Minutes-PC 1976/10/27•
~
.
MIMJT~;3 ~ O1TY PIJINNIN(~ OOld~3SI0N, Qotober 2'7 ,].97G
7(i-S.lU
ItICpLJ1SSIN'IOA'rT.C~N - UON'rINUIED F'IJDLIC F11~AR:[N(~. 7.'OM 7'. AND Of~RRY HID~, '133U Fi;a~t l3ai,e:~
N0. 7G-77-~5 :~treet,, Anaheim, ~;e. 92f301 (Qwnoro ) i 9TATF-WID~ zMlI~3TOti;3~ i:NO. ~
4311 IAe,at 17th ~t;re~t, I~ong Bo~ok~, Ca. '~UFiU4 (Agen~). E'roperty
VARIAf~~7~ N0. 2t~l~j desoriLod de a reotanErularly-shaped pRroel of lwnd oonsir~ting oP
approxitt~tely 7.~U aore, he~ving e~ frontPge of apGr•oxi~c~ately 119 iedt
on tho not•th c~1de o~ Savann~s 5~treot, a nx~xian-m depi~h of approxl-
nie.tely 3E3U feet, being loaeted epproxirrotoly 546 fooi, wo~~t oT the uc~nCez•'llne of Kzzoi;t
;;treel,, and fu~•ther~ douaribed du 3~39 ~av~.iuis Strc~ot. Propat•ty pr9Uently old~sified
IiS-A-43,UUU (RIDSIDICNT:CAL/AC~RICUIlPU[~AL) ~I~ONIL.
t~a(J~STP~D CLASSIFICATION: RM-:1.7..UU ;fi~S:l'nh3JT7~1L~ MUUPIPLT:-b'AMILY ) ZOI~.
REQtJ1~S'i`I~D V9HTANCICi ~U ~'~~~,~AND~(C~E~uUTEULp1S~i'fC SOR ~fJ(7NC3~~~~STRUQTNA~2f3-~U~TTuN
APAR~'M6~1'r CUME'I.~R.
Il; was noi,ed that thv E~ub,~eai; pdtitione w~ro oorii;inu~d from the Pletruiing C~mmission
mooting of July 19~ 197G~ fo~• uior~ infox•~tion oonoex•ning tha envir•onwental i.mpgot of
tho ~ro,jeot, fro~r, i;he CIIQ6'tfIl~j of Aug~ast 16, 1976, for revised plar,r~, and from the mee~l;ing
of Ootober 11, 1976~ Rt the reque~t of tihe petitioner~
Two p~rsons indioai,ed i~tieir pre~ence in oppo,3ltion i;o thH sub,~eot p~il;ltione.
As~~1si~Rnt Plartnor• JaF~1 T'iok z~oad 'blie Ste,ff Reporb to ttie PlPnnirig Oommiasion dated I
Ootober 27, 1976, and said S~taYf Repor•t is reforrod to sa if set forth in fu11 in tha
miriute s .
Mr. Robert Ksiox, repreyenting 1;lie s~ent f.oi the petitionei•, sppeared Uefore the Pls,nning
Coonniseion and stated they were attempting ~to aomply with ttie AnQheim Muriioipal Code
on the proposed pro~ec't and had te~ken the advico and suggeHtions of ttie P.lszuling D~~partment
staf~' in i;he prepare~tiion of thb rev~.sed plans, ~^educing the deri~ity by approximately 25,~
(from 28 to 21 units), e].imine~ting ~two of the i;hree raquested waiver3 Uy providing for a
yix-fooi; high blook wall and iiioreasirig the d~.staiioe betweon the buildings; that they wer•e
si;i1:1 requesting tho 150-foot aetbaok for two-si;or•y oonstruotion; ~hat thdy had e~dded
three off-streei; guoat par'.:irig spaoo~ in exoess of i;he Code requirement:~; that they had
met with the area roe~aents and property owners to disouss the pr~jeo'L' ~nd the problems
of the neighberhood, suoh as th~ drainage; i;h~t the dY•ainage would bo permitted to enter
the Csrbon Creek Ghannel abuttitig the northwest oornez~ of the sub,jeot property; that,
iiopefully, they were oompromi3ing to the extent ttiat thoy would be ablo to d,evelop tho
proper~l;y in a oredible manner; and i;hat the property was designt~tod for medium density
residential land U309 on the Ane.helm ~ene:sl Ple.n snd the proposal wculd ~ati~fy thst
desoription.
Mr, Ha•ry H~7.e, 3639 Savanna Streat, Buona Parlc, appe~sred boforo the Planning Commission
iri opposition c-nd s~,ated that the propos~l of ttie Engineorin~ Divisior~ 'to have aulverts
under thv existing dri.veways aleng Save~nna Si:reet woul.d be fine exaepti th~t the water~
would then dr~in to thv end of i~he street a~t his p.roperty, whiah we,s wittiin the C11;y
limits of Buena k'ark; that the proposed drainage plan would probably solve the problems
for the subjeot developer, bui; not for the aroa; that e, plan should be submittod for the
eriti.re e.rea and not just for the proposed deve].opment and ~ thersP~re , s~id development
should bo postponed ur.ti]. an over-all end de:firiito p].~n wRS ~uUmitted bv ~ae Engineering
Division for tho entire c~raa; and ~that, reg~rding the request Yor an FIR negativo deolare~-
tioti, he felt the proposod projeot wot~ld have a dofinite impaot on tho ai•oa duo to the
drainr~ge situation.
Mrs. Joe~n Todd, 362G Sri~~anna Street~ AnahEim~ a,ppeared ~efore the ~lanning Commi:~sion in
oppositicn and ~tatad that it should be determined how muoh of tho suU~eot property :3hould
Ue drained in+o the flood control ohQnnel sinoe it vras her iznderstanding that the front
15 feet of l~wn area woulci drai~~ int,o the street; that to the prese;zt ~time the complaints
in the area had dealt with the e~partments on the oorner v;atering their ~awn and letting
the water run down tho otreet ir~ front of the other apai•tmants; that the neigtibors had
i 3t with the developere and felt tliat the proposed pro.~eot wa~ ~ good one, beir.g Q11-adult,
having high eeo~xrity e~nd a1lov~noes for parking, eto., however, o pracedent wou7.d bs sot
ir 21 u:'_ts were all~wed on the property end other future similar pru,Jeats would be more
than the street aould hendle; that 17 ur 18 units per aore would ba mor•e realiatio anc~
mcre to the se,tisfaa'tion of the neighborhood; and that hopefully thb C~6T16I•e~l Plan Amendment
whioh tiho ei~ea we-s ~eeking would a].low no more then 18 units per aor~e.
Chairman Johnson preoented a letts~~ addressed to htm from Cameron and Hoffine~ri (attorne~s)
and requested that said letl;er bo read into the minutes. The Plancii~ig Commis~ion Seoretary
ree~d the referenced ].etter whioh indlaoted a request that the Ana-heiai 01ty Plenning
~
~
~..~
•
MTMJ'PI~", UI'.CY FLANN~ OODMdIS320N~ Ootober~ 27, :LS)76 %G-511
RICCIJISSIFIO~'1'TON P10. 76-77-4 AP1A VAtiTANOF~ N0. 2t313 (Conti.nuod i
._____._--.----.
Commi3~ion plaoe c~ :~o~.f-impoaod frer~ze un atiy appi ova7. of oon:+truoi;i~n perui.ita iti tho
Savanna J~Lreot aroQ i.~ni;il i;hur~ wa:z a ouitable drainage plan ~ub~nii.ted c~nd oonstruotiun
completed thoreon, csnd furi;her requesi;ing tliai ~.he P.l~nning Com-niaui~n notlEy 1;hair
utfioo within tu aay:~ of tha qci;ion talcen un tho ~ub,Jeo1; mat~ter<
Tn robuttt~l, Mr. }Ctiux stated rogardind drai.nago '.;ha~t, as tk~ey ~.wdoz•:~i;~~od from the Offioo
b;nQinoor. Mr. Tii;us, and tho Oran~o Cuunty F:l.oocl Con~trol Di~i~rioL, the ~~r•opu~ed ~irairisge
in~.;o 1;he ohannel wa;j a r•outino matt;er pr~uvidfnq that i;ho plaria wore aT~pc•oveci by tlie
governmentRl. bodiea; that, rog~rding denoity~ ~he pro}~o:~t~l wss vre]J. Uelow tbe ~erv~ty
allowed by i;h~ Gonoral Plcsn; i~hat, c•ogai•di-ig i;r~ffia, he had apokon ~Nitli the City '1'rafiio
3"i,ngir.eer who had indloa•t;sd that tl;o pr~pos~d pro,Jeot would noi; liave ~~ignifioant cr
~dver~e imp~ot on ,",t~vanna ai;reet ainoe 'bhe are~ pre:~en't;].y gonc~rsted ftpproxlnla~;ely 60U trip~
pbr day ~nd the ini'tially propased pro,joot would huve gor~orai;ed ~ppraximate7.y 240 trips pei~
day, and ~Lhe sti•eet oou].d ~aail.y aooownodate 2,UUU i~r~ins por day.
Mr, f~oy Horron, Pr~esidc~r~t ol St~.+f~-Wide Tiiv~~~;orc, Zno. , appeac•od borure 1~i:o Y7.anning
Con~niission and y1~ai;ed that in thoi.r meetinE wit,h the nolghborhood re~idonts and property
owners no oomme~t was made o~noerninK 'tha den3l~y bein~ too high, but ~;;.ze oonoorns appearod
tc, be tlie dreinaRo as it releted i~,o 1;he sub,~ect pro,jeai;; that the dovc~lopers kiad offerod
~Lo aooommodei;e a si;urui drain ovor ~,Y~,e sub,jeot properi;y tu di~airi wQtor~ i'i•om the street ini;o
the flood oontro:l. cl,annel and would h~ve boen mor~ 1;han h~,ppy t,o provido sn se~semsnt to do
so; that tho developor•s' ~nly ocmoern wu~~ld be that i.f the dreinage we~,3 teken t;hrough i;he
sub,~eot pr•operty th~s~ it be done prior tp or during constz`UC'L~.UIl and not aYter oonstruotion;
that tha d~velopors had afi'ered ~tho foi~o~;oing drainagA s~lutlori to ttie Clty Enginaering
Diviyion who ~thanked them fur their tia~e, eto.; that the neighbors tie~d appeared i;o Ua very
plea3ed with the u~anner in whiah the propo~ed 3ite woul.d be developad and that it would be
drained into i;ho ohatuiel; and that the noighbora s'till appesr•ad to be oono~rnnd about the
drainage whi.oh, in his opini ~i, would be improv~d by the propos~d pro,jeot.
'1'I•I~ PUIiL]:C HEARIiVG WAS CLOSL~'D.
In r~eponso to quosi;icning by Chairman JohnSOn, Offioe ~'ngineor Jay Titvs advised that he
was not e~ware of R proposal to take draln~ge from th~ stroet through the sub,jeot proper•ty;
however, the Tngiiloerin~ Divi~ian h~d been worl:ing with Mr•. Waddle who owned property at
the end of the street lIl the Ci+,,y of Buena Park and who had agr•ee~a ~tc give tha City an
easemen~; ~oross the easterly pot~i~ion of his property i;o reach the f~.~^d control ~hannel; and
that pursuant ~;o e, ,joint partioip~stion agreement bet~yoen the City and tvlr. INaddle, the
sxlsting drainago dii;oh in said oasement oould bo aloanod ou~t for plaaomerit of gn under-
ground drain to take tho water from Savanna Strset.
Commi3sioner ~'arano inquired ii' tl:~ letter from Cameron and Hoff~-sn ropresented a potentie~].
liability to tho City of Ariaheim e~nd/or i;he Planni.ng Commi.ssionors in the event that the
dr~inage was not handled oorrootly and the pro~osed pro,jeot was approved. Tn respon3e,
Deputy City Attornc~y Frank Lowry edvised that, he reli.eved a oause oF sotion oould Ue stated
but whdi;her an aotion for dam~ges could be me.inte,ined would be e~nother iss•ae.
~)oromissioner Perano then inqu3red if' tho City had in ii~s :iands binding co~unitmerlts to
praperly assure itself that Savanna S~Lreet oould be proper~y dr~ined. In reply, ~r. Titu~
~ivi~ed that tho Ci•ty did not have 'tlie signed easoments at thiy ~ime, but did hsve a
oommitment from Mr. 'Naddle th~st he would ~r1nt the easement. Cammi;sioner :'areno then
noted that the proposed pro,jeot K~uuld croate a passible exposure for the City of Anaheiai
e~nd until the appropriate agreement3 wero in hsnd he we~s nut, sure •tha~t the prop~sed dovelop-
ment oould be aoted upen; and ttiat he wouJ.d suggest a po~s.~bls four-week oontinuanoe so
thtst i;he drainage si.tuation oould be resolved and put in ordor.
Chairman Johnson took ex~eption, iioting that tize developer did not have a pruposal for
Sav~+ruia St.ree~t, but for a paroel ~~f land; howevar, tho developer had agz•aed not to im~+aoi~
the area with draingge from i;ho sub,~eot pro~ierty but, in feot, wa:; allevia~ting their share
of the existing drainage problo~n.
Coaraissioner Fsrano fur~ther noi;ed that t;~e aubjeot propertv partiaipated :ln the ox'sting
problAm, th~t the proposal and development would not in any way inorea~e the amouz~t of
watar run-of~ icito tho streot to make 11~ more hazardous, howeve.r, if tho drainagb problem
needed to be coi•reoted it should be done at the time of the p~•uposed pro,~eat~
In response ~to quest:loning by Coromisaioner Barne~, ~Ir. Titus olariYied ~;t~et tlie ,joint
psrtioipatior, for an oasement cver Mr. Waddle's property would be between Mr. 'Naddle and
the Qity of Anaheim to entirely drain SavRnna Street at the westerly er,d; and `•he,1;
t,dr. Waddle wss pressni:ly involved with a development plan on his property and ~aid 'li;em
was befcre the Plsnning Cotntnis~ion ;~ou~e tia~j ago.
~J
~
7;.-51'J_
M.T_NUl'fL'.~ ~ UTl'Y PIANI~IIJC~ UOlv4u1T:~S7:UN ~ Ou~tobu ~• 27 , 197F,
[~OI.,AS,3:LTTt7ATI~N _N0. ~G•~1'1-4 ANP VAR711NOID N0. 2.~i.3 (Cont.im~od )
C~~nurii.aaion~~ U'ara:zo ].~lclui.i•ud if drainago plcxr~:~ wox•o avallab:le ~~t~~~n W>>Soh Ltio F:Lat~ninQ
C)uuun:l.~niou w:~gh~l; ba:~o i~heir dooi.~ion iu oonnoatio» with dre-inago of ~Lhc~ ~ub,}oot :~ii~e, and
P~t~•. '1`ituo advihed in t•'.a negat~.vo on i;tio Y1d9~3 1;ha~t it wd~ pr•omQLtir•o to a:~k f'or a di•alnagA
~~lt~ii al; thi~i p~,1:i~L in tha propona7,. ~~ `u:llo~iet• '~~at•ntio i~idio~tod that bnoause of 1,hr
oirc~,,, ii;anue~u i.trvolved wii~l~ tho aub,' '•~ I>~•~Nv~•t;;,r i.t would not bo proaw.tui'o, in hic~ opinlon,
e~ lly sit~oo hi..itarioell.y dove~.lol.~ot~:1 [I1Q(1Fl prc,mi:se;3 ai-d otatN~r~eiii;+~ and aftei• ob~;sining
t o;; of titllIlE?,~ we~'e forF ,~~on. `1~~1A~'OUPUYI, Mr'. T:lt~aa e-dvittud
n, L~'or pro,~o~tc~ tho3e YP
Lt:.... a~ r~ ou~~d~~lon regai•ai.ng di~ainagc~ waa in~po~ed or~ bho rub,foot ~r~o~e~i, by the P~b:III~TI~
Couunio;~ion~ ttie City ~nginder':~ OffioA ~NOUId mako ~urc+ thrat the pro,joot draitted aoooi•dingJ.;;
before apPruvinp, Che gz~ading plana. Coumil:~eioner Fesre-no ther~ noi;c~d i;h~st he feli~ tho e~ctuaL
p1.an:~ we~•o nooo~sar•y uj,ot~ wtitat~ i;o ba;~~ ~i,ho I':laiuiir~K Cornmia:,iuTi'~ dea~.alon on the pi•o,ject.
Com~-ii~;~lozier Fit~i•~i~t r: ,h,ed the~i: dt•sina~5e sub,ja~;t tio i;lla :sai;icil't~otioii of the Q1ty Enginoui•';~
Offlou wt-s :~tt~r~dRi•d ;~x•aoLioc~ i~l apni•ovir~~ ~~~•o,j~o~:'; r;ti~~ ~y ~pking into ooi.alderstion tli~
~tcstc~nieni;:3 of the d~vo:l.opor ~nd i~npocsi.n~t A o~~ndlt;iozl "i;nat; g-•c+di.~:~ ~:Lan:;, s3 ~spprovad by
th~ Ci.t;y Ti;nEi.no~r al~,ow:tng di•KL•iago uf l;ho t~>ta1• :j'~~o to i,he Carbon Creok Chartinol., exoepting
tho £ront 15-foo1; setbaolc ad,jaac~tl't t~~ Savc;nna~ ~troei;, 3hu1:1. Lo :3~ibmiLl;~c1 to thc~ P1~nn:tr.g
Ooinailssion for ro~~iRw priur to the ia~uanu~ of n b~.ii:lding pe •mit," tlio drainsg~ for the
pi•o~jeot woula r,A con'Lroll~cl•
C~I(llT1~39~0119Y ]'rirano noted th~t he did not waz~L tu talce tha ri~k of appi~oving the pro,i~ot
wi.~tliout being able to ~uar~ a~teo t,hai; i,ho drainr~~;o problem,3 woi.~ld bo ,~o].ved.
Chairuiar. JoYin3~~n noLod tllai; it w~s up to the Pl.t~tining Doparl~moiit t~ ~eb tre~t the stipu'la-
tions of i;he potitionors were oarriod .
Gommi3si.oner F'arano noted tha~t l;he pe Lia~ioners he~d Leon made avraro at i;ho proviouq maetings
ori „uly .L9 and A11~~191', 15, 197G, t}~at the drainago proLlems nc~~c~~d to bo r•e~olved rsnd there
had .~en ainple tiu~e to propare drainagcj oi• gr•ading pla~is , and the f.gct that it had not been
dor.e mnao him apprehensive. He iurther que:tl.oned the traf£io oiraulatirn in tho area
~inae the ~ooes~ w~; ~ very long dead end strr~et and might noi; Ue sul~tftble fur the modiu:~
don3lty pro,}oot pruposed, and he q,~estiunad whet~er an aroa developmont ~~KI1 and environ-
mental impaot roport ~hould. bo prepaz~ed in connootton with thc~ ~ub,joat propoas7. sinoe
yeveral probiems appareni;ly oxisi,ed in i;orms of 1,ho propo3ed land use and the P.la-inin~
Commission had reyuirad sucl~ nrooeedings lor pr~>,jor~ts ~Nith mucl; 7_o:ia impaot than the
proposod projeot would hc~vo. He noted that withoti~ `adium~densitIl devolo~moo{,:iu9tify the
density, the pi•~porty miqt~t not ba appropriatb for Y p
In ro~ponsc~ t,o furth3r qt~estionina bY (,~mml•gaiorioi• Barnes, Mr. Knox s-Late3 the subjeot
property abu~tod the flood oontro]. ohannel f.ur a distar~oe of ap;~roxiux~toly 16 fee~;; thQt
o~thei• E~ropei•tie~ in the are~ could iiot drain into the ohsnnel wii;hout touching it; that
the front 15-foot sot~aok~aroa of the subjeot property was proposad to drain ~to the strset,
lioweve.r, the water r•un-c••c~ from the roofs wculd drain towa.rd the ohannel; but, 3f nao~ssary
they could slopo the property to dr~in ~ompletel;~ tow~rd the ohann~l, although it would not
be as arohii;e,.turally tesi;eful ~s the proposed plan.
Mr•s. Todd stated i;hat a drainep;e di~tah and pipo wa° no1; a~o~d solution t,o the problem,
sinoe the p:ipo wo~.ild erode and tha er~sion oi the ditoYi wo~i~.d oause furt•her proble~~s.
Chairm~n Johnson noted +~ wnethor the suUjeot propo~al. wes oonstructed or noc, the prob-
~.ems witY~ drainage on Sa~anna Stroet had axistod for a long time and, an t:ie basis of the
stioulations of the petitioner, there would be les~ dr~lnage to the sti•set than p^esently
exietod and, ~therefore, ne would not vo+,e sge~inst the pro,jeot beoause oi dr~einage; however,
tnere might be some need for a~;raffic study.
Ccmmissioner I3erbst offered a motion, seconZed by Co:ru. j.ssiener I:ing and MOTION OARRIED
(Cou~missioner Fare~no voting "no"), 'that ~he Ansheim Gity ?:Lanning Commi~sion daes herebv
reoommend to the City Qounail of tho City of Anaheim thtst s slegative deoleration t'r~om the
requirement to preFare e-n environmental. impaot repor~t ba e~pproved :'or t,he subjeot projeot,
ptirsuaiit to the provisions of tY:e Ca'liforni.a Envirocwiontal qtiallty Aot.
Commissioner Hsrbst offered Resolution No. F'C76-204 Bnd moved for its p~sse~e and adoption,
that the Ane.heim City Plannin.g Commission doP~ heret~y reoom~aend to the Oity Counoil of the
rity of Anahaim ~th~t petition for Reola~~ ~:" }atio~~ No. 76-'17-4 bd apFi•oved on tha basis
'that the proposel oonforms to the lnr«1 use deoignation ~f the Anahei.m Genere~l Plan, gub,jeot
tu thd oondition that grading plan:~~ c:a e~pproved by the City Fngtneor, showing draina~a of
the total ei1;d (exaepting the front 15-foot setbaok ad,iaoeiit to "~van.na Street) to the
Carbot~ Cr•eer: Channel, shall be submitt~d ta tihe Planning Coo~nission for review prior ta
the i.~3119t109 of a buildiclg perriit; and subjeot to the Interdepartmontal Cowuoi.ttea reo~m-
mendsl;ione. (See Resolui;ion Book>
~ ~ ~
M:iNUl.'lCu ~ 0]"1^l PIJINNIN(} '70NAllISSIO'N ~ Uu~LUbor 27 . 1~ ~(~ 16-"~13
[uCOI.,ASE~xPICATION N0. 7G-~17-4 AND VA}i~ItNaHI NU~f~1.~ (0~-,rltin~iod )
Oti r~u11 oa].1, 1;he foregoing resolution wao ~=~:~ed bY ~h~' rallowiiig vate;
AXFS: COt~RdISSION~R~: DAIZNIC9~ EIDlRt;3's ~ KZNQ, Lw10RI~~y~ TOL,l1F~, JOHIJ90N
NOrS: COMM.I:S3IOI~R~: FARANO
ADSFffI.': QUNDulI~3Y~Mt~RS: NON~I
Commio~~oner Horb:il; offerFld fle3olui;ion '.Vo. F'C%G•-7.~)~~arici mov~d f'~~r itn ~,a6e~~3a and
adoption, ~,tist ttie Anaheim Qii;,y planning Oomm~~3i.unfloe:~ hoi~oby Br'ant pei;itiott foc~
Varie~n~e No . 2E313 , gran+ing i he i~oqueuted we~iv~r of i;h e~-xlmur ~ bu37ding he ighl~~~eviouol
sl;ruot a 21-unit apari;ment ocmplex on the ba~i3 i~hat s~azilur w;~`fa rn tiave bean Y
granl~bd fc~r i;wo-etrn•y deve~lopment ad,~t+aer.t to ~~,.11•43 ~ OUC zunF~ ti Pi' ~Y'At'~Y, '~han the ad,~aoerit
proporty is do:~ipn~.~ted for medium denaity re-~iderr~ial d~~`relopm~ni: by i;hd An~e1m Qenore~l
Ptsn; that t;he r~j~ue:~tAd ~~vei.ve-•a ~~P tihe minicm~a~ dintnr~oF+ bptwaen buildinap Q~d roqu~.red
eite ecr~c~eni.rig t<<•c~ no .l.ong~r r~eoeysary o-i th~ t,a:~~o 1~1-~e~t~ ~':~ri3ed plan~ we~'~W~ivers~eand
reduuing tho n,~.mbu~• uP dwelling uni.ta from ~ to 21, t~Ylerel,y deloting sald '{;he
tt~i3 ve-rianoe is grantad ~ub,~oot •to the oonci~:.tion that 8-'adinf~ I'~-gn~ ~ s~ ~'pp""VOd tiy
Cit;y ~tigineer, showirig draitie~P~ of tho tot~sl .~~.~~ (oxoePtipg tl~a ~ront 15-fOat sel;baok
ad,jaoent to SavanTia Stroet ) to ~h~ Cnrbon Crc~o}c Ohar~na7. , u~~a11 bA :~ubmit~°QO-t~to}1the1Interg
Com~is3lon ior revlow prior~ to tho ieyuanoo ot ~, builcling parm~t; ttnd aub,~
deparl,man~al. Committoe reoomme~idatiunF~. (See Re~ulut3~n ~uok)
On roll oal.l, the forog~ing resolution wss P4~;;:~d bY -tY•y fo11o~"~-n8 voto=
AYf~S s COMMTSSION~I~S: DAFiNICS ~ I-TLItBST ~ KINQ, AdUfill~y, TOI.,~1[i, ;1'OEWSOYZ
I10E~S : COt~dIS520NFLRS : FAMNO
AASENT: CONAdISS~(7NFRS: NClN~
In re3potise to que~tioning Uy the Planning ~ o~n7.~uiorz , As31qtr~nt City ~nginaor• Wi].liam
Devitt adv~sed that a meoting was sohedu.led wlth the e,ti;orn~y~ fo-r 1~he H&le propertY in
conneot:Lon wlth tha proposbd 3olutiona to '~he dr~ainage ni'Ob.LH413 on Sc~vanna Street end,
additionally, the City a1r•eacty had a lo~ter from Mr, W~-ddZo iridi.catine a'~+~-~lingnee~ to
gi,ve the draincsge easemont, eto; that , 1~hrough hi9 own ob~~rveti ono or tlle ~re~ sinoe
1969~ ha could stste thero wss rolativoly 13.~t7,e wai;~r ~i;~~,d~nK ~n the are~ ,<huugh
Savanne 5treet was a dead end ~treot and had onosy1or_-al1y ~~pile~ up" the ~~er; th~'t osed
~loocl oontrol ohannel was a~ e1~l;ivel5• short distnnae lrom Sava~~=Za Street at the prcp
loaation of the dralnaRo easemeni~ and it we,s the Uit~' ~ inten~ ta Pursue ~he matter af
insta].ling plpe in ~aid easement. Mr. Devitt ezpla3i1ed ttlat shari~ly after the oonatruo_
tion of thd 5avaruia Str•eet roe.dway, a~ drei~hge~~~ooh £a~heoIl~ope°~Vd~nvolvad ad perpitted~
however ~ over a period of about 10 years ~ e P
some land fill to cbstruot ttio f.low of wa~er thr~ugtL `he ditoh.
Commissioner De~rnes offered a motion, seoonded U5 Cocr~•yaioner Morley, and MOTION CARRIED,
that the Anaheim (:ity PlBnning Commission do9s hei'eby alreot tha Englneering Division to
submit engineering plans for tho dreinage of the Sava,~a St~'eet area st tYie earliest
possible time.
VARIANCE N0. 285h - Pi.TBLIC I-iLARING. IDA AND MA~IION ~1NNOW, ~5 ~-5 South Euolid Street ,
- Ane~hei.m, Ca. 92802 (~iere); SC~ J, ~`~M~~~ 31e02 Camino Capistrano,
3an J'uan Capis•treno , Ca. 92~~75 ~ Agopt ), re questing wA ~1~ER OF (A >
pF;RMITI'En USES AND (B) MINIMUM L~T AREA, T~ OONS'PHUCT A p~OLUCE I~MP~KIlTP on property described
as a rootengularly-shaped paroa l o f lan d a ons i g t i n g o f a,p P r o x i m a t e l y , 9 6 a a re h a ve ~ front-
age of approximately 200 feet on the west side of Eu~aid Street ,}1KVing ~ meximum depth of
approximately 21U f~et, and bsing looated Qpproxiuta taly 46C` fee t~o~~th of the oentarlina of
Cerritos averiue. Proparty presently olassi~ied RS~ A-h3~pp0 ([~ESIDENTI1lL/AGRIOUIIPUEiA~~ ZONE.
It ws~ noted that tho sub,~eot petitlon we~s oontinu~d from ~he p:.snning Co~pission m0etinf
oi Ootober 11~ 1S'16, f~r the submi.t'tal of rev:lsed p1.Bns ~nd £ar olai~ifioation of oonditiona,
a1; th~ request of the petitioner.
Chairttse-rl Jchnaon noted thst sinoe there was pendiag ~itige~tioii ~n the ~ub ~eot property
Ue~woen t~.e propsrty o~mers and tho Oity c~ pnaheitin, it Was deamod Qppr~°e~oreethe&Plannin
Planning Commissic~n SeoretQry should sdmin~~ter the Qath EorQ ainstathe s~b,~eot zoning g
Commissior. to thosa pers~ns wi~hing to test' fy bo1~,h ~or end g
petitior . 2'wo person~ rose ,: aisod tlieir right liarid , snd took ths Oath•
One person indioated his presenoe in opp~sition to the sub jeat petitionss ion datedr0otober
Agsi~tant Plenner Joel Fiok read the Ste~f~ Report tQ tha F7-anning Comniin the minutes.
27, 1976, and said Staf~ Report is refei'red to ss if aet forth in fu~.l
~ ~
M1M1'Pl~1S~ O:CCY 1'LA; .J11VCl CONQuII;;~.l'~)N, OotuLur• '1..7, 1~J7Ci 16-51A
VAFIIADJC~ N0, 1t35G (Coi~l;ltiu~jd?
Mr. tioott Raymond, tho ~ttortiey and a~eiit ior tho pet3.tlor~er:~, tieving taken the Oe-th,
e~ppAared betore the Plazuiing Commiaaion and out].liied the IiifiFl~ ~~~~rtuientel Commi~ttoe
c•eaonunand~tion:i aontainFd in the otaff ropor~; whioh he wo~~.:~~~ a~oopi; on '~e~hali oP hir~
olient~ , bei--g No;~ , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, H, 9, lU ,:ll , 13 dnr 15 . I1~ al~o indlnated that the
ol;her reoommendQtionn were ob~eoti.oriable to hla oli~til;o; that, ~oiloorning reootumend~tion
No. 12 roquiring a aix~foot h:lgh wa:1.7. c+long t.ho ~outl~ nroporty ].inc~, i;hey wou].d agree to
that if the F'l.e-inin~ ComtnS.::3ior~ f~11; 1t wa;.s appc•oprie-i;e , a:ltt~o~+.Rh ~LY~.~y would not neoAr~narily
11ke pui~tinQ B high bloolc wa1J. i.i~ the bc~ak of tho ad,js~ont r~sidontial ptropertios; that
they would a.lso ~greo ~Lo intorv~oavlrig i~he ohair~lirilc fonoa along the wes-t nropori~y line with
vinyl strips, tiowovor, :~uoh a fonoe wou7.d preven'L the adjaoeni; prupertiea from being eb1.o
to seo ~the s~o• e3 and aoi•oa of tai•m land, and th~re waa u].so n ok~+xnoo i;hat tho ad~aoenl;
rdyidetlta auuld ooe thr•ougli tti~ otiainlink fonoe and vi.nyl ~tripn at an angle; e~nd tha~l,, I
«lthoixgh the oonoc•ote wc~ll a:~ong appz•oxi.mstely E3U i'oot cf t,ti~ noutherly property lino
v~sua:Lly :'~oc•oenod t}io farm 1.aiid, he did not i'es7. it we-o appt•or~riato. Mr. Haymond stc-ted I
th~t •the Uttildbrs, ac•ohitocta ~ f1ll(~ p].e,nnors had to oome boforo i;he plarini.ng oomtnissinn~
snd oity ouunoila as seoond ol.aas oitizons becau3e ~aid bodios had r•olegai;ed tha landowner:t
to aeoond-o~.tsnn oi+,izen3 on •ttic~ baai:~ that ro mstl;or~ how t,tiey plaiined to devalop their
prc~pertie3, it only took uno pf3r~or, living ~uro~~ i;ho atr~ ~t to oppose the plsn a3 being
too wido , r~o skinny , oto. ~ and the p1an3 would bo defe~•red f or i•ovision; thst, reg~srding
dedioe,l;lon (reaonunond~tion No. 1.) , ho 'vhought i ~ should be left i;o the Oity and tho
proper~Ly ownera to work 1;he.t m.ccsti;er out aunicab].y and, by hi:~ definitioiz of amioably, ttie
"hstuhot should ho buried" withoui; i;he attanhm~nt of i5 oonditicna o~ epproval, ato.;
that the ~oint cf roaammendation No. 1 was the dedi~ation of abotii; a 985-fooi; long and
~15-foot wide 3trip of land alol~.g Oei•r•itos Avonue , and h1o clienl;:s woro osying "no" yinoe ,
in ~Lheir opinion, '~;~119 was oondertuiat~ion without oompaneation ~,nd violA.tion of hi~ olienta'
oons~titut:tonal right:+; ~;hat, ~l~l;hough tha oourts had upt~eld i~ho priviZ~n~a of oitie3 to
imposo s~ioh oonditions , dedicatioci of ~14 ,325 aquare feet oS 1.e~nd ~ witY. i sppi•oxime-to
value of $150~OU0, and wittiou~ ariy oompensation, was noi; z•ea:3onable; aiid ~;het tho rdc;uasted
dedioation wotil3 be approximatel.y one aore oP land~ aolely for the purposo o~ a varia;zce
affeoting approximatoly one aoro of land on Eualid Streot.
A4r. Raym~md thon ~ii.saussed reoommendation P1o. 2 rolating to str~et lighting fa~ illties
elong Euolid Stroet, stating that they felt it was a reasoriable daolaration of ntent,
tha~t if i;hoy were gaing to impi•ove thei.r proper~ty along the strost , i;hey eliould li.ght 11; .
Regarding Che preparati.on of plsns f~r installation of street iniprovements along Fuclid
Streot, tliey say "nu" exoept for that ~pproxin3ately 20U-foot portion of said streel; for
whic~h they were requesting a varianoo , and whioh wou].d b~ a reesonable request. He furtY~er~
stated that when his olier~tsbagan the pro,jeoi~ at,out; one month ago, tha oost was to have
been $132,000 to oomp:ly with ~the oonditions of approval, however, -the aosts had been
inoreased sppr~ximately $45,000. Regarding reoommendr~tion T1o. 14 (and No, 8), Mr'. Raymond
stated it~ would take a li.i~tle time to prepare the paroel rosp ior recardatiun, eto. , and
thoy would like to have addi~tiorial ti.me to oooply with that oondition ai'ter the issuanoo
of a bullding p~rmit.
Mr. Bo:_~ftaliTl Lu,je.n, ].709 West Cris Avem~e, Anahoim, having te.ken •~he Oath, appeared bofore
t2ie P1a,nning Counnission in oppo3ition and reitarated some nf his sta~tec~ents made at tho
Plsnning Commis~ion meA ~ing of Ootobei• 11 ~ 1976 , on the sub jeot matte r. Iie further stated
that h~ wa:; nresent beoauso he felt it was his responsibility a~ a homeowner~ Qnc! the parent
of ~our :.~1.L ohild:on and, furt~iermore, beaause tha eame applioant Far th~ suUjeot proposed
produuo m~rkei; r~d o~erated a produae ~narket at, the su.b jeot 1ooa.tion previously and the
judge of the Sup9rior ~ourt h~d ~rdered it olosed baoause it w~s in violai~ior. and illegal;
that in the previou~ aotion, ha ho,d re~~resonted Y,is neighbors and submitted a petition
signed by them in opposition, and lie oould have gottan anothor simil.sr petiti.on from them;
that $45 ~000 would not buy a life and , although he ha3 r.ot been an eye-witness , there was
an acoident d:.reotly in front of the proposed looa+,ian f'or the pz~oduoe market in whioh
two persony wore k1.11ed between 2:15 and 2:30 a.m. ; tha~t during a six-month period, thare
had been 38 aooidents ad~jooent to the sub,jeot property and substantiating i:~formstion was
a mertter of reoord wi~h the City; thst th~ neighbors hod put up with noise tn the past
from the parking lot straet sweeper at 5:U0 a.m. and with truoks slsmming ~heir doors,
eto. , e~nd the noise wss partioul.arlv exoe3aive in the suu~ertime; that the diao~rded boxas
and produoo had not been previousl~ Eoreenod and was an eyesoro from hia living ^oom; that,
prinaipally, t?~e traPfia eoaidents and the unaightl;, v~ew from his living room we.•e his
ob,jeotiono to the propoasi; ~hat if he had thought a eix-fuot lzigh blook wa~.l would have
proteated him, he would ~lava already put up euoh a we~ll, but ei.x-feet would not hide what
had previoueiy exiated on thd prcperty e,n1 an additional two..fAAt in height would help
oo:~sidoxably; that he agreed with Mr. Raymond that the ooets were exaesaive, however,
oonsideration ahould be given to the profit ratio between operatinR on HA zoned prcperty
veraus C(3 whioh wr~s appropriato :~r 3uoh a supermarket, even t.hough ~dr~ Margulieux (o•rvner
of the produoe msrket ) was a very hard working man end ooulc3 e~lwe~ys msl~e e g~ed profit;
n
~
MINUTFS. C17Y PLANNING C~MMISSION. October ?.7~ 197~ ~~~51`
VARIANCE NQ. 2a8~6 (Contlnued)
tt~ot he w~tched the prevlous produce m~rket graw a~~d brln~ a lot of t~oublo to the City,
and presently a lewsult was still unsettled regarding it; thet hc did not know lf there
was some+ "horse trading" ~~oin~ on behind thc sccne or not wlth respect to approving the
propossl ~ however~ thcro were I i teral ly hundreds of thousende of people treversinc~ Eucl id
Street and i t should be well prepared~ 1 Inhted, And sofe; tl-st tha proposed access for che
produce stand wauld not be safe; that regardtng the cost of the land being requesxed for
dedlcetion, t~e aiso mlght saY "no." (iowever~ thd subJett proparty owners had qwned Che
property for R long tirtw anci v~are around ninety ye~rs of ae~e end the rights of the public
travelin~ in the area deserved safe condlttons; that in the event thc proposal was
approvad. he would request that recommendatlon No. 12 be part of No. 14 alnce he did not
want to wai t for final Inspection to have the wal l constructed; and that t~e would further
request relocat(on of the produce rnarket s4te and a 20-foot buffer. Mr. LuJan stated thet
at the Octobcr 11~ 1976~ meeting~ the Planning Commlaslon had requested a 20~foot buffer
area and It was a;reed upon, but the ~1ans were changed to eliminate the buffer; that by
law~ enacted by tha C1 ty Councl 1 i n 19b9 ~ the 20-foot buffer shoul d be provided ad)acont
to sinc~le-fami ly residences and unless the discarded produce and boxes were screaned off~
tl~e petltioner was bcing granted a fovor; that, prevlously~ Mayor Clark had steted the
Clty should act wlth a little "human kind~ess"; thAt~ In hls oplnlon~ the operator of the
subject produce market should thank ti~e Clty f~r allowing him to stay In biaslness so long;
that the present plans indlcated his property would have a view of the preparakion and
refrlgcration room and the loading dack 48 feet from the property line; and that his
llving room was elevated due to the hardwood flonr con,tructlen and the proposed 6-foot
wal) would seem like a 4-foot wall under those circumstances.
The Plan~ing Commfsslon Secretary read a letter in oppositlon received from Mr. Paul R,
K(ng~ 1694 1Jest Cris Avenue, Maheim, said letter lndicating opposition on the basis of
nolse, unsafe traffic conditlons and employee parking on the adJacent resident(al streets,
and also su~gestlna the rezoning of the southwESt corner of Eucltd and Cerritos for
locating the produce market there wlth entrance and exlt on both Euclid and Cerritos to
alleviate the daily traffic congestlon~ th~ provlslon for adequate employee parking on the
subJect praperty~ and hours of operation no earlier than 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and .:00
a.m. on weekends.
(Commissioner Kl~c~ note~l for the record that he was not related ta tf,e Paul R. King who
submitted the foreqoing letter in opposition.)
In rebuttal e Mr. Raymond stated that although Mr. King's statements were from hts heart,
wh~- should his want for hours of operation~ location~ etc.~ be imposed on same other human
being; that h~r. LuJan wanted an 8-foot high wall and the petitioner would be happy to
provlde a 10°foot high wall if necessary~ however, he did not feel it was appropriate for
the Clty or the Planning Commission to set up a wall that hfqh whiGh was usually
designated for prisons or other instit~~tions; that Mr. Lu,jan tndicated he would be able to
directly watch the produce s:and workers~ hawever~ there was a solid building wal) on that
side of the property and all of the workings of the trucks loading and unloading, etc,,
wnuld be done ~n the ~orth side of the buildtng. Regarding the accident at 2:15 a.m.
rEted by Mr. Lu,jan~ Mr. Raymond skated he did not know what the a~ner of the produce stand
could have dor•~ about the accldent at that hour af the day since the stand was ge~erally
closed between 1U:00 p.m. and 7:OU a.m. Mr. Ra~mond further stated that Mr. LuJan did not
think the costs mentioned were too much for the property owner to bear~ however~ he
wondered how rnany people couid and do afford to pay the sum of S1,000 per month for real
estate taxes on vacant land; that t1r. Lujar. had Indlcated he coutd have obtained a
petitlon from the property owners in the area in opposition, however, the Councll Chamber
wauld not be lar~e enounh to hold th~ people wlia wanted~ deslred and hoped that the
produce stand would be re~pened; that some tirt~ ago he had filed a petition signed by
approxtmately 7,~0~) people who wanted the stand to stay therc; that regarding the produce
stend being hlghly profitable~ nine ~roduce stands In the area h~d closed their doors
within the past six months a~id Herman's was a~ anomaly; that the cubJect produce s:and had
become illegal because the City sald it was illegal; that the stand had been there since
tirt-e began and the laws c~me alc.ng subseGuentiy; thit regarding the dcmands made by Mr.
LuJan that the Clty flnally ~nd appropriately take tha land whlch was necessary for the
safety of the people of the .fty of Anaheim who used the adJacent streets~ thc petitioners
~greed to an Pxtent and he had been ~st that location so many times and probably snmething
shauld be done by the Clty relative to developing the strrets but he had yet to challcnge
the Ci ty to buy the property; that the C) ty general ly wai ted unt ~ I the developers trlad to
develop th~tr prop~rties to get the street Improvemonts, however~ +f the City felt it was
necessary for the safety of the people they would havG ~Qne so ten years ago.
~ ~
MINUTEa~ CI'IY PLANNING COMMIS~lON~ October 27~ 1976 16-516
VARIANCE NQe 285b (C~ntlnuod)
THE PUDLit HE4RING W AS CIQSEU.
Commissionor Taler noted :hat never in the hlstory of the City of Anahelm's devr.lopment ~
ha~1 he seen onc ecre extract~d frum a 14^ec~~e p~+rcel with JusttficAtian for a hardship rnd
he would not vote for l•he propo~al on that baals; that~ ragardtng the cose of thn land for
dedlcation for stre~t Improvement!.~ it we~ the ch~~osing of the petitioner to have a frult
stand on the one acre; th~~+t In relatiunship to thQ stoted 5150~Oap per acre, the property
uwners could rtu~ke a tremendous amoun! of monay from thc land wftt~out the proposed
devatupment~ that, speaking of s~cond-rate citizens~ he felt he wRS one since 38 Accldents
wns a ve ry lm~ortant charge; thAt if the petitioner wanted to de ~lop parf of the
proparty~ a reciasslficatian of [he enttrc property should be requested~ at which tima he
mlght look favorably on the proposal; tl~dt he dld not think that Mr. N~rgulleux or anyone
else wou~d open a frult stand ff lt was not gninq to be profltable; that contlnuiny the
publtc he~aring on th~ sub.ject r~quest t~ this meeting had bean a w~ste of time~ fn hls
opinlon~ since there rias no hardship ~nci c proposal was In vloiation of the rights of
the citlzens s~uch as Mr. luJon.
Commissioner Nerbst noted that altl~~ough discussion of economics was ~ot apprapriat~~ the
value c,f the land w as probably betwecn S65~OOU and $100~000 pzr acre; that overy developer
in Anahelm was required to do thelr share in the developm~:nt of stroets improvements~
hawever~ the subJect property ~wners dld not want to particlpate ln the growth of An~helm
and falt that the City was causing them a probiem and treaking them harshly; that nPw
plars had been delivered to hls office whlch no longer accomplished the suggnstlons of the
Plar~ning Commission at the Actober llth meeting; and that the propesa) was an Intruslan
upon the ad,Jacent single-famtly resfdences with respect to notse~ traffic. etc.
Mr. Raymond expressed that the fruit stand was existing prior to thc adJaeent homes befng
con~tructed; that. with re~ard to condemnation without compensatlon, It was so normal fo~
planning cammissions and city counclls to take property away from inndowne~s for the
public good; and that the public good shouid not be pald for by one human being but should
be at the public's expense.
Commissioner Herbst then noted that the widen!ng of the adJacent ~oads had i~creased the
value of thz subJect pr~^erty and the sub,ject property owners were expected to take parx
tn iC and not the taxpayers at large; and that he was stlll interested to know why the
plans liad been cnanged overnight.
Mr. Raymond explained that they had reviewed ti~e parktng to be provtded and the aspect of
provlding a planter area adJacent to the block wall~ etc.; that the parking was of the
utmost importance and~ thereforQ~ the reviseu plans shc~wed an Increase in ~pacas; anc; that
th~y were proposing same trees and bushes whici~ tfiey believ~d wauld compensate fnr grass
and trees adJacent to the block wall.
Commissioner Herbst noted th~t the petitioncr had stipulated on October 11~ 1976~ that the
20-foot bufFer area wauld be provided and would be no problem. Mr. Raymond tMen stat•.:d
that the submltte d p ~rt5 were flexible and not firm and either of the plans submitted
would solve the R robler-~; and that he would say "ye;" to whatever che Planniny CommissEon
desired with respect to a 20-foot or less buffer area.
Commissloner Barnes noted that fhe plans wer~ not th~t important to her decision s(nce she
agreed with Commissloner Tolar's comments. She further noted that on Qctober 26~ the
Planning CommissiQn and City Counc(1 had met with approximately 250 homeowners (n the Cfty
wh~ disliked strip commercia) zaning and had tried to mov~ away from that type environment
by coming to the City af M ahstm where they thought lt wouid not be allowed; that a
hardship was required in the granting of a variance and theres was none present wtth the
proposal; and that commerclal land existed elsewhere in xhe City of Anahetm which would be
appropriate for the type use proposed.
Mr. Rayrrqnd statcd that it was difficuit for people who hxd been as Independent as his
clients to hold 14 acres in the middle of th~ city, particularly when the hoiders were
approaching the age of a centur~+; that it was obviously nece~sary that the praoerty he
productive and gomettrt-as strip "varianGing" was appropriate and if one could not va•~~ once
in a while their iives v~ould be unbearable to each othcr.
Commissioner '~ng requested that the petitloner address the possibi{tty a¢ ~ ~~Ra mond
proposed praauce stand to the nartheast corner of the property, In replyp Y
atatsd thaY was a dtfftcult questlon to respond to since it did not involve money;
....
~
~wJ
MINUTES~ C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 27~ 1976
VARIANCE N0. 2t356 (Continued)
76-517
however~ such e proposal would unquesttonably commft thn land and than they would ~eally
have a problem as t~ how bes~: nnd approprtately they could de~~+lop the property; that
there wure no plrns~ indicatlons or spesculatlons for developm~nt of che entlre percel of
land~ howsver~ If tne co~-ner in questton wae Jevelopcd It would affect ~nd contro) tne
other part af the lr~nd and~ es such~ wauld make It more difficult 10 or 20 years from this
time to put anything on it~ Including housing, elc.
Commisstoner flerbst then revlewecl [he plans and inqu(~od if thore w~uld be any obJnctlans
to having thc wall extend past the storage area as A!olid wall for a sound buffer ar~d~
thcre upon~ Mr, Rayrt~nd stlpulAtr.d to a salld wAll along the south sida of kho bullding to
closc off the loading arca.
Cammissianer Herbst furtt~ar suggested a fully-landscape.d buffer adJacent to tho
reside~tlal ~rapertles ~~ith screening to consisc of 5-gallon tress which would grow to 15
feet wlthtn less than one ycar,
In ressponee to questfaning by Commisstoner Nerbst~ Traffic Engineer Pau1 Singer advlsed
thr~t the alignment of a ma)or drlveway to tha prcpo~ad prnduce market with Crls Avcnue to
promot~ safety w~s reGOmmanded~ and that the plans Indicat4d three access pe~tnts close
together on ~uclfd StreeC. Gommisslonor Herbst then noted that if ~n access to the
subJect property was desig~ed to align with Cris Avenue~ It would be strlctly toward the
mlddle of tha proposed building; that ha wnuld suggest analyzing the el(minatton of ~he
proposr.d drtveway ctosest to Crls Avenue and wide~tiinq the driveway at the fnr end for full
circulatton around the property. Mr. Singer S`urther advised t}iak the north drlveyvay was
the most trouble and tha dri~ieways, as propcsed~ were in co~flict with each other; and
that he was speaking strictly from a trafflc safeCy po(nt of vfew.
Commissianer Johnsan noted that the peti*ioners did not have ltcense to be fnsensitive to
the nelqhbors and to continue to pile baxes up over the fence hetght adJacent to tha
singie°famlly residar ; that i[ was not appr~prtate to bulld a bullding out o~ plywood
in a growing clty in the manner proposed; that the petitloners appeared to have a complete
wlsh to fiqht Ciky Hall and~ although he did not mind peaple fightinc~ City Hall, he
rCSented people who were completely insensftive to others about them; that he had
investtgatad the propasal and would not support the appli~ant; and that on Octabei- 11~
1976~ the Planning Commtssion had glven very strict guldelines as ko what they would go
along with ln connection with the proposed use of property.
Commtssioner Farano noted that the r~cord would bear out that durlny the ycars he had been
on the Planning Commission, the ~pplicant~ Mr. Marguiteux~ had been gtven mo~e rights and
changes to legittmatize h(s business than ~nyone else; and that he also supported
Commisstoner Tolar's posltion ln the mattar.
Commissioner Farano offered b mation, seconded by Commissioner Morlty~ to recomrRend to the
City Cauncil ~pproval of envtronmental impact report negative declaration in connection
wiin the pro~osed pro,ject. Commissioner Totar noted that a negative declaratlon might not
be tn ordsr because of the impact that the properxy had on *_he area and an EIR dacument
might be more appropriat~ on the basts of the trafftc conditions, etc.
Thereupon~ Commtssione~• Fa•~no withdrew the f~re~oing motion and Cort~ii~sloner Morley
withdrew his second,
Commissioner Farano offered a now motion~ seconded by Commissioner Mor~e~,~ and M0710N
CARRIED~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby recommen~.i to the City
Councll of tha City of Anaheim ~hat an environmental impact repott be preparad for the
subJect pro)ect.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution N~. PC76-206 and moved for its passage and
adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition for Vartance
No. 2856 on the basis that approval wouid constitute "spot" comnerclal zoning in the
sub)ect area which conststed of residenttal uses; that the petikioner did not demonstrate
that a hardship would be created if satd waiv~r wcre not gran*_~d; that severe and
hazardous traffic condittons would be created if the property wer~ developed in the manner
proposed as evidenced by the prevtously-conducted produce market at Lhis tocation on the
subJect property; that the petttioner reJected Che possibillty of relocating the proposed
marke~t away from the adJacant single-famiiy resldences ta the south and eas4; that tne
petitloner reJescted condltions requiring right-of-way dedlcatiQn and street Improvements
blong Euclid Street and ~erritos Avenue wf~ich would proylde for safie traffic conditions In
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 27. r97~ 7E'518
VARIAN~E N0. 2856 (Contlnued)
connecti~n wlth the proposed market~ and +~lso reJecteci a 20-foot wide screened I~nd~capesd
buffer abutting the single-famfly residentiai dQVelapmont to the south as typlce~ly
requlred In slmllt~r c~mmerclal developments; ancl further~ that the propose~f development
w~uld be detrlrr~ntel to the I~e~lth~ safcty and ct~naral welfere oP the cltizens oP the City
of M aheim; however. it wes determine+d that the requested walver oP the minimum lot area
ls no l~nc~er necessary In connectlon wfth the nroposod development sinca revfsad plans
were submltt~d delet(n~ satd waiver. (Sce ~esolutlon Book)
Commissloner lierbst noted th~t he dlsagree~i with the foregofng resolutton on the basls
thAt the subJact praperty was ~n agricuiLural ptace of iAnd; Chat he realized that
technic.ally the proposal wns "spot" zoning. however by its neture and being prevlously
successful at tl~e subJect locatlon~ there was evidence af a neeci tn the area for a produce
market; thAt he falt with the promises that hr~d bcen extracted from the pctitloners~ the
development would be in the best interest of the protoctlon af the citizen~ of the Clty of
Anahe(m w(th buff~ring~ cfr~ulatlon and landscaping~ etc.~ nlthouqh Eur.lid Street would
have to be dadicated and irnproved for (ts full extent anA uther c'stinS and previQUs
condi llons a:ould ht+ve tn hc irnproved.
~ommissioner Johnsor, noted that he recogniz~d khe ~eed for a produce market, howeN~r, thn
people who wanted it unfortunately did not live next to it but lived many miles away In
most InstancGS; that at the meeting of October 11~ 197~, he had felt that w(th the
stipulations of khP petitloner there was some hppe for the proJe:ct~ h~ov+ever~ thA submltted
revised plans werc not In the best interest of thc City or its citizens and thc c had becn
enough hedging In connection with the proposal to typtfy the previous hl~tory of Che uge
of the property.
On ~oll call. the foreging resolutlon was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FAnNNO, MORLEY~ TOLAR. JONNSnN
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST~ KINf
A85ENT: COMMISSIQPIEZS: NONE
RECESS - At 3:~5 R•m•, fh~irman Johnson declai a recess.
RECONVEt~E - At 3:55 p.m., Chairman Johnson rv:conv~~ed the meeting with
all Commissioners being present.
RECIASSIFIGATiON - PUDLIC HEARING. CARL td. KARCHER~ 1200 t~orth liarbar Boulevard~ Anaheim,
N0. 76-?" Ca. 92801 (Trustee); MC LEAN 6 SCHULTZ CONSUI.TANTS, 2000 East Chapman
~~ Avenue~ Fullerton~ Ca. 9z631 (Agent); requesting that property clescribed
as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
y,9 acres having a frontage of appro~•cimately 3~5 feet on the east slde of Narbor B~uievard~
havir~g a maximum depth of approximately 1033 feet~ and being located approximately 37~ feet
north of thc centerline of Romneya Drive~ be reclassOfled from tV~e CN (COMMERClAL, HEAVY) to
the ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) 20NE.
No one indicated their presence in opposition to the subject petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commissfon dated October 27~ 1976~ was not read
at the publ~c hea~ing~ sAid Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Wailace Bartell~ representing the agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning
C~mmisslon and stated thr.y were requesting the subJect reclassificatlon of zoning so that
there might be ~~niform zontng throughouC their project.
THF PUBLIC NFARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissloner Ktng offered a mot(on~ seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED~
that the A~aheim City Pianning Commisslon does hereby recommend to the City Council of the
City of Anaheim that a negative declaratiun from the requlrements to prepare an envtron-
mental impact report be approved for the subJect project~ pursuant to the prov(sions of the
California Envlro~mentai Quality Act.
Commisstoner King offered Aesolutl4n No. PC76-207 and moved for Its passaqe and adoptton~
that the Anahelm Clty Planntng Commisslon does hereby recomR~end to the City Councll of the
Ctty of Anahel~n approval of petition for Reclassification ~~o. 76-77-18~ subJect to the
lnterdepartmental Cam^'~ittee recommendatlons. (See Resolution 9ook)
~ ~
MINU1'CS~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ Octobnr 27, 1976 7G^~19
RECLASSIFICATION tJO, 7~~-77"~$ (Continuesd)
On roll call, tho f~regoing res~luClon was passcd by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FARAN(?~ IIERDST~ KING~ MORL.EY~ T4LAR~ JOfINSON
NOES; COMMISSIDNF.RS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE
RECLASSIFICATIAN - PUBLIC HEARIIIG, CHl1RLES C. LUCAS~ 13~1 Wcst North Street~ Anaheim~ Ca.
NQ. 7v~77-~5 92R01 (Uwncr); LYNN E. TNOM~I:N~ 71Q North Euclid Street~ Anahelm~ Ga,
"-`- 92a01 (Agent). Property descrlbed as a rectangulnrly-shaped parcel of
VARIANCE N0. 2~5rs lana consisting of approximately nne acre having a frontage of approxl-
~ matcly 110 feet on the north slde of ~~orth Street, havin!1 a maximum
dapth of appro~cimately 395 feet~ being located nppro '^~ ~ly 115 feet
west of the centerl ine of Rr.dando D~Ive, and further descrlbed as 1~0) ~ic:: ~~~orth Street.
ProperCy presently classifled RS-10,000 (f~ESIDEt~TIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONC.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICA710N: RM-120Q (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
RE2UESTED Vl1RIANCF.: WAIV~R OF (A) MINIt1Ul~ BUILDING S11'E WIDTf1 AND (B) MINIMUM QISINNCE
ElETWCEPI BUILDINGS~ TO CONSTRUCT FOUR DI;PLEXES,
Approxirnately 11 persons Ind(~ated their presence in oppositlon to the subJect petlt(ons.
Assistant Planner Joe! Flck read the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated Qctober
27, 19"16~ and sald Staff Report is referred tu as If set forth ln full In the m(nutes.
Mr. Lynn Thomsen, the aqent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Commisston
and stated that in xerms of the cul-de-sac at the east end of Lido Placa~ they would have
to move the proposed structure back 2(? feet and reduce the yard ar•ea; Lhat they pro,jected
the use of he modifled cul-~i~-sac to pravide more open space and would be totally
res~~onsible for the costs of s;+id cul-de-sac; that another cnncern had been the number of
twa-bedroom units proposed and they wot~ld like to incorp~'ate a three-bedroom unit irto
cacf~ of the duplexes; that they had checked with the Planning Departme:nt and were advised
that the only inquiry made into the proJect had been from an indlvidual questlon(ng the
matter of the garages fronting on the street; that, in his oplntn~ having 16 years
experte~ce tn the field, the proposal was the highest and best use of the property
ccrosidering its relationship to North Street; that the pcople present In oppositton were
his frlends since he had either sold them their homes or had participated in the
construcCion of thelr homes~ and he would consider their importance; that~ In the event
ths group in opposition had disposed thesnselves not to approve of the proJect~ as autlined
and proposed. he would like a two-week continuance to dis~uss and iron out the obJecti~~ns
with them; however~ if the Planning Commiss(on desired to apprave the proJect~ they would
like to incorporate the three-bedroom un(t as outlined; and~ furthermore~ if the Plann(ng
Commisslon should reaGh a negative decisian, r~ther Chan drop the proJect~ they would like
to have the opportunity to iron out the problems w(th the adJacent property owners who
were opposed.
Commissioner Morley indicated that he would like to receive the input from th~ oppositlon
reyarding the possibil(ty of heving duplexes on the northerly portion oF 2he property,
with a single-family dwelling fronting on North Street in order to comply wlth the zoning
and existing developrrent on the opposite side of North Street.
Mr. Forris Lamareaux~ representing the praperties at 1302~ 5304 and 1310 Lida Place~
Anaheimp appeared before the Plann(ng Commission and stated he obJected to the design of
the p~oject w!th the garages facing onto Lido Place~ since garage doors were generally
laft open and wer~ a"catch-all,"
Mr. Bruce Holan~ 1318 North Street~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Commisslon and
stated he lived directiy across the street from the proposed proJect; that he would favor
having a single-famtly residence on North Street with cluplexes o~ Lido Place~ however, he
could not speak for the people who lived on the Lido Place side of the proparty.
Mr. Walter Flall~ t33o west North Street~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planntng Commisslon
in opposition and indica[ed that not al) of the adJacent prnperty owners we~e notified of
the subJect public hearing and, therefore~ were unable to form thr.ir opposition; and he
questioned how eight families could be accommodated on one acre of land which was
designated fo:^ low-densiCy by the General Plan.
In rebuttal, Mr. Thomsen stated ttiat he assumed that the Planning Commisstan~ by
definition~ were Individuais who from thelr experlence and expertise in the community had
the ability to Judge good pl .~ning on bclialf of the Clty; and that, lf the Plannl~g
Commtsslon was ralegated to determine what should not go on a property. said body should
also have t~ie rasponsiblllty to determine what should yo on the property.
~
^1~
~
MINU7ES~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Octobar 27~ 1976 76-520
RECLAS_ SIF~CIITION NOy 76-77-1~AN0 VAaIANCE NQ. 285A (Contlnued)
Commissi~ner Tolar n~tnd that the pnci~loner had obvlously mada 9omr+ valld obsnrvatlons
concerning tlie propoxcd plans~ whtch were Incompattble with tha surrounding ~~roparties;
that If a single-famlly dwelling was ~roposed facing North Street, he would be rr~-re
favorable to the proJect; that the proposal wlth the exlstinc~ dwelling In tl~a mlddle
conmtituted dual use of thc praperty; and that with Cha p~oper l~t split~ the axlsting
dwelltnq could be retelned and rented in conJunctlon with the dupltxes proposed on the
Lido P1•,:c sidt of the prnporty.
C~mm) i~~ner Tnl.~: offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissionar Farano~ that the publlc
h~erlr~ a~~d con3ideration of Rel~asslflcatlon No. 76-77-19 and Variance No. 2858 be
contin~.ed to the Pla~ntng f.ummiselon maeting of Nov~mbar 27.~ 1976~ for revlsecl plana~ at
[he reques¢ of the pctitioner.
Commissloner Herbst Inqulred about the setbacks ln tho event the lot was split wlth a
single-famtly uee on thc Nnrth Street portton and muitiple~•family use on the sauth
portlon. Mr. Fick rdvised that the pettttoner would have to comply with the stta
developmont standards of the appltcable zone.Mr. Thomsen statPd his (ntentlons were to
develop the property and scll it~ whcreupo~~ Commissioner Farano noted that h~ hAC! some
apprehenslons about what wnuld evcntually happan to the exlsttng house on the property
sinca it might be torn ~+ and replgced w(th more duplexes. Mr. 7homsen th9n li~quirad tf
thera would be anyxhing wrong with that eventuality~ and Commissioner Farano indlcated In
the paslttve~ noting that the Planning CAmmisston had same bad experiences wlth property
that had been held out in other prc~posals. Mr. Thomsen added that he placed a value on
th~e existing residence which was greater than tha lot would generate othe rvaf~e.
Commisslon~r HerbsC noted that the design of the proposal was bad inasmuch os the garages
also blocked the view of the adJcent park and the plan might be better if it was ~eversnd.
In resp~nse~ Mr. Thams;n steted they preferred to uffer patios i~ Ileu of a vlew of the
park; that the plans were drawn up by expert planners; and that on Ltdo Isle al) had
garagea rlght on the strect~ whereupon, Commissioner Farano noted that ocean-front
property represented a different lifettyle.
1n responsa to question(ng by Comml~sloner Tolar, Assistant Planning Dir~ctor-Zoning
Annika Santalah;:t advised that the sub}ect property was designatied by the Genaral Plan as
fronting on ~iorth Street and for low-density or a maximum of four untts per acre (RS-7200
Zone); and that ~nedlum-density would allow up to 36 untts per acre.
In response to questloning by Coma-issloner Ktng, Hr. Thamsen stated they had dlscussed the
combination of driv~ways~ etc.~ and had na objectlons ~o the recommendatlon as specit`led
in the Staff Report.
In response to qusstioning by tl~e Planning Commisslon~ 11 perso~~s Indlcated their presence
in oppositlon, 3 of whom indicated they did not recelve a capy of a le~al notice in
connectlon ~ith the public h~aring.
The forec~ing MOTION CARRIED, to contlnue the publlc hearing~ etc.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC NEARING. ARDEN 'STRANO, ET AL, 586) Sunmist~ Yorba Linda, Ca.
iVO. 76-77~7.0 92686 (Owners); I.P.S.~ c/o Robert Sant~ 1095 North Main Street~
Ora~ge~ Ca, 92667 (Agent). Property descrlbed as an trregularly-
VARIANCE N0. 2$61 shaped parcal of land consiSting of approxlmately 1.5 acres located
at tha southwest corner of Frontera and Glassell Streets~ having
appraxtmate frontages of 320 feet on the south side of Frontera
Street and 177 feet on the wGSt side of Giassell Street. Property presentiy classlfted
RS~A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRlCULTURIIL) ZOME.
REQUESTEO CLASSIFICATION: RM-l200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
REQUCSTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUhI BUIIDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT~
(B) NINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (C) MlNIMUM DISTAPICE BETWEEN ~lALLS.
AND (D) PERMITTtD YAiib EMCROACHMENTS~ 70 CONSTRUCT A 46-UNIT
APARTMENT COMPLEX~
No one indlcated their presence ln opposltlon to the subject petttions.
Although the Staff Report to thC Planning Commiision dated Uctober 27~ 1976~ was not read
at the publtc hearing, satd Staff Repart ts referred to and made a psrt of the mtnutes.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ Octube~ 27~ 1976 ~6"52~
RE~LASSIFICATION NQ. 7G~7y-2Q AND VAaIANCE N0, 2861 (Cantin wd)
Mr. Robert Sant, the agenC for the petltlaner~ appeared befere the Planning Commission a~d
~tate~ they elso owned tfie property to the west of tho subJect praperty which was
developed with a simllar apartrnent compler, which hbd been a very successfu) proJect; that
the sub_~ect property owner had att~mptod to dGVelc~p the property over the paat ln a
comme cla~l ~ontaxt but had been unable to d~ sa; that the proposai was to compllment the
archltecture ot the apartments to the wast and In conrormity wltli the recammend~tlons nf
the Plannln,y Commisslon and Clty Cauncll; that the walvers w~~~ adr~uetely no4ed In the
Staff Report and were approximac~~ly the samc wafvers whfch were gra~. ~:cl for the proJect to
the west~ wlth thc oxception of the minEmum bullding gite area whlch +as boing raqunxted
on the basis of the dtm~nsions of th~+ subJect property which made It difficult to develop;
that proposed plans were what thzy considered a r.omfortable devclopment for the slte; and
that following complet(on of the proposed proJect~ it would blend wlth the apartments to
the west and Appear to he ane proJect,
THE PUdLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cammisstoner Farano inqulred if tne petitl~ner had pl~nned to add the subJe~ct pr~~perty to
the developme+nt to the west originally~ and Mr. Sant indtcated in the negative~ stating
that the prevlous proJect wa~ on a 3-acre slte and the subJect praperty had only 1.5
acres.
Cortmissloner Herbst made an observatfon that the proposa! was for 36 unlts per acre or the
maximum allowable and~ wlthout the varlances~ it would be Impossfble ta get the 36 vnits
per acre on the subJect prop~erty; and that, In his opinlon, the only hardshlp was that the
petitioner was proposing too n~ny units on the site and the property could be develop~d
without any vartance_.
In response, Mr. Sant stated tl,nt~ from a developer's standpotnt, they were trying to
devei~ to the hlghest use of the property; that in calculating thelr gtte, they had
in~~l Gently averlookeci one cf the drivsways and tliought the minimum bulld(ng slte area
was in conformity to tF~e zoning standards, howa~er, they would prefer to el(minate one af
2he unlts rather than request a continuance, thereby reducing the proJect to 45 units and
climinattna the n~ed for Waiver "A."
Commissloner Herbst noted that the requested waiver of the minimum distance between
butlding walls could be satisfted by a slight fede:slgn ~f the proJect. In response~ Mr.
Sant stated the walver in questlon was granted for ~he proJe~t to the west; that the area
between the buildings did not serve as a passageway but as the entryway from one apartment
to another~ each apartme~~t having a balcony or patio of 8 feet in front of th~ir doorway;
and that he felt this n~atter was a"quirk" in the ordinance Itself.
~omrnissloner Johnson (nquired lf there were windows in the walls in question~ and Mr. Sant
answered ln the positlve.
Comrni~sloner Farano indicated there was a notation in the City Council minutes rezoning
the property to CL regarding the stability of the soil since the site was apparently a
former dump site. In response~ Mlss Santalahtl advised i at when the property to the west
was praposed for development, a soils test was made and found ~a be agreeable. Mr. Fick
further advised that the petltloner had submitted a s~lls test on October 26, 197~- to the
Bulldi~g and Engineertn9 Dlvisions. Mr. Sant stated Che referenced rpport probably had
not bcen revlewed yet.
Conmiss(oner Farano then questtoned wl~ether the subject property was substantialty below
Glassell Street and the freeway off-ramp. Mr. Sant stated the property had been filled
and was prasently elther on-grade or above Glassel) Street, but was below-grade, tapering
upward for a distance of about 200 fe~t~ along the freeway. On the basis of Mr. Sant's
comments~ Mr. Farano questioned whether the praperty was suitable i'~r residential
developmnnt since there were similarly located developments in the City ~rhich were
undesirable. Commissioner Herbst added that the subject property vdas about the same grade
level as the property to the west~ was slightly below the grade alor~g Glassell~ and flat
with Frontera.
Commissionet' Tolar noted that he felt the ~ubJcct property was more appropriate for
resldenttal development than for commerclal and that~ in his opinlon~ there wgs a definlte
need for residentlal development in the sub,ject area, Commissioner Farano tnquired !f the
lt~tng envtronment was sultable for resldentla? development and Commissioner Tolar
Ind!cated that the Planning Cummisslon did not need to make that type determination.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October ?.7- ~976 76-522
RECl.AS51FICATION N0. 7 6-77-20 AND VARIANCE N0. 28G1_ (Contlnu+sd)
Deputy City Att~rney Fronk l,owry advised that {f the Planntng Commisslon should act
favorably on the subJect proposnl~ n candltion should be Imposed "thet the pRtitioner
shail submit a soils engineering report to the Bu(i~iin,y and ~nglneering Divislons for
approvsl prior to tha Issuance of building permits, sald report IndlcetEng thst the
proposed constructlon witl be safe ond satisfactory for resldanttal uses." Theraupon~ Mr.
Sent so s~ipulat~d.
Commissloner Johnsan noted that he dld not recall approving thn wriver of the minimum
dlstance b~tween buliding walls for the adJecent prc,Ject. Miss San~alahtl edvised that l~i
the proposed praJect tha sir.uatlon N85 a door and wlndaw ~AGIf1q A dc~or and window and with
wlndows only it wo~.ild be a dlffercnt situatlan. Mr. ~ant thcn stated that epproximately
one-fourth m(le to the east was a 108-unlt p~oJect which they recnived approvrl for with
the Identlcal design of the subJecL p ject and there were two othr.r proJects in tF~o area
whlch were also approved wlth the wa~ rs (n quegtlon.
Discu~sian pursued regarding walver c~` the minlmum distance between bulldtng walls and Mr.
Wtlllam S. Phelps~ 1495 North Mel~ 'Sxreet, Orange~ appeare~ bafore the Planning Commisston
as the e:ngfneer for the proJcct and statcd tlic q~+estfonable area consisted o~` a stair,
patlo and courtyard sxactly the same as the proJect next door to the west and ldentlcal to
t;~e prnJecis constructed by Mauer in Che area along Frontera Street; and that there was no
way ln which they could meet the Code reaulrement tn this respect~ as long as the patios
wcre used as entrances to the units. Commtssloner Ilerbst then notsd that he wanted to see
the plans for the other proJects being referred to.
rommlssioner Johnson noted that he felt the petitl~ner was ~ushing too hard for the
denstty~ and Commissioner Barnes noted that the subJect property was a n(te parce) wlth no
particular hardship.
In response to questloning by the Planning Commisslon~ Trafflc Englneer Paul Singer
advised that~ although Frontera Street was busy~ there was adequate capacity for the
trafffc generated by tho propos~d ,~roJect.
Mlss Santalahtl revtewed the referenced files an the adJacent proJect and noted that ~:i~
density was 35 untts per acre.
Commissiontr herbst ~nok exception to the proJect, not(n~ that by allowing the vartance ta
have bachelor apartments~ the developers were reaching the maximum allowable density and
taking advantage o1` all the gimmicks~ maktny the larger apartments as small as possible~
etc.
Mr. Sant then stlpulated to furChPr revlsing the plans to eliminate the need for the
waiver of the minimum dlstanc~ batwear- building walls. He further• clmrified that their
intent fn connectlon with Che eltmination of the requcsted walver of the minimum building
site area per dwelling unit was to eliminate two of the bachelor untts~ replacing them
with only one ~,:wo-bedroom unit.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded b~ Commissloner King ~nd MOTION CARRIEO~
that the M ahelm Clty Planning Commfssion does hereay recommend to the Gity Counci) of the
Clty of Anahetm th~t a negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an
envlronmental irtpact report be approved for the subJect proJect~ pursuant to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quoi(ty Act.
Commissloner Herbst off~red Resolutian No. PC76-208 and mc~ved for its passsge and
adoption~ that the Anaheim C'ty Plan~ing Commission does hcreby r~ecomn~end to the City
Council of the City af Ananei~n that Petitior for RCClassificatlon Na. 76-77-20 be approvad
s~!~tect to the petttioner's stipulatton to submitting a solls eng(neertng report to the
Build~ng and Engineering Divisions for approval prlor to the issuance of a b:~ilding
permit~ satd rs~ort indicating the proposed cAnstruction will be safe and sattsfactory for
the residential usms~ since the sub]ect property was a portion of a co~trolled landfill
slte; and subJect to the In:~rdeoartmental Commfttee recommendations. (See Resolutfan
Bonkj
On roll call, the foregoing resolutton was rAssed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMiSS10NER5: BRaNES, FARANO~ HERBS7 KING~ '!~RLEY~ TOLAk, JOHNSON
NOES: COMf~IS510NER5: 40NE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
~
~
....
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANtJING COMMISSION, October 27~ 197b
RECLASSIFICATION N0, 76-77-20 AND VARIANCE N0. 2861 (Cantinued)
76-523
Comm{ssioner Herbst oftered Resolutlon No. PC76-209 and moved for its passage a~nd
adoption~ that the Anahcim City Plr.nning Commisslun does hereby grant Petltlon f~r
Varl~nce !lo. 7.86~~ In Qart~ sincc ths requestecl walver of thn minimum bulldtng sitn area
per dwe111ng unlt was withdrawn ty tl~n pctttloner with the stipulatlon to r~duce the
numbar of units proposed from 46 to A5 by eliminating tw~ ~efficlency-type units end
raplating sald units wfeh one tw~-be.draom unit, and te submitting revisc,d plans showtng
conform~nce with sald Cc;de requirement; granttng the roquested waiver of the minlmum flc~or
nren on the basis that the Pl~nning Commisston has granted similar walvers prevlousl~/ for
tiie d~evelopment of efficlency-type unit~ when sald unlts did nat oxceed approxlmate'y 2~~,
of the tota) number of units and when the Floor arca was not less than approxtmatel~~ 450
;~u~re feet; Chat the requested walver of tha minlmum distance becween bulldtng walle was
withdrawn by the pet(ttoner witl~ thr stipulatlon to submltt~ng revlsed plans showing
compitance w(th said Cod~ requlremont; yranttng the requested waiver of permttted yard
encroachrr~nts on tho basis that the proposed fence faces the freeway and will provide mnre
sec;usi~,n for tl~e pro.~ect than a 30-inch hic~h fence; subJect ko the stipulbtton ~f tha
petltl~~ncr to submltting a solls er-gineering rcport to the Building and Englnatring
p(vlsions fnr appr~va) prior to the issuance of a bull~irrg permlt; and subJcct to thc
Interdepartmental Cortmittee rccommendations, (See Rr.solutlon Book)
On rall c~ll, the fore9oing resolutlnn was p~ssed by the follow(ng vote:
AYES: COMMISSI~NERS; BARNES, F11RAN0~ H[RBST, KING~ MORLFY, TOLAR, JQNNSON
NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: N~NE
ABSFNT: COMMISSIONER~: NONE
RECLASSIFICATION - PUB~IC NEARING. HELEN NETTLES, 910 Ardcn Place, Anahetm~ Ca. 92802
N0. 76-77-21 (Qwner); ROGCR E. SMELSER~ z~33 wegc Chateau~ Anahelm~ Ca. 92804
d 1 f
VARIANCE
LhG eas t
Property
(Agent). Property described as a rectangularly-shape parce o
N0, 2865 land cor-sistirig of approxtm~tely 0.3 acre located at the northeast
corner of Chateau Avenue and Agate Street~ having approximate front-
ages of 217 feet on the north side of Chateau Avenue and 6S feet on
side of Agate Street, and furthor described as 816 South Agate Street.
presently cla3sified RS-A-43,000 (~ESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-F,qMILYj zONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM LOT AREA~ (B) MINIMUI4 I.OT WIDTH~ AND
(C} MINIMUM REAR YARD SE7BACK~ TO ESTABLISH TWO RS-7200 LOTS.
Four persons indicated Cheir presence in opposition to the s~bJect petttions, and
forthwith watved the full reading of the Staff Repart to the Planntng Cc~mmission dated
OctobPr 27, 1976, Although said Staff Report was not read at the public hearing, it is
re:ferred to and made ~ part of the minuCes,
Mr, Roger SrnEiser~ the agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Plbnning Commisslon
and stated he also represe:nted the prospecttve buyer of the subJect property; that they
were anticipating a lot split slnce th~ ~sroperty h~d a frontage of 200 feet on Chateau
Avenue; that the land would be divtded into equal portions, with one portion having an
existinq residence on it and with a proposal to construct a re~idence on the other
port(an; and that the subJect variance was necessary since the property w~~ a corner
pa rce 1 .
Mrs. Rita Ray. 1927 Chateau Avenue, Anai~eim~ appe.ared before the Planning Gortmission in
opposttlon and stated tfiat the str~et was cul-de-saced and all c' the existing houses on
t!~e street had approximateiy 1900 square feeC of living area anc. were on 7200-square foot
lots; that the subJect property had been a problem for 'the past 11 years wtth weeds and~
at first~ theythought a house on the vacant portton would be an lmprove~nent although the
proposed house was qult~ small; that she had revfewed the plans and questioned the
setbacks; that she ob_jec :d to the locatio~ of the proposed patio area adjacent to her
front yard; that the parking on Chateau Avenue had becomc quite bad; thaC the original
owner of the proaerty was denfed the prlvilege of having twn houses on the subJect lot;
that the nelghbors were cancerned that the lot5 would not be famlly size and would become
rent~ls with ftvo adults, ftve cars~ etc.; and that thc garage to the north was on the
proQerty line. Thereupon~ Mrs. Ra~y presented a petition signed by ~pproximately 15 area
residents and property owners in opposit}on to the subJect petitions.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PlANNING f.fiMNISSION~ Octaber 27~ 197~ 76'SZ4
RECLASSIFICATION N0,___]6-77-21 AND VARlANCE N0, 2865 (Continued)
Mr. Kelth N~affman~ 1924 Chateru Avenue~ Anaheim~ appeared befora tha P1Anning Commisslo~
and added to thc: oppositlan that a hardship had n~t bpen st~awn 4or the proposed
development of the property; And that the sub]ect prape~ty had been one lat for 15 yea,~c.
In rebuttal~ Mr. Smelxer stated the proposed residence would ellminate the weeds on the
property; that thn present owner of the property was 81 yaers uf aghr~dsh~ncapable oP
malnteining the ~iroparty. which co his way aP thinking comprtsed a p; t+nd th+st the
strAet wl~ith~ curb-to-curb~ was uniform aithough the right-of-wa~y was nol.
Office Englneer Jay Tltus interJected that the street tmprovements were exlsting In the
area and thal addttlonal d~dicat(on would be of na value.
Mr. Smclser furthPr stated that the existing garage was unalghtly and they could improve
u~on that sltuation.
TNE PUBLIC NEARIMG WAS ~LOSED.
Chairman Johnson made an ob:.°rvation that the structures on the proparty were not tn g~od
repAl r.
In response to questl~ning by Commissioner King~ Mrs. Ray stated tfiat the east wall was
approximataly 20 feet from her property line and the 2Q-font setback would be the on{y
yard area f~r the new residencs wh6ch might also have a patlo roof~ ntc.; that according
to the dedicatton being made~ hcr own house would ba set back furthcr from the street~ in
a well~ so to speak~ and the propus~l theref~re would have ~n effect a~ the value of her
prope rty.
Commissloner Ki~~ ~ated that the distance f~om tiie street~ rather Yhar the cl~seness to
Mrs. Ray's hame, bothere~i him. Ulscussion pursued rega~ding the setbacks and declication~
whereupon~ Assistant Planning Director-!_oning Annika Santalahti advlsed that the setback
from Mrs. Ray's home was 25 fcet fr~ ~ the rlght-of-way ltne~ however~ the subJect {sroparty
had no rpqulrement to dedicate to full street width and if the Planning Conmission so
desired they mlght consider that the setback for the proposal adJaGant *_o Chateau Street
be 55 feet ~`rom the cr.nterline s~~ that the house would line up wiCh Mrs. Ray's house.
r~r~. Patricia Whtte~ 1918 Chateaii Avenue, M aheim, appeared bpfor~ th~ Planning Commisston
and state~ she llved dlagonally across from the subject property; that she had not seen
the petitlon whfch was clrcul~t-d in oppositlon; that the subJect property was presently
unsightly with a fallen-dawn garage and a horr(d wooden fence; and that the plan for the
house was att~actlve and more so than the other homes on the street wtth the wood shake
rooF~ etc.~ an~ would be a nice addition to the netghborhood.
Commissioner Talar noted tnat it was important to polnt our. that onc af the reaso~s
setbacks between 10 and 25 feet were not allorwed was to ellminate row housing; that
ganerally it was far more attractive tn relatlons'iip to value to have houscs staggered
with their setbacks; and that he was familiar with the subJect area and felt the nice-
looking home proposed would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Bernes tnauired whether the propased plans could be reversed slnce Mrs. Ray
was obJecting to the house being so close to the property line, and such a change would
place the garage approximately 7_5 feet from the front property line and the patio on thc
other side of the house~ making a nice transition,
In response to questioning by Mrs. Ray, Mr. Smelser stipulated to removing the existing
garage prior to developmcnt of the propErty and~ furthermore~ to reverstng tha propASed
building plans on the site~ to relocating the proposed residence approximately 3 feet to
the north~ thereby increasing the front structural setbaclc to 21 feet~ and to submitting
revised plans to t~e Planning Department for approval.
Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Comrt~tssioner Mo~ley and MOTION CARRIED~
that the Anahetm City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Counctl of the
City of M aheim that a negative declaration from the requlrement to prepare an
environmental impact raport be approvede pursuant to the provlslons af the California
Envir~nmental Quality Act.
Cortimissioner Tolar offered Rasolution No. PC76-210 and moved for tts pss~age and adoptlun,
t~at the Anaheim City Planning Comr~isslors dAes hernby recommend to the City Council of the
a
~
~
MINU7ES~ CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ Octob~r 27~ 1976
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76•,71;2) ~tND VARIANCE N0. 2B6,ri (Continuod)
7E-5z5
Ctty oF Anaheim thot Petltlon for Reclasslflcation No. 76-77'21 ba appreved~ subJect to
the I~terde~artmantal Comn~lttce recommendatlons. (Sea Rmsol~tton Hook)
On roll call~ the forcgolny rasolut(on was passed by the fallowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FARANO~ IIERBST, KING~ MORLEY~ T~LAR~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONCRS: NONE
ABS[NT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Commiasionnr Tolar offered Rcaolutlon No. PC%6-?.11 and moved for Its passage dnd adoptlon~
that the Anahelm Clty Planniny Commissl~n does hereby grant Petlttan ~or Var(ance No.
2855. subJact to the stipulations of the pztittoner and subJect to th~ interdepartmental
Committcc recommeridatlons. (See ftesolution Book)
On rull call, the foregotng resolution was passed by the follawinc~ votet
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FA(tANO~ NERB~T~ KING, MORLEY~ TO!.AR
NQES: COMMISSIONFRS: JOHNSUM
ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: NON[
V~.RIANCE NQ. 2852 - PUB~IC HEARING. INFLUENTIAL NOh1ES COMF'ANY, 16g1 Ketkering Street~
Irvine, Ca. 9z714 (Uwner); JENNINGS~HALDERM/+NN-HOOD~ 540 North
Golden Ctrcle Drive N111~ Santa A~a~ Ca. 97705 ~~9R~`)- roquesttng
WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM CO'VERAGE AND (e) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETIdEEN DRILL S17E AND DWELLINGS~
TO CON5TRUCT FOUR SINGIE-FAMILY pWELLINGS on property described as four parcels of land
conslsttng of apFroxtmatoly 0.5 acro havtng approx'.maCe frontages of 112 feet on the west
side of Azure Street and 83 Peet on the ca~z sidc of Htghtree Circle, and fu~ther
described as 45~-o and 4544 Nightree Circle and 1755 and 1763 Azure Street. Property
presently classified RS^5000 (RESID£NTIAL~ SINGL~-FA~iILY) ZONE.
One person lndtcated his presence In eppositian to the subJect petition and forthwitli
waived the full reading of the Staff Report 2o the Planning Commissfon dated October 27,
;976. Although sald Staff Report was not reAd ae Che public hearing~ it is referred to
and made a part of the minut~s.
Mr. Hugh Haldermann~ representing
Plannin~ Co~mnlssion and stated the
recorded some years ago~ at which
remaved~ however~ bu~ the well had
tn~ United 5tates that there
that they wauld stipulate to
rCSide.nces; that the proposal
which they were un~blc tu se
registered orofessianal pet~
of the adJacent well as (t ~
quc~t~ons pertalning thereto.
the agent far ttie peti~tio~er~ appe~red before the
suh]ect four lats were pert of a subdivtsion which was
tlme it was thought that the adJacent otl weil would be
continued i~ operation due ta the shortage AP fuel i~
c~re building permits for; and th~t they had rtta(ned a
oleum engineer to evaluate and report on the sspects of safety
elated to the proposed residences~ and to respond to any
was no foresteable time when the well would bc abandoncd;
a distance of 150 feet from tl~e existing well to t:~e p~oposed
was based on the premises of a hardshtp o~ havi~g fou~ lots
Nr. W. D. Inslceep, 3508 Atla~tic Avenua, Long B~ach~ a reglstered professional petroleum
enaineer~ appeared before the Plann~~ ~ Commission and discussed in detall the existing
well on the adJace~t prop~rty to th. ~orth~ stating that he had cansulted the records of
th~e State of Califo rnia pertalning to the well and~ if physically insp~cted onte evrry
eight haurs~ there would be little or no hazard to 1(fe or proper~,y; that the praductlo~
of the well was approximately 20 barrels of otl~ 2 gallons of water~ and no g~a per day;
that thare a~ere no ta~ks at or near• the oll well since they were remota appraximately onn~
fourth mtt~ from the site; that there was ~o separator or other simllar equlpme~+t at the
well; that the well wc+s operated by an electric motor sufficlantlY large so that the
acceieratton and deceleration were unnotl~eable; and that the unlt was well cared for and
mnnitored.
Mr. J. R. Ha~~ell, 4510 East Htghtree Clrcle~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning
Commisslon and stated he was not in oppc>sitlon to the proposed houses but was concarned
ab4ut the 23 ~h~ldren In the area who used an cxtsting gate abutting the subjact propr.rty
to yet to school. since tf the gete were ctosed the children would have to w~lk
approximately one and one-half mities around tha tract ane! he would llke to see the gata
movnd to st111 gtve thie children a closa route to sche~l; that h~ undnrst,ood that there
U
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Oct~ber 27~ 197b 76-526
VARIANCE N0. 2852 (Contln.,ed)
wnuld be I1 addltlonal wells drlllnd on the adJacnnt property to tho north and withln
ebour. ~~~Q yards of the propor~d homes~ and o report khore~n from Texaco to that effect
would ue nl~e; and that r.htl gete for tha c.hildren was promised to tl~e people in the tr~cl;
and sald g++te w+~~ r~uc~hly 5 feat from tho well.
THE P~BLIC HEARING WAS CLOSFD.
Cummisaloner Hcr~st, noted th,~ the origin~l property awner ar bui l~1er of the subdivtsion
also owned the well.
M~~. Ha1dA~•mann stated F~c was the engineer far tha praposcd tract and il-e condtticns o}
approval ofi satd rract requlrec! dedicatfo~ and screet improvements but ~o fnnctng of any
kind ~at the north cnd oP Azurc Street to barrlcadc tt~e strret; and that they had
~~mpletely fenced tlie 1`our vacant lots to prever-t peoplo from dumping trash on tlie
propcrty~ etc.
Conxnisslnner Nerbst dlscussed t~~e cll well repalr procedurei whlch were uscd when the
weljs were dcw+n, noting thot ~t timas tt cre:ated a lot oP problems dnd had to be worked on
arou~~d che cl~~e:lc.
pl~cusslon pursued reqarding the requegted ~~alver of the rt~inimum dlstance betwr.e~ drlll
sltes r~nd dwelitngs~ during which Mlss Santalal~tl patnted out tliat r.he rsference to a 150-
feot setba~k tr~ the StaPf Rapart prepAred in 197?. for the reclassification of the sub)ect
property was Incorre~t and sfioul~ have Indicated a 175-foot minimum dist~+nce. Mr. Harvell
stated that about eve ry four months the oil well was pulled and if It should bc pulltd
aftzr the homns were butlt~ thsy mlght be sprayed w(th oil. Planning Dlrector Ronald
Thompson advisPd that the minimum distAnce requ~rR. nt Rertaining ta oll wells was
recortmended by Western Otl ,~nd Gas Company~ on th~ Gasts that there could be accidnnts.
Commtssioner Herbst inqutred wh~t would be encroachtng~ if the subJect proposa) were
approvcd~ the oil we~l pr the dwcllings. Deputy Ctty Attorney Frank Luwry adviseu that~
lf approved, some liabillty to both the City and the oil company woula be inc~~rred in
connnction with inJurfes, damages or attractlve nuisanco; a~d tha4 the wells ~ometime w~re
wrsrked on 24 hours a day with ~ow.~ful beacor. lights. Chairman Johnson notcd that, on
that ba~is~ the ful~ 175~foot disCance should bc ~equired. CommissionP~ Nerbst added that
the oil well was {n exlstence when the ~r1g(na1 tract was constructPO. Mr. Harvell
indicat•ed t~iat a pipeline had already been lai~ to handle 7 to 11 addi lonal wells o~ tha
property to the narth.
In rebuttal~ Mr. H~ldermann stlpulated to withdraw c;:^. requested waiver of the m~ximum
coverage on the proposed lots slnce they cou!d raduce the size of one of ths homes by 4
inches and~ thereby, be In ~`ull compllance with that Code rey~iremen~~.
Mr. Inskeep offered 'Further informaeion that the -ubJect Ri,.~~field oil fleld wt~s
discovered in 1918 and was exempt from t!~e State ,pacing Act which wa~s enacted In 1927
and~ therefore~ could hav~~ ~s many pump~ on it as desired~ regardless of sp~ctng; that the
exis:ing well was relat(vely shallow, arig~nally being approximntely 4360 f~et ~^~ep and
prgsently plugged bac!< to ap~roxlmaCely '~325 fZet; that the otl w~~ ~iot pumoed rapi~ly
enough to causP problems; and t~~at it was entir•ely pa:,sible th~r additional wclls would be
dril4ad and in a g~• up from A ta 25 feet apar~~ and the de.pch might be megsured
hori~.unta~ly fran ti.: ~ump location.
Commissioner Tolar inqulred ~:hat the percantage of rlsk was that resulted in ths
recommendation for a 175^foot distance from dwe'lings, etc. Mr. !nskeep replied that
thtre w~as snrll risk slnce the oil entered the pump at tfie bottom ot the well and a closad
system taking it to the tanks which were located approxlmAr.elv one-fo~rth mile away~ and
the oil was confined under pressure until it reached tl~e tanF::,; that there was one n~int
In the enllre system where thr. l.~ck of ineintenance and care an~ no visits wlthin 24 hour~.
might create a problem~ beiny leakage from tf~e rod which wds activat~d by tt~e pump(ng
u~it~ sald laakage consisting oP appr~ximately one-half barrel per hour if Lhe packing
nround the rod was not tightly adJusYrd perlodtcaliy; however~ tlee well was vi:ited ance
zvery eight hnurs ~na chs N~sa~b!!!Ly ^f ir aettina awaY from them in the way of a
"blowaut" d1d not exlst.
in response to questiontng by Commissloner Herbst~ Mr. InskceQ steted the 150'font
distanc~ requtrement pertalned to the drlll~ng of a new site and did not have to do with
exl~ting s(tes~ since thc only danger was during the drilling process; ana ihat the
distance requirement was arbitrary sl~ce numorous apartment bui?dtngg ln Hunttngt.~n BeaGh
we;• wtthin 50 feet of oll .+ells and hc had examined thosc peraonally.
Commlssioner barnes noted that a fiousing p~aJect had been constructed in Newport 9ea;:h In
the S100,000 pri~e range and the houses IrNne~flat~ly ~^xt to the existing ol1 wallsr
~opproximately $5~000 less in price than tl~e others' sold f~ rst.
e •
MINUTES~ CI TY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 27• 1916 76-527
VARIANCE N 0 _ 2852 (Continu~d)
In response to questloning by Commissloner King~ the pe+titloner's r~pr~sent~tlve "•ated
that~ to re mova the pump from the bottom of the well~ a moblla truck-tr+tl~r w~t lled In
and a portable mest w~s erectad; that it wt+s possiblC tu use wiro I lnes with pu) ~_~s to
puil the r-b tor end the tubing~ and during e htgh wind af a~p~oxlm+~tely 50 mile~ per hour
fluid runnt ~g do~n the rod would be strippe~i by the wlnd~ creating an o{I ~pray effect I~
the are~; howaver~ ge+nerally a device in a forn, of a spiral wa~s utlllxed around thn
tubing~ con Fining the oll ond ellminating the possibility of spray; that It was not common
prar.tfce to pull wells far more thari cight to ten hours e day~ And detlnitely nok for 24
hours ~ how~ver ~ I t was necaRSary r,o work 24 hours i n the drt l l ing proceas; that there
would be no need for ntght work on the exlsting well slnco It was e shellaw well; and that
they would begin any work ln t~~e morning.
Commission ~ r Fareno questlanec~ the effecilveness nf the Code In Instances llicn t.he
prop~sal ~ s Ince+ the properCy was purchased and clcveloped wi th ful l k,iawladge of the
~1 ~cumst~nees; tl~.~t ~ al though the petf tloner h~d sRUmed the ol l we) l wouid b~
dlscontin~~d after a period of time. he felt tl~at the s;iir~e set of clrcumstances exlsted as
when the oirlginal tract was approvr,a and construc:tPd, and when thc ardinance was
introduced ; and th~t the anly hardshtp seemed to be that the pc:tttioners hao purchasad
property ~vhich was within 175 feet of an oi 1 wel l.
Commisslon ~r King made an observatian that there wa^ a difference between driliing and
pumping at the required distance uf ~75 feet~ and Commisslone~ Farano Indica~tad that the
Cc~de did not differentlatc.
Commissioc~cr Nerbst noted that he understood additional oil wells might ~e drlYled on the
adJacent p roFerty ond that he would Itke some assurance from Texaco ln that respect; and
thaC the C oda was for the purpose of protecting the resldential development and the oil
we'.1 owners, as well.
Commission er Faran~ questioned wl~ether the Texaco repre~entettves could present their
intentl~n s to the Plannin, Commiss(on regarding any addit~onal wells~ etc.; wheraupon, Mr.
Halderman n stated he doubted th~,t Texaco would make any commitments whetsoevar.
Commis~i~n er Farano then noted that he c.ould not conslder apprcvtrg the proposal unless
the adlac~nt weil would b~~ ir ~xistence for only a short perind of t{me, sirice there was
no more a f a hardship presently *.~~an there was four years ago when the tract was
construct~d, and the type of hardship involved could not be considered.
Cammtssto n er Farano offered a mation, seconded by Commtssioner Nar,ey and MO7-ON CARRIEU
(Commiss+~ner Barnes voting "no")~ that the An~heim City Plann6ng Comm~ssion does hereby
rPCOnm~nd to the Ci ty Cuun.:l { of the City of Maheim that a negae(ve declaration frc~m the
requl rement to prepare an envi ronmentaD impact report be approUed for th~e subJect proJect,
pursuant to the provisions nf the Californ(e Envtronrnental Qualtty Act.
Commissioner Farano offereJ a resolution that the Anahelm Cfty P1an~~Iny Cortimisston deny
Petitlon for VarCance No, 2852 a- the basis that no fiardshlp had besn demanstrated by the
petitloner; that the ~xi~ting circums'~•nces .rere not materlally dtfferent from those whlch
existPd a ~ the t(me the original trac. map was approved; that the petltio-~ers were present
when the tract map was considered and~ subsequentl•/~ purchased the property with full
knawl~dg~ that the uil dell existed; and that t~~e Code did not distl~guish betwenn an
aperating well and drill site and, *.tierefore, ~here tias no basls uRon rrhich to relteve the
obligat!on af the petttionr.rs io observe the min'mum dis~ ~ncc reGuir-ernent.
0~ roll eall, th~ foregoi~~g resolution failed to pass by the fo11r,~+Ing vote:
AYES: COMM{SSIANERS; FARANO, HE~BtiT, KING
NOES: COMMiSSIONE~tS: BARNES, N,ORLEY~ 30LAR~ JOHNSON
ABSENT: COMIiiS510N,.(t5: NONE
Commissi one~ Morley suggested that th~ petition~rs wark with the restdeets dnd proprrCy
uwncr• i~ the area regarding the requested gate for ,~se by the achool ~hildren~ If such an
endeav~~r wAt wi th in the I r power. Mr. -.owry ad~ii sed that the property to t~~e north wa~ i n
the City of ~lacentta and the City of M aheim would have very Iimit~ed pcr.c~: to enforce
,•.ondt"_lor~s involv~ng th~ proparty ~., the north,
Cort~m(ssToner Herbst noYe~' that !f th° pr~posal w~re ~pp*oved, It shn~ild be wlth the
condition that the petitlorters Issue a hold-harmi s~grcement for zny damages or InJuries
to perso~s or pr~perty be^.ause uf tne encraachment in~o tr~e 175~fxt setback requi reraent.
~ ~ •
MINUTES~ CITY PLANMIIiG COMMISSION~ October 27~ 1976 76-528
VARIANCE N0. 2$52 (Contlnued)
Thereupon . Mr. N.~ldermnnn eo etipuleted. Commissloner Nerbst 1`urCher noted that ne wds a
memt~er of the Ts~k Forca that considared the ordinance In yuestion and he recalled thyt
the of) people themsolwb nudo the 175~f~t re:commcndatlon wh~fch wrs ~vr both :he d~-~lling
and alt~s ; a~d thet he would Ilke to have another axperC's opintun on thc mat~ar.
Dl~cusslo+n pursued raga~ding the proporty to che north~ during which Mr. Lowry advised
that, I~ acco~dancs wlkh the legl~lntlon affecting said properry~ an oil well e~uld
probeply be drlllad ~rlthln 5 feet oP ths propcrty ltn~~ etc. Commissloner Ba~~es noted
that, In vlaw of th~ peeelbllicy that addttlonal oil wells would be dritled o~ the
property to the r,orth~ tho purch~sers of' the pr~opo~ed homes should be glven full wrlttan
disclusure wi;h regard thereto.
Commiss!on~er Tolar offered Re~olution No. PG)6-?.12 and moved for Its passrge end adoptioro~
thot tho Anahelm Cl:y Pl~nning Commtssl~n dons hereby grant Petttion for Variance No.
2852~ In pbrt. tli~~ request~d walver of maxlmum cc~verage havtng bee,n Withdrawn by the
petltloncrwith t'he gtlpulatfon to comply with sa(d Code rcqulrement; granting thn
requested walver of minimum dlst~nce betweon dri l l stte ~n~f ciwel l ings on thc br~sts that
Che Planning Comnission detarmined thaC the extsttng ofl ~ 1 will not cause an unduc:
disturbarsca or po~e an undua hezard to the propnsed rasi .es, sald determinatl~n being
l,ased ~n testimony prasentod et khs public hedring by a registcred profe~sional ~~etroleum
engtn~er~ that~ furthermore, the petittoner stipulated to antsring inta a hold-iariile~s
agreement wlLh the City of Anehelm for damages whfch ~+ay be incurred to persons a•
property by a~y exl~ting and future oll wells to be dr(lled or malnt~lned on the adJACPnt
property to the north~ a copy of said egreement ta be submitted to the Clty Rtto~nay's
Off`Ice for approvel prlor to the tssuance a~f a buildtng permlt; and subJect to the
ca~dttlo~ that the property owners ar d~velopers shall provtde to the prospcctive
purchasers of the piopose~. homes written dlsclo:~~re rec~arding any existing ~nd future oll
wel ls to be dri Iled or malntalned on ti c a~,jacent property to the narth~ a copy of satd
dtsclosure staten~en[ to be :ubmitted to the Ctty Attorney's OfFtce for approval prior to
tho Issuance of a bul Iding perml t; and subJact to the Interdepa~tmental Commi tiee
reeo~nn~+ndattuns, (See ResAlutlon Book)
On roil c~ll, the foregoing rnsolutfc~n was passed by the ~olla+~ing vote:
AY~S : C011M1 SS I UN ERS : P~A{:NES ~ KI NG, MORLEY ~ TOIAR, JOH~' SON
NOES: GQMMISSIONERS: FARANO~ HERBS7
ABSENT: COMMISStONERS: NONE
f1E iJEST TO StUDY hiUN ( C I PAI. CODE S FC1 I ON 18. 83.060.Ok0 - MI N I MUM D I STANCE BETW EEN DR( Ll
~ E L NCS.
Commissi~ner Farano nnted that although the f'lanning Cammiss(on had the right and abllity
to 1 n tt rprct the l.on i ng Code ~ he fe 1 t that the Cade was be i ng nad'f f( ed 1 n th~ fo~egoi ng
conside ratlon s~nce It was Interp~eted that the Code app!ted only to drill aites and not
existing otl weils; and that he would ~-equest thae the ~pplicab3e Code ~ectto~ be
scheduled for dlscusslon af a work S~ssion ta consider settic~q 'farth the di fferec~tiating
factors , etc.
The Plarrning Cammtsslon generally concurred ta study satd Code Section~ and Plenn(ng
Directo~^ Ronaid Thompson advised that Che oil company representatives would be invited to
the work eess i~~n when held.
VARI,INCE 40. 2357 - PUBLIC FiEARiNG. 411LLIAM Ee AND KAY B. TF10MP50T1~ P. 0. Box 1192,
Ounard~ Ca. 93032 ~0~-~ers); R~BERT F. RYAN, P. Oe ~ox 832~ Oxnard,
Ce, 9303~ (Ag~~t); requesttng WAIVEP. OF (A) PERMITTED USES AND (B)
REQUtREO SITE SCREENII~G~ TO ESTA6LOSH A RETAIL MARKET AT AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION on
property descrtbad as e rectanguia~ly-shaped parcel o~~ land consisttng of approxlm~tsly
0.3 ac~a~ located st 4he soutf~east corr.er of La Palma Avenue and Anah~~m Boul evard,
having appraxlmate frontages of ql feet on t'~e south •side of La Palma ~,~enu~ and 136
feet on tho east side oP Anahefm Boulevard~ and further described as 95fl North /lnahaim
soulev+~d, Propar~y presently classifled CG (COMMERCIAL, GEN~RAL) ZONE.
k~ o~e indlc~ted thelr preser,ce in oppositi~n.
•
~
MI NUTES ~ C ITY PU1NN1 NG COMM, SS ION~ bctober 2, , 1976
V4RIANCE N0. 285~ (Contlnued)
~
~
~6-5z9
Although the ~ta4'f Report to the: Pl~nning Conmis~ion dated Octoher 27~ 1976. was not read
at the public hearing~ sald Strff Report Ia refer~ed to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Rlchard L. Cooling~ the drehito~t~ Appeared be~fare the Plannlny Commfsslan a~d stated
that the proposed hou~•s of ope~atton would be from bt(30 a.m, to 10:00 p.m. ~ at tlir
lonye~t; that th:1 -~er•e not agreeable to closing the two driveways, as rocomnsnded by thn
Trafflc Engln:,er; and that the.y ware Agreeable to the recortmended condttiona of dnprovrul
Mos . 1, 1. ancl 4.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CIOSEb.
Comm!saloner Morley nuted tl~at his lanystanding optnlon ~~~as that servlce statlona and
marl:ets 9hould not be combined; that the Plgnning Com~~~i~slan had rdcelved many requosts o~
this type for approval but had denied ~.,em ail; and t~ ~t he dtd not w~nt to devlate .`rom
tho record prov'ouely set for sucli propos~ls.
Commles~oncr Horbst noted t'.at stmilar requesl•s from 7-~leven Market~, Texa~~~ and Shell.
etc., had •11 mede similar ~roposals ~nd wara danled and~ because the subJect sitR was
avned Independently~ the situetlon had r~ot chang~ d; that se~vice statlons had e~Joyed
spectal prlvllegns over the ycar~ and should not be aliowed additlona~ rlghts= and that if
food sales were pnrmitted in conJunctio~ wlth service stations~ conveniance markats ml9ht
ba entltled tu have gasollne sales; a~nc: that no hardship or untq~+e cirtumst~ncas axlsted
for tlie subJect property, and the use would s~ns t t+.ute dual use Ar overdevalopment of the
sltA~ sctting eci undaslrable precedent.
It w~s not~~i that the ~irectnr of the Planning Departmen: had detcrmined thet the propoSed
activity fell ~~ithln the deflnition of Sectlon 3-d1, CZass 1~ of the Clty uf Anahoim
Gul dcl Inas to the Requl ~ements for ~n Envl ronmer, [al Impact Report and was, th~ratore ~
categoricelly exert~pt from the requf~~ment to preNar an EIR.
Cornmis~lrner Mbrley offered R~solutlon No. PC76- 213 and moved far Its pas~aqe end
adoptio~, th~t tl~~ Anahelm Clty Planning C~mmiss ion does hereby ~~~~y Patltion for Yarlance
Np. 2$57 on the hbsis of the f~regotng findinys. (Sec Resola~tlon Book)
On ra!1 call, 'the fnregoing resalution was passed by the following vote:
AYES; COMMI~SIONER.S: BARNES, FARANO~ HERBST, KING~ MORLEY~ TOLP.R~ JOHNSON
NOES: CQMMISSIONF.RS: NQNE
ABSEMY: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
CNAIR~~aN JQHNSON AND COFIMIS510NER HERBST LEFT YI-tE COUNCIL CHAMBER . 6:40 P.M., AND
CHAIRY~AN PRO TEMPORE 7dLAR A~SUMED THE CHAIR.
V~RIA~lt.F. N0. 28~~ - PUBLIC HEARING. A~ AND JQSEPHINE PAINO~ 711 South Bsach Boulevard~
~ ~'~'~"~ Anaheim, Ca. 92804 (Gwners) ; NARRY SAFADY~ 727 South 9each Boulevard,
Anah~im~ Ca. 92804; reques ting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS~
(B) MINIFtUM ~ISTANCE BETWEEP! SIGNS, AND (C) MAXiMUM HEI~HT OF (LLUMINATEO ROQF SIGN5 on
pr~pe~ty deycribed .s a rectan9ularly-shaped pa ~cel of land cans3sting of spprorymately
1.3 acr~~; haviny a frontage of ~pproxlmately 140 ~eet on the +:agt side of Beach Boulevard,
hav~r~g a.naximum depth of approximately 402 feet~ being 'iocated approximateiy 1190 feet
s:~~~th af the centerl ine of Q~ange Avanue, and further descrlb~d as 727 South 8each
8aulevard. Property presently clas~ified CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
No one indicated their presence in opposition to the subJect petltiort.
Althouc±!i the Staff Raport t~~ the Planning Commi ssion dated October 27, 197b~ was not read
at tne publlc heartng~ sald StaYf aeport is referred to and maae a part oP the mi~utes.
Mr. Harry Sa~ady~ the ager~t i~~r the petitioner, appeared before th:.~ Pl~nning Commission
a~r; stated that the free-star~r;ing sign in front of the building -+as unable t~ be seen by
a~ssing traffic except fo~ a seco~d; and thst he was in the amuserr~nt buslnesa and needed
the addltton~~l sign so that the public would r~G.agn!ze his establishmen~c.
~ ~
MINUT[S~ C11Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ Octobnr 2~. 197G 76-530
VAHIANCE N0, 2859 (Conttnued)
THF. ~'Ut~LIC HCARIM~ WAS CLQSED.
Commi~sloner King made an obsorvr~tic~n that the frc.e-stmnding si,yn waa v~~~y attractive but
the roof-mountecl sign was very ohnoxl~us~ with ~~hat eppeered to be torr~orary props. In
response~ Mr. Safady skated the fr~~e.-stnnding s'gn was ve ry esxpcsnsive but did not have thes
necessary visibility; and that his buginess h+~d Increased approxlmataly 20$ sincn the
roof-mounted sign was edded.
In ~esponse to ques~tloning by Cc+mmissioner Morley, Mr. Safady stated he wAS willin~ to
remnv~ the free-stendfng slgn but not the rooF-mounteo sign.
(n respons~ t~ questloning by Chalrman P~o Tempore Tolar~ Mr. Safady stdted the subJect
property was located close to approximately etyht mutels and Lhat they recelved a
considerable ~,iount of busin~ess from them~ espectallv In the summe:rt(me; and th~t a~'1
radlo shap, directly across the stree*. from his property~ hacl thre~ si~ns which had been
in extstence for a lang pertod of time.
i.ommissloner Morley suggested approvai af the proposed sign variance for a parlod af o~e
year. In response~ 'Ylr. Safady stnted a h;~ilding Inspector had revtewed the roof sign
shortly after it was ere•:ted and recommcnded tF~at the sigri be mz+de safer; that 1~~ h~d
complled w(th the recomir~enclatlons of the building (nspect.~r witti the understa~ding that tf
the sign was approved by thc Planning Commi~sfon~ more support would bc c-ecessary for the
stgn and, In that regard, he was willing to com{~ly; and that guy wires supported the sign
From the north. Cammissic+ner King noted that thc southsrn view uf the sign u~as ugly.
Commissioner Barnes ~nquired if the stg~ing on the p roperty eut~ld ba tc~h(ned and also
what ware the reasons the free-standing sign cauld not be seen mare easily. In reply~ Mr.
Safac, ;tatnd thc: commer~ al properties in the area were very den.;e.
Commisstoner Farano inquired how many roaf signs existed along Beach Boulevard. A~~istant
Pianning Dlrector--'.~~~~ing Annika Santlai~~~ advlsed that many of the properties tn th•• area
were developed a number of years ago and had signing which was not (n conformance with the
present Zoning Code~ u~der grandfather r~ghts.
COMMISSIONER HERBST REiURNED 'f0 THE COUNCIL CNAMBER AT 6:50 P.M.
It was noted xhat the Director of the F'lanning Depa~tment had determined that the proposd
acttvity fell ~ithin the definition of Section 3•~1o Class 11~ uf the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environm~ntal impact Report and was~ therefore~
categorically exempt from the requir•ement to file ~n EIR.
Corr~nis5ior+er Morl~y affered Res utiun No. PC7E~-214 an~j mc,ved for its passage and
adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does h~reby grant Petit(u~ for
Varlancr No. 2£~59 for a period of one year. subJect tn revlew and cons~ideration by the
Planr~ing Commission for pos~'' le ex'tensions of time~ upoii written req~~st by the
petition~r; subJect to che stipuiation af the petitioner to provide addttlonal support for
the raof-mounted sign~ in acc~rdance wit~ the Building Division iequtrements to make the
sign safe; anu subJect to the I~terdepartmental Cor,~mittee recommendati~ns. (Scs
Resolutlon Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votc:
AYES: COMMiSSiONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONGRS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
AB5TAIN: COMMIS510NER5:
BARNES~ KING, MORLEY, TOI.AR
FARANO
JQHNSQN
HERDST
CHAIRMAN JQNNSbN RETURNED TO THE COUNCtL CNAMBER AT 6:52 P.M. AI: RESUMED THE CHAiR.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PIANMING COMMISSION~ October 27, '376 %6~531
VAR{ANCE N0, 2860 - PUBLIC HEAr21N~. DEW CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.~ 1157 Norih Grovn~
' Anshelm. Ca. 9xa0J (Owner); OM~GA 90ATS~ INC.~ 4fi40 East La Palma
' Avenue~ Anahelm~ Ca. 92807 (Agent); r'nquesting WAtNER OF (A)
MIMIMIIM FFiONT SE70ACK, (B) MAXIMUM FENCE l1~IGHT~ (C) MIr11MUM NUMHER OF PARKING SPACES~
AND (D) REQUIRED Et~CLJSURE OF OU1'DOOR USES~ TO 1'FRM17 THE OU1u0uk STORAGE dF BOATS on
property d~sscribcd as a rcr.tangul~rl•~-shaped parc~l of land consisting of approximately
2.5 acre~ heving a frontage af approxtmataly 359 faet on the south side of La Palm~
Avenue~ having a max(~~um dapth of app~oximately 34') feet~ being lacetc~l ap~mximatoly
770 feer. e+~sr, o~' rhe •:enterllne ~f lekovlew Avenue, ~nd Purther doscribed es 4b40 East
l.a Palma Avenue ••operty presently classifled ML (iNDl;5TRIAL~ I.IMITED) ZONE.
No one (ndict~te,d thel r presa~ce in oppu3ltlon to the suhJect petltlon.. however~ twe~
lettrrs wcre re:elved In opposltion.
Althuugh the Steff Report to the r~~nnlna Comnission dotnd October 27~ 197~~ was not raad
a~ thc publlc heurlny~ sald Staff ~tep~~r~ is rePorrsd ta and mad~ a part of Che ~nt~utes.
Chalrman Johnson noted that it was deemed ~ppropriate at this tlma for the Planntng
Commisstcn Secreta ry to adminfster the 0°_h foi• testimony before the Planning Commisston
to those persons w(shing to testify botfi foi- a~nd againse tlie subJect zontng petltion. One
person rose~ ratsed hls right hand and tc~ok the Oath.
Mr. Richard Donald~ attorney, representing Qmega F3oats~ Inc.~ having Caken the Oath,
appeared beFor~ the Plannl~~~ Commisslon nnd stat~d they agrecd wit~~ the recon~mended
crndltions of approvol pert~lning to ltghting and the 90-day perlod fur compllance
,~,reto~ ~~tc.; thak they had appeared before the Planning Comnission prcviously bu' were
~ot heArd by tho Clty Cuuncll for the outdoor storage of t~oats and had gone mcrr{ly on
chelr way wtth the outdoor storage~ etc.~ and were subsequently cited; that their second
buliding had b~en for the purp~se of startng the new boats tnside prior to deltve~•y and
the~ wcre the third largest bui~der af private b~ats; that the Code indicated no mc~tor
vehicles or automoblles could be placed witF~in the setback areas; that thc boLts on
trallers aere norma'ly moved on a daily occurrer-ce; that the reason suppurtiny thelr
requost for the 4-1/2 foot high fenc~ was ttiat they were not prevfously aware of that Code
requlre.ment and l,ecause of the vandalism whlch had been c~rrected hy the fence; that the
setback area had been used over the past two ye~rs for the storage and transfcr of boats
prlor to ~iciivery; that with the addition of the a~ii~cc~t bull~'ng far boat storage~ as
well as th~ accompanytng outdoor parking of apprnximately 30 s~ .es~ they dld not
anticipate any problems with the granting af the requested vartance.
The two letters of opposition were read into the minutes, being trom Frevert Propartles~
owner of th~ Industrtal buildings at 4545 and 46ot East La Palma Avenur.~ and from Hancack
Laboratorles~ Inc.
TNE PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissloner Farana noted that the photog~aph of the site In<iicated ~ost of the boats In
the setback area ~1~re on ~ollies bnd not on trallers. In response, Mr. Donald stated rhat
the boats on dollies would be stor•ed in thc warehouse and only the boats on tra(lers wauld
be kept In thc parking spaces; that a cement runway existed for tfie movement of the boats
fram one buildtng to anather; anc~ that the establtshment was not a rocall outlet and the
boats were nat sold o~ trallers.
Commissloner Farana ~oted tf~at it was pertinent to enter tnto dtscussion reg~rdtng the
definition of a motor vehicle stncp it was the inte~t ta permit the parking of motor
vehiclea in the parkin~ s~~ces and, therefore~ the request was not withln the spirtt of
the Code.
Mr. Donald then st~~ec- that the propo,~d parking usage was a c~nvenienc~.
CUrm;issioner King inquired if the boats could be stored betwee~ the two butldtngs;
k~hareupon, tir. Donald replied in the negative~ stating that the boats would intergere with
the ctrculation of the trash coliection vehtcles; and that he dtd not feel that the trash
stora~e a~eas coutd be m~ved elsewhere on the site. Mr. Donald thcn stated that h~ did
not ser» why it was considered an eyesore for the new boats to be parked in the parking
s~~aces .
~ ~ `~
MINUTES~ C17Y PLANNING CGMMISSION~ OCtober 2]~ 197b ~6-53z
VARIANCE N0, 2860 (Con~inued)
Cammissloner Frrano n~~tad that h~ personolly fGit that bost~ were more attractive than
most cars; and tha f tho praposal were e~provcd tt ~ould set a precedent fnr other types
of storage In parking spaces and in Cl~a front sctbackar ett,
Hr. Donald st~ted that the owne~•, Mr. Plttard~ had acqulred 60 parking sprces ac~ass cha
ot~eot, ln addltl~~ to the on-site parking~ for nmployees.
Chalrman Jahnnon no~ed that there was nothing beautlful abouk the molds which had ~een
scor~d In the front ~~tbacks at the subJect lacattan.
Mt. ~ neld then sta'°d that th~ presenr em~loyces of the sub,~ect establishment woul~ not
be wi I 1 I nc~ to df•i v. to another ct ty i f thn boat bus 1 nes~s mo~ied; and ~ furthermore ~ tlte
space betwean the luildings could nc~t be used for storage.
Commissioner• Herbst noCed thot the petir!oner had com~lat~ly {gno~ed the prevlous action~
of the Planning Commission; that~ as an Industri~llst himself, he reeognlzed the problems,
however~ Anahclm had thousand! of -r.dustrial ~ropertles and cmployed approxlmately 45$ uf
the industrla) people in ttie County an~ practlcally al' oF those people abtded by the
ordinance ~f they posstbly could; that If the petitlaner was clted ir wes far a reason;
that he owned e boat and agreed that boets were be~utlful~ however, the subJect petitlon
was to aliow the storage of the pr~ducts manufactured on th~ premises and ap~~roval would
sek a very undasirable prec-:d~nt for many other type manufact~ring uses; that any
Interpretatlon of che Codr sho~~ld be to g~ve thc same rtghts to c:~eryone; that the
setbacks estnblishr.d i~ Ch~ Code were to beautify tha industrial areas of the City; that.
for tnxtance~ the City of Irvlne e~-ould probably requlre that the use be enclosed by an 8
to 10-foot high fencc even in ~~^ rear yerd; end tliat the petttioner tiAd oppositfon from
the nelghbors.
In response, Mr. Donald stated it wa, his understanding that the C~de was wrltten tn a way
that would qualify them to have the boats i~~ the parking spaces since they were cl sified
as motor vehicles and, as such~ were alluwec; to park or+ the street for up to 72 h ~ at a
time~ etc.
Commissloner Nerbst then inqulred if the petitioner would stipulate to staring only those
baats v:!~ich werc on tratlers and ready for sr,lpment in the parking spa:.es~ since the molds
and dolltes grestly cowplicatPd the problem. I~ reply~ Mr. Donald st-eted the only
representatian I~e coule' make would be that the varlance be granted cc:nditi nally °or the
boats which would be on trailers and iF thsre were any vlolatlons~ the Citv could cancel
the vartance. Commissloner Farano noted that~ tn his npinian, approval would not ue
within the splrit of the ord(nance.
Breputy City !` orney Frank l.uwry advised that the purpose of the ordir~ancc was to provide
F~arking spaces for automobiles; that the vehlcle code Indicated a trailer was a vehicle
but not a moxor vehicle~ unless lt was self-propelled.
Commissioner Fb~ano questioned whether the Code was intended to enable the ~torags of a
prod~ct of the occupant of the land involved; and Mr. Lor-ry expressed h1s legal opinlon In
lhe negative, advising c~~~t othcr provfsions mlg~~t include that fencing be provided within
the province ~f th zone, etc.
Mr. Donald stated he agreed that if an article was set dawn for the purpuse of storing it,
1t wes storcd; howpver~ he did ~ot fes) that the parking spaces in yucstion were needed
since the additional employee parking had bzen acq~ired~ ecc,; and that h~ was ~ttll
agreeable to conditional approval to have the boats stored in the parking spaces on
trallers only.
!t ~-as notcd that the Dlrector of the Planning Department had determined that the proposed
acttvity fell wlthin the definition af Section 3.~1~ Class 5~ af the City of Anaheim
Gutdelin~s to th~ Requiremcnts for an ~nvtronmenta) Impact R*.port and was~ therefore,
categorir.ally exempt from t{~e requtr~ment to file an Ei~.
Cnmmtssloner Herbst oft'ered a resolution that the Ptanning Commission grant Petitio~~ for
VArlanc~ No. 2860 for a pertod of s(x months, ~ubJect to review and consl~ieratlan by the
Plenning Gammission ~or possible Etme extenslons; subJect to the condltion that all of tlie
boats to be sto~ed ~n the front setback sha1) be on trallers only. as stipulated to by 2he
pet~tloner; sa(d varlance to be granted on the basts that ~h~ pet(ttoner ~emorrstrated thst
a hardyhip would be created if sald vartance was not grantcd, said hardsfilp being sn~f-
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING GOMMIS:ION~ Oceober 27~ i97b 76-533
VAItIANCE N0. 2$60 (Cantlnuod)
imposed but wl:~;^~it which the petltloner Indicated the buslness m~y be precludec' at the
subject locatlon; ~nd uubJect to the Interdepa,tmn~~tel Commlttee reGOmmendatlo~a.
Commisslaner Fareno notad t;het the F~lann~ng Comml:ilon had the authorlty to In2erpret the
Zoning Code, when con~llcts occurred.
M+r. I.owry advised that the lar ~nge of the foregoinq resolutlon should be altered to
indi~ota "s~.Ject to the con ~n thnt all of thA hoats to be stored In the front setback
shall be on ,eh;cl~s~ ns defined In the C~lifo~nla Vehicla Code."
Asslstant Planner .lo~l F'ck notea for the Planr~ing Cammlsslan that a number of cor ltmints
by tel~r•' ie had been recr.ived by the 2oning E.nforcament Officer but wera not racorded or
acted upon due to some misunderstanding of the Planning Cammtsslon actl~n on the prevlous
varlance requested on the subject praper~y.
Chalrman Johnson noted th~' he fclt the applicant had been very fortunr,te to have been
abta to use the propcrty in the manner hn had ove~ the past two yenrs~ tn vl~lation; that
there had been no evidence of a spirlt of cooaeratlon prior to the present time~ and
.,aoperatton went both ways; and that although he approclated the bu~lne.ss being locatcd In
the City of Anaheim, he would have to vote l~i acc~rd~nce with the opposition.
Commissioner Fardna noted that approval 01` th~ proposal could be construed as an
tnterpretation nf the ordina~ce; whereupon~ Comentssioner Herbst indlcat~d that the
interpretatlon co~ld be for the storage of products for shipment and noC for perm~nent
storage.
On roll calt~ the fore9otng resotutian failed to earry by the following v~ote:
AYESt COMMISSIONERS: WERBST
NOES; COMMISSIQNERS: DARNES~ FARANO, KING, MORLEY~ TOLAR~ ,,JHNSON
ABSENT: COMMISS~ONERS: NONE
Commisston~r Farano offered ResolutiQn PJo. PC76-215 and moved for lts passage a~d
adoptton~ thAt ehe M aheim City P18nning Commissfon does hercby deny petition for VeriancG
Na. 2860 on thP basts that the intent c+f the Anaheim Muntcipal Code pertalntng to the
storage of products manufactured on the premises is to prohtbit such outdoor storage in
the front setbacks ad,jacent to publtc ~t~•eets; thaC the petitloner did not demoRStrate
that a hardship would be c~eati~d if the rcquested walvers were not ~~anted; and that
approval wouid set an u~desirable precedent fior f~~ture siRilar ~equests in the industrial
areas ~f Anahelm. (S-e Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was pa~sed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, I'AIZANO~ KING, MORLfY, TOLAR~ JONNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST
ABSENT: COMMI SS IONERS : NOPaF
VARIANCE N0. 2862 - PUBLIC HEARING. DALE FOWLER~ 1430 South Grand Avasnue~ Santa Ana,
~~ Ca. 92705 ~~ner) ; S'T :VE SHERMAW~ 3g45 East Coronado Strect.
Anahelm~ Ca, 92807 ~A~ent); requesting WAIVER QF RECUiREHENT THAT
ALL USES BE CONDU~TED IN A BUILDING~ TO ES"ABL.ISH OUTDOOR MANUFACTURING an property
des~ribed as a rzctangularly-shaped parcel ~f land conststing of approxircately 10 acres
having a frontage of apN~aximately 425 f::et on the north side of Coronadc Stroet, having
a maximuni deplh of approxtmately 1024 feet, be~,~ ?ucated approxlmately 4-5 fact east of
the centerllne of Jefferson 5trPet~ and ~urther described as 3845 East Corc+nado Street.
Pr~perty presently c:asslfied ML (IRDUSTRIAL, LII~~.TED) 7.ONE.
~ao one i~dicated thelr presen.:e in oppos!tion to subJect petltlon.
f,lthough thc Str~ff Rep~rt to t~e Planning Convnission oaicd ~ct~bar 2;~ 1775,'~'~= •^•^! rP?!d
at tha publlc henrina, satd 5taff Report ts referred to and madc a part o~ the minutes.
~
~
~
M~,''1TES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 27~ 1976
VARIANCE N0, 2863 (Contlnued)
7~~53ti
Mr. Vornon Monroe~ the eyent for the petttioner~ ~Faoere~i before the Plenniny Commtsslon
and st~tcd that the subJect ~eque~tt wos tn enrble ~i(m to have A tena~~t who wauld be
cutting picture frar~~es ~utdoors eC the subJer_t inc~tlon~ and that the wood used (n the
op~ratlon was genoraliy about ~+0 fee~ long, lio reviewnd ~ha Planninq Cammissln's ap~+rovai
of the use of tl~e property ++s n plrnned commcrc'al ~enter, ~nd requested clArtflcatlon d4
to the h~lght oP the fonce i~,~Jec~nt tu the alley, betng tha: he hed s~lpuleted to
constructing an 8-foot hlqh fenca ~n~t !n practlcal application~ thc adJacent prop~~ty was
at s Ic~ver grade 1eve1 and consequently, the fence wnuld creat~ d 1Q-foot hlgh buffer for
the adJacenr propertles; therefore, he was pronosing to construct a 6-}cot hlgh fence
along thG pro~,erty l inr, whtch w~uld provlae an 8 cr~ 8-1/2 Foot buPfor; a~nd thnt thera wer~~
treos alonc~ ih~ ~ror~rcy llnw which wauld drapa over the FenGe~ cov~ring hts tr~sh cans.
and if the fence we:re tallef~ he wou!d have to chop oFf the trees.
THE PUBLIC HEARIfJG Wl1S CL05ED.
Assistant Planning ~lrector-Zoning Anntka Santalahtl a~lvised that th~ qredc separatlon At
th~ property line ~v,.~ no~ dtscussed at the public hearing in r^.lattonship to the helght of
the fence. Deputl' City Attorney Frank Low ry adviscd that generally the helght of the
fence was measu;cd from the hlghest ftnished grade; and that the matt~r could be analyzed
a~d handled adm~nlstratlvely by Sta~ff,
D(scussion pursued regardtng ~the s~ ~ genereted by the use of saws outdoors~ and Mr.
Monroe stated that tt~e wood materl would b~ soft pine and the sound would be very mild;
that they would saw wood Por a s~ rt perlod of time each day~ or about 45 mtnutes~ from
about 9:00 a.m. to 9:sG a.m.~ c~ .. Commiss(oner Herbst requested that the petit'.~ner
stipulate to hours of ooerati~ , w~~creupon, Mr. M~nroe indlcated that the hours of 9:00
a.m. to 6:00 p,m.~ or 9:00 ~~. to 5:00 p.m, would be appropriate to enable the huurs of
operation of the autdoor us from 9:00 a.m, to noo~.
Commissiener Tolar noted ,~at he wauld not vote to approvc any a~idl ,onal out~~or uses on
the sub)ect property.
Discussion contlnued regarding the sound~ :+nd Commissioner Herbst Inqutred !f there was
any way that the saw could be pleced inside tP~e building~ with the wood extended autdaors.
Mr. Monroe stated if the saw were to be oparated indocrs his insurance would be inCreased
f~om $.90 per square foot to ovei• $2.0~ per square foot, ~nd the buildtng would also have
t~ b~• •~prinklered; and that the use would be approximat~ly 30 feet from the property line.
The Planning Corrxnisslan generally concurred that the subject building was not ~esigned for
industrtal usage, and Commissioner Morley indicated that approva) for r short period of
tfrnc would be appropriate sn~ Commtssioncr Barne$ agreed~ not(ng that ~hr~e manths would
be approprlat.e to alla~ time for the nelghbars to complain If the use was detrimental.
It was nc+ted that the Otrect~r of the Planning Oepartn~e~t had determined tha~ the proposed
activ(ty fell withln the d~f(n(tion of Secxion 3.01~ Class 3~ of the City of Anahelm
Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Repo~t and was, therefore,
categorically exer.ipt fr~m the requireme~t to file an EIR.
C~mmfssioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC76-217 and moved for its pr5saye and
adoption, that the Anahei~n City Plannirig !'ommission does hereby gr~+nt Petition for
Variance No. z863~ for a period of three months~ subJect to review and canstderatlon for
possib~e one-year extensions of time, said time limitation being to d9termtne whether the
specffic proposed use and any noise therefrom have been detrtmental to the nearby
residential uses; tha the waiver is granted on the basis tnat thc subJect property is
adequateSy screer~ed and has a hardshlp due to its locatlon and consequently ha~ been
vacant i`or a period of ttrr~; subJect to the sttpulation of the petitloner to ll~it the
hours of oFeratian for the speciflc proposed outdaor use bet~een ths I~aurs of 9:00 a.m. to
noan, satd autdoor use consfsttr~ of the sawing of woad for thc manufactura of picture
frames; and aubJect to the Interdepertmental Committee recommendation. (See Rasolutlon
Bock)
On ;oll call~ the foregotn~ resolution wds passPd by the followtng vote:
AYtS: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ HERBST~ KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR, JQHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
A~SENT: COMMISSIi1NERS; NOME
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLi1NNING CQMMISSION~ Uctoba~ 27, 1976
VARIANCE N0. 2a62 (Continued)
76..53y
Mr. Steve Sherman~ the agent for Che ~ntltlonar~ app~:+red bcPore tha Planning Commission
and strted they desired to lncraase thelr produeClon ~nd the only woy they could do that
was to construct a steel-f~ame structure on th~ nc,r•tf~ end of the exfsting bulidtng.
crearinc~ .Iobs f~r approxlmately 4L to 60 new employnes ~t the pl~~~t; that tnelr immedlate
neigi~bors to ci~t n~~rth~ wost and enst had no obJectton to khc pr~posal; that tt~etr maln
necesslty was to pr~vide more room for the people dolnn thr. work In the produ<<~nn Iin~
and especlally at Che en~1 oP the 11ne; and tf~at they would bo dotng clean-up w~~rk rftnr
fabricatton in the propo~ed sti ~:`~~re, which was constructed In an apn~ fashton !o ~llow
for the movement of the lung rr~~Gll~homcs~ ctc,
TH~ PUBLIC HEApIRG WAS CLOSED.
Commissloner King noted that rr~tterlals were st~ckcd higher than the fence on ~e subJec2
property. In response. Mr, Sherman =tated that thcy used a lArge amount of lumber ~Ince
Lhey completed an everage oF two homes pe~ day and that they would rearrangn the lumber so
Chat lt did nat protrude past the hci~ht of th~ fence.
(n respans~ to questloninc~ by Commissloner Farano~ Mr. Slierman describnd the movement o~'
the mobilchort-es through the production line, ending up o~ the hack of th~ proper4y, Mr.
Farano reques ted a del 1 ncat lon of the worlc to be perforrr~ed aut nf doors and Mr. Sher•man
stated they could not perform the productlon outdoors slnce khere wnuld Le no scaffolding;
that thay were proposing to da finish-tyPa work including thc Installation of mr~;ing
insidc and outside af the mobilehome~ minor work involving the exterior fastening of
siding, the final finishing of the shingling~ quality ~.ontrul. "~'ed-tegging". and the
installation of squawking u~its~ etc. He added that tf installation of a piece of
alu~ntnum slding wrs nec-r,sa-y, it mtght have to be d~ne outside and they would~ in other
words~ flnish the product outdoot-s.
Cammissioner Farano noted that he dtd not want to permit the outdc,o~ tnstallatlon of any
siding slnce sumewhere along the line it might become con~enient to do all of the stding
~utdoors. Ne further stated that he was assuming that the ro~,`!ng, electrical wiring and
siding were all a part of the origlnal construction and wpuld be done indoors. There~~ ~n,
Mr. Sherman so stipulated.
Commtssioner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTiON CARRIkD~
that the Anaheim City Planntng Comnission does hereby recon~nend to the City Council af the
Clty of Anahelm that a negative declaration from the requirement to prepare mn
envlronraental i~ipact report be approved for the sub)ect proJect9 pursuant to tho
pravisions of the Calli`ornia Enviro~rt~ental Q~al(ty Act.
C~mmissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC76-216 and m~ved for its passage and adoptior.~
that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslo~ does hereby gran: Petitlon fo.' Varlance N~.
2862~ gra~~ring the requested walver of the requirement that all us^s be conducted in a
buildtng subJer_t to the stipulation of the petitloner to ltmit th~ wark condueted outdoors
to flnish/detail wark and qua~ity cor+trol but r+ot to includ~ the installatlan of alumtnu~
or other siding (skin), electr~cal wiring, roofing or other work which (s not considered
rninor flnisli/u'etat 1 work and quil i ty co~trul ; and sub)ect to ti~e Interdepartmenta
CommitteE recomrn~:nd~tions. (5ae Resolutlon klaok)
On rolt call~ the foregoing resalutian was passed uy~,e fnll~~>>ing ~te:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, FARANO, HERBST, KING~ F10RLEY. TOLAR~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSOONEP,S: NONE
ASSENT: GOMt115SI0NERS: NQNE
VARIANCE N0. 2863 - PUBLIC HEARIN~. BANK OF AMER~CA, c/o H. G. Johnson~ 555 South
Flower Street, Los Angelns~ Ca. 90071 (Owner~; VERNON W. MONROE,
520y Seashore Drive. Newport Beach~ ~a. 92660 (Ager • reauesting
WAIVER OF REQUIREhiENT THAT ALL USES BE CONOUCI'ED IN A BUILDING, TO ESTA9 ~i OUTDOOR
MANUFA~TURING on proRerty described as an frregularly-shaped parcel of land conststing
of appraxlmately 6.3 acres located on tha south and west sides of Sequota Aven~e. having
approxi~nate frontages of 52s feEt o~y the so~~th side and 403 feet on ti~e west sldn of
Sequoia Avenue~ and further describe~. ~~s 223a Scqu~is Avenue. Property presently
cla~sifled CL (COMMERCIAL. LIMiTED) ZONE.
No one indica4ed their prPsence in oppusitlan fio the subJact petition.
f,lthou5h the StafS` Report to the planniRr Commisslon d,~ted Octo~er 27 ~976, was nat read
at the publlc hearing~ said Staff ReporL ts referred to and made a-+art ~f tha m~nutes.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING GUMMISSION~ Octaber 27~ 1976
76-536
VARI~n;:f N0. 286~+ - PUBL!C HEARING. FRED AND HELF.N MAYBERRY, (i300 Merrlmac Star R•auto~
~ Oroville~ Ca. 929~5 ~~wners); ANN 1'. MA~?IS~N, 600 South Harbor
Bouldvar~+, Anahelm~ Ca, 92805 (Agent)~ requestlny WAI~~ER OF PERM11'TED
USCS TO :ST/!BLISH ~N AUTO REf'r~IR SNOF on praN: ~•r,y descrfbcd ,+s an Irregu~nrly-shaped
Norcol af land consistln!~ of approximately Q.1G aGr~ IACACCt~ ,~~ the sauti~east cornur of
Ans~helm Boulevard anJ l.~mon Street~ having appraxlrrwte fr~ntage, of 1''r> feot on the south
slde oF Mahcim Boulevar•d +~nd 1!0 feet on thC east sicla of Lcmon Strc.et~ an~~ fuYthcr
descr+oed as 1039 North Anaheim BoulovarJ. Property preaently c~:,sslPlod C9 (COrIMFRClAL,
GE14[RAL) ?~rJE.
No one Incll~ated th~lr prc+sence in oppostt(on to the subJect petitlon.
Aithough the Stdff Re,,rt t~ the Plt~nning Commission was not read at the public hoaring~
said Steff Report is rafc~red ca and made a part of the minutes.
Ms. Ann Fiadisnr~ the agent fo~ the petPtloner~ app~ared before the Plar~ntnq Commisston and
stated that the SubJect property w~s a"disnster area"• thaC~ uestheticaily~ the retentlo~
of the canopy would help the appearance of thr garage tactl~ty Kince it was completely
separatc and dlstinct from the buliciing; and thr~t !t seemed ~ wnste to deatroy a
comn~rcially valuable tmprovement.
TIIE PUBLIC rIE,~RINf. W,~1S CL~SED.
Cammiss~oner Fa~•~no noted that I~e rould not vote in favor ot the proposal with tl~e canopy.
Ms. Madtso.i furtl~er stated that the canopy cauld be usPd as a cover for ;hc. customer
parkin,y and a potential future use as a roof Por a showroom~ nowever~ the petltio~~ers
unders[ood Chat such a use w~uld requlre further Planning Commission consideration; and
shc yuestioned why the City wanted xhe canopy removed. In response, Commisstoner Herbst
noted th~l• the intent was to el~minate the s~rvir,~e statian appeArance.
Ms. Madison further requested tha~ eonsideration b~ given to perm(tttng the existing
~t~~~ralks~ curbs and driveways to remain~ and the use of a less costly .,~ethod of closing
off the extra drlveway. an~ also reyuested that a 7.~-foat wldth be :~proved for the
drive:aay on Anaheim Boule~~ard indicating that the parking spaces ~ uld be adJ~~sted tu
accommodate the driveway width. Commi~sloner King noted that the 24-foat drtveway~ rather
than 16 feet~ would bw appropriate to get the traffic off the street as quickly ~s
possible, Traffic. Fngi~eer Paul Singer a~ivised that the 24-foot w(de driveway met with
his approval and was preferred. Hawever, the plans had indl~~~~Ad parktng gpaces would
limit the driveway width.
Ms. Madison further stated ~hat tne extra driveway would be chalned to prevent usage; that
they had a prablem with parking on their property when bal! games were held at Gl~ove~
Stadium; that tne permttted driveways would also t~~ chalnrd to prr.ver~t parktng on the
property during other than busi~ess hours; and tha~t the young people attending events at
the stAdium were not gener•ally cieterred by curbs, and chalning of the entire prvperty
shoutd be effect(v~.
Com-ni5stoner Fierbst further notPd that che Planning Commission had required every seivlce
siation conversion to act~ally curh the old driveways and h~e did not feel that the
proposal to chain the property would be that ntce. Ms, Madison then state:d that Lhe
petit(~~ , were a smait bustnessman and his wife and could not s~`ford the tmmediatp
expen~ ~or the curbs. etG. Dfscussion pursued~ during .:hich Commiss(oner King suggested
that one-year period be granted for tf~e removal of Che drtveway~ etc. Commiss'~ner
Herbst c~arified that if there were not another 100 or more ~losed servtce ~tatlons in the
Clty~ he woul~ nrohably h° more sympathetl~, however~ the grourd rules i~c~. oeen ~et by
other conversions and 'ne did not see how the Commission c~uld possi~ly devlate from thum
at ~:hi;, timt; that the canopy would also have to bc removed; and that _~e real estate
Reople in the Ctty were the first to point out precedEnts made by the Cemn(ssion.
7hereupor.~ Ms. Madtson sttpulated ra replacing th~ extra ~~•i~~way and the closed por 'ons
of the remaining driveways; and to removing the canopy wit'~'n six months.
Ms. Madlson thzn stated that the curbs a~d gutters were most cos~ly, and not cne
sidewalks; whereupon~ Commis:ioner Morlsy noted that~ in ~~is opin~on, the whole proJect
should be completed before the permit to operate business was issued for the property.
~
-~
~
NINU7CS~ CITY PLANNINr, COMMISSION~ Octobcr 27~ 1976
w.w~
~
76-537
VAR:Ai~GE IIU. 2664 (Contlnued)
In respansn to questloning by Commissioncr King~ Ms. Madison stlpulbted to comply wlth th~
requlrements for t~ash storege areas.
Ms. Maats~n stated she had persunally inspecteu tho street lights (n thn area end found
that a light exlated at the l~~tersection oP Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Stroet and no
addlt(onal fighting should 5e requlrcd.
C~mmi~;sloner Farano offered a motion~ seconded by Commissloner Morlny and MOTION CARRlED~
that tha Anahetm Clty Planning Commisslon d~ns hereby recommend to the Clty Councll of the
Clty of Anahelm l•hat ~ negrtlve ~'eclar~+lon frum thc requ(rement to prep~~re an
environmcntal tmpact re~ort be grant~~' f~r the sutrJect proJect~ pursuant ~o rho provisions
af the Californla Environmental Qualiry Act.
Comml:slener Farano ~ffered Resolutlan ~io. PC76-21~ and moved for its pas~age and
adoptlon~ that Che Anehcim Cit~ Plannin~, Commiss(on docs hereby gr~ent Petltfo~ Por
Verlance No. 2aG4 ~r~ the basls that tha ~^xisting uses alang Anahelm eoulavard conslst
prlmarily of autamahtle-r~lbtod usc•. sucf~ as sales and service and that slmilar waivers
have prevlously been approved; subject tu r,he stipulation of tt~e petitioner to reduco the
v~idth of t~e drtveway on A~~ahetm Bouleva~d tio llic easterly 2k fGet +~nd on Lemon Street to
the southeriy 30 feet~ and tl,..~ :he reduced portlans of seld driveways shall bn ~eplaced
with standard curbs~ gutters and sidewalks; and subJect to the further stipulations af the
pstltloner to remove the existing steel canopy adJaeent to Araheim 9oulevard withtn six
r~onths fromn tl~e date hereof and to pr~oviding trash storaye ~reas in accordance with
~pproved plans on flle with the Off(ce of the Oirector oP Puhlic Warks; and su~ ne
t~terdepartmental Comm(ttee reconm~-ndatic~ns. (See Resolutinn Book)
On roll call, the foregoing ~esolution was passed ~y the fallowing voxe:
AYES: CUi4MISSIQNEaS: BARNES~ FARANO~ HERBST~ ICING, MORLEY, 'QLAR~ JOHNSON
NOES: GOMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENT; COMMt~SIONERS; NONE
CONDITlON11L USE - PUBLiC HEAP,lNG. 1dILLIAM KUGEL, S51 North Euclid Street, Anaheim~ Ca.
PERMIT N0, 1657 y2801 (Owne~); R(?BERT 0. JOHNSTON, 3d0 Narth Rampart N13~ Ora~~ge, Ca.
-" 9266R (Agent); requesting permission to ESTABLISH A DANCE HALL on
property described as a rectangularly-shap~d parcel of land conslsting
~c~ approxlmately 10.5 acres tocated at the northwest corner of Crescent Avenue ~nd Euclid
S:reet~ t~aving approximate fronta~es of 740 feet nn the north stde of Crescent Avenue and
620 fe~.t on the west side of Euclid S#reet~ and further describe•l as 5~+1'"43 North Euclid
Street 'roperty presently classiftcd GL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) •~nd CG (~~MMERCIAL,
GFNEk ZOtJES.
No one ~ndicated their presen~e in opposition to the sub]ect petition.
Although the StafP Repor*_ tn the Planning Cornmission dated October 27~ 1976~ was not read
at the publtc hearing, sald S~~ff Report is referred Yo and made a part of the minutes.
T~. Ruth Johnston, the agent fo; the petitioner, appeared before the Planniny Commisslan
to answer questio~~s regarding the proposal.
It was noted that a leCter date' October 2;~ 197~, had been recetved from Mr. and Mrs. Uan
E. Vall~ Sr.~ owners of the prrperty at 731 North Euclid Street~ Anaheim~ expresstng their
approval of the proposal and ~rging favorabl~ consideration.
THE PUBLlC HEARiNG WAS CI.OSED.
In response to q~cestior~ing by Commissloner Farana~ Ms. Johnston stated there would be no
consumption of alcoholic ~everages on the premises~ and noted that such beverages were
gRneraliy never served at square dances for obvious reasons. She furtht noted t~at
during break t(mes, the~ crved coffee~ punch and cookies.
It was noted that the Uirector of the Planning Department had determ'ned that the proposc~
actlvity fell wi~hin the deftnittan of Section 3.01, Ctass 1~ of the City of M ahelm
Guic+eltnes to the Requirements fo~ an Envtranmental Impact Rnport and was~ there`ore~
categoricaily exempt from the requiren~ent to file ar, EIR.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY -".ANNING COMMISSION~ OcloGer 2J~ 1976
CQ?JDIT14NA1. USE PC•RMIT N0, 1657 (Continued)
76-53a
Can~misslon~r King offered Resalutlon Ido. PC76-219 And mnved for (ts passage and adoptlan~
that the Anahotm City Planning Commisslon does hereby gr~nt Petition fior Condttional Usc
Parmit No. io57~ t.o pcrmlt a squ5re dA~ce h~ll in rhn. CG (Commerclal, Ganeral) Zone;
subJect to xhe Interdepartmant~sl Committee recommendntlon. (Sce Resolutlon Book)
On roll call~ the forc~~ning resolutlon was passed by the fullaw(ng vote:
AYES: ~QMMISSIOt RS: NARNES~ F11RAN~~ NERDST, KiNG~ MORLEY, TOLAR~ JOHNSON
NOES: f.OMMISSIC~NEP~: NQNE
ABSENTt COMMIS'.iIONE~~S: NONE
COND1710NA1. USE - Pt~4~IC FIEARING. E. M, HUMSAKf~~ 27992-A Camino CaplYtrano~ Laguna
PERMIT N0. 1659 Nigue) ~ Ga. 92G77 (Uwner); alLl. PHE:PS~ 1095 Norti~ Main Sr.reet,
5uite 5~ Oran~e, Ca. 92G67 (Agent); re~uesting perm(ssion to
ESTIISIISH A CnNTRACTOR'S STORAGE YARU WITH WPIVER OF (A) MINIMUM OFF'-
S7REET PARKING AND (L~; REQUiRED S17E ENCLOSURE on property describecl as a rectanyularly-
shgped parcel of lan~~ constst(ng of approximately 0.~ e~r~ havin~ a frortage of approxi-
matcly 142 ~~e~~ on ti,e v1es: side of Red Gum Street~ f-avln,y a maximum de~th of approxlmately
330 fect~ and being l~cated approxlrru~:ely 80S feet nerth af the centerltne uf la Jo!!a
Street. Property presently classif!ed ML (INDUSTRIAL~ IIMITED) ZONE.
No ~ne (n~l:ated thelr presence in oppesitlon to the subJect petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning C~mmisgion date~l OcYuber 27, 1976~ was not ~ead
at thP public hcaring~ said Staff Report f~ r•eferred to and made a parC of the minutes,
Mr. Wllllam S, Phclps~ the agent for tlie petitioner~ appeared before the Planniiig
Commission to answer questtons regardtng the proposal.
THE PUBI.IC HF.ARI~~G WAS CLOSE6.
Commissioner Ki~g noted that he c~uld see no need for a fence pt the north property ltnz.
Asststanx Plsnner J~el Flck advised P.hat the reqvested waiver of the minlmum o~f-street
parking was cieleted by the revised plans submiCCed by the petittoner~ indicating
comoliance with sald requlrement.
Mr. Phelps withdrew the requestc 1 waiv~r of required site enclosure with the stipulatlon
to comply w~th sa(r' requirement and adequately enclose the proposed outdoor storage area.
Commiss(oner Morley oFfered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Barnes and MOTION CARRIFD.
that the Anaheim City Plannfng Commission doe~ hereby rccommend ta the City Council c~f the
City of Anahe(m that a negative declarat(on from the requtrement to prepare an
envlronmr.ntal impact report be granted for the proposed pro,ject~ pursuant to the
provisions of the California Env(ronmental Quality AGt.
Commissicu~er Morley offered Resolucion Nc. PC76-220 and moved for its passage and
adoptlon~ that the Ant-heim Ctty Planni~g Comrnission doe5 hereby grant Petition ~o~
Condttlona) Use P~rmit No. 1659, in part~ on the basis of the revised ~l~;ns and the
stipula:tons of the petitioner; granting the use only, subJ~ct to the stipulatfons of the
petitioner and subJect to the Interdepartmentai Committee recomrs~ndattons. (Sea
Resolutton (3ook)
On roll call~ ~he foregoing resolution was passed by the foZlowing vote:
~
~
AYES: C~MMISSI~NERS: BARNES~ FARANO, HERBST, KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR~ JOHNSON
MOF.S: LOMMISSIONFRS: NONE
A95FNT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
0
...~
~
MINUTES~ CI7Y PLAtJNING COMMISSION, October ?.7~ 1976
7b-534
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC H[ARING. ROBEli7 R. RALIS, ?.1~+ Monnrch Eiay~ South Laguna. Ca.
PERMIT N0, 16Go 926/? (Owner); PAUL YOROE~ 1422 Damnn Avenue, Anahelm~ Ca. 92802
- (Agent); reyuesting permissfon to ESTAULISII A BOAR~ING H'IUSE FOR
SIX DEVEI.OPMEPJTALLY-DISABLED ADUI.TS WITII WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM EAVE
PPOJFCTION INTb SIDE YARD AND (R) MINIMUM SIDF. YARD SF.THACK on pr~prrty dcscribad as
a!~ irragularly-sl-~aped pa;ccl oF land con~tgting of approxlmatr.ly 0.43 ecre having a
frontagc of approxtn~ately 160 feeC on the west side oP West Straet, F~a~ing a maxlmum
depth of approximatciy 230 fcet, and bctng located approxlmetely 355 Feet eouth uf the
centerline of La Palma Avsnue. Property prnsently classiftPd RS-10~000 (RESIDENTIAL~
SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
Three persons ind(cate~~ thelr presence In oppos(tior~ to the subJect pet(rlon, and
forthwith watved the full rcadinq ~r the StafP Re~rt ~o th~ Pl:~nntng ~anmisslon dated
October 27, 197~+. Althouqh [he Staff Report was not read a~ the: public hearing, It is
rsferred to and m.~de a par[ of thc minutes.
Mr. Paul Yorde, thc ayent ~or the petltioner~ ap~eared 'oefare the Flanninq Commisxton and
r~vlewed the prnposal~ stattng that if necess~~ry they could relocate the proposed garage
to provfde rx~rc roc~m on t.he north, and south st~~s of kha property; thrr, the boys reslding
on the pr•~perty woula have no motorcycles or vans ond wo~al~ leave the property on week
days around 8:36 a.m.~ returning at approxim~tely 3~45 p.m.~ to particlnaCe in the
workshops for the mcntnlly retarded; and th~t the prop~sed structure wauld be like a larg~
hnn~e w(th 3~~0 square fect of living area.
Mrs. Sally ~arty~ 1004 North West Srreet, Pnahelm appeared before. the Plsr.ning ~ommtssion
In opposition and Stateci ~he dld not feel r.hat tht petlticners had ylven a good defin(tlon
of the Froposed resioents of !he property, mean~ng boys ve~sus a~~~lts and betng mentally
retardec'; tt~at the proposal would lowe~ tf~e property v~lues In ~.i~a area and be completcly
detrimental; that she was nut ob,(ecting to the propused bulldln~.~, but to the use of it;
3nd that a similar fdcil~ty exlsted ~n LeisurP Court ~ACYp55 La r~alma Avenue) v~ith
employees providing contl~ual supervisiun over th~ resfd~nts.
~4r. Donald itees, 99`1 North !'est 3treet~ Anatieim~ appeared before the Pla~nning Commission
in orpositl~n anJ star~d thP proposai ~ppeared to be a commercial venture encroaching into
the re~ider~(ai ar~a; tti~t re was supposing that the petitioners would be leasing the
facilities; that n~,rmc,liy four or ftve unrelated people could reside in a house~ and the
p;'oposai was tor six peopl~~ p~us the caretEk.ers.
Mrs. Donald Rees indlcated her pre~ence also in oppositfon.
In rebuttal~ Mr. Yorde stated that he dld not intend to 1've c~n tt~e premises, stncs the
facilities wo~ld be operateJ by a man and woman hired to 1o the cooking, yard work~ etc.;
that the boys would be between the aaes af 25 and 37 Y~a s old; tha~: San Bernardine and
Riversidc cauntles had appr~x(mately 750 homes simllAr t~ the proposal; that legislat(on
had be;n Fassed to set up homes of this nature and it wa~ mand~tory for the retarded
chil~ren to live in the commun(ty; that the afflrmativa action by ctties would te bar.ked
up by the Federal Government; that the chil~iren were gi•ouped toget :r on the basls of
their sim~lar aptitudes and abiltties to do the same typc af work in the workshops, an~
were not "dopc heads" or "roudies", but were basicaliy happy peopie wlth no wor-tes; that
the parents of the boys would be the board members and would hire the man and woman to
take care of the facilities, anci they were a~so the aw~ers; that presently the boys were
in homes car(ng for from ~+0 to 104 children, including the Good Shepherd Home in E1 Toro
which car~d for rnental ly retarded pe rsons from age 7 to 60; that the I.Q. r• nge of the
mentally retarded wa~, generally trom 10 to about 65~ with the I.Q. range being cared for
at Fairview; and that the six ~oys proposed to live at the proposed facillry would be able
to partlcipate tn the olympir,s snd 5elong to a bowltn~ league, etc.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLbSEI).
1~ res~+onse to questtoning by Commissioner Farano~ Flr. Yorde stated that mentally retarded
persons did not becortw physically violent; whereupon~ Commissioner Faran~ noted to the
contrary~ that they could and dtd become violent an~1 he had obssrved those condltions at
Fairvfew and other fac(lities; that he realfzed that Che work people did tn these type
facliities was very wcrthwhile; however~ the rights of others needed c~nsideratlon In a
determtnation of hhether the proposed use would meld with the existinn residentfal
ne i ghborho~<i ~ etc,
Comntssio~er Farar~~ irauIr°_d wh..t type of work the bays would participate in at the
worksl~op~ and Mr. Yorde steted work ras braught to the wor':shop by manufacturing
compa~nies~ etc., such as 1tems to be counte~i and bagged~ operating minor machin~ry used ta
~
~
MINUTt:S, CITY NI_ANNI~IG COMMISSIOM~ OCtobor 2], 1976
~ CQNDITIONAI. USC•. PERMIT N0. 1660 (Cc-nllnued)
~
~
76-5u0
c~vor ltoms on c~rdboard wlth pla~tic ~hee~ting~ etc.; and thot the wnrk wps relatively
llqht~ t~ktnq v~ry 1(ttle eye-to-hanri c~ordlnr~tion, Mr, Yorde tui•ther stated that the
naturr~l parenty of the boys would brl• them to thc facllity and would Form an
orqanfzatlon or board nF J~rect~~rs; t~, t hc and h~s wif! hnrt been tn thc busin~ss for 39
ycars~ purcht~sing the ~ropertle~s out of '~e few pennies they saved~ since thcy dld not get
anything from the o~eratton; anci that they wore t.hinking of a ven for the faclllty that
would hoid efght 'ca ten pcoole; and tha~ the boys would be on tha uroQerty on weokends and
on holldays,
Chalrman .1ol~nson inqulr~~d what street prlvlleges thc boys wuuld hnve; w~~ereupon~ Mr. Yordc
statcd they would hope that the nclghbors would be kind and gooci to ~hem~ slnce unkind~a~s
wn:; sen~ed hy ~~;~ me,ntally retardQd persons.
Cnmmisstoner FArano nc~ted that he had a problem with th~ pr~~~~oaat .,ece~use It was In the
natur~ of a corr~erclal venture and had to be prafitable; ar,•I Chat he had a prohlem also
whm~ a slml lar faci l ity wrs propo~ed in the C~i~yan arr.o,
Commisstuner pornes noted that thc proposal was simtlar to thc hume for tha sorority which
the Commission had con~idered some tfine ago; that. she w.3s trying `.o think of~ Che proposal
as belnq for completely norm~~l people because Che use v~ ' be strictly restdentlal. She
questloned wnat ~reas th~ ho+nes werc c~ppr~~ved for in Sen .~rnArdlno and Rlvers(de
caunties, and Mr. Yorde ~taked "cverywhere."
Commis;,ioner li~rbst nor.aci Chat the subJect pro~eity was abutting zhe Carbon CreNlc Chan~al~
was lacated across the street fror the water wr11 property whfch would not be developed~
r~nd was also adjacent to a c~nvalescent hospital; tfiat the property was at the edge of the
sing~e-famlly residentfal neighborhood and th~ community had a responslbility to recognlze
that thP menCally ret~rded persans needad to assoclate with normal Ilvtn~ condiclons and
thc locaticn of the subJect pruperty was probably as suicable for the p!•~nos~l as would be
found ln Anahe(m; and that t:o further support the neighborliood~ the petltioners weres
~ropos'^g an expensive home w(th six bedro~ms and na signing~ etc.
It wa~ noted that the Director of the Planning De~artment haci determtn~:d that the proposed
ac[Ivlty fail within the definition of Section 3.01~ Ciass 3~ of Che Gity ~f AnAh~(m
Guidelines to the RequirerrKnts for an Envlronrt-ental Irn~~act Report and wa~, th~refore~
cateqortcally exempt from the requtrement to file an EIlt.
Commissioner• Herbst offered kesolut(on No, PC76-221 and moved for tts passage and
adoptt~n~ that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Cnmmission does hereby grant Petition for
C.ondit~onal llse Permlt No. 1660~ granting the ~equested watvers en the basis that the
petitioner demonstrated tiiat a hardshtp would be crcared if sald waivers were not granted~
due to the irreg~lar sixe and shape of the subJect property; granting the proposed use ta
permit a boarding house for six dcvelopmentally-dlsabled adults and a hausekeeping couple,
err the basis tfiat the subJect oropertye although located in a resldentlal area~ is also in
close prox(mity t~ comn~ercial and other non-reside~tlai uses tncluding [he Carbon Creek
Cliannel; ,ubieci to the property being devetop~ed precisely in accordance wiCh the plans
and speGf'icattons on file wtth the City marked Exhibit Nos. 1~ 2 and 3; and subJect to
the Interdepartmental Committee rer_onmendations. (See Resoiutton Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the Following vote;
AYES: COMMISSION[RS: BARPIES~ FAMNO~ HERBS7~ KING~ MORI.EYp TOLAR~ .;OIiNSON
NO[S: C6MMISSIOPI~RS: NONF
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 27, 197b
iG-ti4~
REPQRTS A~~D - ITEM A
RCCONMENDATIQNS ~~-a~0 ZONE ARLA IIM:TA''IONS - Prop~s~od ordlnAncn Amendment,
It waa noted thet tne subJect tte,n wes conrinucd Pram the Planning CommiRS(on mceting of
Uct~ber I1 ~ 197G~ 'or fiirther study.
Commissioner Herbst n~ted ther, the area limitatlons o~ the RS-5000 Zone sho uld specify the
lot size and not p~ed slze, so as to give the dev~loper t17o opportunity ta de velop simlior
ko xhe RS-IO,QO'.', or RS-7~n0 sfte development stendards; and thaC the curren t Code mandated
that the pads be yradad xo 5000 syunre 1'ec[.
Commissioner Tolar noted ttiAt hc felt. the RS-5~~d Zone was hacl leqlsletlun; an~1 that en
ovor°abundmnce of RS-S000 developm.~nCs wout~l be coming Into the hlll and c.enyon arr,a As
lung as sald zone exlsted In the Code.
Commissioncr Nerb~t relat~d hi5 own personal expcr.enc:e wtth rr~untr.in developmant and
iioted tl~at the d~velopnrs needed thc Fiexfbllity to deslgn che actua) pnds with a minlmum
amount of ~rading,
Folowing further discusslon~ Com^~Issioner Morley o~ferrd a motion~ seconded by
Commissianer Farano and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anaheim Cfty Planning Commisslon doeg
hereby rerrx~ve the subJect it~m fr~m the calend~or for an tndefintt~e perlod of time~ pending
further study.
ITEM B
~NCE N0. 267a - Reque~t for tcrmin~tlon - Prvperty
consisttng of approxlmately 3 acres of lanci on the southwest
slde of Manchestcr Avenuc~ approxlmetely 660 feet erst of the
centeritne of Har6or Soulevard,
it was noted that tl~e subJect variancG w~s nranted by th~ Planning Comntssi~n on March 4,
i`375~ to permit a r-~dular home sales and display complex with watvers of permitted uses
and maximum slgn are~~~ for a period of 2 years and 90 days~ to explre on •lune 3; 1,~77; and
that the applicant (Wllliam 0. 'ihagard, President~ Walker b Lee~ Inc.) was rrquesttng
terminaiion of sald variance since the {~roperty wa~ being sold and there w as no need for
the variance,
Cortmissi4ner Farana offered a motion~ seconded by Cammis~loner King and M0710N CARRIED,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does tiereby recommend to the CitY Council of the
City of Anaheim that all proc~edings in connectlon with Variance No. 2078 t,e termtnated,
oR the basis of the foregoing findinqs and as requested by the applicant.
ITEM C
CAN AN AREA GENERAL PLAN - Request t~ set Joint 5tudy Sesslon.
It was nuted that the Canyon Area General Pian was ~~ear+ng completion; tha t on October 5~
1976~ th~ Canyon Area General Planning 7ask Force select~ed an alternatiie and directed
staff ta revise and nadify thP plan; that said Gener~l Plan hac! been in p rogress for the
past 18 months, during which time work had bean completed on a poltcy psckage~
~1tErnatfves, costibenefit analysis~ and ~reltminary land use; and that the Task Forcr, was
recortmenc~ing that a Joint Study Session be scheduled on December 7, 1976, to brlef tlie
Ctty Council and Plannir.g Commission.
Commtssioner Farano offered a moti~n, seconded by Camm(ssianer Herbst snd M0710N CARRIEQ,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does liereby recammend to the City Council of the
City of Anahtim that a Jolnt Study Session for the City Gouncil, Planntng ~ommission, and
Canyon Area General Planning Task Force be scheduled on December 7~ 1976~ at 7:00 p.m., in
the Disastmr Serv(ces Canference Room~ as requested by the Task Fo~ce.
~
~ ~
MINU?ES~ CITY PI.ANNING GOMMISSION~ G_tober 27~ 19"'b jf'-54Z
t TEPI q
~T1~IOS. 7;67 AND g268 • Itcquns t t'~r E t R Neqs~ 1 ve Dec) arat lon And
permisston ta remc,ve spec:tmen treas In conJu;-ctl~~n wtth tha Inatellatlon
of off-slta storm d~ain,
Thc Strff Report ta the Plann{ng Commissfon dated October ?.7~ 1g76~ w~s presented and made
a part of the minu2es.
Commiasisner Rnrnes noGed that Yiie hrd e c~nfllct oP interest ss de~~lned by A~ahelm City
Plc~nning Commisslon kesolutlon No, PC76-157 adoptinc~ a ConfllcC of Interest Code for Cye
Pla~ntng Commi~ston ~:~d Governmcnt Code Section 3625~ at seq. ~ In thek she had property
thruUgh whtch the proposed drdin wauld run; that~ purs-ianl Cc~ the prc~vlsions of thc+ above
Code~~ she was herd~y declaring t~ the Choirman that she w~a withdrawing froin the hedring
(n c~nnectlan wtth the subJ~ct rnquest (Item 18-D oP thn Planntng Cwix~~lssinn Ago~da) ~nd
would not takc part ~n either the discussion or the woting tt~ereon; and that ahn had not
d(sc:us~ed the mettcr with rny n~ember• of the Planntng Commisslon. THEREUPON~ COMMISSIONER
BARNES LEFT THE CtiUNCIL Ci1AMBER A7 y:05 P.M.
It was noted that the pro~osed off-sitc starm dratn In~,olved property which wes a natural
water course Pru~n che Four Corn~rs Pipe Llne ~asemer~ to the Intersection r,f Crescent
Drive: and Royal Oak Road~ nortlierly of the su~Ject eracts and Nohl Nanch Ro~d~ and
opproxlmately 260~ feet lon9; that Mahe(m Hl l ls ~ inc. ~ was reque~ting approva) of a plan
to remove 11 specimen eucrlyptus trees whlch were located in tha proposed dra(nage
easement; that the storm drain was required as a:.cmdition of the Clty Counctl's approval
o~ the t~inal tract rnaps of the: subJect trrcts; that the propose~ dratn would traverse ten
separate parccls of land awned by ten diffe~ent indlvtduals; that it was posslble that the
root structure oP additional trees may be damaged during the consxructton process to an
extent that they cauld become a t~ta~l loss; that there wc~e app~oxtmately 50 eucalyptu3
trces located along the total length c~f the storm drain and the tr~ees whtch would be
removed were located on two parcels o~ly, one parcel contttning on~ cluster of four trees~
plus one single tree~ and the other parcel conta~ining two clusters of three trees t;i ea~h
cluater; that Mahetm Hi l ls, Inc. ~ t~ad t~greed to ~enew any landscaptng and replaca eny
trees which must be ~amoved because af the storm draln constructlon; and that ~taff found
~o signlficant adverse envirunm~ntal impact would ~esult from the ~roposed proJact.
Mr. Nerb Christensen~ 5108 Crescont D rive~ Anahcim, appeared beForc the Planning
Commission and ind(cated that the property owners who would be affectod by the praposed
storm drain had not be~n aware that th~ item was s=heduled at this meetiny for
canslder~tion; that there was e lack of dialogue ln connection ~ith the praposAl dnd the
casements which would be requlred, in his opinion~ and that he would urye xhe City or
whaever was in cha~ge of the proJect to begin to communicate wlth the property awners.
In ~sponze to questtoning by the Plann(ng Commission, Daputy City Attorney Frank Lowry
advtsed that the proposed sta~m d~ain factlity had been ordered by the City Councll tn
coni~ectton with thetr approval of fi~al tract maps for 7~act Idos. 7567 and 9268; that the
storm dratn was a matter fo~ sole conslderetion by the City Gouncil; And that the matters
br_fore the Pla~ntng Cortmtssio~ were the EIR Negattve Drclar~tion and removal of the trees.
In respanse to questioning by M~. Ch ristense~~ Mr. Lawry advlse~i that Anahei~r Hills~ Inc.~
was responsibie for obtalning the Eas ements which may be tnvolved in the storm drutn
proJect; that~ Pollowing construction , the City would becort~ lnvolved; and that If so~~e of
tha people dtd not grant the emsemen t s, as needed~ condemnation proceedings may bncom~s
-~ecessary.
Upon further quest{onEng by Mr. Chris tensen~ Offlce Enc~lnee~ Jay Titus advtsed that the
Englne~ring Diviston had Informed An ah~lm Hills ihat the drain was required and would be
ptped through the subJect tr~cts~ et c., Nr. Ch~fstengen stated that Anaheim H111s wAs
advised a couFle 4f ye~rs ago that th e storm drain would go through~ but ware walting for
the City ta tell them what klnd of pipe and where to nut it. Mr. T(tus cla~iflad th~t the
storm dratn was not a Planning Commis slon matt~r~ and advised that there were precise
alignment plans for the storm drain~ except at the potnt where (t would ttc ln wlth Rayal
Oak Roed,
Mr. Oliver Cagle, Pro)ect Administrator for Anahetm Nills~ Inc.~ appeared before the
Plannfng Co~nlssion an~i stated the plans had prngressed to the point of plan check on
Friday~ October 29~ 1976; and that th e trees w~uld be replaced in acco~dAnce with the Tree
Prese~•vaLion Ordtnancc requirements.
•
M~NUTES~ CIlY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ October 27~ 1976
ITCM D (Contlnueci)
~
~
76~543
Mrs. Joyc~ Ivorson, 5z06 Cre~cent Driv~s~ Anahelm~ t~ppcared before the Planning Commt~slon
and ststed her propnrty Nan et the w~~y end o} the storm drel~ and she hpd been contacted
for hor opinlon ln the mattmri that sho had na obJectlona to the draln or th racaivl~~~ the
water~ hawever, she hod appronimstely 20 full-grown eucalyptu~ trees which would be
affect~d by th~ constructton of the drel~~ the damaye betng to the r~ot ~ystem, ss
verifl~:d by the peryon who has c+~red fc~r ~~er trees aver tho past two ye~rs; and that~
rathor than replr+~ing the trees~ she would prePer t~ h~vc a stonn wall aince she hAd a
windrow on thc athtr sid~e of her o~operty.
M~r. Ca~gle stated that Anahelm Hi 11s~ Inc., hac' indicatod r~ wil l ingness to work ~vikh Mrs.
Ive~~~un concerning the tr~ses on her preperty; and that Anehelm Nilla would bw mc~~e thnn
happy to replsco any trees clameg~d by the storm dratn prr.~)ect~ lncluding those oti Mrs.
I ve rson' ~ property end any others .
Ccx~missio~er Herbst noted thac any dameged trces should 6e removed prior to thc wlnd~
c~aming thr~ugl~, to prevent prope~ty demage, etc.
Mr. Christensen stntod that the propert~ awners who liad not al ready glven easements rrould
be very u~happy sbout lasing thctr avocado traes; and that some dtalogue was needed
Immedi~tely~ and not later on, Commtssloner FaranA concurred.
Mr. Cagle stated that Mr. Chrlstensen had agreed to tiie pipe In~~al iatinn and a e(gnad
lPtter was on file wlth Mahelm Hllls~ Inc., to thar, effect,
(;ommissioner Nerbst offered a moticx~~ secondad by Cammissioncr King and MOTIQN CARRIED
(Commtssioner earn~s being absant)~ th~t the Anahelm City Planning Commisston does hereby
recommend to the City Council ~~f the Ctty of Anaheim that ~ negative declarmtion from the
requ) rement to prepare an envi ronmantal Impact report be approved for the subJect proJect.
pursuant to the provisions oP the California EnvironmEnta) Quality Act.
Commlasioner Herbst offered a m~tton, seconded by Commissla~er King and MdTlON CARRIE~
(Chalr•man Johnson voting "no"~ :~nd Comm(ssloner Barnes being absent)~ th~t the Anaheim
City Planning Conxnission does he~eby dete~mtne that the proposal to rcmov~ eleven specimen
eucalyptus trees within the natural water course of the praposed storm dratn be approved,
subJect to the stipulati~an ofi Anaheim Hllls~ Inc., that sald trees shall be replacnd ln
accordance with the pruvisions QF the T~ee Rreservatlon Ordinance; provided~ howeve~. that
any addlltonal specimen t~eas wh!ch may become damaged or hazardous from the construction
of :he storm drain shal) also be remaved snd replaced in acco~dance wlth the Tree
Preszrvatiorti Ordinance.
Chairman Johnson noted that he ha~l vo~nd "no" on the basis that the proJect was being
handled in a "pleccmeal" manner.
COMMIS51(1NER BARNES RE7URNED 70 TNt COUNCiI CHAM9ER AT 9:30 P.M.
ITEM E
PROPERTY TRANSFE:R TO ORr1NGE COUNIY FLOOD CONTROL 0lS7RIf,T -
Request for dete.rmination of c~mpl(ance with the City of Anahelm
General Plan.
It was noted that the Oranga County Flood ConGrol District t~ad been offcred fee owncrship
of an eas~ment presently held by th~a Rlstrlct; that the no-cost affer was tendered by the
present fte owner~ Sa~ta Barbara Sa~vinys and LotM Associatlon; that the property In
question was Parcel E04-603 of the 1~twaod Channel, locatGd north of Ho!brook Street and
west ~f Keliagg 9rive; that, 1~ accnrdance with Section b5402 of the Government Code, the
Envlronmental Managemcnt Agenc~r was requegting the Planntng Cammisslon to determine !f the
proposed proJect, was in con'Formance with the Clty of Anaheim General Plan; and that the
Agency was further requesting concurrence wlth the preparatlon of an EIR negaL•ive
declaration. It wRS furtiher ~ated that City Staff had determined that the proposed
transfer of property was nat in co~tlict with ehe Anahelm G~neral Plan and~ furthe~more~
the proJect conformed wlih the requlrements for !ne filing of an EIR negattva declaratlon.
Commissioner King offered Resol utlan Nc~. PC76-222 and m.oved for its pa~saqe and adoptlon~
that the Anahetm City Planning Cortmiston F-as reviwed the proposed transfer of real
property t~ the Orange County Flood Cantrot 0(strir.t~ in accordance with Gavernment Code
~
....
~
HINUTES~ CITY PLi NNING CdMMISSION~ bctober 27. 1976
~
7b-S44
ITEM E (Conkin~ed)
Section 65A02~ t+~d doee hereby find and dntnrmins that the conveyence of Partel EO ~603 Is
In c~x-~orro~ancn wi th the C ity of Anahelm's adopted Gencra) Plan and~ furthermore~ .~oe~
concur 1 n the f 1 1 i ng of an E I R negat t ve decl arat ton 1 n con~ect lory ~il tl~ the sub 1er.t
proJrct, (See Resulutlon ~oak)
On roll cal l~ th~e forego~ ng rnsolutlon was passod by thG following votot
AYES: COMMISSI ~NERS: BARN[S~ FARANO~ fIERBST~ KING~ MORLEY, TOIAR~ JONNSON
N0~5: COMMISS I ONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISS 1 ONERS: NONf.
I'fEM F
~.~1 7 FOR EIR NEGATIVE DEC4ARATION - Fo~ a grading permlt (No. 547)
at 457 South Country Ntll Road,
It was noted Chat an appl ication had been fi led far a grading permit at the subJect
locatlcx~~ to cnnsiruct a single-'Qamtly resldence; that an evaluatlon of the environmental
Impact of grading at this locr~tton w~s required under the pravlslons of the Caltfornla
Environmental Quallty Act and the State EIR Gutdellnes becau~e the proJect was locate~ in
the Scenit Corridor and the slope of the land wAS at least 10~; and that a study of the
proposed grading by the Planning Dcpartment a~d the Englneering Diviolon indicated that It
would have no sig~ificant environmentalimpact.
Cc~mmissloner Tol ar oPfered a motion~ seconded hy CortMnisstonPr King and MOTION CARRIED~
Chat th~ Anaheim Clty I~ianninq Commisslon does heraby recammr:nd to the Gity Council of the
City of 14naheim that a negatf ve declaratlon from the requl rement to prepa~e an
~nv) ronrr~ntm! impact report be approved for the ~ubJect proJect~ pureuont to the
provls lons of th~ Cal i forni a Envi ronmental Qual i ty Act.
ITEM ~
~~T FOR EIR NEGATI'JE DECLARATION - For a grading permtt (No. ~42)
et approxtmately 500 feet easterly of Nohl Ranch Road on Serrano Avenue.
(t was noted that an appl(cation had bean filed by Anaheirn HIIIs, Inc.~ for a grading
pnrmt t to const ~uct thc ini ti al 700-fac~t lo~g portion of a rn~di Pted hi l ls ide Gol lector
str~et (Hidden Canyon Road); and that the plans were Tor a spl~t-lane~ split-level scenic
highway which would bypass and pr::serve an existing stand af specime~ oak trees ar.d
provide an appropr(ate enr.ry inta the most exclustve residentlal estate development in
Anohelm Hills.
~
Commi ss t one r Fa rano ~ev i ewed th~ p 1 ans and Lhe grad i ng pro~osed ~ and noted that i t was h t s
underatandtng that Anah~eim Hi l ls had agreed; at the request of the Planni~g Commission, to
provide t~pographlc rnodels in khlyd-dima~slon~ showtng the "before and after" of the
grading; and that only one such model had been presented~ and tt had been very beneficla~l
ln the Planning Commission's consideration of the proJect under cons(deratlon at that
time.
Commi ss lonor B~ rne~oted tt~at the Canyon Area General P1 ann t ng Task ~orce had al so 1 1 ked
the idea of the top~a~hic mo~dels for gradtng proJects; and that she had spoken Nith the
pre~fdent of Anahet i ils, Inc., who thought the topographtc models were an excetlent
idea. '''
Commissioner H~rbst noied that the propos~d praJect invoived a minor slope~ or about a 5$
yrade~ and was a minor grade and fi 11 pro,)ect~ in his opinion.
Commisslone~ Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commiss(oner King snd MOTION CRRRIED
(Commissloner Barnes voting "no"), that Lhe Mahelm Ctty Planning Comnlssion does ~~e~eby
recommend to the C(ty Council of the City of Anaheim that a negative declaration f~o~a the
requirert-mnt to prepare an enviranmental impact ~eport be approved for the subJect pro)ect~
pursuan t to the provi s i on~ of the Cal i forn i a Cnvi roncnental Qual i ty Act.
Commisstoner Fa~ano offered a motion that the Mahelm City Planning Commisston dces hereby
ostablPsh (or ~eestablish) a policy to rmquire that~ beginning immndlately and pursuant to
~
MINUTES~ CITf PLANNING COMMISSIOIJ, October 27~ 1g76
ITEM G (Continued}
76-5~+5
egreemant oF representettves af M~heim Nills, tnc.~ thlyd-dimenslonul~ topc.graphlc models '
shall bc requlrad for yrading af tracts In the hil) and canyo~ aree; and th~t said policy
be fo n+erded to the City Cauncil,
f.o;mnissicmer Nerbst noted thet he would agree te the foregoing mutlon with re~pec¢ to
meJor trdc~s and/or dnvelopme~ts~ but not 1'or ml~or proJects such as tha gradE~g f~r the
street whlch was Just considered by this body; and that tha poliGy could epply to {~roJects
involvirq a epecified amount of dtrt in cubEc yards.
Cammissione~ TolaP seconded the foregalnc~ motlon~ rnd thc~ M~TION CAR4ilE0.
I TEM H
REQUEST FOR E~R NEGATIVC DECLARA790N - For a gradfng permtt (No. 5~s6)
at 350 Tlmken ~venue.
It was noted that en epplicattan hAd baen filcd for r gra~iing permlt to construct a
single-f~mlly rosidence at the subJect locatlon; that nn :svalut~tl~n of the envlron+nental
impact of grading at this loc~C.tan was requtrcci unrier the prov{sions of the California
Envlronmontal Quality Act arod the SCate ~IR Guldelines because the proJect was located (n
the'Scenlc Corr(dar and the slope of thc Iand was at leost 10$; and that a study of the
p~oposed grt~di~g by the Planning Departmant anJ xhe Engincering Divlsian indicated that It
wou{d have na sinnificant envlronrrKntal Impact.
~Commtssione~ King off~red a mation~ saconded by Co~ranlssio~~sr Farano and MOTIQN CARRIED~
that the A~aheim Ciiy Planning Cnmmission does hr.rnby recanm~and to the City Cauncll of the
City of Anaheim that a negetive declaration from the requtr~rt-ent to prepare an
enviraimenCa) impact ret,ort be approved for the subJect prm,~ect~ pursuant to the
provlsions of the Caltfornla Environmental Quality Act,
I TEM I
R CI.ASSIFICA710N N0. 73w7~~~42 AND VARIANCE N0. z494 - Res~ue~t for approval
~f ravised plans - Propa~ty ~^nsistfng o1` approxtmately 0.4 acre locatcd
~n .tlie souttti side of Lincain Avcnue, appr•oxlmately 36S feet wesC of th~
centerylne of Magnolia Avenue,
The Staffi R.~port to the Planning Commisslon datcd bctobcr 2j~ 1976~ was presented and made
a part of the minutes.
Assistant Pl~nntng D1recLar-Zoniny An~~ka Santalahti revlewed th~ pfoposal~ n4ting the
rev(slons outlined In the Staff Rzport.
Cnmmissionnr hbtley offered a motion~ seconded by Cortmiss(oner King and MOTION CARRIEU,
that the Anaheim Clty Planntng Commiss(on,cbes hereby recomrt!end to the City Councll of the
Ctty of M aheim that the revised plans s~{bmittbd i~ connectton with Reclassificatian No.
73-74~42 and V~riance No, 249A be ypp~oved~~ subJect to a tree screen being prov(ded
adJa~cent to the east and south prUperty lines~ sald Yree screen to consis*. of ¢rees spaced
at 2Q~foot centers.
ADJOURNMENT ^ There being no further business to d;scuss, Commissloner Morley offered ~
natlon~ seconcied by Cummissioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED, that the meettng
be ad,~ourned to November 1, 1976~ at 7:30 p.m.~ In the Fremont Jr. High
School Auditarium~ fo~ the purpose of holding a publlc hearing on General
Plan Amendment Na. 941,
ihe meeting adJourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectt`ully submitted~
a ~ ~
Patricla B. Scanlan~ Secretary
Anahelm Clty Planning Cortimisslon
PB5:hm
0 R ;; ;~ 'nICROf II.MING SFR1'ICE. !NC
~
~+w
~
016;~ kia.l..l.
An~~hoim, Califui•r~ia
Oo'~ober 27, :L~J7c;
RID(3U.`,11R h'L;II"PI1J~i CYF ~'HIIl ANAEIIIIIM CI'PY PIJINNINC3 C01~'~dTS~1.ON
RRX}UIJIR - A r~~ul.e~• ~ClOCitl.Tlh of t,hu Anatialw ('ity I':len~ciing Coromia:~?.on vrss ou].:loci Lo
M-Eii~'INC} ,,rct~~c~ b~ Ohe~.lru~an Johnncm a1 :1:3U p.m. , on OotoUor ?.7, ~.~~7C~, in t•he~
r~~ C~_~~moi.l Chauibc~i~, a quoruin Uoing pr•e~eiit.
I'RICS~iJT •- CFiAIIZMIIN: John:tun
COMMIS,~TOf~tl!~:t:;: Narne~i, rarano, fle~~~b:~i;, ICing, Morloy, Tular (Who er~t,~.rod
tlic~ Oounoi~. Cha~nbar at 1;~7 p.m. )
pI,;;O PF~i~SFMP - l~onal~t `1'hotnpson
~ Fracik Lowry
Ar~ni~a SantRlahti
LNill~.~m D~vi.tt
p~u] Sin~~i^
~Tay Titu~
J'o~'~ Fiok
Patrioid Soan:l.an
Planning Dir•eotc:c•
De~uty City At~tiornoy
A:331r31,ant P1Riining Dir•~~o~tor-.Zotiing
/1s:~i:~tant 41ty F~ngtr~oei•
'~rat'f.ic~ Eugine~r
Off3.oe hiig:tnacir
Asei~t~ni; plannor
P.lariii:tng Comcn:;.':~~i on 5eorotar•y
YLF~DGE Ob~ - Commi•s:~ion~r Darnes led in the P:Lc,dKe of A.llegianoe to the rlag of the
ALI~H',GIANOE Uriited States of Amerioa.
APPRWAL Uk' - COITllT1139~Oll~jI~ Barnr-,s o.ffored R moti.nn~ se~~ondod by Commissionor Morlay and
M?NUTES M07.'ION CARItIrD (~ommissl.oner Tol.ar bein@~ abseni; ), that; the minuto~ of tho
Plnnni.ng Commi~:aion meetitig held on Sop'~ember %7, 1976, bo and horeby are
approved, as submitted.
Cummi~ssi<mer Darnos offor~d a mution, ~Qoonded by Commis~ioner Moi•lc~y,
auu MOTtQN CARRI.~U (Commi~~si.on~r Fai•a.~o abstainin~; einoe he we,s noi, pre9ent
at trcj m~ei;iri~ in que:3tion; aiid Commi.a:~ionc~r Tole~r being abserit), that the
minutea oi' tho Planning Commisyiori maei;i.r~g hold on October 1.1, 1976, te and
herc~Uy ~re appi•oved , as submitl;ed .
ENVIROn'?i~NTAL IMl'ACT _
RF;POHT N0. 178
RECIaA S:~IFIC'P.TTON
130. 76- 77-2
VARIANCE N0. 2a14
COINPINUFD ~ READVERTISED Pt'BLIC I~ARING. ESTATE OF ADOLFFi J. SOHUI`I'FC ~
u; o A].an Talt, 615 Setiath ';'lower Strve~;, Suite 806, Los Angeles, r,a.
9007_7 (Owner); Ti3E WAt2~dI1~GT0^1 COMPANY, c~o Waltor Coursen, 1788U
Sicy Psrk Cirole , Suii;e 2J5 , 7rvinc~ , Ca. 92707 (Agent ). Properi~y
desoi lbe~ e,s an ir,~eg~.~l~.r1y-shaped psroel of land oonsisting of
approxi~.~tely ?.7 Bores ._uaal;ed southesst of the southo~si; oorner
of Ba11 Road and Sunki t Streot, having approxit~ts front~.ges of
17U feet on the soizth ~ide eP A~11 Road and 1200 faet or the oast
side of Sutikist Stree .- , and h~ving a mr~ximum deptYi of ai~~~ ^oxi~te.ly
~~JU feet. Proper•~ty ~ .~e3ontly alassified RS-A-43,00~ (RLSIDENPI~1i~%
,'1GE~ICULTURAL) ZONE.
REQU~STEU CLASSII'ICATION: RM-4UUi~ ~~JIDE' ITIAL~ MUI.[CIPL~E-FAMILY) ZONE.
F~WUP~STEfJ VAft2ANCE: WA:CVEA Ob' (A ) M.~N.?~dU' t BUyT 7ING S2fi1; AF~FA PER DWLLLING UMT, (B )
h9AX2MUM BUILDING I-1n,luklT, (C) MARIMUM WALL HEIGHT, AND (D) MINIMUM
AiUbIDER OF rNCLOSf~D i~AR1C~';.C '~''~GES, TO OONSTRUCT 212 CONDO~f1ItJM
DWELLSIVGS .
It was noted th~t the sub,joot petition for rc~o].Regifio~txon was aontinued from the
Planning Commisaion meeting of Tuly 7, 19ib~ at •the request of the potitioner and in order
for e~ var3,anoe to ba advertised; and from ttie P].csruiing Commission meetings of July 19,
August 16~ ?.ugu~t :U and SeptemUei• 27, 1976, at i~he request of the petitioner. It was
ftirther noted that the pdti.tioner wa~ reqtlosti~g that the subjecl~ petil;ions be taken off
the Planning Commis~ion agenda ur~i;ll revisod pl.tsn9 wore submitted.
Comuiesioner k'ar~no ofierad a mot~.on, seconded by Commisjioner Herbst e,nd MOT:CON CARRI~D
(Cammie3ioner To]ar being abseat), that the Anaheiro Oi~ty Planntng Commiasion doo~ hereby
remo!•e the sub,~eot itemn from the agenda ai1d, upon the submiseion of rovised plane, ~sid
items o;~a'.1 Ue readvertised for publio hearing at the petitioner's expensea
76-509
0 R C 0 MICROf Il M!NG SER4ICE, iNC