
of inflaticm.
Chairman Herbst potnted out Lhe Commisston wlil be receiving a very precise document far
th~ Housiny Elemenk in the near future.
N0. 78-73-2~ (canttnucd)
79-15~
2/26/79
P'INUTES~ ANA~IEIM LITY PLANNING CONMISSION, FEBRUAf~Y 2E,~ 1979 19'151
EIR NEGA'IIVE UEGIARAT101~ AND RECLASS1f'1C~,T10~~ t~0. 7~•7a'27 ~~ntinuQ~')
Rabc~rt liennin,yer~ Assistant Planncr~ pointed out that a housing stuciy for the enklre clty
hag Geen c.ontracted and slrould he avallablo some time In the spring.
ITCM N0. A PUULIC NCARING. OtiJNCRS; DOUGLAS A. GJERSVaLD~ ET
EI NEG TVC DLCLARl~TIpN AL~ ',~21~ Vfa Visto Drlve~ Duena Park~ CA ~1~620.
R CE LAS~ SIFICAT'IOtI N0. - 2 Property descrihed as an irregularly-shaped parcel
~~~~p~ of land conslstinc~ af appr~ximately 270 feet on the
s~utheast stcie of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ having a
maximum depth of approximately 4~+n feet~ being
locatod ap~rax(mateiy 40G feet nortr~r.ast of the centerline of Mohler brive, and further
descrlbed as 21052 Santa Ana Canyc~n road. Property presenciy classlffed i,OUt!'flr o0^AR-
t0,UQ0 ~AGRICUITURAL /R~;IDEtITiAL) DISTRICT,
H~QUESTEU GLAS5IFICATIO!d: RS-HS-22.~0~(5C) (RESIDENTIAL~ SINr,~.L'-FAMILY
IiILL51pF.) ZONk.
REQUES'fED Y11RI~N~.E: WAIVCR QF MINIMUH LOT ARE~ TO ESTA4l.IS11 A TIIREE-LOT,
RS-N5-22~00~(SC) SUBUIVISION.
There was no one inJicat(ng tf~elr presence fn opposttion to subJect request~ and although
the staff report to the Planning Cammission dnted Fe-~iua ry 26~ 1~79 was not read st thc
public heoring. it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Douglas Gjersvold~ owner~ ~Nas prese~t and pofnteJ out they are requesting a viafver of the
22~000 square foot minimwn t~ecausc they do meet the min(rnum lot requirement oF 19~000
square feet ~nJ Jo n~t neeJ to use. any of the property for access. Ile stated the existing
$0-year old dwei 1 iny would be torn down.
TI~E PUBLIC IIEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commi ss I one r Da rnes as keel i f the re had been any comnun i ca t f on f rom the res 1 dents i n thc
Mohler Dr(ve are~ or the homeawncrs associations.
Mr. G}ersvold replied that they had met with the Mohl~r Drive association and the tlill and
Canyon Municlpai Advisc~ry Committee C~ACMAC) and the Mohler Orive associatlun had not
wanted to submit a letter; hawever~ they were nat opposed to [he project.
Tony Barksdale. 181 Passum Hollow, Anahr.im, stated he had becn at ttie associatlon meeting
and the association felt this was in aGCC~rdance ~ith what is being done in the area
because the ro~d will always be a road and the iots mcet the minimum 19~000 square feet.
but that the association diJ not fecl they wanted to write a letter supporting the
request.
Commissioner Johnson askeJ ths width of Martin Place, and Nr. f;Jersvold repiied it ts 40
feet wlde.
Chairman Herbst referred to City Council Policy No~ 5~+2 regarding sound attenuation and
indicated those properties along Santa Ana Canyon Road c~ould have to be properly
atter.uated and asked if that co~dition would be aclded to the conditions of approval. He
explalRed that attenuation miyht be ~rovided with a fence, b~ra~ or a combinat(on of both.
Commissioner King painted out in the past similar requests heve been denied on the basis
that to grant such a w aiver would establish an undesirable precedent.
zizbr~9
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ FEBRIIARY 26~ 1979 79-152
EI~NEGATIVE DECI.AMTIQN~ RECLASSIFICATIO~~ N0._ 78~7~-32 ANO V1IRIANCE N0~3478 (continued)
Commlssioner BArnes indicated she remembered long hours of work put in by the task Force,
incluJing homeowners from the Mohler U~Ive arna. conc~rning the gross acreage and the
mintmum net acreaye, end explained that was why she was sur~rtsed none of the r~sldents
were prosent; that she romembered a stmllar r~roJect and tl~e residents were out In force.
She steted thls plen does not meet Code and does not meet ;hc dl~ectton the Commission has
had from the City Council.
Commissioner Talar inJicated he felt thc maJor difference in thts request is dedicatlon of
roads. Fie ex{~latned the ~b-fo~t easen~ent is a perrnanent easement and if thot area had
been counteri~ tl~ey would exceed the 22,OQ') square feet; thAt ht would be reluctant to
approve and break down ttie ane-half acre ~state zontnq~ but feit th(s was an unusua) plece
of property and the t~nc~c~rarhY ic .~Iffer~snt and. :•:itt~ the -i~-fnoi parn~i,es,~~ easenwnt~
would not be setting a r.~recedent.
Chalrman Nerbst pointed out thts is a t.riany~la~ly-sharecl, flat piec~ of ~roperty and ha;
more useful area.
Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Dtrector f~r Zontnc~~ stat~d she would like to r-~ake a
correctlon to Conditlon N~~. 1~~ of the Interdepartrnental Co~rntttee recomnendations~ addtng
thot a bond shal I be post~~d to yuarantee that the improvements wi I1 be made to tl~e 1Q-foc~t
wide eq uestrian and hikinu trall becAUSe In the past the Clty has had d(fficulty enforcing
the Improvement of the trails.
Mr. Gjersvold asked if the trail wc~uld be in front of the property~ and Robert lienninge~
explainad the equcstr(an and h(king trail would be adJacent to Santa Ana Canyor~ Road.
Annika Santalahti explained tfie petitioner is required to honci for improvements on Martin
Pl~ce in any case~ and tl~is would he added to that bond amount.
Mr. Gjersvold referred tU the bond for Hartin Place~ indlcat(ny curr~ntly there is a uond
to improve that property throu~~h the County~ and asked if it wiil I~e necessary for them to
post a bon~i wiih the Gity.
Ms. Santalahti cxplained the bond for Martin Place h~s not been posted with the Ciiy af
Anaheim and the City has no control over it whatsoever.
Chafrman Nerbst was concerned that there could be a problem concern(ng the sound
attenuatto~ along Santa Ana Canyon Road with the trail through ir..
Ms. Santalahti replied that the trail could very weli be outside the fence. She polnted
out this is a maJor trail.
Mr. GJersvold stated he wnuld post a bond to cover the tmprovements ~f the trall.
ACTION: CAmmtssioner King offcred a motion~ seconded by Ca~missioner Tolar and MOTION
~~
CARRIED, th~t the Anaheim C(ty Planning Commission has reviewed the proposat to reclassify
subJect property frum the Qrange Cau~ty 80-AR-10~000 (Agricult~ral/Reside~itlal) District
to the RS-HS-22~000(SC) (Resldential~ Single-Famil~ Nillstde•Scentc Corridor Overlay) Zone
to establlsh a three-lot, RS-fiS-22,000(SC)~ single-famTly subdivlsion with waiver of
minimum lot area on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land const+ring of approxim~tely 1.4
acres havinq a fror.tage ~f approximately 270 feet nn the southr.ast side of Sa~ta Ana
Canyon aoad~ h~ving e maxim~im depth of approxlmately 440 feet~ and being located
approximately 40b feet northeast of tt~e centerline of Mohler Drive; and does hereby
approve khe Negative Declarati~n from the ~equtrement to prepar~ an en~~ironmental impact
report on the basis that there wauld be no significant individual o~ "mu~ative adverse
2/?.b/79
b
~-
MINUTFS~ /1NAN~IM CITY PLA.I~NlNG COMMISSION, FCUftUARY 2G~ 177~ 7~-1~3
EIR_N~GATIVE 0_ECLARATION,_RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-32 AND VARIANCE 1~0. 3078 (contlnued)
envlronrnentnl {rnpacl clur_ to thc aprroval of this Negativc Gecl~ra-.lon since the Anahelm
Cenera) Plan desiynates the subJec.t prop~rty for 1-(llside estate denstty resldontlal land
uses comrnensurate wlth the prnposal; that no sensitive envlronrnentnl inpacts are involvdd
In the proposal; that tl~e Init1A1 Study submltkec~ by the petitlo~er Indicates n~
slgnfficant ii~dividual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the ~~cgative
peclarati~n s~~bstantiatiny the foreyoing findlnys is on ftle tn the Ctty of M ahe(m
Plar~nin~ Uopartn~ent.
Commissioncr Y,iny offered Rcsolutton tJo. PG7~-41 and moved for Its passage and acloptlon,
tt~at thc Anohcir~ Clty Planniny Cornmission does hereby grani Petit(on for Rccl~:ssificat~on
NO, ~~]~1~'jI~ 411h~P~t tri In~~+r~lp~~rt~ntal ~^I~1^?~CC^^_' r~comr~end3C~Of19 ~ Includ(ng thr.
add~tton to Co~ditlon N~. 1!~ that a bon~l be posted to guar,~ntee Improvemer~t of the
equestr(an anC f~iking tra(I~ and the condition that City Council Pollcy for sound
attc:nuAtion shal 1 be compl ied wi th,
On roll call~ tlie foregaing resolution was rassed by the follaving vote:
11YES: COMMISSIONERS; DAR~~E_S~ E3US11UR~~ JAVIU~ IIER~57~ J011NS0~l~ KING~ TOLAR
NQES : COMt11 SS t ONE RS : I~QNE
ABSENT: CONMISSIOtJCRS: NONE
Commissioner Kiny offered Resolution Na. PC79-42 and nx~ved for tts passage and adopt(on.
that the Anaheim City Plann(ng Corronission doe~ hereby yrant ?et(tton for Variance I~o. 3078
on the basis that there are; special circumstances applicable to th~e property, includin,
the size~ shape and tupo9raphy~ location or surroundings~ which do not apply to othe!
propertles in the same vicintty and xone and on the basis that the road easement is a
permanent easement; subject ta the condttion tl~at sound-attenuation measures in accordance
wi;n Cou~ci) Policy No. >!i2 sl;all bc complied with unless otherwise approved by the Clty
Council; and subject to Interdepartmental Gorn~~ittee recommendations.
On roll call~ tt~e foreyo(ng resolution was passed by thr. follo.ying vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DUS~~ORE, DAVID~ f~ERt3ST~ JOIItISO~I~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES : COMMI SS I ONERS : BARtJES
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: tIO~~C
Commissioner kiar~es indicate~i
breaking dc~wn the minimum squ
circumstancPS and eve~ though
least one person shoulJ go on
st3ted if the Commission does
should be revi~+ed.
her ne~ative ~ate reflected her feeling t1~at this would be
are footage in the area~ even though there are spccial
sl~e felt this would probably be a good pro,ject~ felt at
record as be i ng opposed to b reak'i ng dowrt the orr~) nance. She
not feel this is the proper square footage~ the ordinance
2/26l79
MINUTC5~ .4NAIiEIM CI'~Y PLAI~NING COMMISSION~ FE' RUl1RY 2(~~ 197~ 79-15~~
I TEN N0. 6 PUEsI 1 C f1EAR I NG. OW!~~R t CONNCCT 1 CUT MUTU~t. L I FE
R C CGQfi1GAl LXEMPTION-CLASS 1 I NSURANCF. CU. ~ c/o Keystone Mortgnge Co. ~ Property
~VE~R~F COb ~ _E ~U_ R,E_MLN Management Dept., 113~~0 West Olympic BAUleve+rd~ Sutte
~ ~IA~J~~IE PERNIT t~Q. 1~26 '2~. los Angcles~ CA ~l(tOG4. AGENTs KUANC YOU WU~
4722 S~ntlago Orivo~ Ls Palrna~ CA ~OG23. Petiti~ner
requests ON-SALk UEER AND WINE 11~ AN EXISTING
RES1'AUkN~T NITII WAIVER OF MII~IMUM NUM3Ef', OF PAHKING SPACES ~n property desc~ibed ~a an
irroyularly-shepecl parcnl of lbnd consistinq af approxim+~tely II.,7 acres located ~~rth and
west af thc northwest corncr of L• f'alme Avenuc and St~tc Collr.~c Cfouleverd~ hrvtng
appr~xi~nete frontages of 't~4 feet on the nurtl~ sicfe of ls Palme Avenue and 783 feet on the
w~ss[ side of Stale C~Ilcyc E3oul~verd, arid furthar dr.scrtbed es lAG1 North State College
doulcva~d. t'ropcrty prasr~~tly t,ie~bi i IrJ ~L (COIIi~IEFCiAI ~ L11~iiTEu) %dtiC.
There was no one tndtratlny th~tr presence in opposltton to subJect re~uest~ and elthouyh
the steff repurt to the Planniny Commtss ion dnt~d February 26~ 197~ was not reod at t~~c
public hearing, it Is refcrred to and made a part of thc min~~tcs.
Marinda You Wu, representin~~ Londcindalc Ftsh b Chips, was present to answ~r any questions.
TIIE pUBLIC NEARING WAS CIOSED.
It wes noCeu the Planniny Dtructor ur his authorizad represantatlvc has detcrmined thet
the proposed proJec.L falls withln the definitlon of Categorice) Exempt(ons~ Class 1. as
defined In parc+yrapli 2 ~f the Ctty of Anaheim Envi ronmental Impact Repurt G~~idel ines and
is~ therefore:, cateqorically exerr.p; frorn thc reyutrement to prep~re an EIR.
ACTIOtI: Coiimissloner t3ushore Off~red ~ motion~ seconded by Conxnissi~ner Barnes and MOTION
C~RRIEU, that the Anah~im City Pl~nniny Commission does I~ereby grant thc request for
waiver of ti~e Code requiren~nt on the basis that there are s~ecial circumstanccs
applieable to [he s~bJect pror ~rty~ includiny the s~ze~ shnpe~ topo9raphy, I~cat(on or
surroundlnGs~ whlch do not apply t~ other propertiea in the same vicinity and zone.
Commissioner Bushore uffered Resolution No. PC7')-43 and maved for its passage and
adoption~ that ttie Analieim Clty Planninc~ Commission does herPby grant Petition for
Conditlonal Usc Perrnit No. 192~ on tf~~ basis that the use has had ~o detrtmental effects
on the surraun~Jlny uses. a~d subject to Intcrdepartmc~ncal Corrmtttec recorimendatlons.
On roll call. the foreyoing resolutlcm was passed by the foiloNing votc:
AYCS: COhIf115S IOt~ERS : BARNES ~ BUSHORE. UAVI D, HERc~S7 ~ JOiit~SON ~ Kl I~G ~ TQLAR
NOES: C011Mi5SI0Ni.RS: IJO~~E
AI3SENT: C~MMISSICt~ERS: NONE
Commissioner Uevid asked I~ow the Commission could contr~l the number oF parking spaces at
shopping centers to prev~nt si tuatior~s such as tl~is.
Mniica Santalahti. Assistant DErector for toning~ stated the buildiny p~rmits are ch~cked
except when there is a partition planned~ and sometimes the plans do come in as interior
modific.ations; that tlie Building Oivision is aware of our concern regardtng parking and~
i n th is case ~ ass umed the p 1~ns went th rough wi thout anyone rea 1 1 z i ng wha'. was happen i ng.
She stated there is an effart maJ~ ta vet-(fy that modificatlons are consistent with the
plans.
2/2b/79
MINUTk:S~ l1N11HEIN CITY PLANNING COMhi1S5IQII, FEURUARY 2G~ 197~1 79-15~
ITEM N0. PUdLIC ~IL'ARIt~~. UWIJCItS: JUNC L. ANU KELLY M.
IE C DCCI.AR/1T10c~ NQORDHP.~l~ 17;1~ f3alfern~ Uollt'lowcr~ CA 9f17Q6.
ND 0 i iiMl N0. 19~+3 Patltloner ~equasts permisslon to EST~BLISI~ A
PFL-SC1100~_ on ;~ropcrty descr(bcd aa a ~actA~gularly-
shApad parcel of land consistlny of Approximetely
0.3 acr~ hav(n,y e frontape ~.~f approximatcly G6 feet on thr east alde ~f Knott Street~
having a maximum depth of ~pproximatc~ly 2QJ foet. baing locnCed opprpximately 5,34 feet
north of the centerlln~ of 9~11 Road~ anrl further clescrihr.d as ~10f1 South Knott Street.
Property pres~nt ly cl ass i f(ed it5-A-43.~~Q0 (RCS I QENTI AL/AGRI CI~LTURAL) ZONE. '
There was no one (~Jicatin~a the:tr presFnce in opposition t~ suhJect rnquast~ end although
the s taf f rep~rt to the P 1 r~nni ng Comrni ss lon Jated Feb ruAry 26 ~ 1779 wos not read at the
public hearing~ It Is reterred to and madc a part ~f tf~e min~~t+•
June ~~a~rdmnn~ petlttcmrr~ indicated I~er doslre t~~ establish a pre-schoc~l in an axlsting
b~,ilding. She statE.d the lice~nsiny a~c,ncy Is the OrangF County Ilcnlth Oopurtmcnt and they
are reedy ta issue a license if this permit Is ~7ranted,
TIiE PUBLIC HLARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiss loner Uavid ask«~d i f the ~ran~3e County Nea 1 th Department f~nd consl der~d the
plrysica) locat(on of the property~ partlculerly th~ aree proposed for dropp(ng off and
picking up Che ct~i 1Jren~ end Ms. Noor~rnan re~~l led she had show~ tl~em the plans.
Cwnmissloner Johnson asked t f the nei 9hb~rs had been cor~sul ted regardinq thi s proposal ~
(ndicating there was na ot~posltlon present, and Ms, tloordnan replied tt~e neighbors'
reactlon had been favor~ble and indlcated one next-dnor neighbor was present In support of
the appllcatlon. She also explalned this is a larye parcel of land~ approxlmately one-
thi rd of an acre.
Commtssioner Tolar stated his only concern was the p~ssible reactior~ to the dropping off
and plckiny up of the chlldren for ~pproxlmately one fiour In the morning and one hour in
the evening.
Ms. Naordman e~lained that the hours wauld be longer; that some child~an would arrive at
6:00 a.m. and others would arrive from 9:00 ta 1~:00 a.m.~ so that the (nfiux af traffic
is really strung out and everyone does noC arrive at the same ttme. She felt It would be
unusual fo~ more thc+n one car to be there at any one time. She explafned this -rill be a
~.hild care center and the hours are the parents' worklny hours and are not the same as
regular school hou~s.
Commissioner Johnson referred to the 66-foot~ cu~ved drlveway~ (ndtcating it would be
:.hort for drapping off the cht Idren~ and suggPsted tfie passibi 1(ty of a curb relief
similar to what busses ~~se rather than a cfrcular driveway.
Commissioner Tolar felt xhat wou1J be a dangerous precedent a~J would nut be acc~ptable
since thi, Is an arterial hiyhway~ pointiny out circulation is usually encouraged on the
property.
Ns. Noordman e+cplained the circular driveway was the suggestion of the Clty Traffic
Engineer.
Commissioner Bushore aske~i tf the two parking s~aces proposed were (n the garage and if
the gar~ge would be used for parking.
2/26/79
MINUTES ~ At1AHEIM CI TY pI.ANNI NG COMMISS 101~ ~ FEDRUARY 2b ~ 1') Jy 79' 1 S~
Ela NEGATI VE DEtLARA710N AND CA~IUITIOrtAL u5E PERNIT NO. 1943 (contlnued)
Ms. Noordmon raplled tt~e two speces arc ln front of thc yr~ra~~e and the gt+rac~R wi I1 not be
usod far parkiny,
Gommisslonar Buehorc ask~d how m~ny children per adult would be present~ and Ms. Noordman
~eplted th~at ono adult is reyuired for evcry 1?. chlldren and thcre wtll bc. 'wo ~~ three
adults p~~sant on thc premises.
Commissio~er t3ushorc indic~ted hls contern had heen w) th tha parktn~ and Ingress and
eyress~ but that he had no real problern rc~~~~rding usc of t.hc prope~ty.
AG710P1 : Cuuunis~lui~rr Tolar offcrcd a inet ~~n ~ gP~~nnd~~1 hy Comniss foner Davi d and MOTION
~U~ that the Anah~im Ci ty Planninc~ Cr~mmission has ~evlc~red the pmposal to perrnit a
p~'e-school on a rectanqularly-shaped ~arcel of land consistiny of approxirtk~tely 0.3 ecre
I-aviny ~~ frontogc of ~pproxtmstPly r~6 fept ~n the ea~t sido of Knott Street~ having a
maxtmum depth of appraximately 203 feet, an~i ba(ny tocatPd approximately 53~ f~et narth of
tlie cente rlin~ of Bal l Road; and docs hereby ap{~ruvc the: Pleqative peclaration from the
requi reme~t to prep~~re an env) rorn~~ental irpac[ rr.port on the bbsi s th~t there wnul d Ge no
aignlfica~t individual or curnul~tfve adverse envi~•onmental impact ~iue to the spproval of
tiils Negatlve Declaratinn since thc Anahcim Gene~~l Plan designetes the subJect property
for law Jens(ty residentlal land u~es commensurate ~~+ith thc prop~~sal; that no sensi tlve
environrne~ta) lmpacts are involv~' in the proposal; that the Initial Study submittad by
the petl t tontr' indicat~rs no sl~nif(cant individua) or cumulattve adverse anvin~nmental
impacts; and that thc Neg~tive Declaration substant(atln~ the fore~oiny findings is on
file tn the City of Anahetm Planntng Departrnent.
Commtssioner Tolar offered Resolution No, PC7~-~<<~ ~n~ m ~.S for its p~ssaye and edoption~
that the Anahclm C i ty P 1 anni ny Ccmmi ss ion dc>es hereby grant Pet i t lun for Condl t lona I Use
Permit No, 1943, subject to ti~e property bei~~~ substantially Jeveloped in accordanee with
plans as presented~ and subJect to lntercfenartmental Cortriittee recomme~dations.
On rol l eal l, the fureyr~i ng resolution was passed by tF~e fol lawing vote:
AYES : COI~INISS I ONERS : BARNLS ~ BUSN~RE ~ OAV I D, NERflST ~ JOHNSb`I ~ K I r~G ~ TOLAR
NOES : COMMiSS 10'~ERS : I~ONE
ABSCNT: COMMISSIONERS: 'aOf~E
ITCM N0. 8 PUbLIC fIEARIi~G. OWNERS: C. ANTHO~IY AND ESTIIER
R N ~VE DEGL~'~RAT1011 51LVA~ 1557 West Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim~ GA ~2g01.
I R OF ODE LQU1 E~'ICt~TS Petttivner reyuests perrnission to ESTAI3LI~Ii OUTDOOR
CONDITIONAL_US~ PERMIT N0. 19l+9 STORAGE OF NE1J AUTOMOaILES WITH NAIVER OF (A)
REQUI REO SET3ACK ANU ((3) REQI;I P,ED ENCLOSURE OF OUTDOOR
USES on property descriGed as a rectanyuiar ly-shaped
parcel of land cansistiny of a~prcxin~aCely 0.3 acre liaving a frc+ntage of approximately 110
feet on the south sicie of Manchester Avenue~ havin,y .~ maximu~ depth of approximate ly 131
feet. be ing located approximately 90 feet east of tl~e centerl ine of Loara Street. and
further t~esr,ribed as 273 North Manchester Avenue. Property presently classified ML
( I NDUSTR IAL, LIM' TED) ZONE.
There was no one Indicating thef~ presence in opposition to ~ubject request~ and although
the staff report to the Planning Commission dated February 26~ 1779 was not re~d at the
public hearing, i t is ~eferred to and made a part of the minutes.
Tom Buntin stated the avner of Anahelm Subaru had purchased the property where the body
shop and yara~a are located and that there is a Int of parking. He explained
2/26/79
MII~UTCS~ ANAHLIM CITY PLANNING COM11155ION~ FEQRUAaY 2(~~ 197h ~7"~~?
EIa NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDiT10NAL USE PER141T N0. 1~~+4 (continucd)
approxlmatoly six tlmes o year they gat a boatlaaJ of Subarus from Japan and hove been
parkt n,y the new automob ( les on tl~c pr~{-crty beh i nd tl~o sorvl c~n depa rtment ~ but that i t I s
muddy tl~ere and now wl th tliis exGess pArkinc~. they decided to perk th~srn on 'rmttQ~+ndnnow
refll i ztng 1 t was 1 l legal. Ne statcd they ha~l f I led for a condi tional us~ ~
the stuff ropart rer.ommends that street lightiny be Nald and it Jusz does not make scnse
for them ta pay ubre mc.~ney~ an~i he did noi think l lqhting would hel p, He stated they
could pa~kntL~1cCbA~ tshop.if Ilehstated there aretnomauta~obilesethercaat the~presentQtims~e
repa i re 1( Y
and that the n~xt I uad wl I 1 be t n 1 n March.
Chal rmrn Nerhst stated the I ight f ny fGe is e standarcl procedure wh i ch yoNs wi th al l
permtts snd thc lights may a'.reacty have ber.~~ Naid for~ an~.~ 1Ark Whi tA. DeputY City
Attorney, explained there was nu r~ccrd ~e fee was ever paid.
Mr. Duntin stateJ if this Is a requlrc~i~~ent~ they riill Just ht+ck off and ~ark the vehlclas
up front because this would c~st $3~`i• f~e stated they have ~oom on their lot~ but wanted
t~ use thf s area because they have to move the vehlcles around whe~ tfie service department
is very busy.
Commissloner ~u~ffmlt isadesired~,`thehfees~wi~ilpbevlncluded.t~HeCStatedrhe~washnatrupposed
stated i f the p
to the use.
Jack White ex{~lai~~eJ theandrthe applicantymaytchoose,not tc~ exerci scnthe aermltwwhich~y
be the paymen[ of fees~
means it would be t~rmin~~ted.
Annika Santalahtt ~ Assistant DI rsctur for Zoning, explaineG the Ci ty wi 11 rP.~uest Lhe
1 ighting fees i f anythl ns! is done to the property in term~, ~~` otF>~._r usc ror',ni ts or a
bui lding pernit; that It is a or :e-only fee which has neve:r bern _-ald and ~tiar,~:~ ~r later
the property will be charged for it.
Chairman Nerbsl statec~ Al) properties that are developed in Lhe Ci ty uf Ana':eim pPy f~r
lighting and thP fPe< <'o (~+~rease.
Mr. Eiuntin stated he did not un~+~rstand about the slatting in the fonce becausr the
proper*.y 1s used for a parking 1c~t for the yar•ag~ and body shop.
Cortimissioner Bushore stated tt~e slattiny would be requlred and asked about the garaqe to
the south of the property~ and Mr. Buntin replied that p~~perty i S leas~d by someone else,
and Commissioner B~~share asked if a conditiona) u5e permit was reyuired for that use. He
stated the Cortxnissioi~ would l ike to see the property owner use th Iy property as I~e desi res
and is not trying to put him througi~ anythiny.
Mr. Buntin stateJ he realiz~d that, but it Is just the ldea that they have the prcaperty
wtiich is never used wi th 15 or 20 vacant parkiny spaces and that they want to be able to
put 20 or 3~ cars tt~ere for two or three days unti l they can get them processed through
the shop~ and with their rate of travel at 4Q to 80 cars per mo~th, the cars would not be
the~e any longer than a week. He stated they only have cars on that location five or six
t i mes a year.
Commissioner Toiar stated Anahand hebwould nottsupportethe use i~,those4feespwerehe
lighting fee sooner or iate ,
el iminated. He stated he has ~o objection to the use~ but that ~creentng is r-equi red on
2/26/79
MINUTES~ A'~IWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ FEf3RUARY 2G~ 1~7~ 79~1~~
EIR NCGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERFIIT N0. 1~4 (cc~ntin~ .,:~
all outdoor storac~e in Anahelm and this petltfoner Is cmly bein~ e~sked tn do whet everyonc
else has to do.
Commissioncr l3ush~re stated there has been e b(r~ investma~t in Chc rroperty and polnted
out this would be beneflcia) tu the prope~ty and would protect that investme~nt.
Mr. Buntln steted he c~uld take the cers gcross thc street and rent s~ACP In an lndustrlal
COf11p I C X~
Cha(rman tiCrbst su~~~e5te~i approvln~ the reryuhst subJect to the condltfons as proposed and
i f tha appl ( cant d~~es ~~ot wen t to pay the fee, f.hen the perml t c.~n be termi neted.
AG710N: Commissiuner Barnes offered a ~rot(on, seconde~i by Commissi~ner Klnq and MOTION
~AfiRTU, tt~at tlie Mahelm City Planniny Comm(ssl~~n has revtrwed the prap~sal to permlt the
autcioor storage of new autonx~bi les wi ch waiver of requi red sethACk t~ncl rPqul red enclosure
of outdoor uses on a rectan~~ularly-shAped porcel of land consist(nc~ ~f appr^c~xim~tely 0.3
acre having a frontage of Appr~xlmately 11Q feet on the south side c~f MancheRter Avenue~
haviny a maximuri clcptti of ap~roxlmately 131 fect~ and being located :+pproxlmately 9~ feet
east of the centerline of Loara Street; and does hereby approve the Plega[ive Declaration
from the requirement t~~ pr~~arc an environ~nental (rnpact rarort on the Gasls that there
would be no s(~nificant indivlJua~ or cumulative adverse environn~entai impact due to the
approval of [his Negative Declar~tion since the A~al~eim General Plan desic~nat~s the
subJect property for ye;neral industrlal land uses commensur,~t«~ wlth the proposal; that no
sensitive onvironn~:ntal ir*~acts are inv~lved In che proposal; that tt~e Inltial Study
submltted by the petitlon~r indicates no sic~nifi~.ant individual ar cumulative adverse
eiivironrnental Impacts; an~i thr~t the Negative Ueclaracion substantiattng the foreqotng
ftndings is on file in the Ci~y of Anaf~eirn Planniny Gepartment.
Cortxnissioner Barnes off~r~cl a motiori, second~~~ by Commissionr.r Tolar an~i MOTIOIJ CARRIED,
that the Mal~eim C I ty P ~ anni ng Commi ssic~n does heret:y grant wai ver (a) for the requ) red
setb~ck on tf~e basis tl~at oth~r pro~ertles in the area are set back anci deni~l would be
deprlvirig subject pro~er[y of a privi le~ac beiny enjoyed by uthers in the same vicinity and
zone~ and denylny waiver (b) f~r required enclosure of outckior uses on the basis that
there are no unique circu.~stances .~p~licabie to the propArty, incluuin~ size, shape~
topography ~ locat ic~n or s a~rroundi n~3s ~ wh i ch ~o not a~pl y to [he prope rty.
Comm(ssl~ner barnes offered Resolution Na. PC7~1-45 an~i moved for its passage and adoption,
tliat the A~ahelm City Pla~ininy Co^imissian c1~es hereby qrant Petition for Conditional Use
F'ermit No. 1y~~9~ in part, to permit the storaye of 'L~ new automobi les, subJect to
Interdepartr-ental Committer. reconnrx~nciations.
On roll call~ the fore~oi ng resolution was passed by the follawing v~te:
AYES : COMMI S51 ONERS : BARNES ~ BUSIiORE ~ DRV I D, HERDST ~ JONI~SON ~ K I NG ~ TOLAR
NOE5 : COf1Ml SS I ONERS : ~dONI'
ABSEtJT : CUMMI SS I OIIERS : NONE
Jack White, Ueputy City AtC~rney~ presented the petitioner with the wrttten right to
appea) any part of th~ P lanning Commiss(on's decisfon within 'l2 days to the City Council.
2/26/79
MINUTCS~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNI~~G CONMISSION~ FEbRUARY 2G~ 1;~79 ]q-~;y
I TCf1 t10. 10 PUOI.I C I~EARI P~f,. ONI~LR: COFISF.RVATI VE BAPT I S7 A5S~C.
E C CGU~ICAL EXC11PT10~1-CLA55 11 OF SOl~T11ERN CALIFl1RNIA~ 2;2~i West La Palma 11v~nue~
11AtIC , j07, AnAheln~ CA 9?.~t)1. AGEYT: F~ ANK E. KENIIE:DY, 252~
West La Palrn+a Avenuc, Annheim~ CA ~)2f~01. P~titluner
rc~~ue~s ts WAI V!: R OF PL R111 TTC'~ S I ~,t~5 TO RETA I N T~10
CXI:~iI~IR SIGt~S 11t1U IN5Tl1LL A TtIIRU Str,w an propc;rty dcscrlucd as n rectanuulnrly-shc~ped
p.~rcel of 1nnJ eonsistin~ ~~f approximetely U."L acre havliig a fr~nta~e~ ~f approximetely 7~
feet on the south side uf Lt~ Palmr~ Avr.nue, haviny a moximum Jepth of apprax(rnately lsl~
feet~ balny located approximately 770 feet e~st ~f tf~e ceiiterl ine of Mac~~ol IA Avenue~ ai-d
further descrlbccJ ~~s 2~2:5 WN~:r. La Palme Avenuc. Pro~~rrty pres~ntly cless(fied RS-A~~+3~OOU
(Rl:S I DEI~TI AL/AGR I CULTURAL) ZCtl~l.
There was no dnc (ndicatin~~ thcir ~rrs~rnce i~ oppositi~n ko subject r~~uest~ and although
the staff rcpcrt to the ('lannin~; Ccrir;(s;lc,n d~.~d Febru.~ry 2G, 1^,;^ was not read at ihe
publlc liearing. it is referreJ t~ ancf rn~de a part of thc m~nute5.
Mark Holbrouk~ 1JUt; No~th Glenvie~~~ !-naheim, mana~~Ar nf the ~onserv~~tivc 8?-rt~st Credit
Unlon, explained there are twa siqns extstin~ on the bulldin~ which have been therc• sincc
ly~Jl and apparently no vari.in~e w~s grante~ for ltiose siqns; that Conditional Use Fermlt
No. 11~33 was yrante~ in May uf 1~1J~ for an ad~1t[fonal ;~)~n squ~re fcet to the exlsti,~g
church ~ffice and a varianc~ shc~uld have l,een re~uested at tnat time for the slyn. IIc
st~tec! thE~y are requesttny approval of an a~iditional siyn f~r the acidition whicli f;as
just been compi~tcd,
TIIE PueLIG NE~PI~~r, WA; CLnSEU.
Commiss(oner Davla asked if all the clien;s of che cr~dlt ur,ion are memhers of the church~
and Mr. Holbrook explalneJ they are n~eml~ers of the Southern Qaptist Churches in the
western Unitecf States ana the credic uni~n services np~roximately h~~ church~s and the
~'~ssoelation has about 1~~) ehurches.
~-~nissioner Uav(d asked if cust~n~ers w~uld be caminq to the credit unton who are not
acryualnted wlth tt~c esiablishn,~nt and asked if tl~e cred(t uniun wauld be drawinn people
f rom tf~e s t ree t to c~n~e I n an c1 ue~oy i t thc i r money .
Mr. Holbrook expl~~ined they draw fr~~m a closed mer~bership and over one-h;,lf of Che
rne-rbcrship comes frorn thc imr+x~~iate yreater Southern Cal(fornia area and they have a
~eas~nablF arr~ount of people GOinl~lq to thc ~ffice.
~ommiss(oner Uav(~ asked if the purpose of the siyn would be Just to let those cllents who
!~avr never been to the office before know where they are located.
Mr. Holbrook stated the primary reason would be t~ !~c people know where they arp lacated;
that they do h~~ve a I of people asking if this is the creJit union office~ po(n;ing out
they have an exist(r •,,-,~11 si~~n in tlie winduw. ~le p~~inted out [he design of the bui iding
and ttie addi[tonal sign would make it appear belanced~ r~ith the association siyn on one
side and t!~e credit union sign on the othe~ ;(de.
Commissinner Tolar asked if ti~e cre~it unior; is par; of tl~e Ghurch, and Mr. Ilolbrook
replled the credit union serves tE~e samc pen{+le.
Commissic~ner ~'olar aske~i if the credi't unio-~ f~as the same tax-free status as the church~
and Mr. Nalbrook replied th~t the credit union pays property taxes on the partlon of the
building which they use an~i ttie ct~urch does not pay taxes.
2J26/79
~
111 NUTC ~~ A~~AHC I M C 1 TY PLAN~~ I NG COMM I 55 I ON , FEI~RUAKY 26 ~ I ~ 7`.i 79' 1 UO
EIR GATCGORICAL EXLMI'TIQN-CLASS 11 AND VARIANC~ N0. ~074 (continued)
Commissioner Tolar fndicate~l he f~lt th(s Is a cUmrnercial VUS~1ICSY. Ne stated tha
Commisslon has been tryin~, to ellminate the cxcr.sslve vi~latlons c~f the Slgn Ordlnanc~ and
there are a lot of businessc:s whlch would like to have iarqer end r~~or~ signs. Ne dld not
faal signs make th~ business tiiet muc:h better ~nd thAt the ~~~ople wh~ can-~ tnio the credtt
unlon k~ow of Its existence and he did n~~t sc:e tlie purpose for thc si~n. He stAt~d he
ra~~~errbered when the conditional use perr~(t w~s rPquested for [he church offlces. signln~~
was dlscussed ~~n~l no a~idittonal st~~ns were proposecf ~t tl~nt time; in fnct~ ne th~ur,ht he
rer~ienbered the cllent liaci stin~tatc:d therc wr~uld be nn additional si~lnlnc~, Ile stated he
fQlt thc City ~~f /1~a1~c1~ Si~n Ordinence is very libcral and lie did not see th~ ne~ed f~r
additl~nal siynine~ and tli~~t tt~is Is a coim~ercl~l bu,(ness no Jifferent th~n ~~ny other
commerci~l busin~ss.
Mr. Holbrook stated it was their oriqinal Intent to pl~cc enc~ther sl~n on the wall when
the condttlona) use permit wns requested~ end he di~i nat knc~w wlieth~~r ar nat thc appllcanC
stirui~ted therP w~ulci k~e no addltlonal slgning. 11e further indlcaked thPy were ~c.~t aaere
a veriance wou1J be necPSSary f~r the slyning.
Cortim(ssloner Tol~r stated he probably wc,uld iIOL IiAVf. supnorteJ the reauest for the
original conditional us~~ permtt if additio~ I sl~ning had becn propo9ed.
Mr. Holbrook expl.~lned ev~n thaugh th~ area ls zoned reslclentiAl~ it is almc~st enf.lrely
commercial and (ndus[rlal along La Palma and no residents wc~uld be ablr tc- 5ee the sican,
Conxniss(oner ~arnes sta[ed the CoJe allows onr. 2~)-square foot sign end tt~err. are ~lr'e~dy
tw~ existing ~~-square fc~at ~i~~ns~ and ncnv the re~uest is for an additionai si~n which is
ehovc and beyund what has bee~ ~~ranted to ochers. She stated she did mot se~ haw thls
s(gn could be necessary ar-d was not i~ favur of ornntinq tlie~ veri~nce.
Mr. Halbrook asked how this siqn would be consldcred det~imental ond steted he th~ugkit tt
wauld be compatiblc with the area.
Cortmiss(oner Elarnes stated the siyn would be detrimental because thr.re t~re sa many signs~
and explalned tiie reason for the Stqn Ordinance ls because of the mRny r~nuests for larger
and rmre s i qns .
Mr. Nolbrook aske~d if the Commission would consider allowing tt~em [o ~liminate the sig~
faeing La Palma anil addin~~ the credit uniun sign. ile patnted out therc are .umero~s siqns
In the area.
Commissioner Tolar asked the purpnsG of the sign~ pointing out the crcdit union hp~ :
locked-(n client~le~ and unless they are t~ytny to attract a different c1ientele, he couia
not understand their objectives.
Mr. Nolbrook steted *.hey need the sign for those people who are cominy to the credit union
for the first tin~e.
Conanissio~cr I~ushore stated the Commissiori h~d recently denieJ a request to permit a
church (n a~ industrial zone an~ indicated he would not suhport thi~ rr.quest becaus~ this
is a commercial use in a church zone.
Mr. Nolbrovk sta~ed a credit union and church are synonymaus as tF~ey serve the same
clientele.
Commissioner Davtd stated slnce they serve the same clientele, the sign is not needed
because the cllentele would know where the church is located.
2/26/79 I
..... ~
MINUTES~ ANANLIM C17Y PLAIJNING COMM15510N~ FE~aUARY 26~ 197N ')~-161
~1R C~T ~GORIC~L EXEMPTION-CLA5S 11 AF~D VARIANCE N0. 3079 (contlnuod)
Mr. Nolbraok statecf all thc Gred(t unlon members do not necessArily helona t~ this
particular church, tndic~tin~~ ef~ey serve othe~ churches in the denominetlon.
Annika Santalahtl~ Assi~tant Direccor for lontng~ explained Code would ellc~w only one 20-
SquAfP foc~t sic~n. Sh~ furthcr ex~lained thc, Code spnciflcally strtes if Chc use ls
oppro~.~d Ir conjunction wfth a Gonditlonnl use permit and is allawed by ~Igl~t in s~me
other zone~ that huildinq slso has the rights~ whether ~r not mcntloned in the conditlonal
use permit~ t~ the sic~niny of tl~e ~ther zonc and~ (n thts Instance, th~ corporate offices
diJ cane In tn connectlon witf~ the cl~urch and thAt is why str+ff made a dectsion th~+t this
ls nnt uxactly an office bulldir~q, She p~InteJ out they could rezone this ~~roperty tc~
uxnne~cirl an~l then wc~uld have th~ ri~aht to commerciel siqniny.
Chalrman Merl~sc A3k.P.d whethcr c~r nut the peti,lonr.r c~ulJ eliminate slyn N~. 1 and use
s i~~n N~s . Z an J~.
A~n(ka Santalahti stated that tt~e existinq slgns are 1~-square fcr.t CACF1 .~nc~ only one 2Q-
square foot siyn woulc~ t~e al lc~wed by CoJe. She explained if thP prorerty were zaned
tommerclally, Chey woul~l l~c allowed siqning t~ 2~7, ~f each buildinc~ wall.
Chairman 1lerbst statcd tl-ese signs are small con~are~i to comMerciAl st~ns~ but he did nAt
rcmember an outsl~te credit union hcing mentloned when the arfginal conditional use permit
was requesteci an~l f~~lt tt~is Is actually crcatln9 a business.
Commisstoner Johr~s~m st~ted tl~ese credit unions are prone to be identified with churches
btcauSr. ~f th~ cl ientclc tliey serve~ but th~t they are private corporations anci are In no
way cannecteJ witn the church except that they cJn get their busl~ess from the church; that
they are a dlffrrenC entity dnd should be dealt wit-~ as a business.
Mr. Holbrook state~f the credit union is a non-profit buslness crx+~prised of church members
only and all profits yo back to the rr~mbers~ but that it Is not governed by the church.
CoRmissionpr Tolsr asked if any persons other then r+ churcti member could became a member
af the c~edit union~ and Mr. Nolbrook replied that they could not, a~d explalned they are
ga~verned by the State of California Departmcnt of Corp~rations.
It was noted the Planning Uirec:tur or his authorized repre4entative has determined that
the propose~ proJect falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions~ Glass 11~ as
defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Anah~im Environmental In~act Report Guidelines and
is~ therefore, cateyoricaily exen~t from the requirem.nt tu prenare an EIR.
Commissioner Bushore stated he as ready to offer a resolution for denial on the basis
that permltted signing would be one sign and they alre~~dy have two signs and he felt that
woufd be more than sufficient, and added he felt thts is a cortKnercial use for the property
which he d(d not think needs to have any more pcople drawn to it,
Chainnan Herbst ~ske~J what tl~e status of tl~e existtng signs would be if the vartance (s
den(ed, and Robert Mienninge~~ Assistant Planne~, explaincd if the variance is denfed~ they
wtll be permltted one 20•foot sign and the existtng sigr-s are 2h-squarp feet each.
Mr. Holbra,k stated this had been d(scussed aith staff at length and there was a questlan
whethe~ or nat a varience would even be necessa ry. He questioned how the existfng signs
were ever alla,ed in the first place.
Jock White~ Deputy City Attorney~ explaine~ building permits were issuad for the sxisting
signs.
2/26i7y
MINU'fkS. ANAMEIM GITY PLANNING CQMMISSI(1N~ FEBRUARY 26~ 197~ 79'162
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS il AND VARIANCE NQ, 30Zi (co~tinued)
.__._~. --
Commisslnnar Bushare indicated he would offer r~ resolution t~ allvw the two existinq 28-
sq uere foot slgns and de~Y the r~squested third sign.
M~. Ilolbrook asL:ed (f they could be permitted to move the sihn facin!~ Le~ Palm~~ and
Commissioner gushore In~iicated he would not affer the mc~tion If th~t si~n is to be moved.
CI~Atrman Herbst addec+ th~t th~ words "credit union" could he adde:d lo tt~e~ existin~ sign.
Jack Wh(te clarifled that the capy on the slan could he changcd.
Mr. Nolbr~ol. as~<eci why Cortwnissloncr Bushore would ohJect to thc si~n heina moved from
facing ~a Palma to thp si~~ .-f rhA h~~i1~11n~~~ ~+nd Commissioner Bushure reolled bec~use of
whaC ls existing; tt~nt morr. siqnin~ Is exlstlnp than Is allc~we~i and mor~ than he would
normally support, an<1 added that he is +~ stronq ndvocate of IC54 signinq iri the City and
for more beAUtliication~ whethcr it be for a church~ credit union~ day school~ etc.. an~!
very seldom would h~ ever support a variancc from thr. Sign Ordtnance.
Mr. Nalbr~ok incitcated he w~s wondering about the logic and explained he Is not a~kirg Ror
morr. si~ns, but simply osking to bal~ncc tlic sic~ninq.
Co-m~l ss i onc r Bush~re siated he h~s seen the s i gns anc! that thc~y ore qoodl o~k f no s i~r~!~ and ~
in his opinlon, look better ~pread a~art.
Commissloner Johnscro st~~ted it seems the petitioncr is yettin~ a lot r>f a~,im~sicy from the
Comrnlssian because of the twa existlnr~ si~~ns an~i ~eminded tr-e Gomnission the church could
go ahead and rezone thc pr~perty to co~mxerclal and put up laraer s(c~ns thar~ the extstfng
sic~ns~ and h~ thau~h[ the Commisson should be negotiable.
Chairman Nerbst stated the si~~r~s are reasonably smAll and on .~ buildtn^ c~f this sizt are
hardly noticeable~ and statcd he wauld support the rrsalutlan t~ aliciw the two existing
signs~ but thougtit they should be allvwed to move onr sia~ tf they desire.
ACTIOIJ: Cammissioner 6u~horc offered Resolut~on No. PC7~~--+6 and moved for its passa9~ and
a~tTon~ tliat the Anahei~n Clty Plannin~ Co~tssion d~es hercAby grant Petitlon for
Variance No. ~'~79~ ~n pArt, to permit the existtnq two 23-square foot siqns on the basis
that denial woul~i de~rivc thts property ef a prlvilege enJoyed byotherProperties in [he
sarie vicinity anci zone and permitLin~ the si~~n identified Aa si<~n No, 1 on Exhiblt No. 1
facing La Palma to be relocated to ttie west sldr_ Af the builcllnq~ and denying ihe request
for the proposed third siryn on the basis that there are no unique circegnstances a~ppllcable
to subject property, and subJect to Interdepartmental Conx~iittee recommendations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the followtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BUSHORE~ DAVID~ NER9ST, JOHNSO~~~ l:ING, TOL11R
NQ~S: COMMISSIONCRS: NONE
A~SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Jack White presenteci !I~e petitioner with the wrltten right to appea) any partion of the
Planning Corm~ission's decision wlthin 22 deys to the City Council.
2/26/79
MINU7E5~ ANA~IEI11 GITY PLANNlNG COMMISSION~ FEf3RUARY 2G~ 1~79 19'~~3
ITEt1 N0. 11 Request fc~r ap~raval of resmoval of 1Q aCeclmen
E 11~VE DECLARATIQI~ trees in order to construct a tennig court on
" - approxlmately 1.~ ac~e at !,2~ Peralte Hills~ Drlve.
There werP seven persons tndic~tinq thelr prr.sence in oppns(ti~n to sub)ect r~quest~ and
although the staff report to the i'lanninn Commisstan dated Fehruary 2~~ 1~7`1 was not read
at the pubilc hearin~~~ lt Is ref~rred to ~~nd made A pnrt ~f thc r~inutes.
Chsirman Herbst stated he understood there is ~~ l~t of animoslty involvecl In this itsue~
but that the Planntn~ Commiss(o~ Is only goinn to c~nsl~ier tl~r.. removAl of 10 specimen
trees an~ any comments int~~ th~ pcrsonal issues will nnt he heord.
Dr. Nawerd Garb~r~ ll~r, p~:ti[lor~cr~ t~ls wlfc~ Jcon, ~nd nttorney~ Dav~ Aht, w.ro rrPa~ni,
and Ur. Garber s[ated Jan flall~ Secretary nf the NI11 and Cenyon Municip7l Advls~ry
Committce (NACIIAC)~ had been out to the pronerty on several o~casions and would hrve
appearRd ~n hls bchalf but hau to att~~n~J a meNtinq in Santa Ana~ but t~ac1 lnd(cated she
would appear at any futurc fiearinc~s tf It would be nPCessary. ~le st~ted thts Issue
basicelly has developecl as ktnd of an on~oine~ tliln~ and Lhat reference was made to
anirrpsittes thot hnvc been createJ by thelr attcmpt to devclop their property in a
particular manner~ anJ tt~at !~e wAntcci to avoid tl~~se issues. t~e stated the issue here ts
clear and s(m~le: [hEy hive a ve ry ur-usual strip of 18nd ~nd patd ovrr 5100,~0~ fnr thts
acre whlch Is opposite their res(dence and that rn~st of it is in the berrenca; thAt Is~
tl~e b~+rranca borders the cestern part all tt~e way down [hc property And tt is a very
narrow scri~. He statpd that right on the edqe of the barrance slde thGrz is a 1(ne of
eucalyntus trees and lie I~~s rh~togr~phs of the ~ite. tte statpd this ts a wtde berrance~
probably 65 to 7Q fect wide in c~~rtain arc~s~ and very deep, pr~bably 45 to 5~ feet daep
in certain ~~reas. Ne stated he has a pmpused qredin~ plan from lln~cal i:ngtneering which
gives tlie Lopographic information and shc~ws the trees.
Dr. Garbcr referred t~ the water situation because thcre were references at the NACMAC
meetiny relatinq to th+e drainage throuc~h the barranca~ whlch is an extraneous issue~ but
polnted out tl-at there had been a heavy rain last v+eek and h~ had inspected the barra~ca
and it essentially carrie5 no water. He St~ted the Lusk development had constructed water
transfers ar guttcrs that cArriec' khe water the other way. He referred io the ~rel(mina ry
gradinq pl~n which h~~d been pre.sent~d to NACMAC showing the llne of eucalyptus trees and
the fact that they are nat par~ilel with the w ay the r~roperty runs and ar~ at a diagonai
acroas the property. I~e refe~red to th~e grading plan looking east to the cul-de-sac which
is the beqinnir~y of his property and ~ointeri out hts nelghhors have an easer~ent for the
use of the turn-around. He pofntec! out the strfp of prope~ty bordering on the west and
the proposed recessed~ lighted tennls court or recreatlonal area whicli will be used for
basketball, etc.~ plus the area in the back which will be developed. Ile stated the tennls
court could be utilized by their family ar.d the residents of the propo~ed residence.
Chairman Nerbst asked if there wuuld be a retaini~g wall around the area~ pointing out it
looked like a s~vimming pool when he had viewed the site.
Dr. Garber replicd there would be a retafning wali. lie explaineci the slte has been
drained, but that rhe gr.adcr had made one portion a It[tle deeper and it should have be~en
level~ but it would drain nff inta the barranca.
Dr. Garber pfllr~ed ou; in the I'eralta Hills area many~ many tennls courts have been
developed and same ar~ currently being developed. He stated Jan Hall has tfie figures on
the number of perm'ts issued for cutting trees, so he did not think tF~ey woul~ be setting
any precedent. Ne presented a district map and pointed aut the two parcels with a p~ivate
roadway going through which gives access to the res6dents and his nefghbor, Mr. Joseph~ to
2/26/79
MINUTES~ A~IAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEORUARY 26~ 1979 /y-If,4
FIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - ~23 PERALTA HILIS Qa11L (continued)
---~----~..,-_ ~
tho ~oar. fle stated this Is one~ long percel anci more thrn half of it Is In the berr~nce~
so it Is difflcult to develop. Ne polnte~l ~ut the hi~her qround where the propose~:
res i cience woul d be lnok ing dc~wn on tha recossPd tenn ( s court and Todd f3rown's property
which Is b~:ing devcl~pcd (rm~ediat~ly to hls west and tndtcatr~i thPy had ;eke~n dawn
approximatc:ly 20 to ?.5 euc~lyptus trees. He stAted he hed a~t+eAred before the Council
oppasing that matte~ bacause the lusk developmFnt h~ci ~areded on ille~al~ steep cliff~
which has yct t~ he dealt wttl~, ancf th~+t those eucalyptu3 tr~e ~o~ts held that hill ir~
place. He indicated th~y h.~ve hed threr. or four mud slides~ one recently~ sfnce the trees
wcrc removed. Ne stetcd his m~in c~h)ection at that r.ime was th,it the eucalyptus tr~es
provided securlty In terms of lioldin~ the hill In plmce beca~is~ they wcre rlyht b~:low It~
and there was ~ swimmin~~ pool obove~ them whi~l~ ~drrie:~ aNNroximately h;,0~^ 9allons of
water and he w~5 conr.ern~d Chat the hlll would glve way and all the wat~r would end up In
his back yard. He stated a reprasentAt(ve of tf~e Enaineerinc~ Department ha~1 been out to
sec tht property and he has photo~araphs of the are~, nn~l thAt the c~n5trur.ti~n ha~i s(nce
been complete~l with a larye retalninca wall cJiverting ~~il tl~e wat~r down.
Chatrman flerbst puinted out tc~ Dr. Garber ttiat he was qettinn aff the sub,Ject of the
re~~ioval of these 10 treas.
Dr. ~Garber lnciicat~~d he was dlscussing this matter only because the cucalyptus trees were
cut cbwn and nothinc~ was ever donc to Mr. T~dd Brc~wn anci it places h(m in a very dlfflcult
situatlon. He stated no pcrmit was obtai~ed and the inJtvidual was not cited and a
rPpresentotivs of ti;e City Att~rney's Office and the City Council had indtcate~l It Is n
difficult thinq to enforce. Ilc felt hi~ situation is a~oad exanmie of selective
enforcem~:nt and pointeci~~ut on the corner of S[rad~ and Peralta N(lls Road~ at least 15
eucalyptus trees were cut clc~;m alongside their prnposeci tennis court and no ~ollce cars
were out and n~ citations were ~aiv~n and no issucs werf raise~i. }1e stated th~y were not
cut to 10 feet, but t~ '~ or ~ feet, and they never qr~v beck and were stumpeci. He stated
he had made it ve ry clear ~~t the HACMAC meeting And to the pollce officers who came out
and to Mr. and Mrs. Bell that he was merely topping tf~e trees as others in the area had
done~ p~rticule~ly th~se who are developtnq tennis courts, Ile stated he felt pers~nally
ther~ is a vendetta here,
Cli~irman t~erbst stated thc netitlon~r was getting into something he did not want to hear
and that he could either talk about the trees or the hearing would be closed.
Dr. Garber stated ttiat the trees whicl~ were remc~vecl on Strada Place wo~~ld be photographed
and he could present that at a later Plannin~~ Lo~ronission mcetin~. 11e pointed out that
further dor~n on Crescent they were in •'~c process this mornin? of Gutting tt~etr trees to 8
ta 12 feet riyht alon!~side the tennis cr~urt where Crescent ryoes ir.to ^~ralta Nifls Urive.
He stated khcre were no police cars thcre an~~ ~:f~is did not hit tlie front pages of the
Anaheim Dulletln~ so evidentiy tl~ere are no c~b,iections to athers doing what he t~as done,
and stated again he cansidered this selectlve ~snforcemenC of a ~ertlcular ordinance.
Dr. Garbe~ stated the issue is~ as he sees it~ cioes a homeawner have tiie right to develop
propert~~ in a reas~nable and acceptable ~~ay in the terms of the Jesign if he has promised
to rep~ace those trees taken out? He stated l~e had t.old Mr. Christensen who had attempted
to be a peaGemaker that he would pruvide a br~n~ to back up his promise that he wiil
replace ~ot only each a~c1 every one of those :t•e~es~ b ut would put in a few more because
they were ir~egulArly placed. He stated he and Mr. Christensen had attempted to dl~cuss
the matter with the E3ells, but they w~re noc home on Saturday, an~i Mr. Christensen did nat
get back +to him, so eviciently they did not want to diseuss it in an informal way. He
stated apparently the remai~ing tree.: are alsa an issue because the neighbors feel they
ere going to be sneaky and start topping those to 20 feet. Ne indicated Jan Nall had said
20 feet was the averaye for topping trees and that they grc~w back with a lush growth, but
2/26/79
MINUtES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ FEDRUARY 2G, 1979 79'1~5
~IR NEGA7IVE DECLARATION - 523 PERAL,TA HIIL D_,~(_,I~,E_ (continued)
~__.,
thc nQlghbors fccl this Is thelr flrst ste~ In r~n~vln~ thes~ trees. He exp atned thet
thd band would cover thosc trRes and they will nat be removed. Ho st~ted the anly reason
they went the trees removed is to develop e full-size tennls court~ ancf pointecf out thn
trees to be removed on the ~+lan.
Or. Garb~r indlcated tree exp~rts who heve becn out to Ja thls work hacJ sald e clood number
of troes arc derd and some are cl(seASed and should have been rc:rnoved a lonq time a9o
becAUSe they can lnfect tt~e other trees. Ile stated he wished to strPSS ~gain that he was
prepared to write r~ check fur i band to back up his pr~~mise tliac hr_ wlll replace every
tree, And he has Indic~ted directly and indirectly tc~ Mr. E3e1! that he w~uld contribute to
Mr. 8~1) plantinc~ trecs on liis sidc of t~ic barranca. Ile stA[ed Mr. tiell h~d been there
far lonycr then he~ and he did nut knaw why~ if h~ wAnted tf~is trPe bArrier~ he did nnt
plant eucalyptus +:rces himsplf on I~is sidc. fln fclt ~ssentlally Mr. UQ11 wants t~ use his
~roperty and the pxisting trees as a barrter. Ilc! stat~d h~e would be happy t~ contrll,ute a
~e~~sonable amount to the plantin~ of trces on Mr. Hell's siJe of the barranca and that he
will ret~lant every onr. af hts trees. Dr. Garber presented photagrrphs of the site to the
Commisslon.
Commisslaner ~ushnre asked Jan Nall's position~ and CF~a(rman Herbst explained that she is
a member of HACIIAG and that she Is an insurance a~ent.
Dr. Garber explained that Jan Hall had SAIt~ she had cut a number of trees on her property
in 1g74 to that short heic~ht and s(nce then they have been toppAd once end i~~ed to be
topped agatn.
Ch3irman Nerbst indic~~ted he realized thax in order for eucalyptus trees ~o be safe they
need to be toppeJ, and Dr. Ga ~ er added they do c~me back with lush grc~wtfi after th~y have
been topped.
Davld Joseph, 5.'_~ Peralta Nills Urive~ Anaheir;, indicoted he lives next door to subject
property and he wc~ulci ltke to discuss tfie yeneral development of this property and the
overall plan.
Jack Whlte~ Deputy Gity Attorney~ explaine~i that the Planniny Commission is mcrely
dlscussir,c~ thc removal of the crees.
Nr. Joseph stated he diJ not see hc~w they could talk about the tree removal for the
purpose of a tennis court unless they looked at the overall n1a~ for development of the
lot. Ile explained if the tennis court is constructed~ the only access to the proposed
home sfte wil) be over his (Mr. Joseph~s) prapertv and he ;iid not see how the Commission
could dis cuss one thing wtthout the ~ther.
Jack White stated tt~e Piannl~g Commisslon is not going to adJudtcate property rights here
today as far as access goes; that they will only bt discussina whether o~ not the
petittoner should be allowe~ to remove 10 eucalyptus treas.
Mr. Joseph stated the purpose of removal of the trees is for butlding a tennis court, and
Jack Nhite indicated that has nothiny to do with access rights or any other type of
development plan as far as he could see.
Sam Viglione~ 551 Peralta Hills Drive~ Anaheim, stated Ur. Garber had mentioned the Strada
Orive incident and pointed out th~y had n~t done anything at the time the tree cutting had
started because they were not aware oF it~ but as soon as they had noted the trees were
betng cut dawn or when the workmE:n arrived, they did~ in fact, call the City and did call
Mr. ~hris[ensen and have the police out~ but, unfortunately~ nothing was done at the
2/26/79
MINUTLS, ANAl1EIM CITY PLAI~NINf, CONMI55ION~ FEdRUARY 2f~~ 1~7~
~-1 fifi
IR NE~ATIVk DECLARATION - 52; PERALTA Ii1~LS URIV~ (continued)
tln-e. He stated in rESponse tu Dr. fe~t~er'~ reference to the dra(na~e fram the b~rrance,
about three years ago they had h.~d a sevcre weter ptpe breakac~e on this serne parc~) and
that water plhe use~l to provtde irrigatt4n water to sPVeral othnr p~rc,el~ as well as
tl~eirs~ and th~t the water plpe had run for ~ lonq ttrrK,
Chairmen Herbst pc~it~tcd aut this ts en (tem that hAS no nertinence to the remav~) ~f th~
iQ trees an~ Che Pl,~nnlnn Commiss(on do~s not want t~ heAr it. Ne did nni want to dtscuss
water lines~ ~ipc lines~ ~raements~ etc.
Mr. Viylt~ne indlcated he was mwrPly mpntfoning thls li~ rc:butt~l to wh,~t Ur. Garber h~~d
mentloned. He stated his commenr rec~ard(ng thc~ tree Iine Is sim~,ly that h~ h~~, An
easement for w~ter rights whitch is riqht und~rneath thesr~ trces~ t~nd if Dr. Garb~r removes
tltese trees~ he is vlolating this water easerrx~nt, HP stated Dr. Carher had Alren~iy once
torn uut about Gi) feet oF the weter line iri hl~ c~radin~a ~r~cess.
Dr. Gerber Aske~ if he coula rebut those statements, anc! Chairman Ilerbst pointed out he
would have a chance for rabuttal after all o~-positton is he~rd.
Herbcrt ChrlstensPn~ 51f1~ Crescent Ortve, Anah~im, President cf Peralta rlllls Non,ecnvners
Aasoclatlon~ statecl he has been trying tn rrMdiate this little feud that has been
developin~~, lie stated remc~val of trces by [he ordlnance requlres a hardship and tn order
to !~rant a varlance, I~e bolieved a hardshin must he praver. ch~t it is necessary ta remove
the trees for some pur~use, and ti~At Dr. GAI'f~C~~S purpose in wanting to remove the trees
(s to build a tennis court, f1e stated at tliis point ln time the discussion of [ree
rtm~val is a waste of time because there are some iegal problems he h~s disco~~cred
existing wi th tliis property, such as water 1 tnes and other easements~ that meke the
bu(ld(ny of a tennis court irnpossible. Ile stated ttiere are attorneys lnvolved n~ra between
the neighbars trying to resolvc some boundary ~~roblems snd water easert~ent problems~ and
until those are resolved~ he did not see how Dr. Garber could huild a tennfs court~ and if
he could not build a tennis court. then he doe~s not have a hardship and does not have to
remove tt~e trees. F1e stated it has been difficult to try ta find the truths and not
emotlons since this has been a very ernottonal Situation and he can understand Dr. Garber's
feeltng in want(ng to develop li~s property. Ilp statcd this is a very odd-shaped piece of
property and In arder to put a tennis court on it~ ft will requtre some yrading and a lot
of earth movement.
He stated concerning the testfmony of Jan ~iali~ that she is the secretary of HACMl1C and
that he had reviewed the minutes of the last meettng at which this matter was ciiscussed
and she had abstained fron voting; that ev~ryone clse had disapproved thts request and she
did not vote. 11e s[ated from the information he had been aL•le to c~athcr~ she did not vote
because sl-e is personally inv~lved wlth Dr. Garber through his insurance, an~ he felt Jan
Hall s testimony wouid be blased because of he~ personal association witli the petitloner
which is~ of caurse~ why slie did not vate at the HA.CMAC meeting.
He stated at this point in time he would have to tade a position for the homeowners; that
they stlll llke the tree ordtnance and support the t~ee ordinance and~ !n fact, a week ago
at the City Council meeting had petitioned the Cfty Council to try to ~et some teeth in
the ordinance so that residents of Peralta Hills and other areas wt11 not have to be the
enforcers of an unenforcea~,le ordfnance which puts neighbor against neighbor; that the
poltce come and say there is nothing they can do and the Zoning Enforcement Officer says
there is nothing he can do, and it ts left up to the netghf~ars to fiqht against each other
and this has created sume very difficult situations. Ne stated he had been advised that
the City Council has tnstructed the City Attorney to proceed and try to develop sor-~ teeth
tn the ordinance, so the City then becomes the enforcer of tfieir ordinance and the
neighbors will be out of each other's hai~ as far as betng the one standing over thetr
2/26/ 79
T
MINUTES~ ANANEIN CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 2G~ 197~1 7`~'1~7
f.IR NEGATIV~ UECLAiWT10N - 52} PEMLTA HILLS DRIVE_ (conttnued)
tre- es, so to spea~k~ gun 1n hand~ tryir-g t~ do what the Clty should be riolnc~. He stated
that may resolvA some prablems~ but in the m~eentimc~ hc really felt Dr. Garbcr ne~ds to
rasolve his legal problems on thP property beforc the Plannin~~ Cc~nmisslon should gv~n be
lnvnlved tn trying to resulve the trce re~oval problen~ Nhlch docs not oxlst until he is
able to bulld a tnnnis court.
Louis C. Bell~ ~,55 ParnltA Hills Drive~ Anaheim~ stat~d his property is directly east of
Dr. Gerber's pre,prrty oncl tl~r..ir property 1(nes meet ~t tha bottom af the herranca. Ne
stated it seerfs like onc nf thp trees was ki', ed duc tc~ sorrK Sunday bulldozing and qrAdinq
hy or. Garhrr, ancl that If Jisr.~sed tre~s is the criteria for cuttinn ci~wn these trees~
then every tree (n Per~~lta Nllls should come ~+~iwn. N~ stated th~se trees have txsrn tl~ere
Just as lanq ~s hc has been allvr.; an~J Lhet Dr. Garl~er had asked why h~ ~1ic1 not no ahead
and plent trces when ha mc~vf~d (n. Ne explain~~i it was his understandln~ when he bouc~ht
the pro~prty th~t ~hc City protectcd the euc~~lyptus tr~es r~n~l therP would ha no need t~
plant addltion~l trpes, Ne stated th~;se trc~:s f-rovide A very nlce sound and visua)
barrler to tl;e hillside behlnd him nna now the trees liavf~ been topped. and he fel~ that is
somethiny thAt rcally needs tc~ be defineJ so that in the futurc the other residencs of
Peralt~~ Ilt I Is c~n be protc~c[ed fror» pco~~le wiio havc a thlnci ~bout topp(n~1 trecs. He
staied top~ing trecs shouid he at a heignt to preservc the tree, n~t to ktll it, and
t~pptnq at ~ to 1~ feet from tlie ~round leAVes a stump~ and he felt Dr. GerbPr has killed
several trees in this manncr which w(11 nevcr c~row ac~ain.
Dr. Gtarbcr obJectecf to that st~item~.•nt fmm thc ~~udience And Chairman Herhst painted out hc
would have his ctiance for rebuttal.
Mr. ~e11 continued th~t tlie tree I ine provided them wi t-i ~riv~cy ~nd shelter in the
Pe~alta Hills arca whi~h is the only one-acre mini~~um lo[ size arca in tlie Gtty; that
tliPre {5 ~o way tu ~e{~Ince that type of ae5tt~etic beauty .~n~1 it is unfortunate that Dr.
Garber went al~ca~l ancl dl~i i*. in sp(te of thF unanir~us recommerid~tlon from HACMAC ta this
C omrn i s s i on .
He stated that until tc~Jay hc was not xw,~re that Mr. Christenscn and Dr. Garber had
atter~tr.d to speak with him~ hut that he i~ac1 talked at some~ lenqth ovcr the phane with Dr.
Garber~ and indicated his willingness t~~ dlscu>s the matter is certainly sti11 there. Ne
stated he wes not sure ahout [he expcrts who had insp cted these trees~ but he knew those
wt~o were hi re~f to cut the~~ ~~~n and have been hacklnq avay at ther+ would ntver cal l
then~selves tree experts, that they were simpiy working for pay.
Ma~+ Ruth Pinson~ 5~~~~~1 Crescent Drive~ Anaheim, memher of NAGMIIG~ indicated she was not
here on behalf of HAChU~C, but was here as a resident of the Peraita Hills area. She
stated she had been at thc HACMAC meetinct and would like to add ~ 1lttle input as to the
m~nutes~ potnting out that a great portion of the rneeting of February 13, 1979 was spent
discusstng thls sub)ect. Shc; reviewed the vo*_e and stated the reasons for tt~e d~ctsion
were, first of all~ that th~y support the tree ordinance. She indicated tliey had looked
at drainage problems and erosion with the tree rc.~moval and ~,erhaps a redirection of the
water flow; that Mr, Roland K~ueger ha~' been at the meeting and, as a long-time resldent
and the President of the Water District in Peralta lii lls~ had fndicated there was sti il a
t~eavy flow of wat~. (n the barranca. She stAted they had questioned somp of the
legalities occurring between the neighbors and the possibility th~t perhaps this request
was prior to another needc~ request, and pointed aut there werP about 10 restdents present
at that meeting and they had i~ad calls fram many other residents. She ststed that out of
ni~~ ~iembers present, eight Jld not want the trees removed and would recommend that to the
Plans~ing Cc~mmission, and there had been one abstention.
2/26/79
r.
MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING CQMMI~SION~ FEDaUARY 26~ 197`.1 79-Ih8
EIK NEGATIVE DECLAkATidN,• 52~_PERALTA HILLS ORIVE (contlnucd}
Dava Abt~ ettarney fo~ Dr~ GArher~ refu~red to Mr. Vl,yl ione's comment ~ indtcetinq he hed
cor ' a i ned about the t ree cut t( n~~ Un St ~ada F 1 ace ancl thnt no~h 1 ~q was dhne end fe 1 t tltl s
ls t~rthar evidence ti~at this ~rdinance I~s not er~forced and nc~w there ls an attampt to
enforce i: aPter it has been waived numerous tfines~ and he felt this is hic~hly selectiva.
He stetncl as far as the water 1 ine Is concerned~ lt ~lnes n~t affect the tr~es as thAt is e~
water llne easem~nt rurming underneath th~ ground ~+nd remavel of trees is ab~ve ground,
He referred t~~ Mr. ChriatGnsen's discussion re~arcfin~ the rPnsun the trees can be removed
Is because oF the hardship on the prnperty owner ~nd indicate~i thls is not. necessarlly
true~ thrt scxn~~ of the crees ere diseased nnc+~ acc~~ding tc: the Scenie Corrldar ~lan~
thusr. lr~n~ can bc rernove~i, An~i Ir spells out other re~sons why t~~es cnn be removed nnJ
It also states they should be replaced wi th other specimens I isted. Ne state:d i f tho
trees Interfere undul~.~ with thc prvperty avnrr's rigf~t to enjoy hls p~op~rty +~~~ to use it
at least to ~n ext~nt ~s hr. sces fit end altFrnatc provislons .~rc rnadc, the ordlnancc does
provlde for an exceptio~. Ne st~ted h~ would furthar Ilkc C~ {>oint out cucalyrtug trn~~
are not n~+c ive Cal i forni~~ tr~~s; that thcy were planted As hqri eultural tracs dnd he dl d
not knaw wt~,y they ere included In this ordlnnnce~ t~ut app~rently lt ~as strictly on An
aest~~etlc ta5fs anef has littlv to ~l~ witf~ ecoloyy.
fie puinted aut % number nf peoale have Jr.~elaNed t~~nnis courts in tl~~ area and~ In fact.
they are qulte ~r~rnon, and Dr. GarUcr is proposing t~~ ~fo the sanre, yet h~ is running Int~
an obst.ACle, He stat4d titlc pr~blcros or easements are not an issU~ tirre and tConcerning
outside the scupe of this hearinn and F~e felt thase problems c~n be resolved.
the englneerin~i ~~~n~t thastrees happen~toebe`in the,'waysofethtn~ennis cou~t~With removal
of the trees; and th
Mr. Abt referred to Mr, Bel 1's dl scuss ton and i~ (s cri ti cism nf the t ree report because i t
mentlons diseased a^~i ciying trees, ~nd K~. eell tiad said himself that all the trees In the
area are dise~~sed a~~d dyi ng and he di d nar know whether ar not Mr, Bel l was a tree expert~
but that Dr. Garber ci~es h~ve a report from tl~e tree survean that indicates ~i~M of these
trees are dyinn or are diseased. fie pointed out these are relatlvely tall trees and
eucalyntus trees grc~w rapidly and would he a ~~azard to anytl~inr~ but 1 t ther~.; that they slt
on thc edge of the barrdnca a~d obviously or.ly have one-half the root systPm and~
therefare ~ a gnod wt nd coul d e.~s i ly toppl ~ tl~em, caus i n~ a lot of dama!7e, ond the whol e
idea ~f the ordinance Is to prevent pr~perty damane to othPr people anci t~ improve the
qual 1 ty of thc area. He stated he fe 1 t the real i ssue boi ls dva,n to wf-ethcr the
neighbors' aesthetic desires and wants can ~reverit a property owner frcx+i his own Inharent
property r(ghts as to what he cz+n do wi th his property. Ne ~tated Dr. Garber has nat
proposed anythin~ outiandish or a proi,Ibited activi[y and that a tennis court Is a fa~ rly
cor~man thing In this particular area. He not~:d also that the staff re~ort to the Planninq
indicatino there is ~pparently no ne,yative
Commission recommended a neyative declaration,
envtranmental impact from the propose~ cuttiny. Ne stated there are ~~He.rstatedcthe~staff
trees in the area and tl~at Dr. Garber is leaving almost half of them,
has recommended it ~~i~~~e~V31hea~d~~tiat~engineerinqnorelegaljproblemsnare~welltbeyond
problems regardin,
tlie cxtent oF tt~is heariny.
THE PUnLIC HEARItJG UAS CLUSED.
Corsenisaioner Tolar stated hc ~~ould keep his remarks to the tree removal, but felt thi s is
,~n exercise in futility until the other legal aspects in relationship to ea:,ements,etc.~
ar~ resolved. Fle referred t~~ the Ci ty Counci 1 minutes of tdovember 7~ 197~~ concernlnc~ an
action on July 10, 1~7~~ ~n which Dr. Garber had indicated he was opposed to the tree
removal onrthec~oW~ Sh°"~^ hi ~osophy had~cl~anged~so m~ch concer~ningpthe remc~val ofntreesein
asked Dr. arb y P
2/z6/79
a
MINUTES~ A,NAHE IM CITY P~/1NNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 26~ 1979 19•169
EIR NEt'aATIVE DECLARATION~._ 5z PEN4LTl1 HI_Ll5 DR1VE (continued)
~,_,...... _._.._____ ..,.._.,
four months when he h~d been violently op~osad to tree rer+~vAl. Fle askccl why he starte
treG remov~l ~nJ cuttln~~ back. the trens wi th th~ c~rading wl thout perml ts.
Dr. Gerber statod thc other trce remnvol by M~r. ~rown had bcen ~ totelly different
sltuntic~n; that ther~ was no re.rson for il~e r~nbval ~f those trees for co~struction or
lierdsl~lp purpos~s; t~~~t the traes were removed ta create en ~penin~ ancl give a better vir.w
of the hllls. Ha stated he h~d ob.jected to thc rer~oval of th~sc trees fnr two reasons,
the primAry renson t~ein~ thot thc ruots of the trecs ~Itd hol d the hi 11 In plac~~ pnd naiw
that the t ree s have br.en rermved ~ tl»y hove had two muds I i des . He st~+ted the Enc~t ne~r I ng
Dcpartr~nt k~~~s of this t~rohlcm and Mr. Jack Judd has been to the property and three
~ !!^ s tAt~~ ~he~re i s no one
rmnths ago as ked lhcm to ~~ut a watc r i I ne beh i nJ lhe: [ rc.cs .
around the t~ees he propuses to reirx~ve and that they arr. s l~nte~l I nw~+rds and ( f the
property ia c3evsloned and the trees were kert ~t 10~ feet~ thP resldence would be in
imrne~late dr~ne~er. Ne stated they F1AVC no plan ~u t~ikc thasr. tr~e~ out .~nd merely want to
top them. I~r exp 1~ i neci that wi~en lic nod appro~~ct~ed th i s s i tu~ t f nn h~ fiad ta 1 ked w i th M~.
Mr. Todd
Ed Gundy in Llie Plannin~a Depertment anc~ that hc did n~t proc~ed ~~ i~formedathe City and
Brawn I~ad cton~:; that Mr. (~rawn had remnved hIs trees aften c~ he` ed. He stated he is
thc City ~(~ not come out until aftcr thcy were c~.t dvwn, nGt topp
proceediny i n a reasunablc and leyal n~nner and tl~at inittal ly the trees wcre topPed to 2~
or 30 feec o~ Satur~~nY .
C~mmissioner Tolar r~kn~,eWhDrhisapf i~osophyhhastchanqedain r~litionshinttortree~removal.
trees, but ~~ anted tc~ Y
Dr. Garber s Coteu he haJ talked wi tti Jan tlal l and she f~ad mention~~ the average topping
helght was about 'LO feet and hi, trces were topped to 2> feet~ but th~t he had hr~ld off
unti) after h~ hac: tal~ed with Mr. Gun~iy on Tuesday~ explaining to Mr. Gundy that he did
not want to proceec! f 1 legal ly and asked what Lt~~ toppin4 si tuat(on has. He indicated Mr.
G~nJy had ct~ecked wi th the Ci ty Attorney and I~~ had tnformr.a Fand hh~rtalf•ednwi th~thectree
on the toppt ng and tliat he had tticn cor-~e out to the property
expert d~inq thc worl: and had sa1J 10 feet woutci be ftne. }It state ! his philas~phy really
has not changed wi th respect to li~rdship; that if Mr. Todc1 drawn had tiad a harclship and
could not d~velop his t~nnis court ur hls residence as he has done~ then it would be a
different ~ ituation; and that he wuuld not be unreasonahle and try to prevent him fram
dpveloping his home, tennis court, or horse stahle, H~ indicated he ha~ 8 9Withnnothi~q
showing Mr. Brown's enti re layout and the trees were Just on the periphcry.
elsc mxcept his home close to it. -le state~ he has photographs which would show that was
a totally cil~'crent situation. Ne stated the barranca situatio~ is a clear area with no
residences arourcl an~i that i~ a resiclence wer~ developed~ the flther trees would have to be
to~~ped. Ne stated there ls one blg~ dead tree that has be~n there for ycars and Mr. Gundy
has confirmed that tt~e ones they wanted to take out were dead. Ile refcr;•ed to Mr.
Krueger~ Pr~siJent of the Water Olstrict. who F~ad been mentloned previo~sly, indicating
that he had lndf cated at the NACMAC meeti ng that Lhe water through the barraneergaandery
definitcly raduced and that there was vcry llttle flow compared to previ~us y
explained that was th~ result of tl~e Lusk devei~pment. Ne stated M~. Y.rueger wants the
water I ine brought into the Vigliane property at the front and he is yotng alonq wi th Dr.
Garber's recor~nendation so that they can have a fire hydrant. He pointed out there are
other issues, s~~ndaMra Krue erdagreesnandhindicatedihe~wouldtbetpresent~at thisert-eetEng'j
of these i ssues a 9
i f poss i b i e, b ut tha t he was cut of town .
Commissioner Tolar asked Dr. Garber why he had ~ot requested a grading permtt beforc he
had started grad3ng.
2/26/79
MINUTES~ At~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI,~N, FCUftUARY 2E~~ 1~7!1 79-170
~IR NEGAtIVC DECLARATION - 523 PERAITA ~~IL, S DRIVE (contlnued)
D~. Gerbcr replted th~k I~~e had nevpr ~icvclopad a piece of pmperty I{kc this; that they
had 1 I ved i n e~s t Ar,e~ie i m 20 yeers and wh~n he moved to Pc ral to N I 11 s~ the rea 1 tor f rom
whom they hed purchesed the prc~pertv ha~ seen thel r nlr~ns. Ile explntn~d tli~e other acre
had be;o~ usad for horaes and It was fenced In with r~ stable~ and that was ell taken out
when they had nxive~. F~e stated he was a~ Inr.xperienced owner/builde~ ~nci his prevlous
attornQy had refc~re~ liin- t~ o,yra~ier~ The (ily Yel iow Mac.hine Cort~any. Ile ex~lelned thc
grading plon was drswn up by hls brother who was a 1 icensed civ11 enqineer in the State ~f
Californla~ and expl~inrd his brother hsd llveJ c~n tho property arevlausly end was
devaloping A yrading plon anJ a ~~naral ~1nn, includinq A tenn(s cau~t for the property~
h~~t, imf~rtunat~ly~ I~ad dled last May of eonc~r ~ncl was strickcn with cancer b~fore he
completod the work he was dolny on the grading plan. ite explaineJ i~n I~aJ procacded to
call the grader and shawed them th~ plan w(th his hrotf,er's s(ynnturc ~nd englne~ring
1 lcens~ nunfier on i t a~d as~ od 1 f that was adequate to hc approved by thc C ity. He statcd
it was Incltcated to liim by thn ~aradcr tl~at they would qo to City I~all and talcc care of
anythi ng that was necessAry ~nd he haci ts~ken thci r word for f t. Ile stated he assumed the
grode~ had donc ~~Ii that wAS nf+cpssary ~~~d had gr~~dc~ th~ pro~erty~ anci that he was left
r~iCh the burden of dcoling wlth the new _y~adln~~ pl~~n situ~~tlon. Ne explained he h~d
retained A~acal kn~~(neeriny .~rd was sure Mr, Titus would su~port his cl~im that tf~ls
grading pl~~n has b.r.en ~nuther ordeal f~r him ond has bcen ~oing on for four months. !Ie
stated Maeal C~iyinPeriny was unahle to completr. their grading plan, s~ he was cc~mplete:ly
hpld up on so many thin~is nnJ wantcd to cc,~~~,letc one thin~ at a t1~ne. He statcd he hrd
incllcoteJ to the City AtC~~rne~/ tt~at it was not int~cntional o~i his part to eircumvent any
k;nd of ordinances whcrc a permit was reryulr.r,d; that it was his fcellna the nr~der an~l
~-~~tractor had vi~l~tE~d ~~ trust. He ~~xpl~ined !~e had not torn ~~p the secti~n of the water
~ ,, as nu~ntioned; that the ~~rader's tractor had donr it; that he dicl not waRt to d(srupt
the ater line; an~l th.~t he was ~1nin~~ everythinn he could to rer,edy the situaci~n and
create a real nl~e dcsi~~n for his property tl~at would t~enefit the otF~er ^rupertie5 around.
Comnissione~r Barnes in~flcate~l she woulcl 1 ikc tn answer Mr. Abt'3 ciaim that the ordinanee
is waived haphazardly and stated i t mi ght appear that way to a newcomer to Anahetm~ but
that the crlteri~ is usually for the re;asons as mentioned by Dr. Gart~er~ anJ if the trees
interfere with a buil~fing in any way or i f they keep so~ec~nF fram using tiieir property.
then the renr~va 1 t s app roved. She i nd i ea ted shc wau 1 J 1 t ke to exp I a i n why euca 1 ypt us
trees were includeu in the ordinance; cha[ thase c~n tf~e Task force had workeci an the
ordinance fnr two ycars and tf~ere was a lat of Jebate ahout wliether or not ~~ eucnlyptus
tree slioul J be incl udeJ~ b~~t i' was fe 1 t in the Seeni c Corri:ior one of tt~e mc~st
spectacular and rnhst observable [ltifngs goinq ~cx~m tt~e canyon werc tl~e raws of eucalyptus
trees ~ so the Task Forcc~ had fel t s i nce that was ~art ~f the scene they shoul d be
included; and th~~t the euc~lyptus trees yive a uni~ue character to Santa Ana Canyon. She
stated (t was also cliscusse~! that sometimes they are dangerous so the toppin~ issue had
been included, She stated sfic fc~lt the ~eal Issue today is whether or not this matter
shuuld be ~ostpone-~~ but sl~c: felt it is a li[tie laie because she had vtewe.d the property
and noti ced the ~rading that had tak~en n lace on e~ch s 1 de of the trees and the barranca on
the other side. She stateJ those trees have stoad for quite a lonq time with the barranca
~n one side and hav~t not blos~+n over, but n~w there is a different situation because the
bank tias becn cuC away and there is substant(al ~aot damage to the t~ees at the present
t ime and the ~e i s nokh i nq for them tc~ ho 1 d onto, t n add i t ion to the fact that the t rees
have been topped [0 10 feet. She stated, quite frankly, she dtd not knaw what expert tree
people had been consulted~ but thauc~ht most would agrec that if you wanted to eliminate
some trees~ this would be a good way to go about ft. She strted~ secandly, she would ltke
to say [hat any testtmony Jan Nall t~es to give should be given in person. She painted out
the City of Anaheim tree trtmmers were asked for their opinion, which has been generally
concurred wlth by the lanJscape archit~ct in the Parks and Recreation DeparZment, and that
is that the reasonable height for a topped tree is about 40~ to 50$ shorter Lhan the
original height; for instance. an o0-foot tree should be topped to 40 to 50 fePr, bnd that
2/26/79
MI NUT~S ~ ANAHE 1 M CI TY PLJ1N~l1 ~!G CQ~~1M I SS ION ~ FEBRUl1RY 9f~, 1979 7~1- i J I
EIR NEGATIVE DEC~ARATIOt~ - 523 PERALTA HILLS_DRIVE (cniitlnuocf)
~ometimes toppad trees cnn yr~-v frstr.r then trces th,~t hnve n~t hr,en to~pcd. She stetcd
she dld n~t see hc~w the trees In quest(on are q~tncl t~ r,a~:e it. ShE stoted even if th~
Planning Comrr~iss irm ~1ocs aaree to thei r r~rrx~val ~ thcy woul~f pmbahly die eny~~ey, and
stntad sh~ h~ped thls was An ncciJent. She hop~d the Ctty would t++ke this situatlon to
hcArt and anforce tl~e ord(nance nx~re stronqly tfi~~n thPy ever t~ad. She statccl she reallr.es
thera are somc lenal qu~stt~ns And thc questlon ~~s t~ whether or not the tennls court can
and sl~ou 1 d hc b u 1 I t on tl~c pron~ rty ~ but shc d i d not want t~ p~s tponr thc i ssuc . She
stated she woul<f like t+~ sE:c the tre~s not be rertx~ved bac.'use of prevfous er.ti~ns; and
thr~t (t Is r~,~l ly an unfortunatc thln<~ heca~,sc shr felt the trees ore qotnc~ to dle Anyway.
Dr. Garber statcd the 1 inc c~f trecs was menti~ned an~J ~:xpl~InPd~ ag~~in~ t1iAt he w~nts to
malntaln the Ii~~ of tr~es anci werits li~r. L~mmission to un~lcrnt~^d thnt hP W111 ~,net A h~nd
(n an adeyuatc amc~unt [o ~ovcr thc cost of plantii-~~ cach and evcry trec. No st~ted he
wlll mainta(n each and r.vary tree and is ~ust es{;inq that thc trpes be moved over 10 or ly
fe~!; and that he is nnc yoin~~ tu e:liminete tha lir7c of Pucaiyrti.-s trPes. IIe stated he
wants the tsnnis e~urt thr.ra wi th thr. trer.s bordcrin~ it.
Cha( rman Herbs t 1 ndi cated hr. th~~u~h t the Commi ss (on i s act i n~~ ,~f te~ the far,t here and that
the trees hav~. been ruine~f al rca~iv ~ but the Commission has to l~ok .it thc s( tuatlon
reallstically. Ile st.~tr.d hc thouqht wi th the p~stinq ~f ~~ b~nd thnsr [rer.s would be
repl~ced and th~+t wou1J be better than Ieaving t`~e situation ~s it ls~ recoqntztnq this
has al I been donc .inc1 there ( s ncsth i n~~ ~~e ean d~a nbout f l at th I s poi nt ~ nnci even i f i t
has bcen dnn~ 1 1 1 eqa 1. v~ i t h~s bcen d~nc. Hc thou~h t the P I nnn i nct Cortmi ss lon ean
recnMmen~i that the cc>nJiti~n be rectified to represent th~ area inci also protect the
adci(tlonal pruperty vwners. I!e statecl what they see nc~w is ~i ~ess ~~i th stumps and the
troos may not qrow bacl:, 11e state~i hc would r~ther sec the stumps takcn oiit and Or.
Garber immediately replacc thc trecs w(th scxnethin~~ that Is c~oinn to be renresentativc of
the area. He s tateu h~ d( d rx~t 1 i ke what has hap~ene~1 And he was sorry he has been so
abrupt in his reactlon to sorr~ c,f tt~e personal pr~blc~ms invnlved~ but [~iat he realized it
is an emc~ti~na) issue :~nd felt ct» Planniny Corrcnission cc~uld n~t get involved in emot(~nal
problems becausc~ they have a problem nf ~iecid(ng what to do. ile stated he felt the thing
to do now Is to put th~e propr_rty back as C'InSC to thc original condition fls pvssiblc. Ne
stated that t f Dr. Ganc~r v~ants to put ir a tennis cc~urt wi th the~ way the tree line qoes
acros5 the corner of his pronertyo h~ woul~l t,ave fiad a har~iship and feit if (t had been
done properly, nrobably thi~, Commissinn would have approved tf~e tre~ removal with
re~lacement so that he could put in a tennis tourt because it hes been dr~ne for ~ther
people. fle f~l L thc legal ity of the water 1 ine and easemrnt is somethinq the a::orneys
will have to work out. Ilc stated i~e real ized evcrybody cannot be satlsfi~d and that he
thought this was a bea~tiful area, but rinht now a part af ic has beer~ destroyed. He
explalned Dr. Garber ~~as o`fFred to post a bond to replace thc trees any way the
Cummission wants it done and if he has done a wronr~~ he is tryin~ to c~rrect it and It
cann~t be corrected by leavir~g i t the way it ts.
Commissioner Johnson indicated he ap~reciated the f.hatrman's factful position, but he is
very close tu this problem and to the area an~i whuld perhaps reflect some af the emotions
of same of the otlier reslc~ents. He stated Dr. Garber in his own sxatFment hras said he is
acting i n a reasonab le and 1 egal m~nner, but that I~e (Commi ss ione ~ Jolinsan) coul d not
accept that a~d feli he is not acting in a reasonable and lega) manner. Ne stated Qr.
Garber has talked about h~rrendous ordeals and yet he personally felt tl~ese horrendous
ordeals are beeause he is going counter to the ordlnances and conttnues to go counter wiCh
them~ not only with trees but in other problem areas. lie stated ~f there was a way to
exact the greatest penalties fo~ Dr. Garbe~ to re-establtsh the area sortiethlnq like it
was, he woul d be agreeable. He fel t there miqht be an answar, but he cs~tainly would not
be a party to ieav6ny (t in D~. Garber's hands. He explained Dr. Ga~ber's idea of what is
reasonable ,just ts not reasonable to him or to anyane else i~ the area. Ne st~ted if
2/26/79
Fr
Y
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIH CITY PLAt~NING COMMISSIOtI, FEBRUARY 26~ 1979 79'~72
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 5~3 P~f?ALTA HIL,~__~llY~ ~continuGd)
thare is eny w~y tn car~ rther damagehtonthepare~cCheiNOU~ldtgotalongbwithn~tAnd protect
thr residents from any
Chairman Nerbsc~neXbutithntthe dld no[iwant~to~seeQthetareatleft thchwaybitnjsbeck u
lsndacaping P1 ~
Commiss{oner Barnes indicated sho pssumed the ma.~or problem is that the people across the
ba~ranGa and other people want thc trees anc! wsnt the samc kind of trecs be~:ause of the
screenina~ but there ls no way hc is qoing to plar~t 1Q~-fnot trces or Pven a 7~•foot tree,
one heln~ the euc~lyptus tt'ee~
but that he eould plant trces that would yrow vc ry fast~
but that nothiny is goin,y to Ce es qood as the orlylnal trees And she did not aee whatSfie
gooJ d ~ond would do bec.ausP A bond c~uld be posted and the trees planted ~ext year.
felt If anything Is ~~o~~~ Wceks.~She statedSShe,wo ld~ilkeytohsec the 1~n1dsC8pln~~Plan.
the approval ~ such as two
Chalnnan Nerbst IndlcatcdWttn~ A°i~ncisc~p(n~uplan~~bec:.ausei It woul~d~te~.egsome,[im~e for the
time, esppci al ly i f they a
a~chitect to draw thc plan,
Canmissioner Barnes polnteri out Ur. G~rber really should not remova any oF tl~e eucalyptus
trees until this issue Is scttled.
Cortmissioner Tolar indicated he agrees witl~ Commissione~ Johnson anc! stateci it is hls
philosophy that all pain is self-infl(cted, and felt to a larc~e extent Or. GarH~rreferred
responsible for ary problem5 he has because of a conxnent or two he has rnade.
to the cocmienL by Ur, Garber thak he did not feel It was ri~ht 1`0~ a ne(c~hbc~r to Ge ber
other trees because that nelylibor diJ not want his view blocked, which seems Dr.
thinks it is alrictht for him to qo ahead and remove his trees because he wantS a tennis
court.. yet 1t is not rlght for another nPi~nbor to remove his for valtd reasons~ whatever
those valid rGasons are, fie stated the Commtssion is bound by ordinances in relationship
to tree5; ~nd that he finds it di{'ficult to belleve these trees have ta~ftP~ri~theimat(on
eondition far remova) by accident. 11e stated he personally would not supp
to remove these trces if it dld not cause a~ything but a delay, as far as he was
concerned, until the rest of [he prQblems are resolved and hc could~ne~e ~a~Pn~~f~~ns,haven
relationship to the replacement of all those tree, and landscaping 9 9 P
been approved. He stated he agrees the trees w111 probably die; that he was out there and
looked at them and thau9ht they we re c~r~ded for that purpose and found (t difficult to
be~ieve it was by accident. Ne staied he would went th~se tw~ things resolded and would
want to see a full landscape plan in relationship t~ the tennis court. Ne stated~ in
defen5e of Dr. Garbcr. he agreed ~verybody should be able to develop thetr pronerty in the
manner they see fit~ especlally a piece of property such as thls which they obviously paid
a tremendo us ar-o unt for; however~ hc did not see that anybody should be able to develop
•
their property at the expense of their nelghbors~ and felt to soMe extent that is what as
gone on in this area, maybe by people other than Dr. Garb~r~ but tFiat he would not support
this or any other motio~~ until th~se Nroblems are solved and it can remain in that
horrencJous stat~ until they are solved.
Commissiuner Bushore stated Commissioner Tolartiad indicaeed exactly tl~e way he feels;
that he I,as not sDoken and he is not as tactful as the other Commissioners; tl~at '' ~
believed although tend,hetwauld likelto say totDreeGarbe~athat heawashgladthetdi. 1ve
had been violated,
next cbor to hi m.
2/26/19
h11NUTCS. ANAFIEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ FEE3RWIRY 26~ 1~)79 7~'173
EI~ GAT~VE DECLAi~ATION -~23 PE~~T~ IIILLS DRIV~ (c~ntlnued)
Commisstaner David ask~d if the replacement of the ser+nd of sper.lmen tre~s will be with
trees from the speciflr.d llst, poin[ing out st~+ff has a preroyattve to approve s~~ch
r~smoval .
Commissloner Dern~s st~ted the Plannln~~ Commisslon has t~~~Atiron hasrc~onegbeyonde~h~he
plans, end Chairn~an Nerbst expla{ned thts particular app
prerogative of staff and they do nat want co take th(s upan themselves~ ~nd felt r~ public
h~~rfng would be nncessary because of tl~e animosity of the neighhors.
Robe.rt Flenninger cxplainpd thc staff is permittcd to approve the remc~val of dead ar
diseased trces~ but somc uf these tre.:s were perfectly he.iltl~y.
Dr. GarL~r explalncd oniy twe tr~.~a wPrA affected 1n tiie gradinh and thc rest of the deed
Lrr~s werc~ not affected. t~e stated t~e dc~es have a hardsliir; that they purcl,ased the
property which was built on graded land ancl the builder cli~! nat have an approved gradtng
plan and the prop~rty was developed with ~~ cliff behind it and t~undreds of yards of dirt
hav~ to be rernaved. wh I ch i s Che cause c~f the s 1 i~>p~+qe. He s tated he i s e yuod ne 1 ghbor
and tries to work wl kh otf~ers.
Cha) rman Ne rbs t s tated the I and bchi nd the prope~ty has notht ng to cio wl th the tree
renx~val. Ile statecl 1t appears the maJorlty of the Cummission wants o continubnce unt(1
tlie easement and yradin~~ problems are resolveJ.
Commissloncr ~arnes stated no other trees should ba touched unttl ttiis issue I~as been
resnlvcd.
Chalrman Herbst stated if this applic~tion had been handled properly with Dr. ~arber
submitting the request prior to cuttin~ down the trces ~.huwln~l the necessary hardshlp
without creatlny hevoc in the ~ieighbarhood~ and hacl presented his plan for the tennis
caurt with praper landscapin~ shawn, the request probaLly woulci have been granted without
any problem~ butiihc~eh~a~°"'rresolved5sincetthe~reasonrfor~removr~ltafnthehtreesQisgthehould
be r~ontinued unt y
tennts court whlch may or may not be built.
Dr. Garber explainecl~ ac~ain, thaC t~e had proceeded legally; that he had topped the trees
ta 25 feet and after talking wi~h Mr. Gundy~ had topped them to lA feet.
Cliairman Ilerbst stated further documentation is nceded thet th~ tennis court is going to
be constructed tn arder ta justify remova) of the trees.
Commtsstoner Tolar stated he would be greatly affected by tl~e fact that the petltioner had
trted to cooperaCe wlth the neighbors~ and it would help him in making a declsion when the
g~ad~^ofPthe reduesterather~t ancoppc~singeft,~ mHetstatedSmany~times the~Cbommission has
favo q
asked the neighbors to qet togeCher.
Dr. Garber stated he had cantracted to have the batance ~f the trees topped to 25 feet,
which is legal, and it is his intention to havc this done so that the trees will b~
uniform and the one dead tree wllt be removed. He stated he woulc~ like ta get along with
his neighbars.
Commissioner Barnes noted the reaso~able height as recomnended by the Parks Department for
topping trees wo~ld be app~oximately 40~ or 5p$ of the original height.
2/26/19
~.
MINUTES~ l1WAIiE1M CITY PLANNIWG COMMISSIO~a~ FCaRUARY 2t~~ 1~7~ ~`~'»~~
E I R f~EG~1T I VE pECLARAT I ON •~23 PERAITA 11 I LLS~DR~1 V;(con t i nuod)
Chairman 11er1~st asked Or. Gs~er haw long hc would need tu submlt landscaplnc~ and qrsding
plans which show the tree removal ns pre~areri by o ccrtified landscapc architcct.
Dr. Gerher explained chis has been a very time-consuminc~ ~ra~ect end has heen going o~ fo~
e Inny tlme. Ne stAted he w111 try to keep thr property a~~wid the area ns clenn as
possiblc.
Clialrman Herbst statesd thr. Comrnlssion has no ob)ectlon to the prop~rty beln~ cleaned up~
buC d1~ rrat want to see any more treeS cut dawn nr stumps made ~u: of the ones that are
tliere~ and stateJ if any m4rc trees are cut~ t1~e pet(tionPr would probably be tn morc
serlous trouble. Ile suggested thai he ,yet together wtth his nelghk~ors wlth the
l~ndscaping plon~ whcn th^y rr~ r,r~n~l~iclr~l so that the~e wi 11 be n~ Arc~uments at the publlc
hearing level becausc the 1(nes of communication at this point have been broken down.
It w~s determin~d th.it May 7, 1~~1~~ would t~e an <~pproprt~tc dAte for this matter to be
considered~ and Chairman Merk>st noted there wlll be no further notites.
Ur. G~rber raminded tf~e Plannln~ Gommisc,ion t~iat ri~iht now thcre are buzzsavs goin~l and
ttic trees arP bcln~ cut tn 8 to 10 feet on Crescent privc.
Commissioner Johnson state~! th~rr. are seeds of misundcrsianclin!~ pl~ced here already and
that Ur. Garber has stateci he would like to continue topping trees ~~s l~nn as he st+ays
w(thin the 25-font limttation, anci requeste~ thPt tf~e motion for continuance be very clear
that there will bc no rrnrr_ tonpiny of trees.
Jack White statea tl,at as he interpets the existinq ordinance, it is nc,t Illegal to top
trees unless it results in the descructian or cleath of the tr~e; that there Is no ml~imum
height requirement and ttiat tlie r~:cortmc:ndation by tlie Parks Qepartment is an internal
procr.dure and has nothin~~ to do ~~ith the tree ordinancr_ that has a legal~ bindin~ effect.
lie s[ated if thc tree is topped and someone fcels tl~c tree is destroyed~ they could m~ke a
repc~rt and It would be revlewr_d by ttir, legal Jepartmer~t for possible c:rirntnal action, but
the toppln<~ of a trec does not anp~ar ta a~ prohibited by the existiny ardlndnce.
Chai rman tlerbst state' he felt i f ar~ Commiss/ion f~1st.,nHet feltttopping somedofethettrees
h i s own th ro~t s i ncr he kn~ws how th
to a reasonable heighC would be beneficial ta ev4~ryor;e,
Commisslorser Tdiar stated if he elects to eop tl~e trees ~e55 than 4n; to 5~`6~ W~ eould not
stop him and he is within his riyhts.
Commissioner Barnes stated if our urdinance
Commission eould go on record as stating It
40$ to a0$ oF the i r o r( g i na 1 t-c i ght .
does not state how htyh to top a tree, the
is their opinion the trees can be topped to
ACTIOPJ: Gommissloner Ba rnes offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTIOtJ
ARRIED (Commissioners Johnson ancll~ushore ve~ing no). that consideration of the
aforementioned icem be continued to tf~e requldrly-scheJuled meeting of the Planning
Cummi ss i on un rlay 7, 1~ 79 •
Commissioner Barnes statcci st~e would str~nyly urge th~ petit(oner to get together with the
netghbors with the c~mpleted iandscapin~ plan and get the ~~eighbors' approva) if possible.
Chalrman Nerbst indicated he would li6ce to offer a motion to recommend ta the Clty Council
that the tr~e or~inance be corrected~ and Jack 1~lhite replied ttiat the Council is already
2/26/79
~%
....
MI-~uTE.S~ ANANFIM CIrY PLANNING COMMISSIO~l~ FEBRuARY 26~ 197~ 79-175
"q u~,r_.eTivr. nFC~ eaATiON - 523 PERALTA HIL_ 1._S,.DR_ IVE (conttnued)
.~.......,.~sta. srt
looking into that and that the ttty Attorn~y's Office wil) rtwke recammendattons to the
CaunGll on what they thlnk ts legel.
Comnlssfoner Johnso~ stated he strongly obJectod to topping more trees; that thls
petitlonar'~ detinitl~n of tup~tng s tree Is comFsletely difforant th~+n hla definltton of
tppping e tree.
2/26/79
MINUTES, ANAII~IM CITY PLAtJ!lINQ CQMMISSION~ FE(lRUARY 2G~ 1~79 79~~~~'
IT~M N0. 1Z
E OR ANG REGOMMEtlUATIO~~ ~
A. WAIVFr, OF tI1LLStUE G~ADINr, ORUINANCE - TMCT NO__^_,_~!1e
~_._..
Tlie staff rcpo~t to the Planning Commission dated Februnry 2(i, 197~) was prese~ted~ natlnq
thot John D. Lusk 6 5on rcquested watvcr of th~ rec~ulrement ~f the City of Anehetm
Hlllsicle Grading Ordinance as It relates to tl~e locatinn of lot lines at the t~p of slopes
within Trect Np. 8~~1+~; that Tract ~lo. d41$ is locateJ north of Nohl Ranch Road~ east of
tha Nowpart Freewey. and th.~t the f1111stde Grading Ordlnancc re~quires that lot lines be
located 'l to 3 fect from the tc~p of slupe•s; that tl~l s requt rement w~s pl,iced In the
Gradiny Ordinance so that the entirc: facc af the ~,lopc would hc the ~esponsibil(ty af th~
c~wnnr of the lowcr lot tn thc bcllcf that he wo~i1•1 hP ~~r~rP A~t tc~ mnintAtn the slope than
th~ awrner of a lot at the top ~F the slope; hc~wever, in these tracts all of the slopes
where they have req~~estcd a walver of this requlrement of the Grading Ordinance will bc
malntetned by a home~wn~rs Assnciatton.
ACTION: Comnlssioner Klnc~ offered ~ nx~~.(on~ seconded by Commissioner David and t1~TI0Pi
AR IEO~ that the Anah~im Glty Planning Commissi~n does herehy recommend co the City
Counctl that the request for waiver of the tlills(de Grading Ordinance far Tract No. 841R
be appr~vsd as recommendecl by the C1ty Engineer.
t3. A[iA1~WNME~~T IIO. 7&-1E,A - Rcqucst to aband~n a portion of existing pub11G utillty
casem~:nts y ng w th n a portion of Lots 56 and G3 !n iract. No. 975~ to permtt
thc installation of a retatning wall.
The staff report to thc Planning Commi~~sion dated February 2(>~ 1~17~? was presented~ noting
subJect r~quest by Robert P. Warmtngtori Company (s to abandon a portion of existing publtc
uti 1 1 ty easements lyi ng wi th I n a portic>~ oP Lots 5~3 and G3 i n Tract ~10. 9750 to permi t tht
installation of a retaining wall; that this request has been reviewed by al) departments
of the City and affectecl outside ayencles and apprnval is ~ecomnended; that the appltcant
desires to tnstall a retaining wall approximately 6 feet in height along the west side of
Lots 58 and 63 of Tract No. 97S~~ and the City Electrical Dtvision indicates that they
have no present or future need of this portion of said easement and recommend approval;
and th~i an envi ronmenta i review of th is request i ndi cates the abar-donmenC to be
categorically exempt from the requirement of filin~ an EIR.
ACTION: Commissluner Klny offereci a motion~ seconded by Comm(ssioner Johns~n and MOTIOtI
CA-RR1ED~ that the Anaheim City Plann(ng Comntssion does herehy re.commend to the Clty
Counctl that AbanJonment No. 7s•16A be approved.
C. ABANDOI~MEI~T N0. 78-20A - Reyuest to at~andon the Clty's existing road and public
~t ty r y ts over a portion of a frontage road located on the west side of
M aheim Boulevard~ south of Cerritos Avenue.
The staff report t~ the Planning Commissian daced F~ebruary 2G, 1~'7~ was pres~nted~ noting
subJect ~equest by Y.-M North is to abandon the City's existiny roaci and public utility
rights over a portion of a frontage road located on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard~
south of Gerritos Avenu~; that on DecP.mber 12, 1978~ the City Councll by aesoluttdn No.
78R-7q5 app roved the sale of surplus City property to the applicant and authortzed the
Gity Engtneer tn initiate and process the abandonment of the Clty's existing road and
2/26/79
MI~~UTCS, ANNIEIM CITY PL~UNING C~NMIS` IOi~~ FCURUAfiY 2G, 1:37~ '~~-~ j]
R~ORTS NU RECOMMEN_DATIONS_,-. _I.TEM C (continusd)
public ut(lity ricahts and tl~e t~pplicant has met [lie reyutred conditton set forth in the
above-menttoned ~esol ut iun end h~~ cleposi ted wi th the C1 ty the reryul re~J sum of muney to
cover the purchase of the fee ownurship; tliat the fr~ntage road fs currc~ntly used by
British Motor Car ~(stribuc~~rs for ~ccess tc~ thcir dcalershl~; that thP a~ntt~a~c will
provtde a new acc~ss to Ertttsh Mot~~r Car vla the extFnslor of Cerritos Ave~ue to the west
and n private eascmr.nt through thelr pro~,erty, and thak ar(ttsh hbtur Car is In total
agrcement with this chanye of acc~ss; ~nd that an envlronmental review of che request for
abandonment (ndicates It to br categaric311y ~xemnt from the rr~uirement of filinc~ an EIR.
ACTIOI~: Commissi~ncr Kinc~ offered a mc,ticm~ seconded by Cornmissioner Tolar and MOTION
AP,R CU~ that thc An~lii:(r~i Cily F'lanr~ir~y Can~nission J~es hereby recommend to the City
Counell that Ab~~ncionr~nt No. 7fi-2~A bc Approv~•cf A!: rr_~.c~mmrnde~f by thc Clty Englncer,
D. At3At~U0rIMEt~T N0. 7~-_21~A - Requcst to abandon tha[ portion of 4loodland Drive
ae~caie or pu c usc lyiny approxim~tcly 'l00 feet north of Le P~lme Avenue~
easG of Magnolia Averue.
Tf~e staff rapart te the Planniny Comr~issirm dated February 2(~~ 197~) was prescr.ted, noting
tf~e request by Dlck Ketteriny tu abando+i that portion of uoodland Drive dedicated for
public use lying anproximetely )UO f~et nortii of 1,a Palnx~ Avcrue, cast of Ma~anali~ Avenue;
that thls request has been revicw~d by all departmen[s of the City and affected outsidc
agencles end approva) is recommended; tl~at the subject roadway~ in its present locatlon~
was dedicated fr~r public use via record~tion of a parcel map and is to be replaced in a
nav al ignment ~~pon the recordation of a new Parcel Map No. 73~; tt~at the ownr.r of the land
adjacent to the existing dedicat~d Woodland Drive is re-subdividiny two large existing
parcels Into 3d smaller industrial sized lats, tfsereby creating tF~e necess(ty of
abandoning tlie existing Woodland Drive as dedlcated [o provide street frontaye to the
newty-crsated parcels via the re-~edication of said roadway vta recorda[ion of the new
Parcel Map No. 73~; tf~at the subject roaciway presently exists only as a dediGated right-
of-wey and does not physically exist as an inproved s[reet at tl~is point in t(me and wli)
be installed and Improved upon approval c~f Parcel Map No. 7j9; and that an environmenta)
revicw of the p ropos~d abandonmrnt and re-deciication indirates thts proposal to be
categorlcally exr.mpt fron the rec~uirement of filing an EIR.
ACTIOH: Cornr~issl~ner King offered a nr~tion~ seconded by Commissioner Johnsc~n and M~TfON
~t U~ that the A~aheim City Planning Commission dnes hereby recommend tQ the Ctty
Ce~unci 1 that Abandonment t~o. 78-21~A be approved as recommended by the City Engineer.
E. CONUITIONAL USE PERMiT N0. 1593 - Request for extenslon of time.
The staff report to the Planning Comm(ssion dated Februar•y 2b~ 1979 was presertted, nottng
subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app~oximately 2.8
acres located south of the Riverside Fre~.w+ay~ having a frontage of approximately 1+55 feeC
on the east side of Tustin Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 479 feet;
tt~at the applicant requests a retroactive extension of time for Gonditional Use Perm(t No.
1593 which was approved by the Planning Cortmission on Februa ry SE~ 19)6, to permlt a
motel-restaurant-coffee shop comp)ex with Na(ver of m;,ximum allowed buildi~g height~
SubJect to several conditions being satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit
or within a p~riod of one year~ whlchever occurred first (payn~ent of tree planting fees,
bonding for engineering requirements alnng Tustin Avenue, deeding to the City of the
riqht-of-way along Tustln Avenue~ and filing of a parcel map if the subJect ,~roperty were
2/26/79
MINUTCS~ ~N~NEIM CITY PLAf~NING C~MMISSION~ FEBRUARY 2G~ 1h79 79-17~
NO RECOMMENUATI O-IS - 17CM E(cont Inued)
to k~e divlJed) ~ and nc~ne ~f Chr, prtc~ding cond(tions I~eve ber.n satlsfied; tl~at a~+rrvtous
twc~-yea~ rutroact(ve exte.nsi~n of time was granted by the Pl~nntng Corrntsslon on Oecembesr
5~ 1977~ to explro February lis~ 1`)79; ancf th~t the applicant st++tes thc conditlons have
not been n~t because of difftcultic*.s encounte:red In corn~,leting constructlon plans~ IAnd
trensfers And eas~~munt .icdlcations.
ACTION: Cnmmissioner King offe.red a irx~ti~n~ seconded by Commiss(cx~er Tular and MOTION
CI~1ftRIED~ th~3t thc llnahctm Ci ty Pl~nninq Commission cSc~eg herehy grAnt a one-year extenslon
uf time for Conditlonal Use Pern~lt Na. 1~9}~ to ex~~frc February lr;~ 1~&1,
F. RECLASSIFICAT1011 NU. 7.~-7G-~;(9~ ~ Request for approval of speciFfc plans.
Commissloner Kln~ dEClared t~ the Chairn,an a poss(ble conflict of interest as defin~:,d by
Anahcim Clty Plannin9 Lomrnisslon Resolutian f~o. PC?6-1!;7, ad~nttng A Confltct of Interest
Code for ;he Planniny Corn~nission~ and Government Code Section 3625 ct seq.~ tn that he
owns Paclfic Lighting Corporatlon stock and Paciflc Ltghtlnc~ owns Dunn Propertles, and,
pursuant to thr. E,rovisic~ns pf the abave cocles, declared to t~~e Chairman that he wa~s
wlthdra~ing fr~m the hearing ~nJ would not take part in either the disGUSSIon or the
vating thercon and that he ha~f not discusscd this matter with any member of thc PlAnntng
Commission.
Tl~e staff report to khe Planning Comrnisston dated Fehruary 2G~ 1~7~~ was presented~ noting
subject property is a rectangularly-shape~i parcel ~F land con5lstin~~ ~f approximately 0.3
acre fiaviny a fronta~;e of ~pproxim~Cely 1!i~~ feet on ttie nort-i sldc of Le Palma Avenue~
having a maximum clepth of appr~~xin~ately 230 feet. and heiny located approximat~.ly 23?. feet
west of the centerline of Ma~~nolia Avenue; [liat the apt~licant requests approvAl of
specl~ic plans; ancJ that {taclassi ficatl~n No. 73-7~~-55 was anproved, in part. by the City
Council o~ June 25~ 1`?7; on tl~e basis o` submitteJ conceatual plans which proposed a
unlfled comr-ercial cent~r and subject to the condition that final specific plans be
approved, Subsequently~ specific plans were submitted and f~und to be substantially
different fram tt~e ori~inal plans; t-~us the reclassification was readvertised for the
Plannln~~ Commission mecting of January 19. lg7~i, an~i at th~[ meeting the Planning
Commissiun approved ne~~ conceptual plans which pruposed 11 separate commerctal lots and
also approv~:d s~~~:ctftc ~l;,ns f~r three of the 11 l~ts; that Resolution No. 76R-65~ adopted
by the Clty Co~encil in corjunctlon with the advertised reclassiflcation, includes the
conditian that f(nal specific plans be submitted to the Planniny Co+nn,ission and Gity
Council for review and approval; and that specific plans have been submitted dnd approved
for seven of the lots under Reclassification t~o, 73~7~+-55.
(t was noted submitted plans (ndicate a propos~.l to construct a two-story, 12~544-square
fc~ot office buildin~ with vehicul~r access to be provlded via prevlously-approved~ 25-foot
wide rectprocal access easements alony the northerly and westerly buundaries of subject
property~ with primary atcess at La Pelma Avenue; that submitted plans indicate 51 parking
spaces in c~nforrnance with Codc standards; and that suumitted plans ind(cate conformance
with all CL site developnrent standards and no details relative to ~roposed signing have
been s~mttted.
ACTtON: Commissioner aarnes offered a motion~ seconded by Ccxnm;ssioner Oavtd and MOTION
G~D (Cortwnissianer King abstainPrg), that the Anaheim Gity Planning Commisslon does
hereby recortxnend to the City Council that specific plans be approved far Reclassification
No. 73-74-5;(9) .
2/26/79
i
1,
MINU'fES, AI~Al1E1M CITY PLAI~NING GUMMISSION, FEBRUARY 26~ 1979 7~-1)~
G. A~P,MdONMENT N0. d-2iiA • Request to aband~n the City's exlstl~g r!ght to llmit
veh~cu aT rc ess ram 9e11a Vlst~~ Street to appl{cant's pr~perty locatad at the
northerly terminus of Bella Viata Str~aet.
The ~taff report to the Pldnntng Gommission dated Febru~ry 2G~ 19~9 wes submEtted~ noting
the roquest Ia to ab~ndon the Clty's e~xlsting ~lyl~t to limlt vehlcular access from della
Viste St~eet to the eppltcant's property loceted at the nortl~erly terminus of Bella Vtsta
Street; that thls rsquest hes been revlewed by ol) conce rned depertments of the City and
approval is recoms~ended; tf~at the appl icant hes requ~sted the ebandonrtx,nt baseJ on his
requlrement ta meet Condltion t~o. ~ of Reclassiflcation No. 76-77-4a wl~ich scates that the
awner shall apply for~ and puy all co,ts of, an abandonmcnt by thc Cicy af thc vchicula~
access rights to Belle Vista StrPee; tliat he must have the access rlghts because he has
extended Bella Vista Street into hIs property and the er,tension includes dedicatlon and
constructton of a standard cul-de-sac~ whEth has been comploted; and thAt an envi~onmenta)
reviav of the request for abendonment Indicates It tc be tateqorically exempt from tha
requtrertwnt of filing an EIR.
ACTION: Commtssloner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Kl~g and M071QN
R ED~ tliat the Anahelm Clty Planntng Commission cbes hereby recommend to che Clty
Councll that Aband~nrr~nt Wo. 7a-2G/1 b~ approved as recommenJe~l by the City Cnglneer.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further buslness~ Commissioner Tola~ offered a motion~
seconded by Commissioner Y.tng and MOTION CARRI~U~ that tl~c mneting be
adJourned to the work session scheduled for Marcii 5~ 1~ 79~ at 7:0~ p.m. in
the Cauncil Chamber.
Yhe meeting was adJourned at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully subm(tted~
_J ~,/1 ;, ,
~i~t~f~ ~'l ~. .....,~
Edi th L. Ilarris ~ Secretary
M aheim City Ptanning Cortmission
ELIi :hrn
2/26/79
~ . ,` j .. . . ' . ' . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' . ~ . . . ' . . ~~'
. .. .i. ~. . ..~~~ _ -_ -