Minutes-PC 1986/12/08~,- -.•
;
.~ ~ ;
i
'i
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING The cegular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission was called to otder by Chairman McBUrney at
10:00 a.m., Decembec 8, 1986, in the Council Chambec, a
quorum being pcesent, and the Commission ceviewed Qlans of ~
the items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENED: 1:35 o.m.
PRESENT: Chaitman: McBUrney
Commissioners: Bouas, Fcy, Herbst,
La Claire, Lawicki, Messe
ABSENT: Commissioners: none
ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti
Malcolm Slaughter
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Deborah Vagts
Debbie Fank
Greg Hastings
Leonard McGhee
Edith Harcis
Assistant Director for 2oning
Deputy City Attorney
Office Engineer
Tcaffic Enginee~
Housing Opecations Coordinator
Assistant Ttaffic Engineer
Associate Planner
Associate Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Commissioner Hetbst offered a motion, seconded by
Commissionec Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the minutes cf the meeting of
November 10, 1986, be apptoved as submitted.
ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER QF CODE REQUIREMEt7T AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2847
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPi~ N. AND JALEH J. MAKABI AND HOURIE HOURIANI~
3333 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: HUGO VA2QUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of appro:cimately 0.74 acce, 3333 West Ball Road.
To construct a 94-bed skilled nursing facility with waivers of (a) minimum
landscaped setback, (b) maximum structural height and (c) minimum side yatd
setba~k.
Continued fcom the meetings of October 13 and November 10, 1986.
Thece were twelve persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
cequest and although the staff report was not read, it is refeceed to and made
a patt of the minutes.
Hugo Vazquez, agent, explained this cequest i~ for a 94-bed convalescent home
and that the basic concern is with the rear of the pcopecty with an intrusion
of privacy into other people's backyards and it was suggested that the rear
86-~96 12/8/86
86-797
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 1986
portion of the building be removed or be tieted so as not to create as lacge
an impact as seen at the present time. He stated he did [eview the plans with
the neighbors and they would tather not have a convalescent home on this
property; and that multiple-family units were discussed with no windows on
that side of the property, located at a minimum distance of 50 feet fcom the
property line, but. then the neighbors decided a hospital would be a much nic~r
use than multiple-family units. He stated he has not yet had an opportunity
to redesign the plans and review them with the neighbors since the atchitect
owns the plans and has not been available. He stated it is his intention to
tone-down the rear of the property and requested a two-week continuance in
order to cedesign the project and to meet witr. the neighbors. He stated the
revised plans would not have any vaciances, so thece would not be anything to
be ceadvertised.
Chaicman McBUrney stated before a continuance is granted, he felt the
neighbors should be given the opportunity to voice their concerns and pointed
out a continuance would have to be for four weeks since it is not expected
there will be a quorum for the December 22nd meeting.
June Lenc, 3312 W. Glen Holly, Anaheim, stated the developer cancelled two
meetings on the same day they wece scheduled, but the neighbors did meet with
him once and are available and want to come to a reasonable decision. She
stated there are seven convalescent homes in the aeea and they ace all one
story; and that she realizes they have a problem in developing this property.
She added she thought thece was a requirement for a 150-foot setback for a
two-story structure.
Donald McGiff, Jr., 3303 W. Glen Holly, stated his property is not directly
affected by this development, but he has been in the neighborhood for thirty
years and the area means a lot to him and his neighbors and the original
intended use of the pcoperty is for ~esidential uses and if this propecty is
developed with a commeccial use, thece is a possibility of the development of
the large parcel of propetty ad;acent to the north, which is currently a
nursery, and this would set the precedent for futther commercial development.
He stated thete is already some commetcial development on Ball Road and
Western and also there are multiple~story p=ojects and they would hate to see
fucther intrusion into the residential area of what might be considered
commercial developments.
George Brott, 33~6 W. Glen Holly, stated he has been a tesident there for
thirty years and presented a letter signed by neighbors immediately adjacent
to the property on Deerwood and Westvale who sttongly object to anything other
than low-density, single-story homes. He stated he did not think it is
necessaty to continue this matter and the decision should be made. He stated
that property is not conducive to any two-story development and the people who
bought the propetty originally bought it for an investment but they shauld not
make a profit at their neighbor's expense. He stated there is a three-story
retirement home in their area fo~ seniors, but the rest of the convalescent
homes are sin9le story. He stated when the Anaheim Genetal Hospital goes out
of business, it will be available as a 99-bed convalescent hospital. He
suggested if this project is desired, that it could be placed on the property
currently being proposed fot the jail near the stadium. He stated they have
enough convalescent homes in theit area and agreed thete is iZ~8/66 but they
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 8, 1986 86-798
should not all be concentrated into one acea. He stated they want to keep
their area single-family residential and do not want any more inconvenience
for their neighbors such as the sirens going up and down Ball Road like they
have now with the other convalescent homes in the area.
Mr. Brott stated Mr. Vazquez offeced an alternative for either a convalescent
home or an apartment complex and they do not want either.
Denise Robects, 3332 Glen Holly, stated that the whole neighborhood feels very
strongly about this project a~zd tnat she agrees with what hee neighbors have
said.
Mr. Vazquez stated this property faces Ball Road so there would not be a
traffic impact on the residential streets. He stated he believes the
neighbors' major concern related to the rear of the property where patients in
the convalescent home might be able to look out into their backyards. He
pointed out there is a 3-story building (Eden Roc) which is less than 50 feet
from single-family homes and it has not decreased the property values and has
been there for thtee years.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated this matter was continued two months ago in order
for the developer to meet with the neighbors and he thought that was ample
time to revise the plans. He stated he did not want to keep bringing the
neighbors back because this developer cannot get his plans together. He
stated he was not sure this is the right place foc a convalescent home anyway,
recognizing that it is a difficult parcel to develop, but that a
multiple-story development would impact the neighborhood.
Chairman McBUrney stated the developer should be given the opportunity to
correct the plans to see if the neighbors are in favor. Commissioner Bouas
stated they cannot expect single-family homes to be developed there, even
though that is what they want.
Commissioner Messe stated he would like to see what the developer can provide
and Commissioner He~bst stated he would want to see a single-story development.
Hugo Vazquez stated he could build a 3-story office buildin9 without a public
hearing in the commercial zone. He stated the neighborhood is undec the
impression that the structure has to be 150 feet away because they are
single-family residential, but with an institutional use, that does not apply.
Leonard McGhee stated Section 18.21 ~elating to maximum structural height does
refer to institutional buildings and the height is not to exceed one-half the
distance from the structure to the boundary and at three different paints, the
height would be 2 feet, 4 feet and 25 feet maximum. Hugo Vazquez stated they
could meet that ordinance, but the 150-foot setback for 2 stories wuuld be a
much largec impact.
12/8/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 8~ 1986 86-799
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Hetbst voting no? that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
Janua~~~ 5, 1987. Commissioner La Claire suggested this be the ficst item on
the aoenda. Leonard McGhee stated revised plans would have to be submitted by
December lOth in order to readvertise any additiona~ waivets.
Commissioner Messe changed his motion for the continuance from January 5,
1987, to January 19, 1987, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and motion carried.
Commissionet Bouas clarified that the developer will meet with the property
owners and suggested he not cancel the meeting.
ITEM NO. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAR.ATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3597
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ AND TAK WATANABE, 2240 W. Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Pcnperty described as a rectangulacly-shaped
parcel of land consistin9 of approximately 6,695 square feet, 202 South Olive
Stceet.
Waivers of (a) maximum structur.al heiyht (deleted), (b) maximum site coverage
(deleted), (c) minimum cecreational-leisute areas (deletedl, (d) minimum area
of private recreational-leisure areas and (e) minimum width of pedestrian
accessways to construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment building.
Continued from the meetings of September 15, October 13, 27 and November 10,
1986.
ihere were two people indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staEf ceport ~as not read; it is ceferred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Hugo Vazquez, agent, explained originally this was designed as a 5-unit
apartment complex, but they have gone through about four different designs on
this property and the neighborhood would like to keep the "victori,an" look.
He stated they are now proposing 4 units and would like apptoval based on
conditions to work out details of cosmetic changes which do not affect the
approval of the project.
Donna Serry, 511 E. Broadway, stated the neighbors have designated hec as
Chaicwoman of the Neighborhood Area Committee (NAC) and they had a meeting
with Mr. Vazquez on October 13th and made recommendations signed by the 15
members in attendance. She stated she has been meeting with Mr. Vazquez or~ a
regular basis and the objections to the design have nothing to do with the
Code and are cosmetic problems which aee easily resolved and in keeping with
the historical district and nature of the neighborhood. She stated they
strongly objected to this being a 5-unit apartment project and would prefer to
have only three units. She stated they completely disagree with the plans
displayed and khere are a few small changes they would like to see on the new
plans. She stated they object to the circular driveway which has been
eliminated on the new plans.
12/8/86
86-800
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 8, 1986
Ms. Berry pre5ented a list of objections and concerns to the Commission for
their review from the NAC. She stated they are opposed to the waivers,
especially in the downtown resident:a'_ area, which they feel is alzeady
overcrowded and congested.
Mc. Vazquez stated he has no prob~em meeting the concecns of the neighborhood
group rega[ding design and materials and stated the group is agreeable to four
units, even though their list indicates they are agreeable to three units. He
stated they want the recreation coom eliminated and that ~ould create a waive[
and he hoped that has been legally advertised; and they do not want a driveway
on Olive, but if they do not have a driveway, a variance would be necessary to
access from the alley. Mr. Vazquez stated he submitted revised plans to staff
over a month ago, but they wece not submitted in time to get to today's
meeting.
Commissioner Hecbst asked if the plans displayed ace the olans reviewed by the
neighbors. Mr. Vazquez responded the plans submitted to staff. were reviewed
by the neighbors and the conditions ace tied to those plans. He stated the
plans which Ms. Berry has are the latest plans whicb were submitted to staff.
Leonard McGhee stated the plans submitted were supposed to be in conformance
with the Neighborhood Area Committee's recommendation; however, it was
determined by staff that additional waivecs were required and they had asked
Mc. Vazquez if he wanted those waivers adve[tised and there was no response,
and then about two weeks ago, staff asked Mr. Vazquez again if he wanted to
continue with the plans which do not require readvertisement and those ate the
plans for four units which ace currently being reviewed by the Commission and
they do not meet with the recommendations on the list supplied by Ms. Berry.
Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Vazquez stated the circular dtiveway is
not on the plans.
Commissioriec La Claire stated ~vidently there are three or four sets cf plans
on this pzoperty; and that she received some phone calls objectin9 to the
circular driveway and the plans in front of the Commission do not show a
circulat driveway. Mr. Vazquez pointed out the access and different aspects
of the project on the displayed exhibit. He explained there would be eight
parking spaces on the alley with two pa~king spaces Erom the front. He stated
the neighbors do not want the driveway off Olive which would require an
additional waiver.
THE PU:4LIC HEARING WAS CLOSEB.
Leonard McGhee stated there are some problems with continuances and numerous
plans being submitted and keeping track of them and staff would tecommend a
decision be made on the 4-unit apartment ptoject suhmitted today and then if
there is a new project which meets all the cecommendations, it can be
processed from that point.
Jay Titus responded to Commissioner Fry that Olive Street is to be 65 feet
wide to Lincoln and there is a condition fot a 32-foot dedicati::n on this
project.
12f 8/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6 1986 86-801
Commissioner Fry stated with the number of 50-foot lots on that one block of
Olive Street, there could be a potential of 56 units and that is becoming a
heavy traffic area and more units means more cars patked on Olive Street and
he felt this w~uld be the beginning of impacting the area which will not end.
Hugo Vazquez stated 688 oi the lots on Olive Street between Broadway and
Lincoln are owned by the Redevelopment Agency of anaheim. Commissioner
La Claire stated the acea is zoned RM-1200 and this project meets Code and
only has one vaciance pertaining to the minimum width of the pedestrian
accessways and since it is zoned RM-1200, there will be RM-1200 projects
proposed.
Commissioner Bouas noted th~ Redevelopment Commission recommended denial of
the 5-unit project. Debbie Vagts, Housing Operations Coordinator, stated the
Rede~elopment Agency just wanted to be sure the neiyhborhood saw the plans and
approved them and the neighborhood g~oup has approved the 4 units.
Tom Car~uthers, Propertp Services Managec, Redevelopment Agency, stated Mr.
Vazquez has submitted a letter to the Redevelopmenc Agency requesting they
purchase this peopecty and tnat all the various plans have been introduced to
the NAC and PAC Committees and both committees have rejected those plans for
parkir.? and cosmetic ceasons. He stated NAC objected to 5 units, but did
accept 4 units, but object~d to the patking.
Commissioner La Claire stated the 4-unit apattment complex meets the parking
requirements. She stated this project is only 2 stories and meets all the
Codes except the one variance relating to the width of pedestcian accessway.
Leonard McGhee explained the waiver applies to the staicway and walkway on the
south side of the property. Mr. Vazquez stated this is a unique requirement
which does not always get called out foc a variance and that the staicway
needs to be 8 feet wide and they have built other complexes•with a 4-foot wide
accessway. Mc. McGhee stated it refers to the pcimary wa.lkways fcom pa~king
areas and there is parking in the rear and f*ont and that it is a technical
waiver.
Commissioner Bouas stated staff has recommended that Commission act on this
request today. Hugo Vazquez stated he would like an action today with
co.^.ditic~~as to work out the other problems. Commissioner Herbst stated he
would like to see the plans.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La
Claite an~1 MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afocementioned matter be
continue~ to the cegularly-scheduled meeting of January 19, 1987.
Commissioner La Claire stated she is getting a little tired of seeing
developers submit incomplete plans and then submitting revi.sed plans and she
does not want to see these plans until the neighborhood committee has approved
them and she wants to see the plans aftec they are completed. She pointed out
the property is zoned RM-1200, and stated the neighbors will not be ~enotified
of the continued heacing and those interested should call the Planning
Depattment on the 19th to make suce it is scheduled.
12/6/So
MINUTES ANAHEIt4 CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, DECEMBER 8, 1986 86-602
ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-14 AND
VARIANCE NO. 3611(READVERTISED)
PUSLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HUGU P.. VAZQUEZ, ET AL, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped (landlocked)
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.76 acres on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue, approRimately 532 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst
Street and futther described as 2240 West Lincoln Avenue.
CL to RM-1200.
Waivers of (a) required lot frontage, (b) minimum site area pec dwelling unit,
(c) maximum building height, and (d) maximum site coverage to construct a
3-story, 3S-unit affordable apartment complex.
Continued from the meetings of Uctober 27 and November 10, 1986.
There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is refecced to and made a pact
of the minutes.
Hugo Va2quez, owner, stated this project was brought before the Commission
about one month ago and was continued in ocder to be readvertised properly.
Allie Van Horn, 2256 W. Lincoln, stated she is representing the ownecs of the
property next door and they are opposed to this request because this would be
a family project and this is not a safe area for Eamilies. She referred to a
motel (Safari) which has a bad reputation; and that the complex she represents
has had break-ins, bucglaries, etc. which ha~:a been tcaced by the Police
Department to that motel. She added thece have been complaints in the area
about prostitution and stated there is a facility on the front of this
property which was previously the Safari Lounge which is closed now, but could
be reopened, an~ that would not be desirable for a family complex. She stated
thece ate many apattnent complexes in that area and some have families with
children which rent from ~400 per month to ~700 per month, depending on the
apartment, and there is no need for more complexes in that area.
Mc. Vazquez stated they just purchased the gropetty and it was a trashy
location and they have done their best to clean it up and now have a full-time
manager living in the motel. He explained they have no intention of keeping
the motel and their office is located where the restaucant used to be and his
=ntire family wocks there and has been thece since Decembec 1985. He
explained again the hotel would be eliminated in June of 1967.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Lawicki asked the plans fot the building currently being used as
an office. Mr. Vazquez stated they p?an to build multiple-family housin9 and
in the future will consider renovatin9 that building completely and possibly
making a portion of it as a club house for the apartments.
12/8/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 8, 1986 86-803
Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Vazquez stated they have an approval for
a 46-unit apart~ent building next door with a shared driveway and it will work
if this is approved today. He stated they want to keep ic at grade level
because it is surrounded by multiple-family apartments.
Commissioner Herbst asked if all the requirements have Geen met for the
afiordable unics. Debbie Vacts, Housing Operations Coordinator, stated
Housing has an executed lettec of understanding for seven, 2-bedroom units at
$536 per month for ten years. Commissioner Herbst stated he wants the
agreement for 20 yeazs.
Commissioner La Claire stated she would like to see some projects at the other
end of the scale for affordable because ~538 per month is not really
afferdable. Debbie Vagts stated the density bonus law ceads ~:hat the
developer can offer 258 affordable to 808 or 108 affordable to 508 of the
median income and the 508 for 2-bedroom rents would be ~414 per month which is
certainly more affordable.
Hugo Vazquez stated he would be more agreeable at offering 10~ to 50B of
median. Commissioner La Claire stated the Commission needs to look at the
stcucture for the affordability.
ACTION: Ccmmissionec Herbst offered a motio~i, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
~n,'. MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion has ceviewed the
~~~<•~osal to :eclassify the northerly 178 feet of subject property from CL
(COmmercial, Limited) Zone L•o RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to
constcuct a 3-story, 34-unit affordable apartment complex under authority of
State Government Code Section 65915 with waivers requi~ed lot ftontage,
minimum side area per dwelling unit, maximum building height and maximum site
coverage on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
0.76 acres on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 2240
W. Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration 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 there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
enviconment.
Commissionec Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-298 and moved for its passaqe
and adoption that the Anaheim Ciky Planning Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 86-87-14, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
REcommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, D1C BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
~BSENT: NONE
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-299 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant
Variancc No. 3611 on the basis that there are special citcumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, l~cation and surroundings
12/8/86
MINDTES, ANAHEIM CIT° PLANNING COMMIS~IQN, DECEMBER 8 ~ 1986 86-804
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the 2oning Code deprives the property of
privileges enjoyed by ot5er properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental C~mmittee
recommendations.
On roll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the fol.lowing vote:
AYES: SOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NQNE
Malcolm Slaughtet, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written tight to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2859~READV.) AND WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY N0. 543
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD H. PEBLEY AND FLORENCE M. PEBLEY~ 32100 Auld
Road, Winchesier, CA 92396. AGENT: HUGO A. VAZ4UEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92805. Pcoperty is described as a cectangularly-shaped paccel of
land consisting of approximately 0.35 acre located at the southeast cornec of
Philadelphia Street and Broadway Street.
To permit a 4-story, 20-unit senioc citizen 'aEfordable' apartment/congregate
care facility in conjunction with on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed
restaurant with waivers of minimum building site area per duelling unit,
maximum site coverage and minimum structural setback and yar.d requirements.
Continued from the meetings of November 10 and 24, 1986.
There were four persons indicating their psesence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was nut read, it is referred to and made
a pazt of the minutes.
Hugo Vazquez, agent, presented a colored rei~dering of the proposed project and
explained this project would help rejuvenate the a~Ea and explained it is
adjacent to a lawyer's office, opposite the church, and across from the new
theater. He stated notmally a congregate care facility would have a minimum
of 100 units in order to make it work. He stated in this location they ate
able to propose a restaurant, even though it is a small cafe type facility,
noting thece is a need in this area for a restaucant and this will briag
people into the downtown area and this restaurant would attract people into
the senior citizen's lives who would be living in the facility and make them
feel they are still a part of active society. He stated by the year 2000 the
number of senior citizens will have increased by 1508 and there is a teal need
for senior housing.
Keith Pepper, 817 N. Lemon Steeet, stated everyone here is concerned with
improving the downtown area and recognizes there is a need for senior citizen
housing; and that a restaurant acress from the Freedman Forum is a good idea,
but combining the two uses on this small property is not a good idea and also,
12/S/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONMISSION, DECEMBBR 8~ 1_986 86-805
there would be a lot of noise from the restaurant use which could be
disruptive for the senior citizens living in the facility. He stated the site
coverage proposed would heavily impact the area.
Donna Berry, 511 E. 9roadway, Anaheim, stated a restaurant would be a boom in
that a~ea because of all the offices being planned and the increased traffic
and there is definitely the need. She stated the proposed dual use, however,
would present a small, cramped, sandwich/hamburger joint type restaurant or a
cafeteria annex for the senior citizens who would be quartered in small
apartments upstairs, and she would like to see one or the other, but not both.
Max Wills stated his father owns property on Philadelphia and he owns property
on Broadway and he agreed this proposal would be a problem because parking
already is a problem on Philadelphia Street and Mith the combination of the
restaurant and senior citizen facility, the problems wo~ld be increased. H~
stated there is a restau~ant proposed ir. the theater so he did not see a need
fot a restaurant right across the street. He stated he is for the senioc
citizen housing except for the height tequest.
Hugo Vazquez stated the proposed units are larger than other units being
provided for senior citizens and this complex will have an elevator which is
very expensive. He stated they want to create a landmar.k at this location and
this will not be an institutional-type use. He explained they are looking for
active seniors for this complex who might have to have occasional care. He
stated they have designed the project to blend in with Fred Hunter's
development and Faye Reardon's property which a~e adjacent and this project
does fit because of its surcoundings and because of the theater which is the
main issue because people from the theater and the church would use the
restaurant. He stated this will be a high quality restaucan~. with a mezzanine
above so senior citizens can look down fcom above and see that they are still
a part of society.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Vazquez stated depending on services,
these tenants would pay from ~345 per month for affordable units up to $700
per month. He explained they will have maid secvice and a mini-bus will be
provided with the events coordinated by the management of the facility;
however, the food service would be extra.
Commissionec Bouas stated it appears the developer is really looking to the
on-sale alcoholic beverage license to carcy the project. Commissioner. eouas
asked if the senior citizen project really needs on-sale alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Vazquez stated seniots will have an eating area above the regulaz
cestaurant; othecwise, he would agree thece would be no need for the alcoholic
beverages.
Commissioner La Claire stated the proposal is foc a mixe~ use and it is hard
to classify, but in this acea there is the City Hall, an office building, a
theater, etc., now the congtegate care facility is proposed which is over a
restaurant which secves alcoholic beverages. She stated the ptopeity is only
131 feet by 114 feet.
12/8/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMSER 8 1986 86-806
Mr. Vazquez stated there is a 10-stoty, 75 ,~it senioz citizen complex project
just one block north which is on a half-a~ e paccel.
Commissioner La Claire stated there is a parking stcucture next door tu that
pcoject and it doesn't have a restaurant inside with on-sale alcohol
bevecages. She suggested the pcoject should be either for seniot citizens or
for a restaurant. She added she thougiit a restaurant wauld be very suitable
in that location and suggested a restaurant similar to 'Thee White House'.
Commissioner Hecbst asked why the plans do not reflect what is shown on the
water color rendering. Mr. Vazquez stated the watercolot rendering becomes a
part of the conditions and the project would be developed acco~~ing to that
cendering. Commissioner Herbst stated some of Mt. Vzzquez's projects have not
ended up looking anything like the cendecings pcesented at the Commission
meetings. Mi. Vazquez stated all his projects have conformed to the plans and
color renderings.
Commissioner La Claire stated the second variance zequested for maximum site
coverage is the problem. She stated she would be willing to consider the use,
but this proposal is just too big for this propecty and too much is being
crowded on this site. Mr. Vazquez Gtated the problem is not the price of tne
property, but he is trying to provide lacger units; however, he could bring
back a plan with smaller units. He added he felt the response fram the
Commission is to pcopose a 12-unit apactment project on this site, unless he
takes the project on to the City Council for their consideration.
Commissioner Bouas asked how much parking would be required foc the restaurant
and regular apactments. Mr. Vazquez responded he could not propose apartments
with the proposed restaurant.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Vazquez stated the food service would
cost approximately ~200 per month, so the total package for tent on an
affordable unit with food service would be $545 per month, which is still
undet market range. Commi~sioner Hecbst statad he has no problem with the
senior citizen complex, but does have a problem with the restaurant open to
the public and did not think it fits and there is not adequate coom fot the
entire project. He stated the impact from the restaucant would be heavy ai~d
added he recognizes senior citizens do not need as much patking. He stated
food service is needed for the senior citizens, but bringin9 in the public
would cause parking problems on the stceets in the area. Mr. Vazquez stated
they expect to attract mostly walk-up traffic generated from the church and
the theater and those people would alceady be parked in the acea.
Commissione[ Hetbst stated the dual uses do not fit and asked if Mr. Vazquez
would like a vote or a continuance in order to redesign the project.
Mr. Vazquez stated he has faith in the project and would like to go ahead with
a vote today. He stated he has met with the neighbors and local businessmen
who support it, one being a Councilmember who stands completely behind the
project.
ACTION: Commissioner Hecbst of£ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Lawicki and t40TI0N CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commissiun has
reviewed the proposal to construct a 4-story, 20-unit senior12~8~86n
MINUTES ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1986 86-807
affordable apartment complex/congregate cace facility with on-sale alcoholic
beverages in a proposed cestaucant ~ith waivers of minimum building site area
per dwelling unit, maximum site coverage, minimum structural setback and yatd
requitements on a reccangula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
apptoximately 0.35 acre located at the southeast corner of Philadelphia and
Broadway and furthec described as 302 thtough 306 East Btoadway; and does
hereby approve the Negative D2claration upon finding that it !ias considered
the Negative Declatation together with any comments received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fcy and MOTIOtd
CAFRZED that the Anaheim Cit:+ Planning Commission does hereby deny waiver of
Code requirement on the basis that thEre are no special circumstances
applicable to the pcoperty such as size, shape, topography, location and
surcoundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive
t.he property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone
and classification in the vicinity.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-300 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 2859 on the basis that the preposed dual uses would
not be compatible and would create an adverse increase in tcaffic and patking
problems in the area.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Lawicki and
MOTIGN CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that t~he City Council deny request for approval of City Council Policy No. 543
pertaining to density bonus.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the w[itten tight to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Commissioner Messe left the meeting and did not return.
RECESSED: 3:15 p.m.
RECONVENED: 3:30 p.m.
12/8/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 1986 66-808
THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
22
ITEM NO. 5 EIR NEGAT1v~ uc~t,nxnriviv ta~.,.,.., ~ ....•--- ---- ----
(READV.) RECLASSZFICATION NO. 86-87-13 (REAPV.) VARIANCE N0. 3607
(READV.)AND REQIIEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OE Sc AND Sd
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAFAR JAHANPANAH, 520 N. Rexfotd Drive, Beveely
Hills, CA 90210. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport
Beach, CA 92660. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped paccel of land
consisting of apptoximately 1.35 acres, 1585 West Katella Avenue.
To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element oi the General Plan,
proposing a redesignation from the current commercial pcofessional designation
to a designation of either medium density residential, low-medium density
[esidential or low density residential.
RS-10,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waivers of maximum stcuctural height to construct a 47-unit apartment com;'.~lex.
Continued fcom the meetings of October 27 and November 10, 1986.
Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, explained the applicant has submitted a
letter cequesting that subject petition be withdrawn.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offPced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CAR~IED that petitions for General Plan Amendment No. 222,
Reclassification No. 86-87-13 and Variance No. 3607 be withdcaw~ at the
petitionet's requ~st.
ITEM N0. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-12(READV.)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: 2000 DEVELOPERS, INC., 1850 17th St~eet, $115, Santa
Ana, CA 92701. A~ENTS: IRAJ EFTEKHARI, 1650 17th Street, #113, Santa Ana, CA
92701. Property described as an icregularly-shaped patcel of land consisting
of approximately 0.66 acres located at the southweste~ly cocner of Elm Street
and Helena Street, 402, 415 and A19 South Helena Street.
CO to RM-1200 ot a less intense zone.
Waivers of (a) maximum structu~al height and (b) maximum site coverage to
construct a 3-story, 22-unit apactment complex.
Continued from the meetings of September 29 and October 27 and November 24,
1986.
There was one person indicating her presence in opposition to subject tequest
and although the staff report was not read, it is refetred to and made a part
of the minutes.
12/8/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOH DECEMBER 8 1986 86-809
Lorren Bell, 2520 S. Faicview, Santa Ana, explained they are requesting less
density and feel this project will be an improvement and explained there is no
pacallel patking proposed and that the parking spaces do meet Code
requirem?nts. He stated he thought the requirement for waivee of maximum site
covecage results fcom the Code change in the definition of a story; and that
initially the project had about 508 subterranean parking and in order to
present a better parking a[rangement and eliminate the parallel parking, they
brought it up to grade level, but nuw it appears the courtyard does not come
under the definition of open area. He stated i.nitially the height was 27 fee*_
S inches and now the height is 29 feet 9 inches. He stated in January o~ this
year, a five-story office building was approved on this site and they did not
feel that would be the best use of the property because of othee office
buildings being developed in the acea, but feel there will be quite a naed foc
better apartments in that area.
June McIntyre, 917 W. Sycamore Street, stated they own a building (DOn
McIntyre Photogtaphy), in the Melmac Center and she is opposed to this
request; however, could change her opinion if things are explained really
well. She suggested there be a meeting of interested people with the
developer to really discuss this pcoject. She stated she feels the developer
is missing the point of development in the area. She stated she is not
opposed to growth and would like the "platinum triangle' to be in downtown
Anaheim and would like to see the area developed in that direction and not
towacds apartment units and she felt they do not belong in this area.
Ms. McIntyre stated she is working with Santa Barbara Savings and Loan and
with First Interstate, but that all takes time and also, she is trying to work
with Meyer Corporation and Wells Fargo, but is not prepared to bring their
atguments before the Commission today and would like more time.
She stated this development would establish a pcecedent in that area and would
be starting too small, too early. She stated the existino apartments which
were built about three years ago are already falling apart and are not beina
maintained and the existing businesses are suffering from what is goinq on and
are bein9 vandalized by children in the acea, etc. and stated they would
rather have a vacant lot than aparr.ment units at the present time. She stated
the Planning Commission wants the highest and best use for the land and they
do not want to put a hardsh±p on anyone, but she sees no hardship in this
instance because the owners purchased the property with full knowledge of the
intended use of the land and she thought it could be developed in a better
fashion by either adding more land and building something ptestigious ot just
holding the piopecty to be developed in the future.
Mr. Bell stated the General Plan calls foc medium density residential land
uses and regarding the vandalism, stated they ate providing security gates and
all parking will be on-site and they have talked to several neighbors who feel
this will be an improvement.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman McBUrney stated the developer has done an excellent job redesigning
the project and aoded he did not think that paccel of ptoperi?%8%BCd be well
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 8~ 1986 _ 86-B10
suited for high-rise office buildings because it does back up to a residential
street and he would like to see this as a buffec between the residential and
commercial uses.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, pointed out Condition No. 3 requires that gates
shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which
would adve[sely affect vehicular traffi.c on an adjacent public stree~, and
that a gate is shown on the building line and that would require queing of
vehicles on Helena Street, so those gates would have to be set back
sufficiently in order to store vehicles on site prior to the gates opening.
He added he would be willing to work with the developer in order to make those
modifications. He stated tandem parking spaces have been located in the area
that would be outside the gates when they are moved and those would have to be
the visitor parking spaces, and also two parking spaces would be lost. He
stated the developer would probably be cequired to replace those pazking
spaces some other place on the site or reduce the number of units to satisfy
the parking requirements.
Commissioner La Claire stated this is a request for reclassification on this
property and the rest of the ptoperty is zoned CO and she wanted to be sure
that any other propecty owners were notified and would not want adjacent
owners of CO Zoned property to be penalized when they come in for development
since their property would be abutting residential units.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the Code does impose ~estrictions in the commetcial
zone based on the zoning of sucrounding properties and if the zoning happened
to be multiple-family zoning, those Code restcictions would apply.
Commissioner La Claire stated she is concerned about the adjacent owners and
asked how many people in the audience owned CO Zoned pcoperty in that block.
There was one response. She asked if all the pceperty owners were notified
and it was noted prope~ty owners within 300 feet were notified. She stated
het concern is that if the adjacent property owners who have CO Zoned ptoperty
want to develop in the future, they would have to comply with the regulations.
Ms. McIntyre responded to Commissioner La Claire that she knows some of these
owners and knows othe~s who intended to be present today and they were highly
concerned. She stated they were prumised when they rer:>ved the old dwelling
from their property that this would be a valuable area with commezcial office
development and based on that, developed their property, staking theit whole
career and life on that belief. She stated she sees this as a backwards
situation ar~d it disturbs her that so much affordable housing is being
provided by variances. She stated she tealizes property owners are entitled
to make a prufit, but the community should be considered.
Malcolm Slaughtee responded to Commissionec La Claire's comments eaclier, that
the staff report indicates subject property is designated for mediu~, densiky
residential on the General Plan, so any property owner owning commercial
property should have known of that designation. He stated the western
one-half of this block is designated CO on the General Plan and the easter.n
one-half is designated for multiple-family residenti.al. Commissioner Bouas
pointed out this ptopeity was apptoved foc a 5-story office building.
12/8/86
MINUT°S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1986 86-811
Leonard McGhee stated the Planning staff feels the property could have
developed either CO or medium density residential since there is no definitive
line on the General Plan separating that block.
Ms. McIntyre stated they had a trust with the First National Bank of Orange
and were not advised when Wells Fargo took over and in tY,at intecim, did not
receive any notices of public hearings and that some of the property owners in
the area may be long-tecm residents an~ notices are going to a tcust or
something similar. Chairman McBurney stated the owners, as reco~ded to the
tax assessors roles, are notified and that could be a trust.
Ru~olfo Escalante stated his wife and her brathers and sisters inherited
property located at 409 Santa Ana Street and 420 Helena Street and they are
confused and concetned about the zoning.
Commissioner La Claice stated the whole block was to be commercial office and
now they are going back and that is all right if all the other owners are not
being penalized who have already had reclassifications on their property. Mr.
Bell stated he talked to the owners at 423 Helena and the neighboc across the
street and they thought this was going to be a retirement or convalescent home
and that there are only two more lots on the blocks which would be affected.
Commissioner Fry stated he does not see the problem. Commissioner La Claire
stated the General Plan designates the property for medium density and the
pcoperty is zoned £or commercial uses and she wanted to be sure the people who
owned oroperty in the area have had some input into what is happening in that
area.
Chairman McBUrney stated from Broadway to the street just south of this
property, the, only commercial property is at the northwest corner of Helena
and the rest'~ey'all been developed.
Commissioner Herbst stated the owners agreed in 1969 with the commercial
office zoning which was 17 yeacs ago aad nothing has develc~ed on that
property during that time and in looking at the downtown area, tl~ere are going
to be high-cise office buildings and there is going to be a need f.or suitable
living quarters and that will be apartments and since nothing has been
r~eveloped in the 17 years, maybe the zoning is not proper. He stated these
are suitable apartments and will provide a residential atea for people working
downtown.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not think the cammercial office development
will come down this far. He clarified that the number of units may have to be
reduced to neet the patking tequirements and the gate eithec moved or
eliminated. He suggested a continuance in ordee foc the plans to be revised
and reviewed by the Planning Commission because there co~ild be additional
waivers involved.
Mc. Bell stated the secucity gate seems to be the problem and they would like
to have that gate because people like the feeling of confidence it gives them,
but thought it could be modified and the patking spaces left outside would be
for guests. He stated the secutity gate is not a Code [equi[ement and could
be eliminated.
12/B/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 1986 86-812
Chaicman McBurney stated he thought it could be worked out at staff level
without a continuance and Commissionet Fry agreed.
ACTIOC7: Commissioner Fcy offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to teclassify subject property from the
CO (Comme[cial, Limited) to the RM-1200 (Res~dential, Multiple-Family) Zone to
construct a 3-story, 22-unit apartment complex with waivers of maximum
structural height and maximum site coverage on an icregula~ly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 0.66 acres located at the southwestly cotner
of Elm Street and Helena Street and further described as 402, 415 and 419
South Helena Street; and does hereby apptove the Negative Declatation upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public teview process and furkher finding on the
basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that thece is no
substantial evidence that the project w±ll have a significant effect on the
environment.
Commissionec Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-301 and moved foc its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 86-87-I2 subject to the Interdeoartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
NOES: PIONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-302 and moved for its passage ~nd
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission City Planning Commission
does hereby grant Variance No. 3602 on the basis that there are special
citcumstances applicahle to the property such as size, shape, topography,
location and surroundings which do not apply to othe~ identically zoned
propetty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code
depcives the property of privileges enjoyed by othec propecties in the
identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including a condition that the
location of the security gate be approved by the City ~raffic Engineer.
Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution w:.s passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
12/8/80
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 1986 86-813
ITEM N0. 7 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND VARIANCE NO. 3622
pUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: VINCENT AND PATRICE CALIFANO, 331 S. Yorkshire
Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of app~oximately 23,600 squace feet having a frontage of
appcoximately 66 feet on the south side of Yotkshire Circle, 331 South
Yotkshire Circle.
Waiver of minimum distance for animal confinement to cetain an existing hocse
barn and corral.
There were five people indicating their pcesence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was not cead, it is ceferced to and made
a part of the minutes.
William Stevens, 2265 t4alaga Way, E1 Toco, California, stated he is
representing Mr. Califano who could not be present because of an emer9ency at
home. He stated in Novembec of 1977 they purchased the propecty because
horses wece allowed. He stated Mr. Califano put in a barn and corral and he
did get permits fcom the City as owner/builder and that he reviewed the p'.ans
with Parks and Recreation pertaining to the public riding ttail down the
middle of that canyon and Mr. Meyers of the Parks and Recteation Depactment
had said iti would be okay to install the corral and then if the trail was
installed, it could be removed. He stated the barn has automatic fly sprayers
and there are no flies, etc. He stated Mr. Reisman, the neighboc, had the
pcoperty surveyed and Mr. Califano and Mr. Reieman both had an agreement drawn
up for Mr. Califano to rent the property and the agreement was signed. He
stated the batn and corral are in a natural ravine and there is a 30-inch
culvert pioe which runs the full length of the property for drainage.
Gail Reisman, 341 Yorkshire Citcle, next door to subject pcoperty, stated
there is a timing problem with this issue; that permits were obtained after
the fact; that almost three years ago, Hr. Califano scraped their hillside and
filled in their land and built his barn 4 feet from their property line. She
stated he never talked to them atout it and did not go to the association
which must 9ive approval. She stated they have been calling the City about
this tight from the beginning aad it has been 3 years, so the barn being
conStSUCted alceady is not theic probl~-.. She stated as a neighbor whose
rights have been infringed upon, they c. ot give the Co~mission permission to
take away the regulations and grant the .ariance.
Ken McLaughlin, 351 S. Yorkshire Circle, stated they pucchased their house in
1978 because of the peaceful, quiet, solitude and ttanquility this country
atmosphere offered and it was delightful. He stated this is one of the nicest
sections of Anaheim Hills and they a~e extremely proud to be thete, but
several things have happened to change the tranquility and one was the
irritating situation with Mr. Califano; that their property does go down the
tavine and angle off to the right, as most of the properties in that tract do,
and everyone was aware of tlse C~eRs and that this was horse property, and were
all in agreement with that when they purchased the property. He stated the
problem is with the infringement upon the American dream to own property and
have legal tights to the pcopetty and to be able to say this 12~8~86e•
MINUTES, AhAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 8, 198fi ___ 86-814
He stated at one time Mr. Califano hired a large bulldozer and had about 100
yards of earth scraped off the bank and it was taken down to the center of the
ravine where he made a platform for the horse corral which sits on his
property now. He stated this became the foundation for the barn and the fill
which was scraped off the bank eroded the bank away and resulted in the
killing of 10 to 12 Eucalyptus trees. He stated the earth filled the center
of the ravine, blocking the natural horse tcail which everyone in the acea
knew was thece and those •*:ho bought there knew there was accessibility foc a
horse trail. He stated that may have been changed by the City, but agreed
with Ms. Reisman that the permits to put in the dtainage pipe were done after
the fact. He stated he opposes any waivers on that property affecting his
property vehemently. He asked why he is even here with his neighbors and
himself with the loss of about 40 man hours and he would question whether
there was a permit to start with and if the City of Anaheim did grant the
permits necessary such as electrica~, water, etc., if those permits are
available and whether they have been signed by the cozrect person. He stated
the barn does not affect his Qroperty, but the corral does. He stated the
itritant situation has been constant and Mr. Califano is also a member of the
Country Knoll Homeowners Association and he has not been an active me,nbet in
the association and disregards all the regulations of the CC&Rs, the
architectural committee, etc. but he did ask if he could build a barn and was
told that he would have to present it to the ar.chitectural committee; however,
that was not done, there was no drawing submitted and nothing was approved.
He stated they want the Anaheim City Council to heac their cry and they do not
want this waiver granted and want the properties to stay as they were
purchased.
Responding to Commissioner McBurney, Mr. McLaughlin stated he never had any
agceemen'.s, written or vecbal, with Mr. Califano. Ms. Rei~man then responded
from the aadience that they did not have any agreements with Mr. Califano.
Geor9ia Peterson, Pcesident of the Countcy Knoll Homeowners Association,
stated their association consists of 20 homes; and that they purchased the
homes 9 yeacs ago and were given the CC&RS issued by the City of Anaheim to
preserve the slopes and canyons. She stated there is restriction pertaining
~~ building in the natural areas which reads; 'There shall be no modification
of the natural areas of the properties without the prior approval of the
Architectural Control Committee, provided in Article 8 hereof. The
Architectural Control Committee shall preserve the natural contours of the
property and require that all landscaping of these natural areas be in keeping
with the natural characters of the properties'. She stated this is not what
is happenin9. She stated she lives two doors from Mr. Califano and when he
built the corral, he bulldozed their slopes. She added she feels if this
variance is approved, there could be 19 other people who could do whatever
they want with the land and then come to the Commission and apply for a
variance after it is done. She stated she would appreciate it if the same
rules and regulations were abided by by all property owners.
Keith Griffin, ].7862 Bishop Circle, Villa Park, stated he owns property across
from Mr. Califano's and knows that 3 or 4 of the dead trees are on his
ptoperty; and that about 6 years a9o he brought some dirt onto his property
because he intended to develop in the futuce and Mt. Califano took some of the
12/8/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 1986 86-815
dirt, plus tne hillside. He stated he had a grading permit from the City of
Anaheim and that this is the Scenic Corridor and when he got his permit, he
had to put a conccete barrier around a Eucalyptus tree which was really just a
stump to save it and now.Y~aG this property owner has killed several trees.
He stated he found out about this when Mr. Califano undermin~ed theic property
and made a swale to come down fxom the cocral and a neighbor called him. He
stated the [avine was to be left open; and that he is opposed because the
permits were gotten Zftet the fact.
Mr. Stevens stated he understands the barn does have building pecmits; and
that the 30-inch pipe for drainage was an afterthought; and that the bank was
recompacted. He stated the Reismans next door have stcipped their entire bank
of all vegetation and that if there are tules and regulations, evetyone should
have to comply.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated the plans show the corral was ~onstructed across
three different paccels of p~operty. He stated he has been a Planning
Commissioner for a lon9 time and has never seen one property owner literally
build something on someone else's pcoperty without having some kind agreement
or compensation.
Mr. Stevens stated he undecstood there was an agreement and M[. Califano had
tried to set up an agreement to rent the property and he had written one
agceement and Mr. Reisman had written another one, and added the agreements
wete not executed by both property owners.
Commissioner Lawicki stated Mr. Stevens' earlier statements indicated
agreements were signed.
Commissioner La Claire stated the request befoce the Planning Commission is
for a variance. She stated the problem is that they do have a building permit
for the barn.
Malcolm Slaughtet stated a building permi~ is ko permit construction on a
property and gives no cights to the petson pertaining to ownership on the
property or agreements with other property owners, etc. He stated in
discussing this with the Building Division, he was told Mr. Califano did have
a building permit for the barn and there were two inspections made, but the
structure has not been finalized. It was noted this all commenced about three
years ago. Mc. Slaughter continued he did not know if the permit was obtained
befoce the barn was constructed, but it was quite some time before this action
came before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Hecbst asked if there ate any other hotses in the acea and there
was no response. He stated he recognizes these lots ace very narrow with
norse trails through them. Malcolm Slaughter stated he would not agree that
there are public horse trails through that canyon.
Commissioner La Claire stated she would offer a motion for denial of the
variance on the basis that it is an imQosition and harmful ti2~8~86ther
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 1986 86-816
properties and if there is going to be a trail through that canyon, Mr.
Califano should install the trail and testore the property to what it was
originally.
Malcolm Slaughtec stated while the City may have a plan for a trail to go
through that a~ea, there are no ptesently dedicated rights-of-way to the City
for the trail.
Commissioner Herbst exolained the City has no control over the CCfiR`s or
making people conform to the CC&Rs.
It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized reptesentative has
determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State Environmental Impact
Repott Guide].ines and is, therefor?, categorically exempt from the cequirement
to prepa~e an EIR.
AClION: Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-303 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
deny Variance No. 3622 on the basis that there ate no special ci~cumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topogtaphy, location and
surroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned prope~ty in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone
and classification in the vicinity.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot~:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRYr HERBST~ LA CLAZRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Commissi~n discussed whether or not the corral has to be moved and Malcolm
Slaughtet stated he is not sure whether or not the~e was a violation of the
Zoning Codes, but if there was a violation, it would be handled through the
regular process, pointing out we have no knowledge of agreements between
property owners. He stated his office will look into it and whether or not
the variance was denied or granted does not change the fact that there was a
violation.
Commissioner Bouas pointed o~t the neighb~cs reported this to the City from
the beginning. Leonard McGhee pointed ouc the filing foc thi~ variance was a
result of a Code Enforcement action because there was a complaint filed.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented tne written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO•, 8 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3623
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROBGRT T. BRAVO AND FREEMAN W. AND ANNIE C. OWENS~
24~1 West Mall Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property desccibed as a
rectangularly-shaped patcel of land consisting of approximati2~8~a650 square
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEM3ER S 1986 86-817
feet, having a frontage of approximately 73 feet on the north side of Mall
Avenue, 2451 West Mall Avenue.
Waiver oE minimum reac yacd setback to retain an addition to a sinyle-family
residenca.
There was no one indicating their presence in apposition to ':ubject request
ancl although the staff report was not read, it is teferced to and made a part
of the minutes.
Chairman McBUrney pointed out Commission received a letter from a neighbor,
Don Paine, 2450 Transit Avenue, in ~pposition.
Robert &tavo, owner, was ptesent to answer any questions. He presented
photographs oi l•he property at 2450 Mall Street which is the adjacent
property, indicating the setback is the same as he is requesting.
, ~ ?ItALT~' HEARING WAS CLGSED.
~a Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Bravo stated the construct •~~ ;.s about
~tr;,~,,,•~,,.,,_ s completsd and he did not have a permit to co~~stru: ,.oe :oom
additian.
Commissioner Bouas stated the lettec in opposition indicates there is shed ;.n
the yard which is 8 feet high located about 2 feet from the property line.
Mr. Bravo stated that was constructed about 5 years a9o and he has never ha~
any negative comments about it. Commissioner Bauas stated the neighb~r is
complaining because the shed is not painted. Mc. Bravo stated he would ;-ave
no objQctions to painting the shed.
Concerning the swimning pool, Mc. Bravo stated it is a portable doughbey-type
pool which is abovE gcound witY: the daep end lowered about 2 feet.
Mr. Bravo stated he has permits for the shed and patio cover and the deck
mentioned in the letter could be considered a patio cover. He stated they
seldom use it as a deck and the shed is actually a green-house type shed where
he grows orchids. He ~tated he cosld paint it or if necessaty, it could be
cemoved.
Commissionet Fry stated the lettec indicates that there have been several
sttuctutes built on t9r. Lcavo's ptopecty which have had a negative impact on
the neighbor's property and it wouid appea: there are several violations on
this property. Commissioner McBurney teferred to the pool and shed and asked
if permits wete required. Mr. Bcavo stated a Cit~ inspector looked at alY the
sheds ~•rhen he inspected the pati.o co~ec and appacently signed them off.
Leonard McGhee stated it depends on the pe[manent nature of the pool and shed
aad if they are portable, building permits ace not ~equired.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the C:ty's electrical easements are for electrical
putpoaes and structures are not permitted under them, particularly swimming
poo}.s.
12/8/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER S, 1986 86-818
Mr. Bravo stated there is a deck ovec a portion of the patio cover and it has
beer. used for obsecvation a couple of times but is basically to covec the
patio furniture.
Responding to Commissioner Fty, Mr. Bravo stated he does have building
supplies stored on the roof which he plans to use for insulation, but that it
could be stored in another location ad he would be wi7.ling to move it.
It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has
determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined iti the State Environmental Impact
Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-304 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Variance No. 3623 on the basis that there are special circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and
sutroundinqs which do not apply to other identically zoned proFerty in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
pcoperty of privileges enjoyed by other pcoperties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity attd subject to Intecdepartmental Committee
recommendations and to the petitionec's stipulations ta either paint or remove
the existing unsightly shed and to remove the building materials currently
stored on the roof.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY. HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slau9hter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATSON, RECLASSIFICATION Na. 86-87-18 AND
VARIANCE NO. 3624
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOHN G. PRENTICE, 2940 Frontera, Anaheim, CA 92806.
AGENTS: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES, P. O• Rox 6348, Orange, CA 92667, ATTN:
KELLIE CAMPBELL. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting o£ approximately 1.0 sc~e, havin9 a frontage of approxir~~ately 159
feet on the north side of Jackson Avenue, approximately 660 feet east of the
cen~arline oF Par~ Vista St~:?et.
RS-A-43,OOG(O) to RM-1200(0) or a less intense zone.
Wai~•er of maximum building height to coustruct a 2 and 3-story, 21-unit
apartment comple~.
There was no one indicating their presence in op?osition to subject *_equest
and althot^,gh the sta.ff teport wae. not read, it is referred to a.nd made a part
of the minutes.
12/S/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMB_ER 8~ 1986 46-819
Kellie Campbell, IPS, agent, was present to answer any questions.
Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, stated a 6-foot high block wall would be
required on the west ptoperty line and that condition should be added.
THE PUBLIC HEARIIdG v7AS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst asked about access on Fronteca. Ms, Campbell responded
they are currently blocked by a strip owned by the County of Orange and th!•y
have contacted the ~ounty and determined that that is excess property and ~!:ey
will be able to negotiate with them to purchase it.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Comtnission has [eviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the
RS-A-43,000(0) (Residential, Agricultural, Oil Production Overlay) Zone to the
RM-1200(0) (Residential, Multiple-Family, Oil Production Oveclay) Zone and to
construct a 2 and 3-story, 21-unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum
building height on an icregulacly-shaped paccel of land consisting of
approximately 1.0 acre, having a frontage of approximately 159 £eet on the
north side of Jackson Avenue, approximately 660 feet east of the cente~line of
Park Vista Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together aith any
comments received during the public review p~ocess and furthec finding on the
basis of the Initial Study and any comments zeceived that thece is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
Commissioner Fry offeced Resolution No. PC86-305 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Plar.~ing Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 66-87-18 subjeck to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing ~esolution was oassed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-306 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hercay grant Variance
No. 3624 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do
not apply to othec identically zoned property in the same vi.cinity; and that
stcict application of the 2oning Code deprives the pcoperty of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the
vicinity and subject to Intecdepartmental Commi.ktee recommendations including
a condition that access to Frontera Street shall be purchased from the County
of Orange.
On roll call, the foregoing resolutior, was passed by the following vote:
12/8/86
i
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 1986 86-820
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slaughter, ~eputy Ciry Attozney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
COPIBITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2828
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JENNIFtR HOYT, MAGNOLIA-LA PALMA INDUSTRIAL CENTER,
BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, INC., ld6 E. Orangethocpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92801. AGENTS: MARK E. PAGE, CAMPBELL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, 6900 Mancheste[
Boulevard, Buena Patk, CA 90261. Property desccibed as a cectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consistir~g of approximately 1.2 acres, having a fcontage of
appcoximately 195 £eet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 2541 West La
Palma Avenue.
To permit an automobile body repair shop in the ML Zone with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
Tnere was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff repoct was not read, it is ~efeered to and nade a part
of the minutes.
Ron Guilliams, 6950 Manchester, Suena Park, stated the only con~etn with this
request was parking, and they did have a parkin9 st~dy cnnducted. He stated
recently they opened a body shop in Fountain Valley and ~eople think a body
shop is a place that is not vety desicable but theirs is a quality operation
aud qualiky pcoject.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman McOurney referred to a letter f~om Chuck Gordon, Prope[ty
Administzator of the Villageway Managemenc, indicatin9 cuncerns cegardin9
odors from resin, etc.
Mr. Guilliams stated they have three lettecs of recommendation, one from Buena
Park and one fcom Eountain Valley and the letter from Buena Park specifically
discusses the way they have conducted theic business in that city.
Paul Singer, Traffic Enginee~, stated his main concecn is the large parking
waiver cequested and explained he did not contact Buena Park, but that all
parking would have to be inside and if the operation expands, undoubtedly
there would be vehicles stored outside and there is a secured area on the
pl.ans where vehicles could be stoced and that •aould not conform with Condition
No. 2 recommended by staff. Mt. Guilliamr stated they want a quality
opecation and this is an ideal location and it is substantially larger than
their needs, so they would have plenty of room to have vehicles inside.
Commissionet La Claire stated the letter from Buena Park stated they dic: not
want to lose this business and it di~cussed the parkiug and stated there had
never been a parking problem. Mr. Guilliams stated they acti2~g~86ad less
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1986 86-821
parking in Buena Park and explained they will wock on a vehicle from one to
three weeks and would only have four ot five customers at a time on the
premises for the purpose~ of getting an estimate or picking up a ca~. He
stated in a lot of instances, a vehicle is towed to this facility refe~red
there by an insutance co~aoany.
Conce[ning disposal of solve~ts, Mr. Guilliam stated they are registered with
the EPA and have to collect solvents and then they ate picked up by a licensed
person who disposes of them.
Concerning odors, Mr. Guilliam explained they have a filtration system which
will eliminate odors and the paint booths are filtered, and also they have a
vacuum system connected to their tools so if they are sanding, the dust is
picked up by the vacuum.
ACTION: Commissioner He[bst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissione[ Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automobile repair shop in
the ML Zone with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a
rectangularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acYes,
having a ftontage of approximately 195 feet on the notth side o£ La Palma
Avenu~ and further described as 2541 West La Palma; and does he[eby aaprove
the Ne9ative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public ceview
process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significar..t effect on the environment.
Co.~imissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconde:d by Commissioner Lawicki and
MOTIQ'+ CARRIED (Commissionec Messe absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commi~sion does hereby gtant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the
parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the
immediate vicinity nor advecsely affect any adjoining land ~ses and granting
of the packin9 waiver under the ecnditions imposed, if any, will not be
detcimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
Commissionec Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-307 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doea hereby gcant
Conditional Use Pezmit No. 2828 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 16.03.030.035 for a period of one year and subject to
Intecdepartmental Committee recommendations.
Prior to votingr responding to Commissionet, Commissioner Herbst explained he
included the one-year time limit because he wou,ld like to see if the parking
is a problem because the waiver requested is ~o large.
Or. roll call, the fore ~g cesolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ :r:Y~ HEkBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Atto~ney, pr.esented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
12/8/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEM2ER S 1986 85-822
ITEM NO. 11 EIR_NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2853
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ADA I. HIGDON, WELLS FARGO BANK NA TRUSTEES~ 96~0
Santa Mor.ica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. AGENT: DENNIS WILLIAMS, 221
N. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92801. Pcoperty described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57 acte, 221
North Beach Boule,~ard (Angelo's) . , ,; ~-,,.:.. ~:.d••, .-ti ~ fi~
(~ .. :.,;_~t'~il.` i ~J~~,•`-_~.r. ~'~_;~-_~ -:'1:,.,:..r~., ~•=•
f~ ~ ~~ EJ~~ ~~ih ,C rf^/•• , .
Thece we~e five people indicating their pcesence in opp:sition to subject
request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Michelle Reinglass, attorney, stated the petitioner woulci like to request a
continuance because they were supposed to submiL olans to incorpocate changes
to the drive-up lanes and they have attempted to comply with that, but she has
just found out from her clients that is just impossible to accommodate tho~e
changes in the stcuctures they have; and that the drive-up lanes, service
window and drive-up opezation have been operating for several years in its
exact configuration. She stated they have attempted to have plans prepared to
incorpocate those changes tu bring the drive-~lp lanes up to Code, but have
discovered that would be cost pcohibitive and eliminate parkina spaces, so
they are requesting the opportunity to present an application for a variance
or waiver of those requirements.
Chairman t9cBUrney stated since the plans will be changed and a variance
applied for, this matter will be readvertised. Commissioner Fry suggested
this application should be denied since they will be cequesting a new variance.
Annika Santalahti stated they still want the basic uses noted, but now thete
a~e variances required; however, the entire package will be readvertised. She
exgiained propecty owners will be notified and if thece is anyone pcesent who
did not get a notice previously and wants to be notified, they should leave
their name and address with the Planning Department staff before leeving the
building and they will be added to the mailing list.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regulacly-scheduled meeting of
January 19, 1987.
ITEM NO. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CGllB REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2864
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPH LISS AND ROBERT LZTMAN, 219 N. Euclid Way,
Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENTS: WARREN C. PITT, WARREN PITT ASSOCIATION, INC.,
P.O. Box 5817, Huntington Beach, C~ 92615. Prope~ty described as a
rectangulatly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0~43 acres,
219 North Euclid Way.
To permit a mini-storage facility with waiver of ~iinimum number of parkin9
spaces.
12/B/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1986 86-823
There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a paLt
of the minutas.
Warren Pitt, architect, stated the only problem seems to be parking and they
have had a parking demand study conducted and submitted to the City Traffic
Engineer. He added the owner does have property at the reat of this property
where employees could park if needed.
Gina Oldja, Dominic Investors, stated they own the Euclid-Lincoln Industrial
Center located at 231, 237 and 230 North Eucli~ Way and they oppose the
variance because Euclid Way has inadequate caffic control and inadequate
drainage and the overflow traffic has ar~e~L~to go into their center.
Mr. Pztt stated this use would generate very minimal traffic and as stated in
the traffic study by Weston Pringle and Associates, they feel the number of
spaces provided for parking will be more than adequate to provide all packing
on site.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Fry stated in the past these self-storage facilities develooed
the least amount of traffic possible and he thought parking would be adequate
and he is in favor of the request.
Paul Singer, TrafEic Engineer, stated his objection was that parking may not
be adequate because there is a tesidence on the property which requires three
parking spaces and an office which requices five packing spaces and a total of
ten spaces ate being provided with only two being available f.or the storage
use, but since it has been made known that there is other property available
for parking for the people in khe office, he thought that would take cace of
the prublem.
Mr. Singer stated he would like the cecord to reflect that with the widening
of the freeway, the Euclid bcidge crossing the I-5 would be celocated to its
proper alignment which will eliminate Euclid Way and all the properties will
no longer have access to Euclid Way and may have to be acqui[2d. He stated it
will all depend on when or if the redevelopmeat a~ea is declared and that
depends on the development of the Anaheim Plaza, but he was not sure of the
timing.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner' n~:uas and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City P:"'u:i::)
Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit mini-storage facility ai+;h
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a cectangula:ly-shaped pacrel of
land consisting of approximately 0.43 acres, haviny a ftontage of
approximately 77 feet on the wesL side of Euclid Way and further described as
219 North Euclid Way; and does heceby approve the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments received durinq the p~blic review process and furthe~ finding on the
basis of the Initial Study and any comments received thak there is no
substantial evidence that the ptoject will have a significant effect on the
envitonment.
12/8/8G
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 8~ 1986 86-824
Commissioner Fry ~ffered Resolution No. PCB~-308 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Ccmmission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2864 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.O:Q.Q35 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ ERY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
RECESSED: 5:10 p.m.
RECONVENED: 5:20 p.m.
ITEM N0. 13 EIR NEGATZVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMZT NO. 2865
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LAKEVIEW BUSINESS PP.RK~ A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, 19600 Fairchild Road, $Z00, Irvine, CA 92715. AGENT: RICH
YDNG-TAI CHIN, 5 Wickland, Irvine, CA 92720. Propecty described as a
rectangularly-shaped r.sccel of land consisting of approximately 4.6 acres
located north of the northeast cornec of La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue.
To permit a sandwich shop with on-sale beer. and wine.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Felicia Chin, agent, was present to answec any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
a ve
Responding to Commissioner Fcy, Ms. Chin explained they 24 seats in the
restaurant.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not like beec and wine sold in the
industrial area because with people working in the factories and having access
to the beer and wine, it could be a liazard when they are working.
Ms. Chin stated she would be willing to delete the beer and wine request.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a sandwich shop with on-sale
beer and wine on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 4.6 actes located no:th of the northeast corner of La Palma
Avenue and Lakeview and further described as 1250 Lakeview Avenue, Building A,
Unit E; and does heteby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it
has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
12/8/86
86-825
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER S 1986
ducing the public review process and tucthec finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-310 and moved foc its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Ose Permit No. 2866, in pact, deleting the ~n-sale beer and wine,
pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 16.03.030.030 through
18.03.030.035, and subject to Inte~departmental Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin~3 vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slauyht.ec, Deputy City Attocney, ptesented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 14 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2866
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LINCOLN SAVINGS A~7D LOAN, 18200 Von Katman, $1100,
Irvine, CA 92715. AGENT: LA PETITE ACADEMY, 8840 Complex Dr., Suite 100, San
Diego, C.~ 92123. Property described as an ir~egularly-shaped p~rcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.73 acce^, 409 South Anaheim Hills Road.
To permit a child day care center with waivets of maximum fence height
(deleted), minimum structural setback (deleted) and maximum number of wall
signs.
Thete was one pprson indicating his presence in opposition to s~bject reques~
and although the staff repoct was not read, it is cefecced to and ma2e a part
of the minutes.
Karen Kantor, 8840 Complex Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, representing La Peti~e
Academy, stated they are the largest chain of child-day care centers in the
United States and have been in C4?.ifornia foc over fout years and have over
100 schools either operating oc undec constcuction in the State of
California. She stated they are requesting this permit fot a child day-care
facility for four year olds up to twelve year olds to meet from 6:30 a.m. to
6:30 p.m. and they do offer pick-up and delivecy to the elementary schools.
She explained they have located these centets in many shopping centers
throughout the United States and have been d'.rect:ng themselves towards
shopping centers in California because parents like to be able to stop in one
place and do theic ezrands while the childten ace being cared for. She stated
they contacted the majority of th2 tenants in thi~ shoppin9 center to find out
if they had any objections and they wete all quite pleased with the proposal.
She explained they will be purchasing the property and will utilize their
relationship with some of the major grocery chains and t~y to entice them back
into the shopping center.
12/B/B5
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 1986 86-826
Jack Brink, 2245 Montecito Drive, San Ma[ino, California, stated his
opposition to the cequest i~ because it is illegal according to their CC&Rs
and thought it would be an adverse impact on the centec; that he is an ownec
of Parcel 3 and the CCbRs state the shopping center is to be used only for
uses of the type normally found in the shopping centets and this is not a use
normally found in shopping centers. He stated about one year ago he had a
vacancy in his building and a prospective tenant requested permission for a
child day-care center or school and he denied it for those two [easons. He
stated if child-day care centers were advantageous to shopping centers, he did
not think a variance would be necessary and every shopping center owner would
be trying to get child day-cate centers as tenants. He stated he talked to a
prospective new owner of a portion of the center and he is very much opposed
to the request.
Ms. Kantor stated they presently have over twelve of t,hese facilities
operatinq in shopping centecs in California and in those instances, major
developers sought them out to locate in their centers. She stated they have
reviPwed the CC6RS and that is a question, but that is separate from this
Planning Commission request. She st3ted the opposition made a statement that
the new owner of the shopping center is against the proposal and she has
advised all the owners to talk to the tenants who would sign a petition in
support of this request, and that was as of 12:30 taday. She stated they
currently are being sought by Santa Anita Development to locate a child
day-care center in their new project at Rancho Santa Margarita, so she was not
sure the correct information was being provided.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst explained the City has no control ove~ the CC&RS. Ms.
Kantor responded the CC&RS state approval must be had i~om the org•anization to
locate a school in the centet and the attorneys at Lincoln Savings end Loan
are handling that matter.
Commissioner Herbst stated even in Anaheim there ace child day-care centets in
small shopping centers and he is awace of one existing in Anaheim Hills and
could see nothing wrong with this type use and felt it would bring people into
the center and would definitely be a help to that center. Commissioner Fry
agreed and stated h~ could not see how this would have an adverse impact on
the shopping center.
C~mmissioner La Claite stated she has no pcoblem with the proposed use and it
i.s really needed in Anaheim Hills but sees no problem with the way the pcoject
i.s laid out. She referted to the landscaped berm on the left hand side upon
entering off Canyon Rim Road and the plans show a separate 25 foot by 3~ foot
building whece the tcees ate located.
CLaig Droz, Knittec AssoCiates, stated that portion is actually an o.~chang
over the existing drive-up window and thete is ao enclosed area and it is
simply a shaded area for the playground. He reviewed the plans with th~~
Commission and pointed out the pl.ayground equipment within a mulched area.
Commissioner La Claire stated she would like to see the fence moved to where
the driveway comes through and Mc. Droz agreed there is no prablem with moving
the fence.
12/8/86
86-827
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 1986
Commissionet Herbst asked about the signing and Leonard McGhee explained the
Code allows one wall sign and the,y are proposing two wall signs. Ms. Kantor
responded the signs are not illuminated. Mr. Droz stated the signs are
plexi-glass with the La Petite logo and pointed out they a~e shown on the
elevations to scale.
ACTION: Commissioner Hecbst offered a metion, seconded by Com~issionet FLY
and MOTION CARRIED (CommissioneL Messe absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Cemmission has reviewed the proposal to permit a child-day center with waiver
of maximum fence height (deleted), minimum structutal setback (deleted) and
maximum numbet of signs on an irregularly-shaped parcel of lamd consisting of
approximately 0.73 ac~e, having a ftontage of aoproximately 136 feet on the
north side of Canyon Rim Road and further described as 490 S. Anaheim Hills
Road; and does he~eby appcove the Negative Declatation upon finding that it
has considered the Negative DPClaration together with any comments received
during the public ~eview piocess and furthe[ finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the pcoject will have a significant effect on the envitonment.
Commissionec Hecbst offere~ a motion, seconded by Cc~mmissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRZED (Commissioner Messe absPnt) Y.nat the Anaheim C~ty Planning
Commission does heteby deny waivers fa and b) on the basis they were deleted
by ~evised plans and grantiny w~iver (c.? on the basis that the~o ot=ashecial
circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, p 9 P Y.
location and sucroundings wtiich do not apply to othes identically zoned
prope~ty in the same vicinity; and that strict aoplication of the 2oning Code
deptives the property of privileges enjeyed by oth?r pcopecties in the
identical zone and classiFicatior~.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-3I0 and moved for its passage
and adoption that th~ Anaheim City Ylanning Com~nission does heceby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2866, i.n part, ~uCSUant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03 030 030 t<<rough 18.03.030.035, subject to the stipulation to
relocate the fence so that the mulched-in infant playground acea shall be
located within twenty-eight feet of the east wall of thE existing building so
as not to encroach into the existing six (6) foot wide landscaped area on the
easteriy side of the pro~erty and subject to intecdeparkmental C~mmittee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolukion was passed by the ~_ollowin9 vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BUR~EY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, presented the wtitten ri9ht to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision withi!~ 22 days to th~ City Council.
12/8/86
MINUTES, A~AHEI~' CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, UECEMBER 8, 19,i6 86-826
ITEM N0. 15 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1268~4
PUELIC HEARING. OWNERS: STEVEN W. A:ill PAMELli S. HP.LL, ET AL, i5161 1'an
Buren, Midway City, CA 92655 an~ ANTONTA MARIF, LESHER, ET AL, c.~o T.A. JON!i:? :
ASSOC., 485 E. 17th Street, Costa Mesa, CA 9'1627. P-opetty described as ~:
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consi:a:ing of appiaximately 1.55 acres, ::2_l5
Loara St[eet.
To establish a 7-lot RS-5000 (Rcsidcntial, Sing~^-Family) Zone ~~abdivisi:,n.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst oLfered a motion, seconded by Commiss:_~n Bouas
and MOTTON CARRIED (Commissione;t Messe absent), that !he F.naheim City Planning
Commission does hereby find ~hr~t tY.e pxoposed subdi~:=~:~~~ together with its
design and improvement, is cor,sistent with the Citg of A~Zaheim General Plan,
pucsuant to Government Code Section 664?3.5; and does, therefore, app_~ve
Tentative Map of Tract No. 12884 for a 7-lot, RS-500~ Zone single-family
condominium subdivision subject to che following conditions:
I. That the owner of subject oroperty shall pa~ to the City of Anaheim
a fee .`or tree planting purpuses along Loara Street in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
2. That prioc to issuance of a bui.lding pecmit, appropriate park and
recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an
amount as determined by the CitY Council. y
3. That prioc tc i.ssuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment 'ee s?~~11 be paid to the City of Anaheim in an
amount as determi:+_~d by tY.~e City Counc; l.
4. Ttiat all private st::eets sha'll. be developed in accordance with t.he
City of Anaheim's Standatd Detail No. 1~2 for pcivate s:reets,
including installation of stree: name sign;t. Plzms foe the private
street lighting, as re~;aired by t'-e ctandard detail, shall be
submitted to the Builaing Divfsio:. for app~oval and included witn
the building plans prior to the~ issuance of buildino permits.
(Pcivate streets are those which pro•~icie prima[y access and/or
circulation withi^ the project.
~. That prior to final tcact map approval, street names shall be
approved by the City Planning Department.
6. That tempo~ary street name signs shall be installed prior to anf
occupancy if petmanent street name signs have not been installed.
7. That gates shall not be installed across an} dri~reway oc pr.ivat.e
street in a manner which may adve~sely affec.t ve;~iculat traffic in
the adjacent public street(s). Installatior:~ of 'r.ny gates shall
conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 40:r. and subject to the
review and app~oval of the City Traffic Engr.neer.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be clisposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engi~eer.
12/8/86
MIP7U'PES, ANAFii:'~'i CITY PLANNING COMMISSI0:7, DECEMBER S~ 1986 85-BL9
9. Tnat should this subdivision be de:~loped a:a mo:e rh~n one
~~abdivision, ~:ach subdivision theceof shai~ ~,~ su~cnitt•_;7 in
kentatice forc,for a.pyruval.
10. Tnat all lots with•in this tract sha~l be served by u~derground
~itilities.
11~ That prior to com~ner,cemen'c of structural fc~mi.~g, fire hyd[ants
shall be installed a~d ~:??raed as required ar.d determined to be
necessary by the Ci2ief of the Fii~e nepartment,
1,2, That prior to final tract map appcoval, the original documents of
the covenants, conditionsr and ~est:rictions, and a letter addcessed
to the developer's title company authorizing recordation ~hereof,
shall L~ ~~bmitted to the City Attorney's Oifice and approved by the
Ci.t_~~ `.ttocney's Off:ice and Engineeri,.q Division. Sai.d documents, as
aop:oved, will then be filed and recotded in the Of£ice of the
Orc. ~e County Rpcotder:
13. That prior to issua~;ce of building aecmi.t, the •.p[~:optiate fees due
for primary, secor,aa.Ly and fire protect:on sha].I be paid to the
Wate~ Uti2ity Divis~an by the DEVeloper ir. ~ccuidance with Rules 15A
and 20 of the Watec ~:iiii.y Rates, Rule, an~ Regulations.
14. That sutject prope::ty stiall be deve,loped substantially in accordance
with plans and specification5 on !i1e with the City of Anaheim
marked Exhibit No~ 1.
15. That pcior to final building ar.d 2on'.ng inspections, Condition Nos.
7, 8, 10 and 14, above-mentione~d, she.lY be complied with.
10. That prior to fi~al tract map ap~~~oval, Condition No. 1,
above-mentione~?,• shall l,d !:omplied wzth.
i`lEhl N0. 16 REPORTS HND RECOMciEIVDATIONS
A, PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - Renue3t to amend Section 18:51.050 to permit
the installation, repair aad sales oi mobile telaghones as :t conditional
use in th: [~L 'Limited IndusLrial,' 2one.
AC?':"vN: Commissioner Fry offeted a motion, ~econded by Co~m,ission~er
derhst ard MOTION CARRIEll (Commissioner Messe a~bsent) that Che
Anaheim City P.lanning Commi.ssion does hereby recommend k!ial• c,ity
Council amen: Section. 18.61.050 to pc::ait the ~nstallatian, repair
anc: ^a~es of mobile telephones as a conditional use ir, the M;, Zo.r.a.
B. NUNC PRO TUNC - Req.,est foz a nunc pro tunc eesolution amending PC86-281
perta~ning to Variance No. 36I5, pcc?perty located at 1811 W. Lincoln
Avenue.
12/8/86
~ }
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER a iya~ 86-a30
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered Resoluti~n No. PC86-311 and moved
fot its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does heteby amend Resolution No. PC86-281 nunc pro tunc pertaining to
Vatiance No. 3615.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the L•ollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIREi LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~l~~ ~ r~~~~ifiwi
~v
Edith L. Ha~ris, Secretacy
Anaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:lm
0235m
12/8/86