Minutes-PC 1986/06/23REGULAIt MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING The regular me?ting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission was call~d to or.d~r by Chair.woman La Claire
at lO:UU a.m., Jun~ 23, 1986, in the Council Chamber,
a quorum being present, and the Commission review?d
plans of the it~ms on today's ag~nda.
R~CESS: 11:3U a.m.
RECO[~i~~ENED: 1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chair.woman: La Clair.e
Coir~missioners: Bouas, Fry, H~rbst,
La~aicki, McBurney
AF3SENT: Commission~r.: M~sse
ALSU PR~SENT: Annika Santalahti
Malcolm Slaught~r
Car.l Harr.ison
Jay Titus
Paul Singer.
Larry Cabr.er.a
Leona.*.d McGh~e
Edith L. Harr.is
Assisrant Dit~ctor sor Zoning
Deputy~ City Attor.n~y II
Civil Engin~~ring Assi.stant
Uffic~ Engin??r
TrafYic Engine~r.
Housing R~habilitation Sup~CVisoC
Associate Planner
Planning Commission Secr?tary
MINUTI:5 FUR APPROVAL - Commissi.on~r Mc&urney offered a motion, seconded by
Commission~r Law:.cki and MOTION CARRIGU (Commissioner M°ss2 abs~nt) that th~
lnaheim Cit,y D3anning Co~mnissi.on does hereby approve the minutes of the
meetin, oc June :~, 1980, as submitted.
ITEI•1 tlU. 1 EIR IIEGATIVE ilE__4n^TIUIJ (READV,1, GEIJERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 213
(REAll~,'.), RECLhS5IFICATIUIJ !t~'. d5-86-33 (REAllV.) AND VARIANCE N0. 3568 (READV.)
PUBLIC ~-IEti:LNG. GWNExS: CLAUUIP. RINNE, E't AL, c/o KIRK H. FINLEY, 1502 N.
Broadway, Sar.`_a Rr,a, CA 92701. AGENT: TONY NATT50N~ WATTSON REAL ESTATE
INVL'S`."MEN`l'S~ H40 NF±WpOCt CeRtQL 'JL.. Sult~ 540~ N~3WpOLt Beach, CA 9266U.
Property ~r•~crib~c: as a r.~~tangular.lY-shaped parc~l of land consisting of
app_*oxitt~at^ly ~ ac~-~~ located :t the nor~`.aast corn?r of Katella Avenue and
Claudina Stia,, 5J9 E. Katella.
GYA - r~quest to consider. amendr~^nt to the Land Use Element of the General
Plan to considez alte:r.ative proposzl of land use from the current genecal
industrial designations to the general commercial desiynation.
ML to CL or a:2ss intens~ zon~.
Waiv~r of minimum landscaped area and minimum number of packing spaces to
expand ratail uses in an existiny retail/warehouse building.
Con~inued f:om th~ meeiings of May 12 and 28, 1986.
86-414 6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23 1986 86-415
THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEET7NG.
ACTION: Commissionet Bouas offer~d a motion, second~d by Commissioner Lawicki
and MUTION rARRIEll (Commissioner [9ess~ atsent) that conside*_ation of the
afor~mentioneo matter. be continu~d to the r.egula.-ly-scheduled me~ting of
Aug~~st 4, 1U86, at the request of th~ petitioner..
I'!'SM NU. 'L EIR I~EGATIVE DECLARATIOh, RECLASSIPTCATION NU. 65-65-34 AND
VA1iIAN:;E NO. 3559
PUBLIC HEARIN~. OWNExS: JOS6PN t^lILLIAM ROACH AND P1ARY FRANCES ROACH~ 1506 E.
t9elody Lane, Fullecton, CA 92631. AGENT: MASCIEL DEV~;LUPMENT, P. O. Box
4241, Anaheim, CA 928U1. Pr.op~rty desc: .b~d as a r.ectangula~ly-shap~d par.cPl
c,E land consistin9 of approximately 6,465 square f~et, 1627 East Sycamor~a
SL-ceot.
RS-A-43,UOU to x[4-1"l00 oc a less int~nsp zon~.
Waiver.s of maximur~ st~uctur.al heignt and minimum str.u^tucal s~tback to
construct a 2-story, 4-unit apa_*tmenL euilding.
Continued fcom th~ me~ting of t4ay 28, 1986.
THE FULL~3'ri1i: ~ ACTION WAS 't'1KEN A'Y THE BtiGINNING GF THE MBE'fING.
Leonard MCGh~~_' ~XplalR~'d th~ petltlOne[ has [equested a continuance to the
m~eting of Auyust 18, 1986, in order to sucmit r~vised plans; and in the
int~r.im, the petitioner proposes to submit a petition for. a s~nior citizen's
project and if thaL- proj~ct is not approved, will submit r.e~is~d plans und~r
the or.iginal request to reflect City Council's desire for. 1-story apartments
in that azea.
ACTIUN: Cummissioner Bouas offe~ed a motion, ~econded by Commissioner. Lawicki
and MOTIQN CARRIEG (C.ommissionec Messe absent) that consid~r.ation of the
aforem~ntioned matt~z be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
Auyust 18, 1986, at the regu~st of th? petitioner.
I'PEM NU. 3 EIR NEGATIVE llECLAxATiuN, RE~LASSIFICATION NU. 85-86-35 ANll
VARIANCE N0. 3565
PUBLIC H~AItINC;. OWNERS: R?SUL MOHAGHEGH, ET AL, 12652 Huston St. N.
Hollywood, CA 91607. Property desccibed as a r.ectangularly-shap~d parc~l of
land consisting of ap~roximately 0.22 acre, 314 West Elm Street.
itM-2400 to RM-1~OU ur a less int~nse zone-
Wa~vers of maximum buildiny height, maximum sit~ cov~cage and minimum
landscaped setback to construct a 6-unit apartm~nt complex.
Continued from the meeting of May 28, 1966.
THS BOLLOWING ACTION Ir.4S TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE :IEETING.
6/23/86
MINUTF.S, ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23 1986 86-416
ACTION: Commissian?r Bouas off~ted a motion, seconded by Commis~ioner Lawicki
and MOTION CARRIED (Commission~c M~ss~ abs~nt) that considecation of th~
aforementioned matter be continu?d to the regularly-scheduled meeting of July
7, 1966, at th~ r.equ~st of thn Y•-~itioner in order. to submit revised plans.
ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECL~RATION RECLASSIFICATZON N0. SS-86-37, WAIVER OF
CQDE REQUIREMENT~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2$09 AND REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN
TREE REMUVAL NU. 86-04
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANAHEIM HILLS RAC~UET CLUB, 415 S. Anaheim Hills
iioad, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGEh'r5: PHILLIPS BRANDT REDllICK, ATTN: PHILLIP R.
SCHwART'L~ 1~U12 Sky Pdtk C1CCl~r ICVlRe~ CA 92714 dRd AMERICAN DIVERSIFZED
CAPITAL CORP., 325U Wilshir.~ Boul~va~d, Suit~ 2000, Los Angeles, CA 90010.
Property d~scribed as an ir.reyularly-shap~d oarc~l uf land ~onsisting of
approxxmat~ly 5.31 acr~s lo~at~d at th~ northw~~t cor.n~r of Nohl xanch Road
and Anaheim Hills Road, and furth~r d~scr.ib~d as 415 Anah~im Hills Road.
Reclassification fr.om RS-A-43,000 to CR.
Waiv••rs of minimum stru^tu.-al sotba~k (a~lntnd), requir~d building lo~ation
(delrt~~), r^quicPd rncr.eation-leisure area (delet~d), r.equir~d boundary
scr.~ening (d~l^t~d), and !~!Ul~~d numb^r of affordabl^ units to p~rmit a 2-and
3-story, 125-unit senior. . ~izen apartm~nt proj~ct (revised to 118 units;.
Continued frorn the m~~tiny of Jiin~ 9, 198ti.
Th~C^ Wnr~ SLX p~CSOnS 1CidlCatlttg the1L pCPSARC~ lrt fdVOL OL SUb)pCt C^QU~St
and, a~id approximat~ly nir~.e persons indicating their preSeRCe in opposition to
subject request; and although th^ staff r~port was not r~ad, it is refecr~d to
and mad~ a pa-t of th~ minut~s.
Phllllp S~hwart2^~ Pd~tn~~~ Phlllips Brand't R~ddi~k~ Stated th~y h~Vn mado 3
number of modifications to the p'_ans subsequent to th~ last meeting and have
eliminat~d all th~ waiv~rs, ~X~ept th~ ~pquired number of affordable units.
He add~d they hav? also provided info:mation per.taininy to nec~ssary services
such as th~ di.stance to the near.nst shopping center, which is at Imp~rial and
Santa Ana Canyon Road, and is approximat~ly 1.3 dtiving miles from the sit?.
He present~d a petition containing approximat~ly 43 naro~s of busin~ss p~opl~
and residents in th~ area who ar~ in ~upoor.t of the proj~ct.
K~n xyan, agent, stat~d they hav~ worked very closely with City staff and thP
citizens in the a-ea to insure t:hat ~he proj~ct is responsive to th? needs of
the com_.~unity and is ^_ompatible with the surrounding area; that tY~ plan
offe:s seniur citizens hi9h quality housing opportunities whi.ch presently do
not ~xist in the Anah~im d7~d and add~d this is not at th~ expens~ of th~
r.?sidents in this neighbor.tiood.
Mr. Ryan stat~d they s~nt mailer.s to 89 r~sid~nts closp to th~ site and
scheduled two meetings and 33 p~ople attended th? m~etings; and of pr.imary
concern to thr~se in attendance was the potential traffic impacts associat~d
with the northjs~uth access :oad along the western bor.der of the proj~ct. He
added zh?y met with City staf.f and discussed ttiose conc~:ns and explain~d the
project provid~s an additional access point to Anaheim 6ills Road and
6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEI[d CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN JUNE 23 1986 86-417
weli-documented trip g~ner.ation rates for senior projects ar~ substantially
lower than other residential uses; however, th^y would be pleased to provid~ a
hn~g~ buffer. to reduc~ noise concerns, should Commission d~t~r.min~ that
measure to b~ appr.opriate. He referred to the information pr.ovided pectai.ning
to senior proj~ct parking statistics and stated Am~rican Div~r.sified has built
clos~ to 1,000 s~nior citizen units duting th^ last 15 y^ars, and th~r~ has
n?ve_* b~en a par.king probl~m in any of th~s~ p=oj~cts, and they have prnvid~d
on~ space per unit ~nd this proj^^.t provid~s 1.5 parki.ng sparng p~~ unit, for
a total of 40 spac~s ov~r what is r~quired by Anaheim City Codes.
He stated ori4i~ially th~y proposed 150 units for this proje^-t, but ncw ar~
proposing 118 units, and have incr~as~d th~ structur.al s~tback adjac~nt to
Anaheim Hills Road £rom 20 f~~t to 50 f~~t and in^r~as~d th~ numb~! of parking
spaces well beyond Code requir.em~nt and have eliminat~d all the waivers,
PXCPpL the affotdabl~ uRits; thdt th•?y haV~ in^r~as~d th~ total
r.~cr.~ational-l~isure a-ea and will landscap~ and maintain th.~ presently
bli9ht~d slope and d~y a:~a up to Hill^rest, wost of the si.t~, as previously
indicated, and also will r~plac~ any sp~cim~n tr~e remov~d on a 2 to 1 r.atio
Wltih a matur~ bOX Sp~Clm^R LL~C dS lAdlCdt~d OR th~ C1tY~S :~p~C1ID°R TL°C
Llst. H~ stated th~y wlll a1S0 p.*.OVId~ shLLttl~ s~.CVic~ t0 tti~ S~rilOCS f0*
c~ar.spoztation to the majoc shoppiny ~~nr~r•
M:. Rpan pr~s~nt~d slides of th~ pr.oposed proj^ct and sur.r.ounding ar.ea,
poi.nting ou~ fib~rglass shinglo~ that app^a- as wood in ^arthton~ ^.olors will
b~ used~ flnd thdt th^ Anah?im Hills Racqu~t Club adjdC~nt to th^ p•'.oPP'tYr
combin~d with Lhe pro~ect's ~xcensiv~ recreation faciliti~s, will ptovidA
residents wzth an exclusiv~ country club atmosphere; zhat all vi^w corridors
to th^ north of the pro7ect Nill r.~main ~xactly as zhey are today, and the
major.ity of trees south of th~ pcoj~ct ~aill r.~main. H~ ~xplained the building
will ~eYlac•~ four of th~ pres~nt tennis couccs.
Mr. Ryan stat~d thn~~ a-~ conv~niently located m~dical offir,~s, a dr.ug stor~
and a conv~nience market in th~ ad7acent shopping ~~nter. HP stated th~ flood
contrcl channe.l located on the wnst will be improved and cover.~d. H~ stated
th~ building, by way of attra~tivp landscaping and archit~ctural d~sign, will
not only pcovide high quality living oppoctunities for. Ar.ah~im senioc
citiz~ns, but will maintain th~ high standa~ds of dev~lopm^nt found throughout
the Anaheim Hills community.
Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, Anah~im, stat~d this p~operty is curr~ntly 2on?d
xS-A-43,000(SC); and that the Scenic Corridor zoning has a maximum h~ight
limxtation ~f 25 fPPt and a maximum density of 16 units pe~ a^_r?, and the
proposa~ is for a three-story s~nior citiz~n apartm~nt complex with 118 units
on ap~roximat~ly 4+ acr~s; that whil~ th~ Gencral Plan shows this area for
commer.cial recraational uses, it is sti,ll zoned RSnA-43,U00 P=d taeviable
reyuestinq a zone chan9~ to mak~ this probl_m parc_1 of pcop_ Y
development and th~ request for. senio*_ apartments is not in confor.mance sinc~
none oi th~ units are plann~d to b~ affo~dabl~; that it is h?r opinion tha~
this proJect is not in the public good aad approval would set a precedent for
more pr.oj~cts in th~ Scenic Corridor which do not meet the standacds of the
zoning or.dinanc~s.
6/23/86
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JU[~E 23, 1986 86-418
Pac Goodman, 62U E. La Paz, Anaheim, stated h~r proper.ty is dicectly adjacent
to th^ flood contzol chann~l and Walnut Canyon Road which is not~d as "toad'
on the map, and stated that road will bF usnd ~xclusively by the t~nnis club
patrons sin^e there will D~ no additional access provided for 'the tennis club
and their pr.~sAnt access will b~ us~d by th~ senior citizens' complex; that a
wall or be:m is pr.opos~d across th~ prop^rty; how~vpr, it will not blo~k that
road and it can be used by the projecc down alung the channel and thr.ough th~
ti~RR15 club property. Sh~ stated sh~ f~l~ this is cramming too many p^opl~
into a small a.-ea and the conv~nienc~s are not located within walking
distanc~. Sh~ not~d th~ majo.* shopping ^ent~r is 1.3 milos away, and that is
also whet~ the public tcansportation stops are located; and that the dcug
store refer.an~ed in th~ir study is ~Xtr~~^ly low in sto~k and th~ beauty shon
listed is basically for childr~n, and there is no bank. Sh~ add~d she is
concer.ned hecaus~ sh~ liv~s on th~ rorn^r of Anah~im Hills Road and La Paz Way
and ther.^ hav~ be~n num~rous accid~nts at this int~~s~ction; and that she is
roncer.n~d about noise and pollution f.rom th^ vehicles, and not~d th~r.~ is also
the support personn~l who would ae workiny at L•h~ facility. 5h~ stated if
th1S 1S dp~'OV~d~ th~.'° W111 U^ thC~9 S^RIOC C1C1'L~R COmp1C%^S On Lh~ COtR^C
of Anaheim Hills Road and Nuhl Ranch itoad.
Ara Call, 6U15 E. Hiller.esc, stat~d his back yard abuts Walnut Cr^ek Road, and
that h~ att~nded on~ of th~ two informational meetinys. H~ r~ad a l~tt~r from
a n~ighbor unab7.~ to att~nd today's m^^ting, Jim and Pat Jon^s, 606 tiill~r~st
CiLCle~ indicating thel~ opposition to th~ t~quest. H~ Stdt~d h~ appCe^_idtnd
th~ consideration g1V~n t0 th~ C1t12^RS ln rh~ n~lghbOChOOd; thdt On^ Of th^
commitments made on Wednesday niyht was to restrir_t access from th~ senioc
citizen's pr.oj~ct along Walnut Cr^^k Road, and h~ did not think that has b~~^
incorpor.ated, but they ar~ sayiny they will provide a sound bar.*i~r inst~ad,
and one of th~ neighbors pzimary con~ern was that access and th~y a-e not here
todap because the}' thought that had been r~solved,
Mr.. Call stated hc did not und~rstand how th~ ~questrian trail will b~
incor.po~ated. H~ statod in addition to the ttaffic concerns along Walnut
CCeek Road~ th~:~ ls the t~affic on Anah~im Hills Rodd~ dnd added h~ thOUght
pooplc gozn9 to the major shopping cent~~ would mak~ a left tur.n out of the
p.-o7ect onto Anaheim Hills Road, and tne northernmost ~xit will not allow a
left tuzn. H~ noted there is a cu~ve there on Anahe~.iu ~'.ills Road just north
of th~ acc~ss and h~ thought that would b~ v~ry uns~f~. He ask~d how many
luxury units Ametican Diversi£ied has built, be^ause i,e thouyht people ~enting
a luxur.y unit would have at least one car, and in two-bed~oom units, th~y
p.*obably would have two cars, and he did not think parking would be ad~quate.
He su9g^st~d raising th~ r~nts slightly and making this a truly luxu,-y
apar.tment complex, the density could be reduced.
He Stdt~d h^ r~ally 3pp.'~~idt~s th~ bd~!e^ hillsid~ b~~dUS~ of th^ blyd
nesting areas, and moved to this ac~ea because he f~lt it was something lik~
beiny in th~ country, and added h° CAd112AS many p^ople would lik~ to s~~ that
hillsid~ landscaped. H~ stated the thc~~ stor.ies a~e just too much and th~
density is just too high.
A1 Battan, P~~Sid~Dtr CPE DeVelOpmnRt Company, statnd th~y own th~ p~op~~tY on
the southwest corner which was approved for a senior citi2~n facility about
1-1/2 yea-s ago, and th~y a~~ oppos~d to this proj~ct bocaus~ part of thA
6/23/86
MIIdUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI[dG COMMZSSION~ JUNE 23~ 198b 86-419
reason they chose this site for their facility was the lar.g~ yreen very
spacious area and they have worked hard on th~ic pr.og:ams and the recrnational
facilities of th~ existing t~nnis cour.ts falls into some of the proyrams they
are o£fer.in9 th~ir. seniors and th~y would lik~ to se~ some typ~ of continu~d
r~creational uses on that property. He stated the Senior Inns pcojec:, in
addition to their pro~ect, provid~s an answ~r to the need in the Anah~im Hills
ar~a Eor senioc citizen housing. fi~ stated com~ar~d to the oth~r ~LOJ~CtS~
th~y bC11~Ve this proj^~t is just too mu~h.
Pnillip schwartze stated they ar.~ pcoposin9 to us~ thce^ of th~ t~nnis courts
and the oth~t courts will remain, so the r.ecr.~ation asp~~t of th~ majority of
r.he property stays intact. He stat~d they hav~ met with th^ City r~garding
the ~questrian tcail and placed th~ ~yu~strian tr.ail on th~ plan as
r.ecomm~nded and it conforms th~ Master Plan of xiding and Hiking T.-ails, and
add~d it xs the City's :esponsibility to g^t th~ ~asem~nts and mak~ th~ trail
usable, and h~ did not kno~ when the ultimat~ link will b~ made. H^ stated
th~y ar.e doing th~ir part by providiny the trails and bonding for them as
c~quir~d.
Reyardiny comm~nts made at their m~~ting with n^ighbors, h~ ~xplained th~y
assured ~h~ neighbors tha.t any stipulations will be compli~d with because they
will b~ a part of the minutes and will be includod as part of the approval of
the project.
He stated ther.e was a concecn from the peoplo wh~ livn at th~ very far end
which is quite som~ distance from th~ p~oject b~cause ther~ is an access which
now f~~ds th~ tennis club and w~r~ conc~cned that cr.affic, inst~ad of going
r.ight out onto th~ arterial, would be going northbound down past th~ t~nnis
courts and exirin9 to th~ sourh, and at th^ fa! end, th^ housos which ar~
adjacent ar.e actually almost at grade with th~ StC~~t and are not elevat~d as
th~y ar~ acound th^ p•'oj~^t, and th^ p^tition~r indicat~d they would m~~t with
the TraPfic Engineer and pcesent the plans to the Commission to restr.ict that
access. H~ stated also they would b~ happy to provid~ a landscap~d b~rm along
the far end to buffer nois~ from the tennis court facility to the st.-~et.
Mt. Schwartz~ stat~d as part of a luxury apartm~nt proj~ct, th~y will be
adding th~ amenity of a shuttle for the senior. citizens' tr.ansportation, and
that is one r~a.on th^ r~nts are so high, and in addition~ th~y are ~xce~ding
the par.king reyuicem~nts.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEll.
Co~nissione~ Fry stated he thouyht they had donn an outstanding job r~du~ing
the number of units to 118 and have elirtiinat~d fou_- of the five varianc~s and
he has no proulem with th^ lo~ation, but did not know how Commission ~ould
approve the r.eyuest b~cause they still use the ter.minology 'senior citizen
complex', and in ocde~ for Commission to approve th~s as a senior citizen
project, they must provide 25~ of the units in the affor.dable rang~, and that
means at lcast 30 units.
Mc. SChWdrt2~ stated or.iginally they understood that the City could waiv~ that
patticular ~equitement. He stated they would lik~ to provide high quality
units for seniozs who can affo:d a luxury type unit and that there is a ma.-k~t
foz them and that Anah~im Hills is certainly an appropriate area.
6/23/86
MINUTES, AhAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 23, 1986 86-420
Commissioner He_-bst stated this project just do~sn't work as a s~nior citizen
compl~x; that th~ p~riphoral parking is a long way fcom th~ units and theT~
are only two elevatocs. Hc stated h~ has senn many s~nior citizen proj~cts
ov~r the years and feels this probably g~ts as fa.- away from th~ s~nio~
citizen n~eds as possible. f1e stated he recognizAS there is probably a ne~d
for s~nior citiz~n d~luxo apartments, but with this r~du^_tion in th~ numb~r of
units and tn~ addition of only six parking spacns, h~ still f~lt th~r~ would
not bo ddequdt~ pdrking becduse many 5~610C C1t12^n5 could hdV~ two ~d~s~ and
not just in th~ one-b~droom units, becaus~ an afflu~nt. couple in a one-b~droom
unit would pr.obably hav~ two automobil~s.
Mr. Schwart2e stat~d th^ site Flan would allow for. additional parking, and
polnLed out th~y hdV~ ~XCeed~d Cod~ C~QU1rn~~nntS fo.' pd~ki.ng. Commissione.-
HBLbSt StdtBd thBV dC^ meetin9 th^ S~n10Z C1t1ZAR~5 COd~S fOL par.king, bUt d~~
not m~eting tho Senior Citiz~n apartm~nt criteria. He stat~d as an RM-1200
development h~ would not like to apprev~ per.ipheral parkin~ because tenants
would haVe to walk 2'!0 to 3UU feet to get• to the ~ICVdtO~.
ML. SchwaLtZ~ dsk~d lf a tuck-under p!O]er.t woUld be mor~ desirable.
Commi.ssion~t Hecbst rosuond~d that would ~e far mo~e suitabl~ becaus~ mor.e
secur.ity is provid~d and they could park clo>e- to th~ir unit. He added the
density is still too mu^n in this lo~ation. [4r. Schwartze stated they hav~
str.uggled wirn the issue of th~ parking because Ar,ierican DiVetslfi~o has done
a numb~r of pro7ects and has not had a pa-kina problem as to th~ numbe: of
spaces. He stat~d if the Commission will give them some guidelin~s, they will
be happy to revise th~ plans and add whatev~r parking th~ Commission feels
will meet the requirements. Commissioner H~rbst stat~d less density would
make the pr.oj~ct mo*e suitaole; chat more elevators ar.~ needed for. a seniors
pro7eci and the parking should not be located so fac fr~m the units. Mr.
Schwartze stated they would be nappy to mak~ the changes to the plans.
Commissioner. Herbsc statied h~ rccogniz~s tihis par^el could probably be
dev~loped into a good senior citizon's project and with less donsity would
probably hav~ the least impact on the neighbo*hood, but thought they ar~
tryiny to put too mu^h on the property; and that h~ r~alizes thA flood control
channel goes through the property making th~ proper.ty hard to develop.
Commissionez McBU.*.nay stat~d this layout is not in tune with S~nior. Citiz~n's
cequirements and if it is not sold as sonior. citizen`s pcojects, the p*operty
owner will b~ back to t-y and get it ap~roved as a regular apartment complex
and that he could not vote in favor the way it is proposed right now.
Phillip Schwartze r.equ~sted a continuano~ in or.d~r to modify th~ plans and
consider cuck-under parking. He added h~ thought it is a gaod project and
with some modzfications, it could be an a^ceptable project co the Commission
and added he wants to continue to wozk on the project to make it acceptabl~.
Chairwoman La Clair~ stated she is concern~d about the r.oad and tcaffic. She
stated sn~ would love to se~ the property stay r~creational, but it is not
guing to stay that way; and t}~at sh~ has b~~n told it is ~ot doing w~ll. Sh~
stated a lot of homes back onto that recreational area and the open spac~
alony Anaheim Hills Road, and if t~l~ tennis ~lub does not stay, th~ pr.oper'ty
owner will be requestiny proposals w}~ich the Commission does not like and
stated she would like to see a guarantee that th~ tennis club will remain and
6/23/86
86-421
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAIdNII~G COMMISSION JUNE 23 1986
if a ttue lo~ density senior citizen tyoc development would offer that
guacantee, she would be in favor of the proposal. She added shc did not know
how to ptovide that guatantee, but thought the tennis club and ±his
developmenc should all be tied togethec. She stated sne wanted to see a
guarantee to keep the tennis club and that the open space will remain and that
theze will not be any increased t:affic on La Paz. She Gtated she also
thou9ht the density i.s roo high.
Jay Titus explained that strect was originally a maintenance road for thc
flood cont~ol channel and is not a public street. He stated that roa~ could
be closed to thC publi~•
CommisGioner Herbst ~eferred to *_he indication in the ~tas~aces~wouldameete
proposal does not indicate whether the remaining par.king P
requir.emencs foc the tennis cour.ts and clubhouse.
Leonard Mr.Ghee, Associate Plannet, explained the petitioner did not indicate
whether thc packing Gpz~e~ eliminated by the development of thiG project on
the souther.n portion of the pLOperty, wuuld leave adequace parking foc the
tennis cour.t~ and clubhouse, and staff is concecned chere may not be enough
parkiny left for. cne tennis club.
Mt. Schwa~tze stated tnere a.-e 96 pa_*kiny spaces remaining on the parcel to
the south, and ther.c is more than ample room existing fo~ mo~e than code
r.equized pa~kiny for the cennis club. He stared they werc also concerned and
did a ahysical count on the p~oper.ty and measur.ed the spaces and they ar~
12-and 13-foot wide spar.es, and with •estriping, thcy would have more than
ample parkiny.
Leonazd McGhee stated it was staff's concern that the pazking was
angle-parking which typically requires less back-up space and was ~ot sur.e if
there was enough room on the sitc to provide additional parking.
Chairwoman La Claite stated Ghe would like to sec the matter continued to get
all thc an~wers. She ctated she would like to cee this property retained as
one and noted it is onc owr.er, and the only way she would vote for this
pto7ect is to have a guarancee that the tennis cour.ts and the open space will
remain.
phillip Schwattze stated r.he people in the a:ea were concerned that once this
p•oject is approved, the tennis club would still disappear and there would be
an expansion of thiG pro7ect and ne was not su`~theWUSe,gandathe pro~ertyuis
that the powcr lics with thc City not to chan9~
zoned fot commercial r.ecreation uses and some of the uses that could be
developed by cight would be of moce concern than this seniot citizens project.
Chairwoman La Claire stated this development would probably produce the least
amount of noise, the least amount of intrusion into the area, and the lcast
amount of tcaffic, consider.iny they would probably not have as many trips per
day, but sh~ was concerned that this would be just a'foot in the door'. She
6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION JUNE 23 1986 86-422
ask~d why this ptojecr should be approved if the tennis club is going to go
out of busin~ss, and why they wouldn't just .^.om~ in with a total pzoj~ct fo~
th~ whole proper.ty.
Mr.. Schwartz~ stat~d the zonir~ for the remainder of the prop~rty is not
chanying and would still be RS-A-43,000(SC), and the ~xisting use is a
non-conforming us~. Chairwoman La Clair.e statnd she would also like to see
that ptoper.ty zezoned from RS-A-43,000 to CR because right now the whole
property is in a holdiny zone. Mr. S~hwartz~ st~ted l~s~~dgr.ezoninnlto oSens
may offer noro assuranc~ than r.ezoniny to CR. H_ sugg~. 9 P
s~ace designation, or some other. zone which would p-ovid~ better assuran~^
zhat thc t~nnis clue will re:nain.
Commissioner Bouas stated to yua.*.ante^ th^ tennis ^lub, all th^s~ p^opl~ will
have to join it, o~ the City has to take it over. and op~rate it, but it has to
have suppo~c in o~d~r to rcmain.
MalcoJ.m Slaught~r, Doputy City A`torn~y, stat~d there is nothing to prohibit
the City from enter.ing in~o a Ueveloprn~nt Agreement which would encompass not
only th~ apa.-.tment site, but th^ t~nnis ~lub as woll, with guaranr^^s to the
Clty~ thC l~n9th Of US~~ ~tiC. H~ StdtCd~ hOWCVCL~ th^ U~velopm~nt Agce~ment
proc~ss is involved and l~ngrhy and requir~s additional h~arinas.
ACT:ON: Commissionet Herbst offer~d a motion, s~condod by Commission^r
McBurney and MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioner Messe aosent) that consideration of
the aforementioned matt~r be continued to the r.eyularly-scheduled meeting of
July 21, 1986, dt th~ tequest of th^ p~titiOn~r,
IT~M NU. S EIR NEGATIVE 1)ECLARATIUN WAIVER OF CODE RE~UIREMENT AND
CONDITZONAL USE Pc1tMIT NU. 28U5
PUliLIC HEA1tING. QWNEkS: RICHARU G. AND BARBARA L. SAYLOR, 804 W. Broadway
Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Proper.ty descr.ib~d as a r~ctangular.ly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximat~ly U.32 acr.es, located at the
southwesc cor.ner of Broaciway and Citron Street, and further descr.ibed as 804
West Broadway.
Waivers of minimum rear yard setback and reyuired type of pa~king spaces to
permit a bed and breakfast inn in the RM-2400 zone.
THE FOLLOWING AC'PIUN WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNIe7G OF 'PHE MEETING.
ACTIUN: Commissionec Souas offeted a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki
and MOTION CARRIEll (Commission~r Mess~ absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be cont:nued to the r~gularly-scheduled meeting of July
7, 1986, at th~ request of th~ p~tition~r,
ITEM NO. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2798
PUtlLIC HEI~itIt~G• 01~~t7ERS: CHRRLES HANCE, 828 W• Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92805. Ptopesty described as an itte9ularlY'nhof~approximatelya335cfeetSOn g
of approximacely 1.84 acres, having a frontag_
6/23/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 23, 1986 86-423
th~ south side of Vermont Avenue, approximately 190 feet west of th~
centerline of Citron Stre~t, ~asterly of th~ Santa Ana Fre~way, and fu.-ther
d~scribed as 808-820 west Vermont Avenue.
Waivez o£ minimum number. of par.ki~g spaces to p~rmit an automotive sales and
servic~ center facility and retain an outdoor storag~ area.
Continued from the meeting of June 9, 1986.
Ther~ was no one indicating theic pr.esence in opposition to subject ~equest
and although the staff report was not read, it is reforr~d to and made a part
Of th9 m1RUt~S.
Chuck Hance, own~r, stated this is a Corvett~ parts businoss and that h~
occasionally s~lls cars and is applying for a license with the D~par.tm^nt of
Motor Vehicles and would lik~ to park a ~oupl~ of cars out front on th~
property and also r~tain the outdoor. f~nc~d stocage aroa in the rear..
TH~ PU~LIC HEARING WAS CLU5Ell.
Commissionor Her.bst clarified that no disassembly of automobiles would be
allowed. L^onard McGhee exnlainod this action is th~ result of Code
Enforcement activity because th~ ownet app~a~ed to be disassembling
automobiles. Mr. Hance stated he previously bouaht automobile parts fcom
oth~C pCOple dnd wh~n th~ Cod~ Enfotcoment Offlrer Was thete~ pa~ts had just
been dropp~d off; however, he is no longer dcing that par.t of the op~r.ation.
Leonazd McGhee stated tne oth~.- part of the request is for outdoo~ storagA for
the t-ailers on the property and that was a violation of Cod~ and the
petitioner was cited and this is a~eguost to retain those trail~rs and staff
is suggestiny the trailers be enclosed with site screening. Mr. Hance stated
he would agree to provid~ the sit~ s^_~ecning. Chairwoman La Clair~ stated she
sees no problem with this requost as long as the conditions are met because it
is a use compatible with th~ industrial ar~d.
Leonard McGh~e stated staff would recommend thaL the four conditions included
in Par.ag:aph 21 of th~ staff repor.t be included in the resolution, if g-anted.
Mr. Hance statr_d one of his tenants details Porches and Mercedes and has no
retail p:oducts to sell and asked if it would be a violation of these
conditions and added, also one tenant details limousines and does not havn a
produ^t to sell and a lot of thoir busin~ss is d6R^ off th~ sit~. It was
clarified the retail sales wonld be limited to Unit A.
Mr. Hance responded to Commissioner Bouas that he has fou~ trailers outsid~
and the number can be limited to those four. Lconard McGhee stated staff's
original conec_~r.n was that he also pr.oposes to s~ll products: in the front and
wanted to work on the vehicles in the rear; however, that tenant has left and
this stipulation would furthec restrict the operation and he thought the
purpose was to allow more flexibility. Mr. Hance explained he thought
something should be added to the wording co the effect that it would exclude
sezvice or.iented businesses. He stated originally there was a window tinting
business and no product was sold for that operation; howevet, that business
6/23/86
86-424
MINUTES ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23 1986
has been relocated and is being replaced with the detailing oper.acion.
Commissioner Fcy stated the words 'automobile detailiny' could be added.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTIUN CARRIEll (COmmissioner M~sse absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to per.mit an automobile sales and sezvice
centet facility and r.etain an outdoor sto:aye azea with waiver of minimum
number of requir.ed parking spaces on an irr.egularly-shaped parcel of land
consistiny of approximately 1.84 acres, having a frontage oE approximately 335
feet on the south sidc of Vermont Avenue and fur.ther described as BOb to 820
West Ver.mont; and does hereby approve the Negativc Declaration upon finding
that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any ~o~••~nrs
received during the public review process and £ur.ther finding on the basis of
the Initial Study and any comments r.eceived that ther.e is no substantial
evidence that the pr.oject will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissionec Fry offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTZON
CAftItIEll (Corunissionec Messe absent) that the Anahcim City Planning Commission
docs hcr.eby g~ant waive: of Codc requirement on the basis that the parking
waiver. will not cause an inczease in craffir rongeGtion in che immediate
vicinity no~ adversely affect any adjoining land uses and gr.anting of the
parkiny waiver unde~ the rondition~ impoGed, if any, will not bc detrimencal
to ti.he pcacc, health, safety and yencral wclfare of th~: citizens of the City
of Anaheim.
Commissioncr Fr.y offcred Resulution No. PC86-167 and muved for its passagc and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hcreby gr.ant
Conditional Use Per.mit No. 2798 puzsuanc to Anaheim Municipal Code Seccions
18.U3.03U.030 through 18.03.030.035 and sueject to additional conditions as
ii~dicated in the staff teport and modifie~ to include automobile detailing and
subject to Inte[depar.tmental Committee r.ecommendations.
Un r.oll call, thc forcyoing resolution was passea by the following votc:
t1YE5: i~UUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKZ, MC BURNEY
NO~S: NUNE
AB5ENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slauyhter., DepuLy City Atto~neyr presented the r~ritt~n tight to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NU. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAIL4TION TENTATIUE TRACT OF MAP N0. 10982
(REVISION N0. 1) ANll SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVAL.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KAUFMAN AND BROAD dF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 5500 E.
Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92607, ATTN: MARK GOODMAN. P~~oximat£ly
desccibed as an iriegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app
6.9 acres generally located north and west of the intezsection of Bauer Road
and Monte Vista Road, and further described as Kendra Cout.t, East Hills (Bauer
Ranch-Ar.ea 7).
To establish a 15-lot, RS-5000 (SC1 lResidential„ Si~gle-Family, Scenic
Corridor Overlay) Zone subdivision and approval of sp~cific plans for
6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CIiY PLANNING COMMISSION JUN~ 23 1986 86-425
Tentative T:act No. 109d2 (Revision No. 1) (Bau~r Ranch-Area 7) previously
reviewed under Varian~e No. 3563.
Continued from thn meeting of June 9, 1986.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subj~ct r.equest
and although the staff report was not read, it is [~fet[ed L'o and made a part
of the minutes.
Commissionor Bouas d~clar.ed a conflict of inte:est as dofined by Anah~im City
Planning Co~nission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Inter.est
Code foz che Planniny Commission and Gover.nment Code Section 3625, ~t seq., in
that hcr husband has done work for the developer and pursuant to th^
provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chair.woman that he was
withdr.awing from the hearing in connr_r_tion with Tentative Tr.act Map No. 10982
(xev. No. 1), and would no~ takc part in eithnr the discussion or tnc voting
thcreon and had not discussed tnis mattcr with any membec of the Plannzng
Cortimission. Thereupon Commission~r Souas left the Council Chambcr.
Kevin Kirk, Director of Er.gineering, Kaufman &~road, llevelopment Gr.oup,
:eferred to Condition No. 2 and explained thcy have bonded for the traffic
signals and installed some of the sionals as necessa:y and wanted to be sute
they ar.c not required to pay any additional f~es. H~ sugy~st~d that Condition
No. 23 should be modificd to eliminate rhe refer^nce co a wall alo~ig the
pcoperty line becausc it was always int~nded the,y would install the wall along
the top of the slope adjacnnt to the open spac~ area a~ove the Regional CenL•er.
and the wording of the ~roposed condition may requir.e two sepa-ate walls. Ho
referred to Conditicn No. 4 and clar.ified they ar^ not being ask~d to bond
twice fo*_ the landscaping and explain~d they presr_ntly have a ~ond posted with
the City; howevcr, the[e may b~ some need to renew it and it will be r.enewed.
THk~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL05ED.
Paul Singer, 'PZaffic Engine~r, stated the developer would not have to pay for
the tr.affic signal or fees twicr_; and that certain traffic signals have been
installed and ihe remainder bonded for and that the condition should be left
as it is.
Chairwoman La Claire stated the wall should be placed at the top of the
slope. Malcolm Slau9hter stated the property line in question may not be at
the top of the slope, so there would be two dificrent locations fo_- the walls
under this condi.tion and that is not the intent. Mr. Kirk stated the property
linos are aithin the 100 foot slope betw~en the Regional Shopping Cente~ and
the t_*act.
Chaicwoman I,a Clair.e stated tha agreement when the shopping center was
proposed should be adhered to and Mr. Kirk stated they have never been
otili9ated to put a wall at the bottom oE rhe slope.
Regardi.ng Condition No. 24a Jay Titus stated under the Grading Plan the
developer has posted a bond ;~~r th~ landscapiny and irrigation for the slope;
however, that was quite a f~w ycars ago and that bond should be teneWed. He
added there was no intent to have two bonds, but to have one valid current one.
6/23/86
:1INUTES Al4AHEIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION JUNE 23 1986 86-426
P1r. Kirk stated they would substitute a new bond.
ACTSOt~: Co~Tissioner McBUrney offered a motion, s~conded by Commissioner
Herbst and MOTION ~ARRIEll (Commissioner.s Bouas and tdesse absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Cortunission has reviewed the proposal to establish a
15-lot, RS-5,000(SC) Zone subdivision on an irregular.ly-shaped parc~l of land
consistiny of approximately 6.9 acres generally located nortih and west of th~
intersection of Bauer. Road and Monte Vista Road, and further describ~d as
Kendra Cour.t, East Hllls (Bau~r Ranch - Area 7) and and does h~teby appr.ov~
the Negative ll~cla~ation upon findin9 tnat it has considerod the Negative
Declaration togethec with any comments received du-ing th~ public review
process and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments
reccived that thcr.e is no substantial evidence thac the pr.oject will hav~ a
significant effect on the enviconment.
Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Her.bst and
MUTIUN CARRIEU (Commissi.iners Bouas and Messe absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together
wich its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim
Gr_neral Plan, puzsuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does,
therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 10902 (R~V. NU. 1) for a 15-lot,
condominium suDdivision sub7ect to th~ following conditi.ons:
1. That prior to issuanc~ of a buildirig per.mit, th^ appropriate major
thoroughfa~e and 'oridge fee shall ~c paid to the City oi Anahcim in an
amount as specified in th~ Major. Tho:ough£are and Bridge F.-e Program for
the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corr.idor, as approved by City Council
Resolution No. BSR-423.
2. Tnat prior. to fir.al tract mao approval, the appropriat~ traffic signals
as required by the Bauer xanch Public Facility Plan dated November, 1983
shall eirher be installed or. the appropriate fr_ns paid to the
satisfaction of the City En9ineer.
3. That all pzivate streets shall be d^veloped in accordance with the City
of Anaheim's Standard lletail No. 122 fo: private streets, including
installation of street name siyns. Plans for the private strect
lighting, as requirea by tre standard detail, shall be submitted ~o the
Building Division for approval and included Nith rhe building plans prior
to the issuance of building per.mits. (Privata streets are those which
provide primary access and;or circulation within the project.
4. That no public or. private street grades shall excr_ed 102 except by prior
approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and th~ Engincering Division.
5. That dr.ainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
7. That all lots within this ~r.act shall be served by under9round utilities.
6/23/86
MINUTBS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMI~ISSION LJUNE 23, 1986 86-427
~. That priar to commr_nr.emont of ,tructural fzaming, fire hydzants shall b~
installed and charged as requir~.d and deter.mined to be n~c~ssary by the
Chief of thc Fire Uepartment.
9. That all r.equir^ments of Fire Zone 4, otl~er.wise identificd as Fir.e
Administratxve Ur.der No. 76-01, shall be met. Such requiroments include,
but ar.e not limited to: chimney spar.k a~r.estor.s, pr.otected attic and
under flcar openings, Class C or better roofing mater.ial and one hour.
fir.e resistive construction of horizontal sur.faces if located within 200
fo~t of adjacent b-ushland.
10. Thar ~r_mpor.ar.y strect name siyns shall be installed prior to any
ocr_upancy if ~er.manent street name siyns have not been installed.
11. That yra~ing, excavation, and all other constr.uction dCt1V1tLC5 nhall be
conducted in such a mariner so as to minimize the possibili"yo uf any silt
oriyinatiny fr.am this p[oa~~t being carried into the Santa ~na Rivec by
storm water originating from or flowin9 through this project.
12, Thai•. prior to final building and zoning inspections, •No par.ki~y for.
street sweeping" siyns shall be installed as cequir~d by the Stceet
19aint~nancc and Sanitation Uxvision and in accordance ~ith specifications
on file with said division.
13. That Lhe seller. shall provide th~ pucchaser. of each ~esidential dwelling
wiL•h wr.itten infocmation concezniny Anah~im Municipal Code Section
14.32.500 per.taining to 'Parkiny ~estricted to facilitate street
sweeping". 9ur.h written information shall ~learly indicate when
on-street par.kin9 is prohibited and the p~nalty for vioiation.
14. 'Phat prior to final tr.act map appr.oval, che origxnal documents of the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a let~er addressed to the
devcloper's title company author.izing recor.dation thcreof, shall bc
submitted to tho City Attor.ney's Office and approved by the City
Attorney's Office and Engincer.ing llivision. Said documents, as approved,
will then bc filed and re^orded in the Office of the Or.ange County
Recorder..
15» That pr.ior to issuance of a building permit, app~opriate par.k and
recroation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount
as determ~n~d by thc City Councxl.
16. That native slopes adjacent to new1Y ~onstLUCted hOmr_s shall be
hydr.oseeded with a low fuel combustible 5~ed mix. Such slopes shall be
sprinklered an~ weeded as reyuired to establish a minimum of l0U feet of
separ.ation betw~en flammadle vegetation and any structur.e.
17. That r.easonable landscaping, including irrigation facilitxes, shall be
installed in the uncemented portion of th~ par.kway of any ar.tcrial street
and any interia~ or collec~.or street wh~r.e ther.e is an adjacent slope to
be maintained by the Homeowrters Associa~ion. The Hcmeowners Association
shall assumc the responsibility for maintenance of sa~d parkway
landscaping.
6/23/86
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM~SSION~ JU[~E 23, 1986 86-428
16. That prior to final tract map approval, the apptopriate fees due for
terminal storage, shall be paid to the Water Utility Division by the
Develoner in accordance with the provisions as set for.th in an Agreement
between the City of Anaheim and Kaufman and Broad, dated August 14, 1983.
19. That the petitioner shali present evidence that the proposed subdivision
shall provide, to the extent f~asible, for futur.e passive or natural
heating or coolin9 opportunities in the subdivision Qrior to the issuance
of building pcrmits.
20. That prior to final tr.act map approval, all public facilities proposed
either wi~hin or adjacent to the proposed subdivision shall conform to
the Public Facilities Plan for Development of the Baucr Ranch as adopted
by City Council on November, 1983, and any further anendmf~nts pertaining
to said plan.
21. That in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the initial sale of residences in
th~ City of Anahezm Planning Ar.ea "B", the scller shall provide ~~ach
buyer with written information conceznins the Anaheim Generai Plan and
the existing zonin9 within 3U0 feet of th~ boundaries of subj~ct tract.
22. That prior to final tract map approval, the owner(s) of subjec't property
shall dedicatr_ to the Cicy of Anaheim, the libr.aty site as shown on the
Bauer. Ranch Public Facility Plan dated November 1963.
23. That prior to final tr.act map appr.oval, a bond or other security
satisfactory to the City shall be posted with the City to guarantee the
construction of a 6-foot hiyh cambination conccete masonr.y at the top of
the slope along the north residential lot p:opecty lines (Lot Nos. 3
through 14). Said wall shall serve as screenin9 for the a~iacent
tesidences. Said wall shall be constructed pcior to fina) building and
zoning inspection of the cnsidences.
'l4. That prior to final tract map approval, a bond shall be posced with th~
City to guatantee landscaping of the ~lope adjacent to the regional
shopping center in accordance wit,h City standards and specifications.
Said landscapiny to be completeo prior to final buildiny an~ zoning
i,nspecti~~is of the residences.
25. That the seller. shall provide the purchaser of each dwelling unit a copy
of the Bauer xanch General Plan of llevelopment. said plan shall include
all thc elements of the Planned Community and shall contain any
amendm~:nts approved by che Plani.ng Commission and/or City Council.
26. That sub7ect property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on fi.le with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 throu9h 11, as well as plans approved in connection with Variance
No. 3563.
27, That Qrior to final building and zoning insFections, Condition Nos. 4, 5,
7, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 25, abovc-mentioned, shall be complied with.
6/23/86
>i • .
,~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 23~ 1980 86-429
Commissioner McBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst
and 140TIO1J CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve specific plans for
Tentative Tract No. 10982 (Revision t~o. 1) (eauer. Ranch - Area 7)
previously reviewed under Variance No. 3563.
Commissioner Bouas teturned to the meeting.
ITEM NO. 8 EIR NEGATIVE llECLA.RATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-38 AND
VARIANCE NO. 3571
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MARTHA SCHUMACHER, P. 0. Box 191, Anaheim, CA
92805. AGENTS: CORNICHE UEVELUPMENT CORP., 1681 Loma Roja Drive, Santa Ana,
CA 927U5, ATTN: DANIEL O'CONNER. Property described as a
rectangular.ly-shaped parcel o£ land consisting of approximately 0.36 acr.e
located at the southea~t cornet of. South Street and Har.bor Boulevar.d, 800
South Harbor ~oulevar.d.
R5-72U0 to CU (Par.cel A).
Waivers of: (a) pcrmitted business signs, (b) maximum number of small car.
spaces, (c) maximum numbe: of parking spaces, (d) maximum str.uctural hei9ht,
(e) minimum yazd requirements &(f) maximum wall height to construct a 2-story
office building.
THE FOLLUWING Ac:TION WA5 TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEE`PING.
ACTIUN: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki
and MOTION CAltRIED (Commissioner Messe absent), that r_onsider.ation of thc
afor.ementioned matter. be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of July
21, 1986, at thc r.equest of the petitioner.
Chairwoman left chr_ Council Chamber.
ITEM NU. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-39 AND
VARIANC~ NO. 3574
PUBLIC HEARING. OWf~EIt5: GRACE LUS'PY, c/o INDUSTRIAL PARK ASSOCIATES, 21201
Victo*y Boulevard, Suite 265, Canoga Park, CA 91303, ATTN: IAN McEWAN.
AGENT; MADGY HAN[~A, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 680, Newpoic Beach, CA
92660. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 1.74 a~r.es, 2642 WeGt Lincoln Avenue.
RS-A-43,OU0 to RM-1200.
Waiver of maximum structur.al heighc to construct a 1 and _-story, 63-unit
apartment building.
There was no one indicating 'their presence in opposition to subject r.equest
and although the staff report was not- r.ead, it is referr.ed to and made a part
of the minutes.
6/23/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 23~ 1986 86-430
Commissioner t9cBurney assumed the Chair.
Madgy Hanna, agent, stated this is an i:regularly-shaaed par.ccl of property
located adjacent to the Carbon Creek Flood Control Chanlel and is a difficult
parcel to develop.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Co~nissioner Bouas
and MOTION CAitRIEll (COmmission~rs La Claire and Messe absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission has r.eview~d the proposal to reclassify subject
propcrty from the RS-A-43,OOU (~esidential, Agricultur.al) Zone to the RM-1200
(kesidential, Multiplc-Family) Zonc to construct a 1 and 2 sto~y, 63-unit
apartment building with waiver of maximum structu:al height on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.74 acres,
haviny a frontage uf approximately 80 £~et on the south side of Lincoln Avenue
and loca~ed approximately 6U0 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue
and further described as 2642 W. Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the
Neyative lleclarazion upon finding that it has considered the Negative
Declaration toyether with any comments received dur.ing the public *eview
process and further finding on the basis oE the Initial Study and any comments
received that there is no substantial eVldenrC that the project will have a
siynificant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herb~t offered Rosolution tJO. PC86-168 and movcd for its passage
and adoption that the Ananeim City Planning Commission does h~[eby g_*ant
Reclassificacion No. 85-86-39 sub7ec~ to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendacions.
Un roll call, the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: IIUUAS, FHY, HERB5T, LAWICKI, IrC BURNEY
NUES: NUNE
A~SENT: LA CLAIRE~ MESSE
Commissioner Hcrbst offered Resolution No. PC86-169 and moved for its passa9c
and adoption tnat the Anaheim City Planning Commission docs ne.-eby grant
Variance No. 3574 on che basis that there are special cizr.umstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundin9s
whicn do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of tne Zoning Code depr.ives the property of
privileges enjoyed by othcr proper~ics in thc identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepar'tmental Committee
recommendarions.
On zoll call, tne foreyoin9 resolution was passed by thc following vot~:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
I~UES: NUNE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE~ MESSE
t4alcolm Slauyhter, lleputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
6/23/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 23~ 1966 86-431
Chairwoman La Claire ceturned to th~ me•eting.
ITEM NU. 10 EIR NEGATIVE -ECLARATTUN, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-40_t WAIVER
OF COllE RE~UIREMENT AND CUNllITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2816
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMES R. AND SHIRLEY A. NEEDHAM, 9492 Sandra Circle,
Villa Park, CA 92667. Property described as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately U.39 acre, 1028 ~ast North Street.
RS-72U0 to RM-120U.
To construct a 9-unit senior citizens apartment project with waiver of maximum
structural height adjacent to single-family cesidential zoned property.
There were five persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff repoct was not r~ad, it is ecfcrr~d to and made
a part of the minutes.
James Needham, owner, explained thcy propose a 9-unit, single-story senio:
citizen apartment complex and thc projeet meets all the code requir~ments, and
will provide an ~xcellr_nt comfortable li.ving atmosphere for thc people living
in the complex.
Frank Guevar.a, 753 N. Bush, pres~nted patitions from people who live in the
area and stated l~e lives about 300 feet from thc site. He stated a 6-unit
apartment complex was denied by the City Council on July 21, 1981, and pointed
out the arca is still singlc-family and therc is no room for more apartments;
and there is a parking problem with ca:s parked on both sides of the street,
and there are no sidewalks which is a hazar.d to pedestrians, and he thought it
would be especially hazardous for senior citizens. He stated there is a lot
of crime in that area and thought a senior citizen would be a pr.ime 'tafget for
a criminal. He added if this is approv~d for apartments, homeowners will be
losin9 a lot in pcoperty valucs. He stated tzaffic and noise are already
oroblems.
Lloyd Lastly, 73tl N. Rose, stated his proper.ty backs up to subject property,
and that the pr.o7ect will only have eight par.king spaces, with nine units, and
cars are parked on both sides of thc strect now. He stated the petitioner
indicat^s since this project is for senior citizens, some may not even have a
car, but some could have two vehicles. He stated within about a four block
acea ther.e are a lot of apartments which b:ings a lot of traffic.
Mr. Needham stated this project meets the senior citizen parking :equirements
at .8 per bedroom; that he has 10 seniors living in an 8-unit project and
there are two vacant garayes out of 8 gar.ayes. He stated crime is something
h~ has no control over, other than providin9 a 6-foot fenc? surrounding the
property, and also a central secutity system would be installed inside the
building so the tenants cou~d notify one another if there was a pcoblem.
Mz. Ncedham stated when he first bou9ht this property, the Planning Comm;ssion
approved a six-unit apar~ment complex on thc property and based on that
approval, he closed escruw, and then the project was denied sixty days later
by the City Council. He stated he bouyht the psopecty to make a financial
6/23/86
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 23~_ 1986 86-432
gain. He added this particular project will provid~ benefitsto the City
and noted the propcrty only has a 75-foot frontage on Nocth Strect and that
will be landscaped lushly and the project will be disguisn_d as a single-family
residence.
THB PUBLIC HtAltING WA5 CLOSEU.
Leonacd Mcl;hnn, Associate PlanneL, stated the Gener.al Plan designation is
low-medium density residential which per.mits up to 18 dwr_llin9 units per acre,
typically undcr the RM-24U0 or x14-34U0 zone.
Chairwoman La Claire :tated there is a parking problem on that street,
par~icular.ly in r.elation to the apar.tments on the corner and there w~r.e car.s
parked everywhere thcre was space available and a lot of people were just
hanyiny around and she was concerned about aading to those problems because
ther~ are some r~ally nicc sin9le-family homes in that area. She asked the
zoniny of the whole a~ea.
Lnonacd [+IcGhee SLat~d the low-medium density is just on those pa~cels facing
Nocth Strcet, up to thc lot facin9 west on Bush Screet, or thc th:ee deep lots
on Nocth Strer_t, as well as the lots on the sou!-i:west cocner of North and East
Streets. He stated thc lot south of the 7-11 would also be considcred
low-medium density.
Commi.ssioner Herbst stated he did not think this project meets the critoria
for senior ciLizen units; that he lived in that area for 27 years and that
corner on North Street is probably one of the worst corner.s in this city and
access is disastrous and putting senior citizens in that location wher.e they
miyht have to walk to the necessazy conveniences would not be a good idea and
also the parking is not proper.ly desi9ned and some ~enant~ would have a lony
walk to get to their car, and a senior citizen's comple~c should be design~d to
be convenient for the snniors and not just to impact the area with a lot of
units.
14r. Needram stat~d this isn't pcopos,ed as a convalescent hospital.
Commissioner Hcrbst stated the seniors will be ambulatozy, but everyonc of
them would havc to have a car to yet to the services necnssary, such as a
yrocery store, b=.nk, library, medical services, etc. and he felt these
services must ue avaiiablc and this area docsn't meet those requir.ements. He
added nine units on that lot is just too much.
Chairwoman La Claire was concerned about ch~ General Plan designationG in this
area and how th~se properties wer.e rezoned for multi-family. There was a
brief review of the Gen~ral Plan.
Commissioner ~iouas stated developing this property for s~nior citizens
apartments rather than regular apar.tments would certainly cut down on the
number of people living in the units and in some respects, it might bc bettet
to have senior citizens apartments because there are controls cver who lives
in the units. She adder~ that property to too big to remain a:;ingle-family
resid~nce, and she thou9ht possibly the other ptoperties could, be all pui
tugether for more apattments. Sh~ stated except for the problem with services
cessible it night be better Y.o have a senior citizens complex at
being more ac , ~
that location.
6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION JUNE 23, 1986 86-433
Chairwoman La Clair.e stated there is a problem with the General Plan in that
ar.ea; that the General Plan shows the area at Nocth and East Streets fot
medium density tesidential land uses which is RM-1200, RM-2400 ot RM-3000 and
the area is developed as RS-720U, and that really needs to be cleared up
before going any further with this request. She noted there are no
multi-family developments in that azea, except on that corner. 5he suggested
a continuance in order to determine the General Plan designation.
Commissionez Herbst stated he is opposed to this senio~ citizens complex, no
matter what the zoning is and did not think this petitionec should be held up
just because there may be something w~ong with our Gencral Plan.
Chairwoman La Claire stated sne also has a problem with the senior citizens
complex in that area, but wasn't sure that ar.ea should be multi-family at all,
realiziny that is noz what Mr. Needham wants to hear, but that shc was trying
to save him some money with a continuance so he could comc back with a
multi-family complex. Shc thought it would 'oe helpful for him to work with
staff to find out what the ar.ea is designated f.or, and asked if he would like
a continuance.
Leonard McGhec Gtated the General Plan is to be looked at.as a very general
land usc map and not a specific map; that this acea does hav~ hard edges and
it looks specific with a street; tnat ther.e is approval on the southwest
co[ner for a density consistent with the RM-2400 or low-medium density, and a
pro7ect just to the west approved at RM-2400 or low medium density, and it can
be genecally conceived that tnc General Plan could refle°eflectwactuall low
density, Aven though the hard edge ~hown on thc map may y
density, which would be consistent with RS-7200. He stated there is a rathe~
flexible interpretation che Commission is allowed with a map such as the
General Plan and they should not cry to be specific by attaching a particular
zone.
Chairwoman La Clair.e staced if the people living thcre want the azea to remain
sinyle-family, they should see that the General Plan is amended.
Commissioncr Her.bst stated he has no problem wi.th the General Plan as it is;
that th•~ property is zoned RS-7200 now and the Gener.al Plan is general and lot
lines can ct~.any~r etc., and that is one of the reasons for public hearings,
and also to find out if th~ Gener.al Plan should be amended. He stated the
pcople in the ar.Ea have expressed their opinion that they do not want anymore
apartments in the area.
Chairwoman La Clair.e stated thece aze a couple of areas in th~ city where
there is an intent on the G~neral Plan foc a particular zone and she would
like to see the General Plan reflect whac is developed and she did not
remember a General Plan study on thac area.
Mr. Necdham stated if that the property is, in fact, zoned fcr multi-family,
he certainly has the right to develop it for. multi-family uni'ts, and pointed
out he has owned the propercy Lor five year.s. Chairwoman La C131Lt stated the
proper.ty is zoned RS-7200, and th~ Genetal Plan shows the designation for.
low-medium density which p~t!nits RM-24U0. She statcd she thought a vote today
would be for denial, in hez opinion.
6/23/86
86-434
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION JUNE 23 1986
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner.
M~gurnr_y and MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioner Messe absent) that thc Anaheim C~Ly
Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to reclassify subject ptopnLty
fr.om thc RS-720U (Residential, Sinyle-Family) zone to th~ RM-1200
(xr_sidential, Multiple-Family) Zone to permit the construction of a 9-unit
senior citizens apartment project with waiver. of maximum structural h~ight
adjacent to sin9le-family zoned property on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consist~ng of approximately 0.39 acre, having a fcontage of approximate y
nn and bein9 lo~ated aPP'oximately 200
75 feet on the south side of North Str__t,
geet west of the centerline of taKOVnt~hetNegativetDeclaaationbuponSfindingast
North Strcet; and docs hcr.eby app ~ther with any comments
that it has considered the Neya^ive v~nss and furthet finding on the basis of
ceceived duciny the public r.evi_w pro--•
thc Initial Study and any cormnents r.eceiv~d that thece is no substantial
evidence that the pro7ect will have a significant effect on the environment.
Coicimission~r Herbst offetod Resolution ~~o• P~ommissionddoos~h~re~yld~nyassag~
aad adoptiion that zhe Anah~im ~ity Planniny ~Ltics arc
Reclassification No. 85-~6-4U on the basis that sucrounding P~oP-
Lr_sld~ntldl units and mulci-family units would bc
developed with single-family
overbuilding thc a'na•
Un ~oll call, th~ fo~egoin9 r~solution was passed by thc following votc:
BUUAS~ FRY, HER~ST, LA CLAIk6, LAWICKI, IdC BURNEY
AYES:
NUES: NUN~
AB5ENT: MBSS~
Commissioner Hecbst offer.ed a~notion, scr_onded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION
CpRRIEU (Commissione~ t4esse absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
docs hereby d~ny waiver of cudc rcyuir.ement on the basis that thern ate no
special circumstances applicable to the p~operty such as sizc, shap~r
topoyraphy, lccation and surroundings which do nut apply to other identically
zoned pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that str.ict application of th^r~oesn9
Codc will not deprive she o[opeLry of privilny^s en)oycd bY other ptop-
in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity.
Commissionec Herest offered Rr_solution No. PCO~issionddoes~herebyldenyassage
and adoption that th^ Anaheim City Planning
Conditional Use Petmiti No. 2816 on tne basis that th~ use would advntsely
affect the adjoininy land uses and 9n~o~hth~dpt~~~rtYmistnot adequate to allow
it is located, and thr_ size and shag-
the full development oP the pcoposed usO lsafetannandngenarallwclfaze oandr
particular. area nor to the peace, h_alth, Y' ose an unduc bur.den
that the t~affic yener.ated by th~ ptoposed use would imp
upon thc streets desiyned ana improved to carry the traffic in the ar.ea, an
~ace health, safetY and genezal welfare
the use would be detcimental to the p- ~
of the ci~i2ens of ~hc City of Anaheim.
Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was pass~d by the fc lowing vote:
AYtS: BUUA5~ FRYr H~K~ST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKi~ MC BURNEY
NOES: I3UNE
AkiSEN~r: r~~.sse 6/23%56
MZNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAIvNING COMMISSION JUNE 23 198n 86-435
Malcolm Slauyhter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the writt~n righti tio appeal
th~ Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Chairwoman La Claite stated she wuuld like for staff to review the G~neral
Plan fo~ that area and possibly b~iny th~ desiynations into conformance with
the existiny developments•
ITEM [d0. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAf2ATiue~ ANll VARIANCB N0. 3572
PUBLIC HBARING. UWN~:kS: STERIK CUl4PANY, 2525 Militar.y Avenue, Los Angeles,
CA 90U64, ATTN: RAY MEADOR. Prooer.ty descr.ibed as an icregularly•-shaped
parc~l of land consisting of approximately 11.34 acres located south and east
of the southeast cor.ne~ of Urangethor.pe Avenue and Lemon Street, 120 East
Urangethorpe Avenue.
WaiveC of minimum numeer of r.equir.ed pa~king spaces to expand an e;cisting
commercial shoppiny C~nt~~•
Ther.e was no on~ indicatiny thnyL presence in opposition to subject request
and althouyh the staff [~port was not read, it is referred to and madc a par.t
ot the minutes.
Ray Meador, ayent, ex~lained the request is to incr.ease the r~tail spac~
available at the former Zody's at thc intersection of Urangethorp^ and Lemon
Street. He stated the remodeli.ng is cu~rently underway by Ralphs and they
wuuld like to add a 2U,UU0-squarc foot oad to the ~aster.n borde: of the
property, and a smallrr pad n~a~ Lemon Street. He stated the existing
storefronts will have a faceliftiny and they think it will lend greatly to the
sales tax gen~ration within the City and will complement that area. H~ stated
the plans were revised and the 4,000-squar.e foot pad was increased to b,00U
syuar.e feet, and by providing some compact ca~ par.kiny spaces are able to
provide 664 patking spaces which is 57 spaces moce than th~ir Traffic
Consultant has recommended.
'PHE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSE;ll.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engin~nr, stated he is concerned abour. the access to the
dock and asked that a condition be added to state that tr.uck dock access would
be sub7ect to approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
tdr. Meador stated that would be acceptable to the p~titioner and they ar.e
comfortable with Mr.. Singer's review of the matt~r and ar.n prepar.ed to meet
with him this week with plans for relocation of the do~k access.
itesponding tio Commissioner Hezbst, Mr.. Meador stated the additional
6,OU0-square foot pad would be for r~tail uses, and not a fast food
restaurant, and probaely would be 1U00 to 1500-syuare foot r.etail shops or
maybe service oriented businesses such as a d[y cleaning operation, and they
did not anticipate one ma~or user. He explained if the Traffic Engineer's
:ecommendation is accepted, the recommended level of parking in the parking
lot would be 596 spaces and by increasing the pad to 6,000 square feet,
another 11 parking spaces would be required, for total required parking on the
6/23/86
86-436
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23 1986
site to be 607 spaces, and as they reviewed the plan, they found some other
deficiencies in patking~ such as changin9 some angle packing to 90 degree
parking on the perimetet, and that w~uld mean 664 spaces, so they are stil.l
providing in ~xcess of 50 spaces more than the ttaffic consultant recommends
as the minimum necessa:y.
Paul Sinyer stazed the parking study present~d indicates there will be sur.face
parking availabl?. He tesponded to Commissioner. Fry that a drive-through
restaurant would have to come back foc a conditional use permiti.
Le~nard McGhee asked that Condition No. 5 bn accocdanceowithdPlans and]~ct
propertY shall be developnd substantially
specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mazked ~xhibit Nos. 1 and 2,
provided thaz a~evised plan is submitted to limit the fceestanding structure
to 6,9UU square fcet, as inaicated at the public hear.ing.
ACTION• Conunissioner Fry offered a motion, srconded by Commission~r Bouas and
MUTION•CARRIED (COmmissioncr. Messe absent) that ~h~xistinlm~ommercialnshopping
Commission nas reviewed the Proposal to expand as aces ongan
center with waiver of minimum number. of parking p
irregula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxim~telyc1AVenuecand
located south and east of the southeast cornez of Or.ang- ho~p
L~mon Str.eet, and fu~ther d~scribed as 120 East Orangethocpe Avenue; and does
hereby approve the Neyative Uecla~ation upon finding that it has considered
the Negative Declaration togethec with any commencs received dur.ing the public
ceview process and futthr_c finding on thc basis of the Initial Study and any
comments reccived that thece is no su~stantial evidence tnat the project will
nave a significant effect on che enviconment.
Commissioner r:1 offered Resolution No. PC86-172 ana moved for its passage and
adoption that th~ Anaheim City Planning Commission docs hereby grant Variance
No. 3572 on the basis thar there ar.e special circumstances applicable to the
property such as size, snape, topoyr.aphy, location and surroundings which do
not apply to uther identically zoned pcopeety in tne same vicinity; and that
stxict application of the 'LOnin9 Code deprives thc property of privileges
enjoyed by other oroperties in the identical zone and classification in the
vicinity and subject to Inter.departmental Committee recommendations•
Un toll call, the foreyoing ~eso.lution was passed by the following vote:
pygy; ~OUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY
NO~S: NONE
AB5ENT: MESSE
Malcolm 5lauynter, Deputy City Attorney, presented th~ w~itten r.ight to app~al
ttie Planning Commission's decision within 2'l days to the City Council.
6/23/86
MiNuTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23 1986 86-437
ITEM NU. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3573
PUBLIC HEAltING. UWNEk5: STERIK COMPANY, 2525 Militar.y Avenue, Los Angoles,
CA 90064, ATTN: RAY MEAUOR. Proper.ty described as an irregular.ly-shaped
parcel of land consistiny of appcoximately 8.37 acres located north and west
of the nurthwest cotner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Soulevar.d, 121 Nurth Beach
~oulevard.
Waiver of minimum number of reyuired parking spaces to expand an existing
commercial shopping ~~~~~r.
There was no one indicatiny their. pr.esence in opposition to subj~ct r.eyuest
and although the staff repor.t was nct r.ead, it is r.eferr.ed to and mad~ a par.t
of the minutes.
itay Mcador., agent, stated th~ point oE accnss fr.om Lincoln intu the cnnter. on
the west side was a concer.n to the CiCy TrafEic Engineer and City staff and
they unde[stood ch~rc would be a condition r.equir.ing approval by the City
Tr.affic Enyinee: of that acc~ss point and they would ayre~ with that condition.
THE PUBLI~ HEAltING WAS CLOSEll.
Commissioner McBUrney refcrred to Lhc proulem with the Angelo's restaurant
which is next door and the block wall discussed at [~revious meetings to
~r.ohibit access into this p~titionr_r.'s proper.ty and asked if the petitioner
would be willing to constr.uct a blo^k wall on the nor.thecn pr.oper.ty line to
complat~ the existiny wall. Mc. Meador stated if it was their pcoblem and
their responsibility, th^y would be glad to do it, but they understood that in
thc oriyinal appcoval for that r.estaurant, prio~ to Angclo's purchasing th~
proper.ty, that wall was a requirement and they would encour.age the Commission
to yo fir.st to that alternative, bur if that docs not wor.k, they may have to
put the wall in.
Commissioner t4cliur.ney stated he undecstands, but thought they should seriously
consider takiny a look at that situation because he thought it would be more
pr.otection for thc petitioncr.
Mr. Meador. referred to Condition No. 3 and stated they do not have any contr.ol
ovec the secvice station property on the co~ner and the way that condition
reads would r.equir.e dedication from the inzer.section to the end of their.
property on both Beach and Lincoln. He stated if the critical intecsection
desiynat_ion is approved, th~y would make dedication from the point of the
ser.vice station to the end of their pr.operty. Yaul Singer stated since they
do not control that property, they would not be requir.ed to obtain somebody
else's r.iyht-of-way.
AC'PIUN: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki
and MOTION CAHRZED (COmmissioner Messc abs~nt) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to exYand an existing commercial shoppiny
cenzer. with waiver of minimum number of parkin9 spaces on an
ir~egularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.37 acres
located north and west of the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and kiea~:n
t~oulevard and fuzthec desccibed as 121 North Beach Boulevard; and does he~eby
b/23/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSICN, JUNE 23_r_ 1986 86-438
approve the Negative Declar.ation upon finding that it has considered the
Negative lleclaration togethet with any comments received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that 'th~re is no substantial evidence that the project will
hav~ a significant effect on the ~nvironm?nt.
Commissionez Fry offered Resolu~ion No~ PCtl6-173 and moved for its passage and
adoption that th~ Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission does hereby y_*ant Varianc~
No. 3573 on the basis that the parkiny waiver will not cause an increase in
traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any
adjoininy land uses and yranting of th~ parking waiver undez the conditions
imposed, if any, will r,ot be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and
genecal welfare of th? citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject to
Inter.departmental Committee recommendations.
On :o.ll call, the foreyoiny resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERhST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ [dC BURNEY
NVES: NUNE
A~SENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slaughtcr, Deputy City Atrorney, presenred the written right to appeal
the Planniny Commission's d~cision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NU. 13 EIK NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANll VARIANCE N0. 3575
PUBLIC HEAftING. OWNERS: DOYL~ E. ANll MA1tJORIE L. SMZTH, P. U. Box 58U,
Nuevo, CA 9"1367 AND NEVILLE ANll VIOLET LIBBY, 1661 W. Cerritos Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 9'28U2. AGENT: GERALU R. BUSHORE, 721 N. Eucl:d Street, Suite
202, Anaheim, CA 92d01-4116. Propecty described as a rectangular.ly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acres, 1643 and 1651 West
Cerr.itos Avenu~.
Waiv~rs of (a) required lot frontage, lb) minimum lot area, (c) minimum lot
width and frontage and (d) permitted or.ientation of structures to establish
8-lot, xS-72U0 Zone sinyle-family subdivision.
There was one person indicating his presence in favor to subject zequest and
aNptoximately twenty people indicating thcir presence in opposition to subject
reyuest and although the staff report was not read, it is refecred to and made
a part of the minuLes.
Gcrald Bushore, ayent, stated apparently a var.iance for a 4-lot, single-family
development on the easter.n portion of this propecty was denied by the Ci.ty
Council following approval by th~ Planning Commission on two sepazate
occasions. He stated there is pressure in that Loar.a area fot homes, but not
for homes on 3/4 acres. He stated there i~ one sinyle-family home on the
property now, not two as i~~dicated in the staff report. He explained the
vacant lot was before the Planning Commission for a 4-lot single-family
subdivision, out now the two lots have been combined foz 8-sin9le-family
6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION JUNE 23 1986 86-439
homes. He stated there have been a lot of inquicics zegarding that p*_operty
£cr thc development of apartmenLS, etc. and this is not a good area for
apartments; however, it is an excellcnt area for single-family homes, but
because of the times, 3/4 acre:: must provide for more than one residence, He
stated if single-family hames ar.e noc approved, the propecty will probably
temain vacant; howevet, there will br_ Ceyu~StS for different uses and the
proper~y has been looked at by seve~al chucch groups, etc. tie stated the lot
sizes ar~ the same as tne propercy to the north, RS-720U, and waivers a~e
reyucsted because of the private street sincc private streets are deducted
from rha size oi thc lot. Hc sta~ed this will be a 36-foot wide private
stzeet and that most condominium pr.ivate streets ar.e 25-feet wide. Mr,
Bushore stated therc is a well on the westerly 10 feet of the property which
servir_es eight familics in the area and easements are also deducted from the
size of the propecty. He stated this pro~ect will r_nhanca the neighbor.hood
with newer homes and these will be quality type homes.
[deville Lioby, 1661 W. Cer:itos, onc of the owncr.s of sub7^ct propcrty, stated
tncr.e is an on-goiny ptoolem with the vacant lot at 1643 W. Cer.ritos and thc
problems are druy related and that is an ir,ducement for cr.ime in the area. He
stated beautiful tract homes have becn built in 'the City of Anaheim and
friendly relationst~ips do exist with sidc-by-side neiyhbors and he could not
undecstand 'now the neighbors pres~nt in opposition would prefer to have tne
existiny situation which is undesir.able with a vacant lot which could lead to
a more serious problem. He stated 'ne has names of six cesidr_nts witihin 300
fcet of the property who a-e in favor of this project; however, he did not
have any statements from them in writiny.
Mr. Libby stated other than dis]ikes of the pr.oposed pro7ect, there are
concer.ns about traffic and stated thcY nave a traffic problem due to tou~ists,
etc, and would agree that many units of apa::tments and condominiums would
cseate a minor influx of vehicle movements, but the addition of 8
singl~-family homes would 5e compazatively negative and the traffic would be
ab1~ to blend in with the currenc tr.affic. He stated amplc parking has Ueen
provided. He stated the enhancement of this prop~rty is worthy of thought and
that subject property is currently an eycsore and neatly constructed homes
witn manicured lawns would be fa: more attcactive.
Phyllis Killingsworth stai•ed she is thc or.iginal owner of thc second house
east of subject property and ~xplained th~y built r.heir home in 1950 because
they wanted the extca space, peace, quiet and privacy the area afforded and
that all tnese homes wcre owner-bui:t homes and thc proposed devclopment is
totally out of cha~acter with the rr_st of the neighborhood and there are no
special circumstances witn regar.d to these lots pertaining to the size, shape
and topo9raphy to justify th•~ grantin9 of the var.iancc. She explained the
well easement is on the western ~u~tion of thc lot. She stated she was
assured by Mr. Libby that he is sellin9 the property under the condition that
single-story homes would be dcveloped, tiut they were not suce the new owner
would comply. She stated the owner is talkiny about thc probloms with the
vacant lot and yar.age which is existing and pointed out that is a problem, but
that t9r. Smith, the new owner, temoved a nice house that was there and left
the gar.agc and that has caused a lot of problems and if developed, that would
be cemoved. She stated there is no reason why they couldn't remove the gar.a9~
and climi~ate thc problem now. She stated she hoped the Commission would deny
the request.
6/23/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIt9 CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, JUN~ 23, 1986 86-440
THE PUBLIC HEARING W.aS CLOSED.
Pa~ Morgan, 1635 W. Cerritos, stated her property is next door to the nast of
subject property and they, with their many neighbors, are in opposition to
this variance for an 8-lot subdivision on the two, 3/4-acre parcels becausc of
the increase in the number of vehicles which would add to the parking and
traffic pcoblems on Cerritos. She explained Cerritos is not widened in this
arca and there is no par.king on thc street. She stated noise and pollution
would also bc increased and that two of the proposed lots would also adjoin
their front yards with their back yards. She stated thcy are opposed to the
numbcr of lots proposed and do not ayree that all the eiyht lots would mrn_t
the 720U-syuare foot req~irements and also they are concerned about the
location of thc private street. She statcd approval of thc var.iance would
discriminate against other owners of a 3-acre patcel since the owner would not
rec~ive the same pcivileges afforded the owner of thesc two 3/4-lots; and that
it is i~apossible to establish four, 7200-syuare foot lots with the required
privaie street on one 3/A-acre lot. 5he stated if the r.emaining 3/4-acre lot
owners decided in the futuce to merge and r~quested the same variancc~ ere
would be four. private streets lcadiny from 32 homes in th^ 1600 ~lock ~. ~est
Cerritos. She stated they ar.e concer.ned with the future of Anaheim and would
wclcome two homes on cach 3/4-acre lot and if the 3/4-acre lot owne~s wish to
divide their pcoperty and build two homes, havin9 owned tneir lots ,;ong
enouyh, could make a sizable profit and two homes on each lot wculd be
acceptable to the people in the neighbor.hood.
Eu9enc Dunham, 1642 Buena Vista, Anaheim, just north of subject property,
stated he is opposed to this request and agreed that any improvement on these
two lots that would conform to the neighborhood would be acceptable to the
neighbors and that would be a singlc-family home on a sin9lc-family lot;
however, this reyucst is for eiyht houses on two lots and pointed out a
variance :equcsted for four houses on one lot has been denied thcce times and
this variancc would be twice the problems, namely con9estion and noise, and
would destroy the char.acter of the neighborhood. He stated there are eight
identical lots on thac siae of Cerritos and if those C1.jAt lots were developed
in the same manner, there would be four private streets exitiny onto Cerritos
in a distancc of 912 fer_t and that would be extremely hazar.dous. He stated
thc othcr. owners would be entitled to make the same request and if this is
approved, they would have that r.ight to make thosc requests and he would ask
that this requesL• would be denied. He pres~nted thcee lettets from homeowness
in the area: Mr.s. Johnston, Mr.. and Mrs. Boswocth and Atsuko K. Fenncma.
Mr. ~ushore stated Mr. Libby is zetainin9 one of the lots fur his son to
construct a custom home and the remaining seven lots will bc developed with
custom homes, He stated he secs this as a good land assembly with two lots
beiny devcloped and stated it doesn't appear at the pcesent time that the
remaining homeowners are anticipating the development of their propcrties, but
did not think it is fair. to restrict the two owners who do want to develop
their propetties and apparently, the gar.age will remain on the property which
is a problem for the neighborhood.
Commissioncr Hecbst stated he feels this will be overbuildiny the property,
esQecially with thcee lots adjoining the one single-family lot and agceed with
the opposition that this area has not changed and this would be a dcastic
6/23/86
NINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, JUNE 23, 1986 86-441
change and this property could be developed with four homes facing the othec
direction with flag lots. He stated oncc the door is open tnat will lead to
more requests for the same thing and he did not think this area is r~ady for
this kind of change.
Mr. Bushore stated this is better than what was previously proposed with ei9ht
private streets into Cer.r.itos. Commissioner Hecbst asked if thc property
owncrs might bc a9reeable with thc proposal fo_* four. lots with thc flag-lot
situation. t9r. Bushore stated that would not be acceptable and asked
Commission to go ahead and take action so that if the action is for denial,
they can appeal to City Council because there is no other way, economically,
to make this pcoject work.
ACTIUN: Commissioncr Ho[bst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionrr eouas
and MUTIVN Cr112RiEll (Commissioner Messe abscnt) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has r.eviewed the proposal to establish an tl-lot RS-72U0
singlc-family residr_ntial subdivision with waivers of required lot frontage,
minimum lot area, minimum lot width and frontage and pcrmitted otientation of
structures on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 1.5 acre, having a irontaye of approximately 228 feet on the
north side of Cer.ritos Avenue and fur.ther described as 1643 ad 1651 W.
Cerritos; and does hereby approve the Negative Declar.ation upon finding that
it has considered thc Negativc Declar.ation together with any comments received
duriny the public review process and furthr_r finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments receiv~d that there is no su~stantial evidence
that the project will nave a siynificant effect on the envir.onment.
Commissioner. Herbst offeced xesolution No. PC96-174 and moved for its passagc
and adoption that thc Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny
Variance No. 3575 on the basis that there are no special circumstances
applicable to the property such as si2e, shape, topography, location and
surroundings which do not apply to other identicall;~ zoned proper.ty in the
same vicinity; and that stricL• application of the Zaning Code does not deprive
the property of privilcycs enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone
and classification in the vicinity.
On roll call, thc foregoing resolution was passed by the following vore:
AYES: BUUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
NUES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slauyhtcr, Deputy City Attorney, presented thc written ~ight to appcal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO. 14 EIR NSGATIV~ DECLAFtATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CUNllITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2811
PUBLIC HEAkING. OWNL•'R5: FERSZT INVESTMENT, INC., 116 S. Orange Drive, Los
Angles, CA 90036. Property described as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consistiny of approximately 1.6 acres, 1720 West Orange Avenue tOrangeview
Convalescent Hospital).
6/23/66
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM7SSIUN JUNE 23 19~6 86-442
To permit the expansion of an existin9 convalescent hospital with waivezs of
maximum structural height, minimum sttuctur.al setback and eequired sit~
scrcening.
Thete were two pcrsons indicating their. p[esence in favor of subject requcst
and no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject r.equest; and
although the staff report was nut rcad, it is referr.ed to and made a par.t of
thc minut~s.
~r. Clyde Vineyard, 6592 Pasco Diego, Anaheim, lessce and administrator of
U:an9eview Convalescent Hospital, 172U W. Or.ange, exFlained this operation was
star.ted in 196U with 36 beds, and two expansions for 10 beds and 23 beds havc
previously been a~proved and now this request is for a 30-bed expansion, for a
total of 99 beas. He stated thcy agrec to increase thc height of the fencc
fcom five feet to six feet. He explained the dciveway is shared with
commercial buildinys to the cast.
THE PUBL',. -.ARING WAS CLOSEll.
AC'tION: Comrnissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki
and MOTIUN CAR1tIEll (Commissioncr Messc absent) that thc Anahcim City Plannin9
Commission nas ceviewed the proposal r.o expand an existing convalcscent
hospital with waivecs of maximum str.uctur.al ncight, minimum sc:uctur.al hcight
and reyuir.ed sitc scr.ecniny on a rcctanyula~ly-shaped pa-ccl of land
consisting of approximatcly 1.6 acres, having a frontayc of approximately 174
fcet on thc south sidc of Oranyc Avenur, and 'oeiny located appr.oximatcly 203
feet west of thc centerlinc of Suclid Street, and fu:thec described as ~720
Wnst Orangc Avenue (Orangevicw Convalescent Hospital); and docs hereby approvc
the Ncgativc Ucclaration upon finding that it has consideced thc Negativc
ileclar.ation togethcr with any comments r.eceived du:ing the public r.evicw
process and fucthcr findin9 on the basis of thc Initial Study and any comments
recoived that therc is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioncr Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrncy and
MOTION CAKRIED (Commissioncr t4essc absent) that the Anahcim City Planning
Commission does hcr.eby 9rant waivcrs (a) and (b) on thc basis that therc are
spacial circumstances applicable to the pcoperty such as size, shape,
topography, location and surroundings which do noc apply to othcr identically
zoned propcrty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoniny
Code deptives the propcrty of privilcycs enjoyed by other propcrtics in the
identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and denyin9 waivcr (c) on
thc basis that the petitioncr stioulated at thc public heariny to provide a
6-foot high block wall in confor.mance with cqdc requirements.
Commissionec Fty offcred Resolution No. PC 86-175 and moved for its passayc
and adoption that thc Anaheim City Planniny Commission docs hcreby grant
Conditional Usc Pcrmit I~o. 2811, in part, pursuant to Anahcim rlunicipal Code
Sections 18.03.03U.03U through 16.U3 U30.035, subject to Interdepartmental
Committce Recommendations.
6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHnIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGN JUNE 23 19db 86-443
Un roll call,~ thc foreyoing resolution was passed by the following votc:
AYES: BOUASr FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
NOES: NUNI:
ABSENT: MES:iE
Lconard McGhec, Associatc Planncr, pr.esented thc written r.iyht to appcal thc
Planning Cortunission's deci.sion within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM t~0. 15 EIkt NEGATIVE DECLAKAT'IUIJ, WAIVER OF CODE RE~UIREMENT ANll
CONllITIUNAL 'JSE PERMI'P NU. 2812
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNEKS: RICHAHD L. MUCKENTHALER, L. A. MUCKENTHALER TRUST,
1318 W. Katella, Anahcim, CA 928U2. AGENT: HAE J. LEE AND YOUNG LEE, 23312
Ravenna Avenue, Car.son, CA 90745. Propcrty descr.ibed as an irregulazly-shaped
parcel of land consistiny of approximately 0.41 acrc located at the northwest
ccrner of Loara Strcet and Crescent Avenuc and fur.ther described as 1601 West
Cresc~nt Avenuc.
To pcrmit a transmission r.cYair. facility with waivice of minimum landscaped
setback arca.
Tnere was one person indicating her presence in opposition to subject r.equcst
and eiyht pcrsons indicatiny their presence in favor of subject request; and
althouyh thc staff cepotc was not rcad, it is rcEerred to and madc a part of
the minutes.
Marilyn t3olccr, Fullcrton, onc of th^_ propcrty owncrs, stated this propcrty
was originally devclopcd as a scrvicc station and was then lcased as a rental
shop, and thcy are now tryiny to lcasc the propcrty as a transmission shop;
that other var.iances have bcen granted on the propcrty for similar ~rt from
businesses. 5he stated there should be no adverse effect on thc prop_. y
thc opcration of tY,c transmission shop and thcre will not bc any change in the
building and thcrc will bc thrcr_ employces from 8 to 5:30 p.m., 6 days a wcek,
closed on Sunday and no stocaye or wor.k will be donc outsidc thc building.
SL-evc Naval, Managet, Anahcim Plaza Mall, 500 N. Guclid, Anaheim, stated thcy
want to go on record in opposition of this type of usc; that Anahcim Pla2a is
composed of a joint ventute a9rcement betwcen the California State T~ach~~cs
Reticc;nent Association and Price Devclopment Company and thcy purchased the
centcr about 1-1/'L year.s ago with major plans fos renovation and expansion to
up9rade thc area and feel that thcy can make a remackablc statement to the
City of Anaheim, esp~cially in that arca, and would be in opposition to this
reyuest and don't feel this use would bc conducive to thc retail patrons they
arc trying to attract.
Ms. Bolccr stated thcrc is an automotivc shop at thc Anahcim Plaza where they
do repair work and since the property was devcloped as a secvice station, she
did not think this would be any different than having thc rental opcratien and
probably would havc fewec cars.
THE PUBLIC H~AF2ING WAS CLUSEll.
6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23 1986 $6-444
Commissioncr Fry stated he thought thcrc is a automotivc repair facility at
thc shoppin9 centcr, but thcre is no similarity betwcen that property and this
property, and stated this placc has becn a complete failurc for everything
that has bcen thcrc and hc did not think this usc would hclp the arca at all
and he thought thc building should ba demolished.
Commissioncr Bouas stated this is proeably a temporacy usc for this propcrty
until the shopping centcr makes it renovations, and thcy want to usc thc
propcrty now and sugycsted a timc limit.
Ms. Bolcer responded to Commissioner McBurncy that the property will be lcased
to thc transmission shop aftec this approval is obtained. Shc added thcy
intend to do somethiny with this propcrty but wculd like to be ablc to usc it
now ar.~ thcy realize thc mall will bc improved. Shc statcd thcy plan to havc
a 5-ycar leasc.
Commissioner McBUrncy stated hc thouyht this petitioncr. should be given an
opport~nity to do somethiny with thc propecty. Commissioncr- Hcrbst stated
some transmission shops have clcan operations and othcrs azc extremcly dirty,
and if a t:az~smission shop is allowcd, hc would not want to sr_c any cacs
stored outdoors, and no vehicles lett outdoors ovcrniyht, etc. Hc stated this
propcrty was not success£ul as a scrvicc station aad in 1965 hc opposcd thc
scrvicc station. He stated thcy arc tryiny to rcbuild thc ar.ca to makc it a
nicr_r shoppiny axca for thc City. Hc statcd hc did not think this is a good
location foc a tr.ansmission shop and did not think thc building is adequatc,
especially with the stipulations hc would want placcd on the approval, such as
all work is to bc donc insidc and all storagc to bc inside with nothing left
outdoors ovcrnight.
Ms. ~olccr stated hcr fathcr kept that cornec because hc knew it had potential
for. somethiny nicc and shc tcalizes thc plaza is bcing redonc and thcy would
like to improvc this ptopcrty in thc futur.c.
Chairwoman La Clairc ~tated shc would bc willing to go along with it for. a
limited amount of timc, possidly 2 or 3:ca"s~ but less than 5, and stated it
might takc ~ couple of ycars for the Anaheim Plaza to bc renovated. Ms.
Bolcer statcd fcom thc newspapct, shc understood it is supposed to takc them
four or five ycazs.
t9r. Naval responded to Chai[woman La Clairc that thc completion of the
revitalization and redevelopmenc of thc shopping centcr is something that
could yo on fo~ever becausc thcre is a lot of potential thcre. Hc stated thcy
arc undcrway on thc pzo7ect right now and thcrc atc ccrtain majo~ dcals bcing
worked on which will have a major impact on that arca. He stated it is very
difficult to put a timc limit, but thcy should scar.t within onc ycar and it
will probably takc fivc ycars to rcally blossom, but felt a transmission shop
would not bc adequate for that arca, reyacdless if thc mall is renovated.
t95. Bulcer stated thc rental shop was therc for about 10 years and thc
opcr.ator dia not kcep up thc premises and shc thought that was thc problem.
She stated thc agent for thc ttansmission shop is present to answcr any
y~estions.
6/23/86
MINUTES, ANAHF?M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 23, 1986 86-445
Commissioncr ~ouas stated if thc tenants do not kcep thc propcrty up, then it
is thc responsidility of tnc propcrty owncr. 5hc aadcd thc propcrty is in an
arca that is a gateway to thc shopping centcr and should bc well kept.
Commissioncr Fry stated hc has :~cen notniny in thc past to indicatc that it is
goin9 to be kept up in the futur.e. Commissioner McBUr.ncy suggested a condition
be added r.cyuir.iny maintenance of thc pro~cr.ty. Commissioner Fry stated hc
would yo alony with thc usc for a two-ycar period. Lconard Mc Ghcc suggested
a condition requir.iny submittal and approval of a landscape maintenancc and
ir.rigation plan becausc thcr.c arc existing plantcr.s with no plants in them.
Commiss.,'_oncr Lawicki reminded tnc Commission that a stipulation should bc
added to the resolution that all wor.k and storayc will be donc insidc thc
facility and no vehicles ar.e to be parked outside overniyht.
Leonard t4c ~hec pointed out 'there is a condition included r.equiriny that ther.e
bc no outdoor wor.k on or ~to*ay^ uf vchicles or vchiclc parts.
ACTION: Commissioner. Mct~ur.ncy offer.ed a motion, seconded 'oy Commissioncr
Bouas and t9U'1IUN CAItNZEU (Commissioncr. Messe absent) that the Anahcim City
Ylanniny Commission has rcvicwed thc pr.oposal to permLt a tr.an5mission repair
facility with waive[ of minimum landscaped set~ar.;; ~r.ca on an
irrcyularly-shaped parccl of land consisting of approximatcly U.41 aczes,
located at nc~ nocthwest corner of Lca~a Stceet and Cresccnt Avenuc, and
furthcr. descr.ibed as 1601 WeGt Crescent Avcnuc; and docs her.eby approvc thc
Neyative Declar.ation upon finding that it has considered the Negative
lleclazation toyethcr. with any comments r.cr_cived duriny thc public revicw
process and fu:ther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
reccivca that thcrc is no substantial evidence that thc project will havc a
siynificant effect on the environment.
Commissioncr. t4c Bur.ncy offcred a motion, seconded by Commissioncr Bouas and
MUTIUN ChitRIEll (Commissioncr. Messc absent) that the Anahcim City Planning
Commission does hcreby yrant waiver of code rcyuirement on the basis that
thete ar.e special cir.cumstances applicable to the propecty such as sizc,
shapc, topogr.aphy, location and surr.oundings which do not a~ply to othcr
identically zoned p:operty in the same vicinity; and that strict application
of thc `LOniny Codc depr.ives thc propcr.ty of privileges enjoycd by othcr
propcrtics in thc identical zonc and classification in thc vicinity.
Commissioncr. Mct3ur.ncy offered Resolution No. PC86-176 and moved £or its
passagc and adoption that thc Anahcim City Planning Commission docs hcr.eby
yr.ant Conditional Usc Pcr.mit No. 2Fi12, putsuant to Anahcitn Municipal Codc
Scctions 1~3.03.03U.U3U thr.ough 18.03U.U30.035, for a pcriod of two ycazs and
subject to thc stipulations that all work and stor.agc will bc donc insidc thc
facility and that a landscaping, and maintenancc and ir.tigation plan shall bc
submitted to and approved by thc Ylanning Department and subject to
Intcrdepartmental Committcc Recommendations.
it was clarificd co the petitioner that the landscape plan has to be submitted
to thc Planniny llepartment riyht way, and that the pcrmit will expirc in two
ycars and if evcrythin9 has bcen complicd with, and if thc propcrty and the
landscaping look good and thc usr_ is not a detrimen~ to thc area, the
Commission will probably look favorably at it, but do want to revicw it in two
ycar.s. 6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN JUNE 23 1985 ~6-446
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by thc following votc:
AYE5: BOUA5, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
NOES: NUN~
A~SENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slauyhtec, Ucputy City Attorncy, presented the writtcn right to appcal
thc Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to thc City Council.
ITEM N~. 16 EIH NE~ATIVE DECLARATION WAIVBR OF CODE RE~UIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2813
PUBLZC HEA1tING. OWIdERS: STAllIUM ENTERPRI5ES, FREU M. SELIGMAN, 2821 White
Stai, Suitc ~, Anahcim, CA 92~06. A~ENTS: PAUL WILLIAMSON, 1855 W. Katclla,
Suitc 130, Orangc, CA 92667 and RAFAEL MADRA'LU, 31~0 E. Orang^thorpc, Apt. D,
Anaheim, CA 928U7. Property described as an irrcaularly-shaped parcel of land
consistiny of approximatcly 2.4 acr.es, 1015 East Kat^lla Avcnuc, ~F.
To per.mit automobile detailing in an existing industr.ial building (Unit F) in
thc ML 'LOnc with waivcr. of minimum numbcr of par.kiny spaces.
The:e was no one indicatiny theiz presence in opposition to subject r.equest
a~id alti~ough the staff report wae not r.cad, it is tefcrr.ed to and madc a par.t
of thc minutes.
Paul Williamson, agent, explained this site was selected because it is not
dircctly facing Katclla and is at thc rear of thc in~ustrial par.k; that thc
buildin9 will not be expanded and they do not uish to attract customers from
thc strcet.
14r. Williamson statcd thc staff r.epo~t in Paragraph No. 16 indicates that a
conditional usc petmit was iss~ed Eor retail uses and has expired, and
accordiny to thc property ownet, that tenant is moving out of the park, and
thc automobile detailing will not Dc doing any painting or mcchanical wor.k on
thc vchiclcs, and no vchicles azc stored outsidc and thcrc is no ovcrnight
storayc.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEll.
Respondiny to Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Williamson stated thcrc will bc four.
cmployces and thcrc is 1,700 squarc fect in this unit, and thcy will b~ doing
work on threc vchicles at onc timc, and it takes about 6 hou~s to detail onc
vchiclc, includin9 thc enyinc, intcrioz and exterior, and explained thc enginc
is simply clcaned.
Chairwoman La Clairc asked about the solvents. Mr. Williamson responded they
havc a completcly contained trou9h, and they havc thcir own stcam clcanin9
equipment and all waste will be cetained in the trou:_!_ and then recycled.
Rafacl Madrazo, applicant, stated they havc to call the City to have the
chemicals picked up, and it was clarified that the applicant ptobably doesn't
call the City. Commissioncr Hcrbst explain that if thc waste is classificd as
'hazatdous•, the Enviconmental Protection Agency has requirements that must bc
6/23/86
MINUTES, ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 23, 1986 86-447
met pcrtaining to storagc, disposal, etc., and a licensed disposal company has
to removc it.
Chairwoman La Clai-c explained hcr. conccrn is with individ~als dumping thcir.
wastc into thc sewec system. Commissioncr Bouas asked what City depar.tment
checks thesc uses for compliancc.
Lconard McGhcc, Associatc Planncr, statr_d hc was not succ thcrc is any nced
for inspections and was not surc thc types of solvents used in this business
arc known. Co~nissioncr Bouas stated thcrc arc othcr car. detailing opcrations
in thc City and was surc thcy ar.c not dumping into thc drainayc systen.
Chair.woman La Clair.c statr_d shc thought they could bc and that thc City should
bc revicwing that to sec that pcoplc arc doiny with thesc solvents, becausc wc
arc dcpending on the Statr_ or somebody clsc to takc car.c of it.
Commissioncr Hc:b.t stated thc County and Statr arc looking into this
situation and tnat hc has had thr.cc pcoplc into his placc of business dur.ing
thc last six months. Hc added if the business is not abidin9 by thc EPA
rulinys, thcy takc carc of thc problcm.
Commissioner [9c~urney sugyested a condition cequir.ing compliance with any
applicablc Statc or County agenrics pcrtaining to wastc disposal and stor.agc.
Chairwoman La Claire stated if thc conditions of thc pcrmit a_-o not complicd
with, it can br_ r.evicwed and r.evoked.
ACTIUN: Commissioncr Fry offcred a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTIUN CAI2RIED (Commissioncr. MeGSC absent) that the Anahcim City Planning
Commission has revicwe~ thc pr.oposal to pcrmit automobilc detailing in an
existiny industrial buildi[~g (Unit F) in thc ML (Industrial, Limited) 'LOnc
with waivcr of minimum numbr_r of parking spaces on an icregular.ly-shaped
parccl of land consistiny of approximatcly 2.4 acres, having a frontagc of
aYpror.imatcly 60 fect on thc north sidc of Katclla Avenuc, appr.oximatcly 660
feet east of the centecline of Lewis Street, and further described as 1015
East Katclla Avenuc; and docs hcrc~y approvc thc Negativc Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments received dur.in9 the public revicw process and furthcr finding on the
basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
Commissioncr Fry offcred a motion, secondr_d by Commissioncr. Bouas and MOTION
CA1txiEll (Commissioncr Messc absent) that thc Anahcim City Planning Commission
docs hcreby grant waivet of Codc requirement on thc basis that thc parking
variance will not cause an increasc in traffic con9estion in the immediatc
vicinity nor adverscly affect any adjoining land uses; and that the granting
of thc par.king variancc undcr thc conditions imposed, if any, will not bc
detr.imental to thc peacc, hcalth, safety or 9encral wclfarc of thc citizens of
thc City of Anahcin.
Commissi.oner Fry offcred Resolution No. PC86-177 and moved for its passagc and
adoYtion that the Anahcim City Planning Commission docs hcreby gr.ant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2814, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
6/23/86
a6-aaa
MINUTL'S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN JUNE 23 1966
18.03.03U.030 through 1E.03.030.035, and subject to Inte[departmental
Committec Recommendations, including an additional condition that all
applicable state, federal and county regulations will be complied with
pettaining to wastc disposal and storagc.
Or. roll call, the foregoiny resolution was passed by thc followiny votc:
AYE5: ~UUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NUNE
AdSEI1T: NONY~
Malcolm Slaughter, lleputy City Attozncy, p~~srnted thc written riyht to appcal
thc Plannin9 Commission's decision within 22 days to thc City Council.
ITEM~1~ EIR NEGATIVE llECLARATIUN WAIVER OF CODE P.EQUIREMENT AND
CUNllI'PIUNAL U5B PERMIT N0. 28:'1
PUBLIC HSARING. OWNERS: ll AND D DEVELOPMENT e~`' a~scriocdpaslal Hiyhway,
Brca, ~;A 92621, ATTN: CA[~SILLE COURTNEY. Prop Y
rectaiigular.ly-snaped patcel of land consistiny of approximately 1.43 acres,
'104U South Harbo: Boulevard (xafflc's Inn).
To pcrmit on-salc alcoholic bevcr.ages in an exiscing hotcl clubhouse with
waivcr of minimum numbcr. of pa:ki.ng spaces.
Th^_re was no one indicating thcir presence in opposition to subject requcst
and although the staff report was not rcad, it is refcrred to and madc a part
of tne minutcs.
Camillc Cour.tncy, agent, cxplaincd Conditi.on No. 2 states the sale of
alcoholic beverages shall be restzicted to complimentary service to gucsts of
thc motcl/hotcl only, and thcy would likc thac modify bcr.ausc thcir petmit
from the Alcohol Bevcrage Control Board states that legally they cannot tefusc
to scrvc a membet of thc public who walks in off thc stcect. She suygestcd
the condition be modificd to cead 'that the pcovision of alcoholic beverages
is intended to be a complimentacy secvice...' Ms. Courtncy stated they havc
no intention of advectising but becausc this is such a new ser.vice, thc ABC
does not rcally have any permits with specific wocding to this effect.
THE YUBLSC HE:~RING WAS CLOSEll.
ACTIOI~: Commissioner 5ty offcred a motion, seconded by Commissioncr Bouas and
MUTIUN CA.~tRIEU (Commissioner Messe absentermi~t nhsaleaalcoholic bevcrages
Commission has reviewed thc proposal to p
(complimentazy-'HaPPY Hour" for guests only) in an existin9 motcl clubhousc
with waiver of minimum number of parkin9 spaces on a r.ectangularly-shaped
pacccl of land consistin9 of approximatcly 1.43 acres, having a roximatc1yf410
appr.oximatcly 250 fect on the east side of Harbo~ Boulevard, app
feet north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and £urther desctibed as
2U40 South Harbot Boulevar.d (Rafflc's Inn); and docs hereby approvc thc
Negati~. lleclaration upon finding that it has consideced the Negativc
lleclaration together wir.h any comments rec~ived ducing the public revicomments
ptocess and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
6/23/86
MINUTE5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 23, 1986 86-449
reccived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on thc environment.
Commissioner Fry offcred a motion, seconded by Commissionet Bouas and MOTION
CARRIEll (COmmissioner Messc absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant waivcr of Codc requirement on thc basis that thc parking
var.iance will not cause an increase ~: traffic congestion in the immediate
vicinity not adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and that the granting
of the patking variancc undcr thc conditions imposed, if any, will not b~
detrimental to thc pcace, healih, cafety or general welvar.e of the citizens of
thc City oY Anahcim.
Commissioner Fry offcred Resolution No. PC86-178 and moved for. its passage and
adoption that znc Anahcim City Planniny Commission oocs hcreb} grant
Conditional Usc Pcr.mit No. 2814, pur.suant tu Anahcim Municipal Codc Sections
18.03.03U.03U ihrough 1b.U3.03U.035, and subject to Intcrdepartmental
Committcc xecommendations, including a modification t~ Condition No. 2 that
tne provision of alcoholic bevera9es is intended to bc restricted as a
complimentary scrvicc to gucsts.
On roll call, thc foregoing ~esolution was passed by thc following vot^:
lYES: BOUAS~ FHY~ HER3ST~ LA CLAIHE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NUNE
ABSENT: [dESSE
Ptalcolm Slauyhtcr, lleputy City Attor.ncy, presented the written r.ight to appeal
thc Planniny Commission's decision within 22 days co thc City Council.
ITEM NO. 16 EIR NEGATIVE llECLARATI0t4, WAIVER OF COUE REUUIREMENT AND
CUNllI'PIONAL US~ PERMIT NO. 2817
PUBGIC HEAHING. UWNERS: DENNIS ANll EDI'PH BEP.GER, 113U W. Lincoln Avenuc,
Anahcim, CA 9280ti. AGENTS: LABOWE A[Jll V~NTRESS, 1229 W. First STrcet, Los
Angcles, CA 90026. Propcrty described as two irregularly-shaped pazccls of
land consisting of approximatcly 0.32 acr.c, 112U W. Lincoln and 1203 West
Centcr Strcet.
To permit an outdoor sto_*age ya:d with waivcr of minimum numbcr and arca of
parkiny s~aces.
Thcre wcre seven per.sons indicati.ng thcir presencc in opposition to subject
requcst and although thc staff r.eport was not rcad, it is referred to and made
a part of thc minutes.
Richazd La~owe, aycnt, statea the staff report indicatLS thc address of the
propcrty is .1120 West Lincoln, but that it is 1i.~0 West Lincoln. ric stated
tnc application was for an expansion into subic:t pcopc~ty of a pre-existing
authorized use at 1120 W. Lincoln. Hc stated tt~erc is presently outdoor
storage on the property at 1120 west Lincoln, which has becn existing for
about 60 ycars and the present ownet has owned it for about 2U ycars.
6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON JUNE 23 1986 86-450
t4r. La Bowe stated when the petitioner purchased subject propecty, there was
an old r.esidence which was torn down, and a 5' concrete su~face was laid and
it is all open spacc, and also a fencc has becn placed on the propetty. Hc
stated becausc of pcnding City action against thc applicant, this application
fot a CUP was patt of a civil cocnpromisc. Hc stated thcy bclicve thcrc is no
adverse effect on thc adjoining proper.ty since outdoor storage was a
prc-existiny use on adjoining propcrty; and that Lhcrc would bc no impacc on
traffic because the pre-existing use at 1120 West Lincoln alceady has a
specific number of dclivc.-~rs and this propecty will not bc used foz
additional dclivcrics and is going to bc used strictly as open stor.agc.
Mr. L~ ~owc stated or.iginally thc lot was intended to bc completcly for open
storagc; howevcr, they wcrc infor.med that thc zoning requir.es 2/3 of thc
propcrty to bc for parkiny, tcyar.dlc~s of thc usc, and aftcr numerous mcetings
with City planniny staff, a compromisc was r.cach^_d whc~eby a ccrtain portion
of thc pr.opcrty would uc used for packiny, but in rcality, it wi11 p~obably
nrvcr bc used for parking becausr_ there is no need for additional par.king. Hc
stated thc applicant is williny to comply with thc conditions, including an
ir.cevocable dedication r.equited by the City for 60 feet fcom the center.line.
Hc stated Condition No. 3 rcyuires a bond to yuarantee tne r.emoval of
rx~sting strcet improvements, etc., and asked if that is in conjunction with
Condition No. 2 tequir.ing the irrevacablc offer of dadication, or with r.egard
to ~emoving thc cxistin9 dr.iveway on Lincoln.
Jay Titus, Officc Enginccr, stated that i~ a relativcly new revision which
allows thc Cicy Enyincer. the option, at his discretion, of cithec r.equiring
the curb and auttet, sidewalks, etc. to bc relocated co thcir ultimatc
location at this timc or., if that is not fcasiblc, to pay thc cost of
rclocation of thoGC improvements. Hc stated hc was not awarc of any plans fcr
strcet wideniny at this timc; thcr.efor.c, it would 'oc thc logical thing to ta.kc
the cash cequi:ed to rclocate thc improvements.
Malcolm 5lauyhtcr, Ucputy City Attozncy, staced thc bond requir.ement is
directed to the ultimate cemoval of all che existing improvements (curbs,
guttcrs, sidewalks) to be moved dack to thc 60-foot ultimatc riyht-of-way; a~id
that in discussions, hc thought it was thc intention that tnc present drivc~ay
on Lincoln Avenue be ranoved and replaced and that the condition did not
includc thc timc limit for that which was probably an omission and that should
probably bc addressed.
Lconard McGhcc, Associatc Planncr, stated r.evised plans havc oc^n submiztad
showiny that thc driveway has bcen removed which is covered in Condition No. 7.
Mr. La Bowe asked the cost involved for the app:opriatc traffic signal
assessment fces, an~ pointed ou*_ the applicant is willing to dedicate over.
2,ODU sy. ft. which is more than 1/6 oi the entire par.ccl, if the strcet is
widcned in Chc futurc.
Jim Atrcy, 1122 West Center Strcet directly 4chind Ace Fixtures, stated hc is
~epresenting his landlord, C. L. Petcrson, who is present; that thc propcrty
was purchased nine ycars ago and Ace Fixtures was a small restaurant supply
shop; and that all thc houses in the rcar wcre built betwcen 1911 and 1922,
and ovcr thc ycar.s the Acc Fixture business has grown and has gotten very big;
6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 23, 1966 86-451
that the building is full, thc stozaye lots are full, and noted this can be
classified as a storage yard, but it is a"junk yazd". Hc presented
photogsaphs showing the storagc. He explained the items are moved by an
elevator which has been inspected by officials b~.~ause pcople have gotten
hurt, but the applicant continues to use it; thaL all the weight is upstairs
and if thc building buzns, it will all fall and will destroy adjacent
propcrti~s.
He stated the apYlicant parks two trucks and a r.ental truck on the sttcet and
his employecs and ~ustomers pa:k on the strcet; that the staff repor.t says
thecc arc ninc employces, but hc counts fourtcen and thcy park on the
residential strcet; that thcy havc no dr.iveways on this strcet and can't park
on thc street becausc thc applicant's employces use all the parking spaces
availablc. He staCed thc buildings and yards are so full the applicant has to
pull thc freight out on thc strcet to 9ct to the othcr stuff in his yar.d; that
there are trucks double-parked and sometimes triple-par.ked; and that he blocks
thc sidewalk and basically has no respect for thc laws. Hc stated thcy havc
been complaininy for fivc ycars and havc wozked with four 'LOning Inspectors.
Hc pointed out thc tcash can is out on thc strcet all thc timc and thcy have
complained, but it docsn't do any good; that therc is a sign on the front of
the building which indicates ther.c is amplc parking in thc rcar., but thcrc is
no parking in thc ccar. Hc staced thcre is a liquor storc next to subject
ptoperry which the applicant owns, and there is traffic from that use. He
statcd thcre arc two thrcc-way intcrsections and thcrc ar.c a lot of pcople who
usc Center Str.cet tryiny to miss thc 5-point intcrsection and thcre is a
tremendous amount of traffic. Hc stated thcre is no parking, and this use is
an eyc sorc for everyone.
Sharon Becker, 1129 W. Center Street, stated her proper.ty is centrally located
in the middlc of this use; that she pucchased her. home seven years ago because
shc saw Anahcim as a City with a vision and a futur.c and also becausc it had a
respect :or its traditions and presetvr_d its landmarks; that their homes werc
built between 1911 and 1922; and hec housc has becn moved into thc restoration
area of Anaheim. Shc stated shc has been trying for sevcral ycar.s to restorc
hcr homc, but has lost all motivation becausc of this unsightly usc; and that
she secs thc junk when shc looks out any window ot ncr house.
She added shc has undcr9onc a lot of harassment; that the applicant bought the
propetty to thc north and to the west of hcr property and demolished both
houses; and also thc applicant removed her chain link fencc; that shc has
since had a wooden fence installed across the back, but the applicant said he
had the property surveyed and the chain link fence was within his property
lines and hc had it removed and she was not reimbursed.
She stated thc removal of tnat fence left hcr vcry vulncrable and anyone could
7ust stcY ovcr into her property, committing burglary, propecty damage, etc.,
and that thc petitioner's laborers cut down hcr tcees and trimmed hcr
sh:ubbcry and would not havc bcen ablc to do that if thc Ecncc had been
there. Shc stated also a wooden canopy was removed from thc garage and now
all his equipment is stozed against her yarage, and she fclt that c:eates a
fire hazar.d and if anything bu~ns, her propcrty would be wiped out. She
stated since the chain link fence was removed, the people workin9 for the
applicant used her water since they had easy access to her propecty and free
access to her water supply. 6/23/86
86-452
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23 1986
Ms. Becker staced on several occasions she has not been able to get in or out
of her dziveway because they have blocked it with ~oai~~L~ha~dresolved;sthat
vehicles and she 9ets no coopecation from anybody 9~
tr.ailers are left on the street beyond thc 72-houc limit and she has filed
ceports with the Police. She stated the neighbocs like their community and
enjoy their oldcr homes, but are getting tired of this use and the harassment,
the mental duress and the emotional upset caused by looking out their windows
and being surrounded by a'junk yard'.
She stated she feels chis applicant has anrontinuesdtorshowdthat timerandttime
the citizens liviny in this community and
again; that shc feels he is deter.mined to under.minc their property values;
that het proper.Ly is foc sale and she really doesn't want to sell it, and
doesn't know what retaliatory meaGUres mighGneclivesninGaL£ear.fulGStatelof
keep building in the nei9hbo~hood and thac
mind and has moved all her. valuable possessions out of her home.
Eric Boege, 1'lU7 W. Center., Anaheim, stated his house is just west of the
Gtora9e ya.*.d; that he feels th~ ownez mistepresented himsclf when h` use being
changing the pcopeccY; that he could not remember an oucdoor stoca9~
appr.oved and it is indeed f.ully in use with for.k lifCs going in and out. He
stat~~d he asked what was proposed for th~ Property whil.c th~ work was 5eing
done and was told that anything would be b~tter than what wa~ therc, but
pceviously there was only a single-family cesidence and now tWhichlwasufdno~
st~rage; that the applicant also put up a 6-foot block wall, th~ side of his
but then he put "l feet of barbed wire on top of che wall along
residence; and that from his bedroom on the second stor.y, he has nothing but
th~ view of the whole junk yard.
He stated hiG family has lived in the area for ovcr lnn ;~~ars and the house
was bui.lt by his grandfather and he understands the ar.ea is being converted to
commer.cial uses and iG zoncd for commercial useG and i.G right off Lincoln
Avenue, but he did not think this is To~o edha legitimateotheater.nonhthat lot
neighbochood; that two years ago he p P
and was planniny to leave the front house for ofcices which wouid have made
the residential ar.ea nicer, but there wete problems because there wasn't
enouyh parking. He explaiaed Commission was concerned about ttaffic in the
area and felt that people still living the neighborhood had rights and needed
some peace of mind and he would ask the Commission to continue that thought
with this request.
Chair.woman La Claire asked the present use of the property and whaten~e is
legally apptoved for this property. Leonatd McGhee stated the proP Y
zoned for genetal commercial uses. Annika Santalahti, AssiGtant Director for
'Loning, stated the property can be developed with a permitLed retail or office
use; however, che site developmenc standards permit only 1/3 of the propecty
to be covered by building, and the remainder has to be open and available for
parking and/or landscaping in some combination.
Mr. La Bo~ae stated the property which tha opposition has commented on is the
pre-er.ist.ing u~e at 1120 W. Lin^oln and backG up to Center ~tteet and has a
pre-exis+.in9 use for outdoor storage; that none of theit comments, except for
the last gentleman, addr.eGSed anything to do with the proQerty before the
6/23/86
86-453
MILJUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE 23 1986
Commission today, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 36-041-12 and 36-041-19. Hc
clarified their comments pcrtained to trucks, parking, etc. and dealt with the
existing use at 1120 W. Lincoln, and that is not the subject of this peti~ion.
Commissioner Herbst sta~~~ he thinks thc existing usc is the subject.
Commissioncr Fry clarificd tiie applicant owns both propertics, and stated he
could assure the applicant that both properties would bc taken into
ecnsidezation. Mr. La Bowe stated the existing use is nnt expa^nistoratc ands
proacrty. He stated this property will be used strictly for op- 9
thece will not be trucks driviny in and out of this propcrty; that the last
gentleman spoke of seeing junk, but thcre is a solid block wall and the only
way to see the storage would bc to go over thc fencc. Commissione~ Bouas
sta*_ed that neighbor lives in a two-story house.
Mr. La Bowe stated the nciyhbors who made the other comments about harassment,
have filed complaints against Ace Fixtures Company and noted he has car.ds from
thc Fire ins~ector and Anaheim Folice Officers and tnat numerous times they
have been out to inspect thc site and thcre has not bcen one cication. He
scaze~ the reason for this near.in9 is that Planning and 'LOning said the open
storagc was not pcrmitted in thc CG 'GOne.
Chairwoman La Claire stated thc applicant is saying that they would like to
get thc outdoor storage apptoved, and that thcy havc been a good neiyhbor and
that the allegations rcally arc not truc, and Mr. La eowe agrecd that is their
opinion.
Chaizwoman La Claire stated cvcryone secros to bc yctting upset and asked thc
applicant if she could closr_ the public hear.in9. Mt. La ~owe asked if he
could reserve thc righ~ to maise further comments. Chairwoman La Claire stated
thc Commission would ask qucstions, and hc would be allowed to answcr them.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioncr Hcrbst stated hc thought this was probably chc most flagrant
violation of peopl^'s c~yhts that hc has scen in the City of Anaheim in thc 20
ycazs hc has becn on the Commission; that from lookiny at the pictures, and hc
has bcen by the propcrty, hc would agree that wha~ chc neiyhbors are saying is
ttue. He stated maybc Mr.. La Bowe hasn't scen it, beca~sc hc did not think he
would bc sayiny these things if hc had secn *_he pzopcrty, but that thc
applicant is violating the City ordinances by unloading in the st[eet, working
in the strcet, parking the cars on the sidewalk, etc., and even with the
pcesent business, he is stacking thc yar.d full of matcrial and noted stacking
matetial above the hciyhc of the fence is not even allowed in thc industrial
zone, and this propctty is in a residential area. He added as faz as hc is
concerned, if the applicant cannot do business thece within the City
ordinances, hc should movc to thr_ industrial zonc to do his business in a
p[opc[ mannet without inflicting his business on thc ncighbors; that the
neighbors own their. homes and havc tights and thc applicant also has his
rights, as long as he docsn't inflict thosc riyhts onto thc ncighbors.
Commissionec Hcrbst stated from what hc secs, hc thought the business is in
the wzong locacion. He stated also Lincoln Avenue is one of cnc main streets
in thc City and having an outdoor stotage yard in that locaticn is 'sttictly
taboo' as far as he is concerned. 6/23/86
t4INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COPIMISSION~ JUNE 23 1986 86-454
M:. La ~owe stat~d lookiny at legal doctrines and what the Commission contends
that he is interpreting as a nuisance, this business has been ther.e in its
present form for over 50 years and thc present owners have bcen there for 20
years operating as the Ace Fixtures Company and the people who spoke in
opposition stated they inoved there 7 to 9 years ago, so they moved there with
expressed knowledge of this business being there.
Commissioner Herbs~ stated that docsn't give the petitioner the right to
violate City ordinances. He stated unloading in the stteet is one violation.
Mr. La ~owe stated he has not seen a citation for loading or unloading in the
street. Commissione.*. Herbst asked if he thought it was right to park on the
sidewalk. M_*. La Bowe stated evcry person is entitled to their opinion as to
whether it is riyht or now. He stated if thesc pictures are taken showing
cars that may be parked on the sidewalk, it should be referenced as to when
they wcrc taken.
Commissioner Fry asked what diffcrence it makes when the pictures were taken.
He stated thc petitionec is in violation of a storagc yard in that location
and hc is rcady to move on this request and is going to givc thc petitioner 90
days to eliminate the illeyal usc of the storayc yard.
Malcolm Slau9hter, lleputy City Attorncy, stated hc has been attempting to
detcr.mine from thc Code, based on the petition, whethcr or not a conditional
usc permit is an appropriate mechanism by which outdoor storage can be
pcrmitted in this zone; that the staff rcport cites a gencral code section,
18.03.U3U.UlU, which provides that wherc a use is nowhcrc identified in the
Zoning Code, a conditional use permit is an appropriate mechanism, and that
tne Zonin9 Codc pcrmits outdoor stocage ya*ds of this typc in other zones and
thouyht the ques'tion is whether we have an appropr.iate vchiclc by which this
could bc gtanted. Hc stated the first findiny thc Commiss~on must makc in
grantin9 a conditional use permit is that the use is one for which a
conditional use permit is authorized; that hc has not gone thr.ough the whole
Code, but thought there is a legal problem as to whether this is even a propcr
vehicle by which this usc could be permitted in thc CG Zone. He clarified hc
is simply lookin9 at thc application presented by the petitioner as to the
Code Sections under which they are proceediny and did not iind an outdoor
storage facility bcin9 permitted by the sections mentioned.
t~r. La Bowe stated beforc thosc provisions werc filled in, he specifically
spoke with thc Planning llepartment, and would admit that hc is not vcrsed in
the City of Anahcim Municipal Code, and inquired as to which provisions to use
in Paragraph 5 and that information was provided to him.
Chairwoman La Clair.e stated that is not thc question; that she undcrstands
what he is sayiny and his points are well taken, and referced to Page 18-c
which indicates the findings the Planning Commission must make before it
grants any conditional use permit as; 1:) that the proposed usc is properly
one for which a conditional use permit is authorized, and that is what the
attorney just mentioned tnat might be a question; however, throwing that
aside, 2) that the proposed use will not adverscly affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and devclopment of thc area in which it is proposed to be
located; and added that is where she would have difficulzy because it is
adversely affectin9 the area and they have ~iot had a pcior conditional use
6/23/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23 1986 86-455
pcrmit for ~utdoor storage and it is obvious the use is affecting the area,
and that is the basis on which she would vote for denial.
Mr. La Bowe stated then it becomes a question of economics and that is one of
the conditions set forth in the waiver requirement; that this is CG Zoning,
mixed commercial and residential, pre-existing of both, and this parcel was a
dilapidated building with an old ship on Lincoln Avenue and that no longer
exists. Commissionet Bouas stated that was a paint store.
Chairwoman La Claire stated thc Commission is not denying the general
commeccial zonin9, but is denying the outdoor storage and a conditional use
permit is needed for that o~tdoor stora9e and thc Commission feels that
storage adversely affects the neiyhborhood.
Mt. La Bowe asked for more time to be hcard and Chair.woman La Claire responded
he could have one more minute to sum evcrything up becausc she thought
evetything has bcen heazd and no matter what else is said, thc issue will not
chanye ana that is tnat the usc docs adversely affect the neighborhood.
Mr. La Bowe asked if the Commission is in agrecment that the only issue is
based on thc finding that the use affects thc adjoining land uses?
Commissioncr Bouas stated that is just one rcason and Malcolm Slaughtcr stated
the Commission need not respond to that statement.
ACTION: Commissioncr Fry offcred a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MUTION CARRIEU (Chairwoman La Claire voting no and Commissioner l4esse absent)
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to petmit
an outdoor stocage yard with waivcr of miniR~um number and area of parking
spacr_s on two irregula~ly-shaped parcels of land consisting of approximately
0.37. acce having a frontage of approximatcly 103 feet on thc south side of
Lincoln Avenue, and approximately 100 fcet on the north side of Center Street,
and furthet described as 1120 West Lincoln Avenuc and 12U3 West Center StL~~~;
and does hereby disapprovc the Neyativc Declar.ation upon finding that it has
considered the Nega.t~ve Declazation to9ether with any comments received during
the public review process and further finding on the basis of thc Initial
Study and any comments received that there is substantial evidence that the
project will have a siynificant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offcred a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MQTION
CARRIEU (Commi~sioncr Messe absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny waiver of the Code requirement.
Co~nmissioner Fry offcred Resolution No. PC86-179 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission docs herepy deny
Conditional Usc Permit No. 2817 on the basis that thc use would advcrsely
affect the adjoininy land uses and the yr.owth and development of the area in
which it is proposed to be located and the granting of thc conditional use
permit under thc conditions imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the peace,
health, safety and gencral welfarc of thc citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vate:
AYES: BUUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICY.I~ MC BURNEY~ ME5SE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: I~ONE
6/23/86
MINUTES AI~AHEIM CITY PLAL~NING CUMMISSION JUNE 23 1986 8G-456
Malcolm Slauyhtef, lleputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
zhe Planning Commission's decision wiihin 22 days to tnc Cicy Council.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUr.ney and
MOTION CARRIEll (Commissioner Messe absent) insttucting staff to have the Code
Enfotcement Officers inspect the site and check on the violations of
unloading/loading in the street, parking on the sidewalks, etc.
Commissioner Bouas asked if off-str.cet parking is required. Chairwoman La
Claire asked that any furthcr discussion bc held until later since this mattet
has been voted on. Mr. La Bowe asked to spcak, and Chairwoman La Clairc
refused to continuc discussion of this matt~r, and pointed out the petitioner
does have thc right of appeal before the City Council. t~r. La Bowe asked if
the appcal heariny will conform to the laws of Chc Statc of Californi,a with
Legacd to p[oof of evidence, or will it be similar to this hcaring where
anyone can walk up and present a picturc or anything thcy wish without any
substantiation or vcr.ification.
Malcolm Slaughtcr asked if the Commission wished him to respond and
Commissioner Herbst asked him not to respond and noted the applicant can
appeal thc decision to thc City Council becausc this has bcen a vcry legal
heariny and the pictures are very legal evidence.
ITEM N0. 19 REPORTS ANll RECUDIMENDATIONS
A, CUNllITIONAL USt PERMIT NO. J.U36 - Requcst from Mohammad H. Rezazadeh
Seilabi foc tcrmination uf Conditi.onal Usc Per.mit No. 1036, propcrty
located at 1:62 and 1272 East La Palma Avenue.
ACTIUN: Commissi~ner Fiy offcred xesolu*_ion No. PC86-180 and moved for
its passagc and adoption that thc Anahcim City Planning Commission docs
hereby tecminatc Conditional Usr_ Permit No. 1036.
Un roll call, thc foregoin9 resolution was passe~ by the followin9 vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICnI~ MC BURNEY
NUES: NONE
A~SENT: MESSE
B. CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT NO. 2692 - Request from John K. Alstrom (Hillman
Pr.opertics Limited Partnership) for an extension of time for Conditional
Usc Pcrmit No. 2692, property located at 180 Rivecview Drivc.
ACTION: Commissioner Hetbst offeced a mution, seconded by Commissioncr
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec Messe absent) that thc Anahcin
City Planniny Commission does heceby grant an extension of time fur
Conditional Use Permit No. 2692, to expire March 29, 1987.
C. TENTATIV~ MAP OF TRACT NO. 96U1 - Request f~om John A. Sarracino
(repr.esentin9 Lind ~ Hiller.ud, Inc.) for a one-year extension of time £or
Tentative Tract No. 9601, property located northeast of the intersectiun
of Canyon Rim Koad and Fairmont Boulevard.
6/23/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY YLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23 198ti 86-457
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner. Herbst and MOTION CARRZED (Commissioner Messe absent)
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant an
extension of timc for Tentative Tract No. 9601, to expirc June 26,
1987.
OTHER llISCUSSION:
Commissioner. Herbst stated he r.cad in thc newspapcr. that thc Fricker. Chemical
Compa~y is bar.k i.n business and thought when the fir.c occurred, there was
discuasion that they did not have proper. pcrmits, Annika Santalahti stated
she believed thcy have thc pr.op^_r pecmits, an~~ the list of r.hemicals provided
was ar.ceptable to the Fire Depar.tmcnt, but the problem was the manner in which
the chemir_als wer.c being stored. Commissioner Hcrbst stated the newspape~
ar.ticle stated they were mixing chemicals improperly. Ms. Santalahti stated
she understands that some of the mixiny which is done in tanks, actually has
somc cooliny effect and the problem was with impr.opcr stor.age, distance
bet~een items, width of aisles, etc. She stated tncy did scek building
pc nnits and thought they had complicd with all thc conditions. Shc stated
some of the chemicals ace deliver.ed in tank t_*ucks and some in dry for.m; and
Chat they had unmar.ked or. impropr_r.ly labcled containcrs; buc that she did not
think thcy nceded a conditional usc per.mit.
Malcolm Slauyhtcr. stated thc usc is per.mittr_d, but they did ncrd pcrmits fr.om
the City in or.der. to r~build the burned out shcll.
PLANNING COMMIS5IUN kBPRES~hTATIVE TU PAitK 5 RECREATION COMMISSION:
ACTIUN: Commissioner. Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner tdcBurney
and MOTIO~ CARRIEll (Commis~ioner Messe absent) that Mar.y Bouas be reappointed
to serve as thc Planning Commission r.epr.esentativc to the Parks 6 xecreation
Coimnission.
ADJUU1tNMENT
Commissioner Fr.y offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner. Her.bst that the
mceting be adjourned.
The mecting was adjonr.ned at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~`~ ~ ,~.°1~~~
Ed'fCh . Harris, SecCetary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:lm
0202m
6/23/86