Minutes-PC 1977/04/11i;
" ~` ~ ~
Clty Nall
Anaheim~ Californl~~
Apr~l I1, 1Q77
AE~ULAR ~IEET I NP OF TNE ANANF 1 M C I TY PLANN I N~ C~M-1 I 5510~1
RE~l1LAR - A r~~ul~~ meeting of the AnAheim Clty Planntng C~mmissir,n w~g c.~lled
-iEETING to order by Chalrman Johnson at l::i~ p.m.~ ~n April il~ 1977~ (n the
--! C~~uncl) C hnmber, a qunrum bein9 preRent,
PRESENT - CNAIRM/1N: J~hnson
CQHMI5510 NERS: Darnes~ David~ Nerbst~ Klnq~ Tolar
VACANCY - pNE SCAT
ALSO PRESENT- Frank Lowry
Annika Sa~t~l~hti
P,~tul Singer
J~y T( tus
J~el Fick
Pamela 5antala
Patricia Scanlan
Asttst~nt Clty Attr~rnav
~SSI4Lant Planninq Oi~ector-7ontnc~
Trafftc Cnqtneer
Offir.e f.ngineer
Associate Planner
Pianning Uepartment 5ecretary
Cortxnl3slon Secr~t~ry
PLEDRE OF - Commissio~er 7olar le<i in the Pledge of AlleqiF~nce t~ the Fl,~a ~f the
ALLEGI/1NCE Unit:ed St:ates of llmerica.
IN MEMORY OF MR, RICHAR~ H. HORLF.Y~ Anahe{m City Planninq Cnrunissioner frcxn Ja~uary 15,
197~i~ to the time e~ hi s passinq ~n Apri 1 5, 1477~ a moment of si lence was deciared hy
Ch•3 i rman Johnsnn,
Chairman Johnson th~n r~,;,; 4tesolulion of C~ndoience for constdcr~~tion bv the Pl~nn(nq
Commtssion as foll~ws:
"RESOLUTI~N OF CONpOLENCE
IJHf.REAS~ thc Anaheim City Planniny Corrun(ssi~n is saddened to learn of the
untlmely passing of Riehard W. -1orley on llpri) S~ 1~77; and
WHEREAS, the Members of the Planninq Commission knew Dick ~s a distinguis hed
and belaved fr(end and associate~ and h;s knowled~e and friendly person shall be since rely
missed by th(s Ccxnmiss i en; and
WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission lias benefitted frcxn the ahle~ expedient and
commendable manner in w hich Dick endeavored to represent and serve the interests of the
people of th~ City ~f A naheim at all times,
NOW. TNE R EFORE~ BE IT RESOLV~U that the Anaheim C'vty Planning Commission
canveys +ts heartfelt e~ndolences to Dick's wife, June~ their three d~ughters and others
of Dick's family, and o ffers them comfurt through the knowl~dge that the Ctxm~unlty of
:~nahsirn (s a better ~lace in v~hich to live because of the cievotfan of Richard N. ~t~rley
to the hlghest principies of service and his compassion for all mankinrJ."
77-253 1~/~1/77
r~
~.
MIf~UTES~ CITY PLAM~~INa CO-4MISSION, llpril 11~ t977 ~~'z~~+
RESO W710N 0~ CONDOLE NLE (Cont i rued
C ommissloner Nerbst ofPer~d A rnotion~ sec~ndPd by Commisgloner Tolr~r, and MOTION CAR~tIED
BY UNANIMOUS VOTE~ that thc foregoing Resoi~,i iu~i ~f C~nd~lence he ado~ted an~i presented
to Mrs. Rich~ird N, Marley.
APPROVAL (JF - Corxnissioner Davl~f offare~i a motion, sPCOncied by Cnrxn;-^~~ner Yinc~~ and
THE MINUTES MOTInN CARRIED (all aycs; one SP..~~t heing vacant)~ that the minutes ~f the
regul~r meetlne~ of thF Planntng Corxnissl~n hel~i ~n 'tarch 14~ i~17, he an~l
herehy ,~re apPr~ved~ ns suhmitterl.
E IR fJE~hTI~JE !~ECLARATI~~~ - Cn-lTIr~1IFn Pi-aI.IC F+FARI"~r,, tJ~R-~INr,Tn~~ VErJTI1RFS, 17~P^ Skyp~rk
~ Circle, Irvin~~ CA '??.7~7 (Owner); A.S.A.tJ,A CORPf1RATl~t~~ ,4~
VARIAPlC~ tJO. 291G Worth Gol~fen Ctrcle Dr(vc, Suixc ll~i, Santa Ma~ !'A q27~5
(Aq~nt); requ~:,tlnc~ WAIVER OF ~11N1'1UM STR~1f,TuR11L SF.TR~r,K~ T~
f.STADL I SH A Cn-~VE-~ I E-~CE CE'~TCR on ~roner tv deccr i bed as a
rect%+nqularly-sha~e~f pircel of lind c~nsisttng ~f a~~r~xlmately
~,~ ~cre loG~ted at the northwest corner ~f flrangeth~rnA hvenue an~i Kraemer R~~ileverd~ hav-
ing a~proxim~te front~l~N.S of 1~~3 feet on the n~rth sic1~ of ~rang~thnrn~ Avenue ~nd lb? fect
on the west sl~in r~f ~,r~~+emer Ro~ilPVir~i~ ~nc1 fiirthP~ ~irticrlh~d :~s 17~1 ~lorth Y,r~er~er Roulevard.
Property pre5ently c lassified CH (CO!1NERC111L~ HE~VY) 70`lf..
it was notr_cl that the subject Items were continupd fr~ tnr Pl.~nning f.onimissi~n mcetinqs
of March 1~~, 19J7~ ~t the r^~uest of thc pet(ti~nr,r~ ~3nci from'larch 2~~ 1~77~ fo~ revis~d
plans. '
ASSistant Clty llttorney Frank La~•~ry advi5ed that (n the ~rcnaraf.ion ~f the revised nl~ns,
the~ petitioner had f-li~lnated the nee~i fnr ~ variance~ ~is ~~ell as a ~len~tive ~eclar~tt~n~
and was, thrrefore~ w(thdra~•~ing the request~~S v,~+riance ~s well ,is the Ne~ative ~eclar~~tion
reauest; h~wever, it appeared ap~ropriate for the Pl~nninq Comnisst~n to considrr the re-
vised pl~ns s(ncc tF~e ~raposed sethack differed f(ve ~ec~t from the oriryinAl ~roposal.
Corrnissioner Kin~ offered a rn~tion~ sec~nd~d hy ~ornmissioner Tolar~ and '1!1T1~~1 CARRIE~
(one seat be(ng vac,nt)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commissl~n does herehv approve the
cequest ~f the (+eti[i~ner to withdraw petiti~n for V~riance N~. ?.~-iG and the FIR ~legative
Decl~ration request; and~ furtherm~rs~ d~es ap~rov~ th~ revise~i ~lans~ ~s suhmitted.
ENV I ROY!1ENTAL IMPACT - COriT I Nti~o PUBL I C NCAR I N~~. OFVEL~PER: A~lAHE 1 M N I LLS, I-IC .~ 3~~
REPORT N0. 197 - Anaheim Ilills Road~ Anaheim~ Cl1 ~2P~/~, EN~INEE2: VTN CONS~LI~ATED~
IPiC.~ 2301 Campus Drive~ Irvine~ CA ~2hbt~. P~operty descrihed as
RECLASSIFICATION an irregularly-shaped parcel of lind cansisCing of ap~roxim~tely
N0. 76-77-41 1~0 acres locat~d between imperiai Niqhway and Anaheim Ilills poad,
I~aving a fr,~ntage of approxlnaCely 1~~5 feet ~n the east sicJe of
TENTATIVE ~1AP OF Imp~rial Nighway. and heinh loc.~ted approximately 5?.S feet south
TRACT NOS. 97~+9~ of the center l i ne of Noh l Ranch Road, Property ~resent l y ct ass i f 1ed
~1150. 9751 A'ID RS-A-43,0~~(SC) (RESI~ENTIAI/A,RICULTt1RAL -~CE~IIC C~R~tlnn't nvERLAY)
9752 7.ONF.
RFQUESTED CLASSIFICATt~PI: RS-HS-1~~~00(SC) (RESIDENTIAL, SIN~LE-
FAN I l,Y N I I_LS I DE - Sf, EN I C CCRR 1 ~OR
OV~RLAYj 7.~NE.
~+/11 /77
MINUTES~ CITV PI,~NNINC, CONMISSIQh~ Aprl) 11~ 1977
77~?i i
E I R N0. 197 ~ RECLi~a~ I F I CAT 10~7 1~0. 7G-77••41 , A~iD TCtiT!'.T 1 t~'C 'tAl' 01' TRACT '»S. ~7t+'1 ~ ~; ;R~
47r ,51 AMD 9752 (Continued)
TEN'~ATIVE TRACT REQUESTS: TRACT' NQ. 974A - 5a RS-N5-1~.0~~(SC) lots
TRACT N0. 975~ - 7~ RS-HS-t~~nn~(SC) 1oLs
TRACT N~. ~751 - 1~n RS-NS-tn~nnfl(SC) lots
TRAC1' NA. 9752 - ~2 RS-NS-1Q,~~0(SC) ~ats
It was note~l that ttie subJect items were continued fram the Plannin_y Commisslon mec~tincls
of March 14~ 1977, for revised plans and from March 28~ 1977 at the request ~f the ~~A!iti~ner.
One person 1ndlGateJ her presence In o~po~sltion to the sub.ject items, ancl forthwith w~iv•.~d
the full reading of the Staff Rcport to thc Plannlnq C~nmis3ian dnted llpril 11, 1977.
Although the Staff ~eport was not rea<f at the puhl{c hearing~ (t is rr.ferred tr~ ~nd m~de a
part of thc minutes.
Mr. Phillip Bett~ncourt~ Vice President f~r Publlc ~ffalrs~ AnahPim Hills~ Inc., th~ peti-
ttoner~ apE~care~f before thP Planning Commission and reviewed the propos~l and the reasons
(ssued by the Commission far the continuance to this meeting~ stat(n~7 th~t the developer
wished to maintaln support of the original proposal; ho~aever~ tl~ey h~d prep~red two alter-
native plans and ciata, all t+eing in confArmance ~~~ith the r.onlnc~ st.andards ~~nd the Ilillside
Grading Ordinance; tliat they fi;~d atso pre~ared partlal plot nlans~ indicar.ing the parking
qualiflcatlons for certain lots questioned by the CommiSSion at the prevtous meeting; that
thee average lot s i zr was 16, 341 s~uare fPet ~ the ~vC~1qP. paci s i ze w~~s ~~l153 and cherc were
45 acres of open snace or land not dsvated ta streets or building ~adS~ the 1+S acres reprP-
senting 44,1~ of tl~e project area; that the plot pl~n deslgnatiny parking s~aces indicated
there were spaces in excess of the Coc!e reyuirements for each of thc tracts -- a total of
6; in excess; tliat they t~ad developed tl~r_ street plazas (i~~±lanted cut-de-sacs or landscAp~d
circles in the street straigt~t-aways) in consultation with the City Tr~fflc Enyineer; that~
although the Planning Commisstan I~ad never consiclere~l tracts witf~ street pl~zas~ this tyne
development existed in the cities of Irvine~ Nc~wport Beach~ ~alboa~ etc. -qr. Bettencourt
reminded the Commission tl~at I~e h.~d sti~ulateJ to a rninimum lot wi~th of 2~ feet. although
the CaJe permitted lots +vitl~ fronta~~e as smal) as 1."~ feet, t~e inJicated that the average
lot frantage in Tract I~o. q749 was 10~ feet with no frqntege smaller than 25 feet; end
that the average lat frontege in Tract No. 975o was 7~ feci, with no f,~ontage smaller than
25 feet.
Commissioner Herhst noted that ti~e RS-10~~0~ zone in the flat lancls snecifically required
g0-foot lot frontage; howevcr~ the RS-I15-10,~00 zone had some possibilitles for flexibility
in lot Size~ ~rovideJ that ~he developer coutJ ~-rove a harrtshi~ baseJ on health~ saf~ety or
general rrelfa~e; and that~ in his ovr~ opii~ion~ the pr~~posed lots wer~ undersized stnce mare
than one-haif of thP lots we~e iess than 9~ feei wi~ie. with so+~e bcing down to 6~ feet wide
by 240 feet I~n~, wt~ich he did no[ feel was within the intent of thA Code or for the Corr~nisston
to allow~ r~r the 9~-foot lot f~ontage should I~ave been left as a requirement in the RS-HS-
10~000 one; and th~t his main concern a~as to not have houses right next to each other in
this zone, 11e then questioned hotiv the developer could Justify less than 10~~00-square foot
lots.
In response~ Mr. E3ettencourt stated thaC the proposed lots could manage 6.50~ syuare foot
homes comparable Co the ftat land zone~ and in full conf~rm~nce to site development stand-
arris; that t!ie land plan and EIR statement spoke to the lot sizes; that, in t~rms of
derssity~ the land cauld handle an additlonal 100 hornes; that the density was well w(thin
the Code and the Planned Cortmunicy (PC) zoning.
~I11/77
~
M I NUTGS, C ITY PLANN I tlr, CO!~M I SS I OM ~ Ap~ I 1 11 ~ 1 a77
77-2;~
EIR N0. 197~ RECLIISSIFICATION N0. Jb-1/-~~1~ ANU 1tNfAllVt MAP i~f TRACT NO~. 17~~-. q75~,
9751 p'~~ 9752 (Concinued)
Crmmi ss ioner Nerbst then nated that ~ a 1 thouql~ the C~CnS I LV w:+s wl th I n that ~+pproved for
the PC zoning~ there was a sli~ht morgin an<i thr. t.racts below these which w~uld he c~mtn~
befc~re tf~e Conxnlsslon shartly were falrly hiqh in density ~nd miqht G1U5!! sn~~ ~Y~b1Pm5
in the over-all ciensity avcrage; and thnt it appeared that somewhere downstream there
would bc one hause to the acre in tl~e canyon.
In respAnse to ~auestioning by Chairnwi~ Johnson~ Mr. Bettencourt further stat~cf ifi~t, In
Tract No. 9751~ the average I~t width was 7~~ fcet~ with no l~t front~qe smaller than 2~
feet; that In Tract No. 9752, the average lat width ~•~~s 70 feet, with no lc~t frontage
smaller Chan 30 feet; that, in contrast to the feelinv af ti,c Cun~~ntsstun that there was
~ po~sihitity ~f instances of ten houses to an acre ~n these tracts~ they h~d not heen able
to actually plot as many as four in the cul-JP-s~c are~s; tha~t r.hetr ~~in concern wa5
whether or not [hcy ~~crc dr.velc~ning in ,iccorclance ~•~ith City St~nd7r~15~ r~ncl thPv had cievcl-
oped the tract r~aps thinkinc~ theY were in conformance with the rst~ahltshed requirement'~,
and with no waivers from the Codc; that the denslty level w~-~s lower than that of the
nearest project; that the proJect was in conformance with ~Pne~al Plan Ampndr~ent !Jo.
1234; that they had prepared plans showing th~ availability of p.~rklnq sn~9CP.5 ln con~
formance with code; that regardiny the aver-al) tot size~ they r+,coc~ni~~~i ~'+ n~ed t~ hA
reali5tic about the mnrkPt~lacF; th~it thev did not feel they sho~ild be expncted to nr~-
duce a projer,t which ~~oulcl be "set out" from nthers in the Canyon, since it c~ul~l n~t be
su~nortCd by the carmunitY; that~ wlth respect to the a~ipauacy of che pr~~~5r.<1 livin~
environment, the residents should be ahle tc~ qr.t along c~~~ite w~ll ~~n a 1h~n~~-s~uare foot
lot; however~ if the Code ~•+as amendc~l, th~y ~YOUId adhere t~ iL.
Mrs. Jan Ital l, 545 Tur~biewr..ed Rd. ~ AnahCim, President of Westridq~ Nc~rie~wnr_rs Associatlon~
appeared before the ~lanning Canmission in o~nosltion and statfl~l thc~y wcre O~-1liSP.CI to the
narrow lots, especially stnce thr_ ~/estrtdge Tract had ~4~-foot ~~~id~ lots; th~t 1lvlnq with
le~s than h0 foot wiJe lots was almost unheard of; thcy khey were also concernecl about the
street plazas which ~~ould he expensive to ~aint~(n anr1, additinnil{Y~ t`~e y~uth Hmu1d use
thase hillside pla_'.35 for racin7~ Etc; that. if the homeovm~rs wer~ required to maintain
the plazas, the t-iues ~vauld be outrageous~ since tlie car rallys woul~f use the streets~ etc.,
an~ if the plazas were damaqed it woul~l he up to the Association f~r re~air, Mrs. Hal) t~ok
exceptio~ to the EIR statement with respect to schools, ancl stated that no cumulative effeGts
were shown, the solutions to the effects were vaque, a~d that 5he wished to go on record
stating that, for the neople in the area with chlldrr.n~ the prohlems e~ith res~ect to sch~ols
were not solved.
THE PUBI.IL IIEARIt~G WAS CL~SEU.
Commissioner Tolar noted that he was generally rraugh wlth devclopers; that he felt the
prc~posed tract maps were In canformance to the Code; that he was not so concerned about
parking, sfnce there wou1J always be problems with partiPS~ but was concerned about the
schoals; however, he c~uld not fault the developer with the problems inherent with the
School ~istrict; that the solution to the problems laid with the members of the puhlic~
as well as the ~ublic a~7encies wl~o had ~ot applied enounh pressure on t'ie School District
to provide schools; that certainly the tax base for schuols reas mare than adequate; that,
on the basis of schools, he would not vote ~,gainst th~ subJect oro.Ject, which was ~ better
proJect than some wf~ich~ had been approved in the Canyon Area, even thouqh a different con-
cept was involved liere; that it was possihle fnr the developer to ohtain more lots If
4/~1/77
~.
NIPlUTES~ CITY PLANNINfi C~MM~SSI4N~ April 11~ 1~177
77-zS7
E I R NO. 197, Rf.CLASS I F I CAT i~1N NO. 76-77-41 ~ AND 7E'~TAT I VE ~1~P ~F TR~CT N~S. ~71-'1 ~~75n~
~J>1 AND ~52 (Cuntlnued)
they so desired; hrn~evcr, h~ dic; n~t totally ~itsagree ~•~ith Con~issloncr Herb~t, sinr.e the
Planniny Cc~mmission had t~ic obligatton tn ch~nq~ the C~rIA In r~l,~tinnshl~ to the {~rohlPms,
if necess~ary.
Cammissloner HPrhst note~~ that it a+as up tc~ the Pl~~nnlnc~ Com~lssl~n to •iecide whether tl~e
propased tr~ict ~ wr.rr in the hest (nterest nf the cc~mmun( ty; t.h~t about ~~~; of the (~r~rosed
l~ts ~vere in slopGS ond were unusablc; h~wevcr~ hc wa5 not ohJectin~ t~ that~ hut to the
fact that the d~v~loper w~s "uSing" the RS-HC-tn~nrln 7~n~; f.h~~t the flexihlltty oF the
Zonc~ w~s sup~osedlv to ;~Ilow thc devel~oer to he~ctin witli q(1-f~ot widP l~rs An~i In thp nrn-
posed tractS ab~ut one-haif of thc lots ~~~erc undcr ~0-fePt ~rldc~ and th~ nads ~~er~ f,~~~~
ta °,~00 s~uare fr:et; th.~t he tir~s also conccrn~d t'~at ths develuner !~~~~~i usr.~f tl~~~ fl~in
lot drive~~ay width as ~~ Cc~dc stan~iard f~r ~r.rmltted lot ~~(~~ths; and that he ~-+.is c~ncerned
because of the mann~^r in w~ich thc Zone had heen "us~d" for this r-r~ject and~ if it ~~as
to bc typical f~r othr_r devel~pmentsti thcn h~ felt thnt th~ 9~-f~ot miniMUm l~t widths
prov(sion sh~ul~.i be ~lace~l in said RS-NS-1~~nn~ ?on~,
Commissi~ner T~lar note~f th.~t he aroul~l have nc~ disa~rr_crrent to putting the '~~-foot minimum
lot widths in thc C~de. a~, distussecf by Cor+x~iSSinnr.r He~h~t; h~swPVer~ hc vmuld only a~ant
to bc assureci that thc I~ills cnuld t:c left as CIOSC ~s possihle t~~ their natural c~ntour~
etc.; and that it ap~~e~ired r~ith the ~1~-fo~t minimum lrat widths there ~vc~uld br. an ~bundance
of hi l lside-tyt~c cont~~ur gradinq.
CommissionPr Herbxt reitcratPd that he w~is not c~mpl;~,ining ab~ut thc paci sire~; that the
intent of thr. z~ne was "enc~uraging developi~ent by I:reping the hil!sid~e amenities"; that
he would a_yree with Mrs. ftal) rrgarding the mid-block cul-de-sac areas which ~~uld he
problematic~ especi311y in fog~ etc.~ and the homea m~rs ~~ould be required tn r~aintain
them; and that he was also concerned about the dr_~.sity of the antire PiannPd Cor~rnunlty 7one.
In response to questioning 5y Chairr+an Johnsan~ ~1;~, Rett~nc~urt stated that in Tract !Jo. 97~+Q
tl~erc wcrc ~aci sizes as small as 6272, G752, 6°R^ and 7^6P, squ~re ~eei~ for exa+~nle. Ch~ir-
man Johnson then noted that he did n~t think it ~~as fair to als~ see thc ~~~ ~^ ~nd 7!1-foot
wide frontages; whereupon~ Mr. 6etiencc~ur[ stat~_d that the atternate exhihits changed the
I~t count by addiny two lots on Flternate I and six lots nn Alternate II; ancl that all of
the plans ~~~ere in conformance -~i th C~de.
Commissioner Herbst notecl tliat i f the develo~ers dici not salve tf,e prohler, which might b~
eviden~ with the RS-HS-l0,0QQ Zoninc~ Code, hy nor. proposing thc minimum;~ the~ tF~e 9~-fpot
minimum lat frc~nt~ge shoulri be put into it; thac the intent of the Zane was to qive th~
protection of mare space bet~•~een house~~ an~i thc peopie r-ere ~•~i 11 (ng th pay f~r s~ach ~~n
environment; that the proposed tracts mnstly resembl~d RS-;~~~0 or RS-72~D Zoning ~~~ith
5-foot setbacks~ etc.; and that he would also recommend that thP flag lot sethack he
amended in tiie Code.
Mr. Dettencourt stated tha* the land «nuld havP to be graded flat~er to ~et mc~re flat ~ad
area; ~~hereupon, Commissl~ner Herbst noted that, in his opinion, the proposal represented
a maximum aroc~unt of dirt rx~vement ~•~ith f~irly hiqh sl~pes. '1r. 9ettencourt t~~en indicated
that the rula.c had heen chanqe~ in Yhe middl~ of the c~ame.
l~/11/77
~1 I NUTES ~ C I TY PL/1N11 I N; Cor~N I S5 I or~ ~ Apr ! 1 11 ~ 1477
17-25~
E I R N0. 197, ~EC~nsa t F ~ cnT i ~-~ 1~0. 7G-77-~~1 ~ AND TFMT~T I vE -~I1P ~F ?RA~T -~~, . Q7b~. ~75n-
4751 ANO 9752 (C~ntinued)
Commtssloner 13arnes noted that the m(nlmum lot widtti~s for fliq lots were alto at th~ rl(s-
cretinn of the Planninq C~m~+issl~n; th~L th~ ~~-fo~t l~~t wldth shoul~i ,i~ply~ ~~~ith SanP
d(scr~tion~ since it was a r~quirem~nt In the fl~t l~~n~1s for this zonc, and approvai for
anything I~ss than 9~ f~eC would be lucky For thc~ ;iev~ln~er; ,~nd th~~c Sh~ ~vns in favnr
of puttin~ the 9f1-foot riinimum Ir~t width into thc Code for the R;-HS-I~~n~n Znne.
Commissioner King in~uire~J about the poss3h(11tY af thA dPVPloper coming in wlth RS-72nn
tracts on this property; and Conrnission~r Horbtt nnted that~ alchougt~ the d~vel~~er could
requcst ,i rcclassffication tc th~ '2;-72~0 ~~ne~ ~~ucl~ ~c~nln~~ w<~ul-J rwt c~xnply with the
6encral Plan I~~nd use ~icsiqnail~n; that the r.ieveloper had used the strret plazis (mid-
biock cul-de-sacs) and all of th,~ unusable land in aver~~ging the l~t ~~i;.cs to hring th~
square footac~e up; thit hc wa~ ~u~t In favor of thr cul-dP-sics ln ih~ middlP ~f ihf
street sincr. they .~dJP~1 nothiny to help the design~ t~ut clid ~dd mc~rr. lots; Chat hn h~d
never consiJered traffi~ ~irci~s tu bs s.~fc an~~~ ~n fogqy weathcr, they ~~re a di,aster;
and that the homcown~•-s' Ilahitity woul~ be q~iite htnh if som~one was hurt by rus~ning
through the cul•cl~~--a~c,
Commisstoner B~r~-- ~eiterat.r.d her concerns t~i~t Che p~ojec~ wc~ulJ l~ok Iike RS-ZD~~
developmPnt frc,~ •~• :tr+•e~ts since sc~mP of the houses ~~r~uld be ri~ht next t<~ rach othrr,
and she fett t' --»^ cnmprnmi e was in arJ~r t~ increase the Fr~n[an~ wldth of the cul-
de-sac lots tr ~~,~ ~~r more off-site narkiny.
Cort~„i5si~ner ~-~ ~t. ~~•fi~~ n~ted tl~at he felt that the cul-de-sac lots descrved to have at
least mini~R~~+ ~:.a°t~ ~nd the lots on the strai~ht-a--~.~YS should be wtdc~~.
Chairman .' ~•- }~ ~•~~ that he aqresd that t!~e zoninq on the sul~ject ~ronPrtY had hPen
mfstnterpre~~ .~,~- develoner; that there NerP prohahly other ~~,ays of solvinq the
problems tti~• MN~,~ n~, more ~Jirt; anJ that it ~~~eareJ c~ach time a prohtem was p~sed t~
a hi I lsi~+e ~+~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~ they only wanted t~ rrc~ve mc~re ~~irt, and such a solutinn ~~~s ~n1y
valid s~me' ~.
Commissione~ ~~~ti; questioned liow many neople could aFford ~Q-fo~~t wide lots, and noted
that many ~e~~••~e .fid not care to take care of large yards; whereupon~ Cor+r~issioner Herh~t
noted ~hat ~~~ t~•~s particular case~ the homeowners w~ould be naying for the land even
[hough a l:~r~~ •~ajority o` it would bP in slopP area, but thls was a~ lifestyle.
Commiss'~ner ~lar notec, that he did not feel a lower density ~~uld be ohtained even if
the zoni~~ ~~a~ onc ~cre es[ate; that the proposal represented a lifestyle where the hame-
owners ~~rch,se~J a I~illsi~e and an environment; that changing the plans woulci probably
create thP r~eed for' r-ore ,yrading; anJ that the people rmulcl knor~ what they a~Pre gettir~g
h~forc nurc~,asing the homes. Cornmissioner Herbst noted that he agreed in t!~eory excr_pt that
~~ the areas of compromise there shoulc he a reduction c~f lots; t~~t the many diamond-
s~aped lots served Lo hring up thr. average lot size; that it ciid not aE+per~r th~t th~ lots
would even conform to the P.S-7?.00 requirer~~nts; and that the d~nsitv should he l~wPr than
2.5 units per acre.
~ommissioner King qusstioned the safety as~ects of the proposed mi~i-bloc~ cul•de-sacs;
a,hcreupon, Commissi~ner Tolar noted that he agreed ~~itf~ Cortnissi~ner ~~erhst th3t sald
cul-de-sacs rrould create traffic problems; that !„sre would n~t be a trPmendous amotint
4/11/17
MINt1tE5~ CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSI~N~ Anri1 11, 1977
~7-7.59
EIR N0. 1q7~ RECLASSIFICATION N0, 7F•77-41~ AND TENTATIVE !IAP 0" 7RACT NOS. 9',-4Q, q75~,
9751 ANO 9752 (Contlnued)~_.______.__,^ .
of traffic an the streets in the pro~~ct~ however~ nnd the prohlems would relitr. nniv to
th~ people insfde the pro)ett; and khat he did not fe~~l that the ~rnpoi~d cul-de-sacs
were any worse thsn okher existinc~ cul-de-sacs in th~ subiect are~.
Traffic Englneer Pau! Slnncr advised that ovr thr. ~ast s~vera) weeks he had t~lk.~r1 tn his
colleagues renarciing the safety as~ects of thP mid-bl~cM. cul-de~5AC5 nnd nn tw~ neo~le harl
the sar.ie opinlon; th~t hc t~ad no exper(~nce re4~rdlnq this Lyne trafflc ~~~tt~rn and~ there-
fore~ cvuld not rely on hts orm )ud9ement; that the City of Long t~e~~ch~ ut~ltz~ci tr~ffic
circles with great success; and that none of th~se he h~d spoken i~ th~u~lht ther~ v+ag a
¢rnclfiC rr~hl~m fn r~l~tinnthin t~ thr c~fPry ~f thF nrnn~a~~l tvr~ tr.~ffic n~~t~rrn.
Chairr~an Johns~n not~d th~at he. ~~reed th~~t th~ r~id-hlock. cul-dP-sacs w~~~l<i he l~ft t~ t~iP
homcovrners and thc City and ~~rc~u1~1 probnhly creite nrohlcr~s; hnwpver~ hi5 m~in conc~rn with
the ~roj~ct ~~ras th~~t the drvelo~mert st,indards for the RS-1~~~!10 7onr. (in the f1,it l~nds)
Intluded u~l-f~ot. r+in(num ~~iclih lo[s~ and there should hr. nn diffFrence ir, the stan~iir~15
if the propertv ~~~.~s located on a hillside; th~it th~ nrn~r,sal includeJ 65~ 68~ 75 ~in~ 7H-
fo~t widc lots which made u~ ah~~ut one-hal~' of the ~r~ject; ancl that [he I~ts Sho~~lr1 be
m~de~ widpr,
Commissinner Y.inry noted that he ~~reed with Ccxnmis5l~n~r Tolar regardinn the ~~enSitY; how-
ever, he w~s c~mc~rned ah~ut the safety of the t~•x~ mid-hlock cul-de-s~cs.
Commiss=~ner David requc~tc•d clarification, whether the two altern~tr exhibitti eliminated
the tM1o m~ ~•block cul-r)e-sacs; whprcupon, Mr. F;ettencourt in~iic:~ted In th~ affirmative
and stipulated to the devcl~~er's w1111nqness to e~ltminatr s~id cul-de~S~lCS fr~m the nlnns.
Chairman Johnson made an ~~bservation th~t the rliminatlon of the mf~i-hl~c{; cul-de-sacs
wvuld result ln incrc~sed number ~f lots, n~tiny that the develoner w~s proposinq to build
very heautifu) homes; wher~upon~ Mr, f3ett~nr,;~urt stated that the residents would have a
feeling of dlst~'~nce bet+~een the h~mes hecause of the slope are~~.
Commissioner Ilerhst noted that he felt the ~ro.irct with narrow lots did not rPl~te to a
hardship; and that the Code specificallv outlined what the City coulA do for the health~
safety and .~eneral welfare of the cormunity; and that he did no[ feel that the ~rojPCt
met the intent af the RS-HS-IO~QO~ Zone and he did not favor the mld-hlock cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Bettencourt thcn stateJ th~st there were other premtums tU consider in thP ~roposed
tracts, i.e,, the views; that if thcy had known tha[ the Planninq Comm(sston w~ul:i look
at the project in the manner iC was with respect to lot frant~qe~ thev woul~t „ot have
proposeJ so many 16~000-square foot lots; and tt~at the Code did not require the developer
to have one lot over 10,000 sq.iare feet in size.
Commissioner Tolar noted that he felt compiiance with the RS-lf?~0~f? st~ndards wo~ld result
in fla[ {and standards in the hillside; and that~ in 1~is oplnior. the ~roposed pro.ject
was betcer than a flat land developr~ent; wtiereupon~ Commissioner Nerb~t noted that the
Gradinq O~dinance protected ag~~inst mass qrading for flat land deveiopments in the hil)
and canyon area.
Commissioner King re3~ from NEIdS 1.'ORLD that "only 15; of the popu',ation can afford a
med i um-s i zeJ hcxne."
4/11/77
~~ I NliTFS , C I TY F~1 J~t~N l~~r, rn~~r11 eS l ~~~ ~ n~r t 1 ~ 1, ~ Q'~?
~1_~~n
C I~t I~C . 197 ~ REf.L/1551 F I CAT I ON N~ , 76-77-41 ~ At~D Tf.NTAT I VF !1AP ~F TMCT N(1S , ~7r~~1 ~~175~,
q7y1 ANI) ^752 (Contlnucd) -
Comrr,issloner E3,irnes n~ted th.it evPn if the c1evPlnperS wcrc ~iblr. tn hutl~l 1~~r'G04L. f1f1U4I~q
in this arE~~~ Lhe pricc~ ~~huld st) l l he koo ht~h for th~ ~~vcrac~P h~menrmer, h(!C~lUSP. ~f thP
are~. Cnnxni ss loner Tolar c~nc~.rred.
In responsc t~> qu~~stionin~ hy f.c~r~lssl~ner Herh.t~ '1r. !t~~ttenc~ur[ stnted thnt~ ,alth~u~h
the alternativr, eliMin~te.d [he; cul-de-s~ics~ thev wPre ~crfectly accehtabl~ C~ the ~level~~er;
however, the Traffic En~tin~r,r ha~S In<iicaterl thnt he ~11d n~t ~~I ~h t~ rec~r~nend thr. cul-dc-sacs
~~t thP cnct nf inr,rr~51n~ ;hn ~IPnsity ~r n,~rro4~in~ ttin I~ts; th~t 1f ~ny ~f th~ ~~itprr+~te
~lans ~~ere ~~provecJ hy the Pl~nninq C~nxnissi~n, thev w~ulcl stlpul,~t~ to clr~nninn th~ numhpr
uf l~ts ~rhich hc h~d inJicatPd e.~rlir.r in the ~peting ti~oulcl reS~ilt fr~r~ said nn~lificati~n of
the nl~~ns el(r~inating the cul-de-sac~.
Canmissloner ~lerbst su~~~iestc:d that thr ;level~pPr suh^~it revisr~i ~lans Sho~•~ing the cinlPtinn ~f
tha ml~i-bl~ck cul-cJe-,acs~ ~inci the tncrease~i I~t wiriths~ etc.
In response to ~ue,tl~ninn hy C~~i(ssl~ner D,~vI~1, Mrs. N,ill st.~t~~1 she ~i~rce~d wlth C~misst~n~r
Herbst regar~lin9 th~ n~irrr~mess of the ints, a, ~~ropose~l.
In respnnsc~ ta huesti,~nin~~ hy Commissi~ncr IlerbSt~ Mr, f3ettc.nc~urt st.~tr_d th~t nn~ ~f thP pro-
posed lnts +vas E~~)-fnpt wide; h~wever~ ~h~ lae sizp w~s 3~~nnn snu.ire f~e~t and th~ n~~r1 Size
was 7~G00 s~uarc fcPt. Ccx~,misstoncr Herbst indic~ted that thc seth~~ck5 Por thc hom~ ~n a
GO-font widc lc~t cc~uld not he vcry much, ~inr! thc pu~ n~sc o` thc~ ~~-fo~t minimum lot wicJths
in the zone w~is t~ ~~ive gre,~ter sethacks ,inrf di~tanc~ ~>CCY!(!P.f1 th~ neinhbors; ~nr! h~ r~iterated
his concerns ~~bout the c:ver-all dpr~Stty In the canyon are,~.
Assistant Lity Att~rney Fr~~nk Lo~~ry advisecj that, in vie~w oF the Mareh '1, 1~77~ filing dat~
on the subject recl~~SSifi~ation petit3on~ the Plannin~ Commission wa5 com~r.llFd to take an
action on sane at thi5 meetinc~; ~i~wever, thr. tr~ct m.~~s and trc~e rr.m~v~l req~est cnuld he
continued to a futurc r~ectin9.
in res~onsc to quc~stioning hy Cc~rimissioner Tolar as to ~rhether the ~tevc~loper a~muld m~kP
changes to the nlanc~ if the tr~cts .+er~ continued, '1r. Dettencourt inciicated th~t he h~d
not receivecl a concensus of opini~n fror~ all of the Planninn Cor~r-issioners.
Commissioner I~erhst offered a mation~ secondeci hy C~mmissioner Kin~, anri ~tinTl~~i CI~RRIE~
(one se~t being vac.~nt). that Environment~l Imract. Renort Mo, 197 (supplementinq '~:~ster FIR
-Jo. 30), discussin~~ the rroposed grading~ r~cl~ssification and devpl~pmen[ ~f 219 residpntial
lots for che 1A~-~cre site gPner~llv bounded hv the S~uthern Callforni~ Edis~n Easem~nt~
Imperiai Nigh~•~ay and Planning Unit XV, haying been c~nsid~red this date by the Anaheir~ City
Planning Corro~ission and evidence, b~th written and or~l~ havina been presente~l to SUD~IemCR~
said Oraft EtR No. 1~7, the Planning C~mmissi~n finds that the ~~tential nr~ject°qene~a*.ed
individual and cumulative adverse ~nvironmer~tal imaacts with res~+ect to thp nrnoosed land
use will be ad~quatply mitiqated by the planned extension ~f existing utility facilitles and
efficient trafftc controls for circulation; and that the Draft EIR P~o. 1~7 conforms with the
City and State Guideiines and the State of California F.nvlro~mental Qualitv .4ct. with the
proviso that the Planning Commission does n~t find that the EIR adequately discusses [he
mitig~ting measu~es with respect t~ schools and the planning Commissi~n, furthermc~re~ rPServes
their recortriendation pertaining to the grading ~nd the specific devel~nment pr~posal p~nciing
the Submission of revised plans; and, therefore, based uron ~he foregoing information~ the
Anaheim Cicy Planning Co-miission doe~ '~ereby r~c~mmen*i to the CitY ~ouncil that they certlfy
said EIR tJo. 197 is in compliance with the f.alifornia Envlronmenta) Quality Act as it ~~rtains
to land usc only.
4/11/77
M I NUTES ~ C I TY PLAN1~ I IIG CON~I I SS ( ON ~ Apr I 1 1 1~ 1 Q J7
~7-T61
E 1 R N0. 19~ ~ RCCIASS I F ICAT I ON N0. ~fi-]]-41 ~ AND 1'FNT/1TIVE Ml1f' OF TRIICT NOS. ~174~~ ~75~1~
qJ51 AND q7S2 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst offereci Resolution ~la. f'C77-45 an~1 moved f~r Its passage ~nd ado~ttnn~
that the Anaheim City Planninc~ Commission does hor~by r~c~mmend t~ the Citv C~uncll of thp
Ctty c~f Anahetm thnt petition for Re~classlfication ~~a. 76-77-b1 I~r. a~~qrovecl~ ;uh)ect to
the Inter~~iepartrnental Committee recc~,xnendations. (S~e Reenlutinn Bookl
On roll call~ tl~e foregoing resolutton w,~s p,~ssed hy the foll~a~inq v~tc:
AYES: C~~1~11551U~~ERS: dl1RNES~ ~I1VIp~ HERIIST, KING~ TOI~R~ J~I+ft50~~
NOES: CUM-11SSIO~ICR5: PI~!:~
AB5ENT: CONMISSIC~NF.RS: NOt~E
VACANCY: f1IrE ~EAT
Commission~r Herbst offercd a motlon, sec~nde<1 t~y Commissloner Parnes~ and noTlniJ C~RRIEn
(Commiss(oner Tolar votin~ "nc~"}, that the Anaheim City Planning Commissio~ d~es herehy
continue consicleration of Tentativ~ ttaps of Tr~ct Nos. 97~+~~ 97y~~ '~7~1 ancl 4~5~ co the
Planning Cor,missian mectiny of Apr11 25, 1~77~ f~~r revis~d plans~ ~~Ith the d~veloner to
proviJe specific justific~tion for iny lots n~~t '~.ivinq a minlmum width of ~~ feet.
Commissioner lierbst offered a motivii~ seconded by Crxr,rnlssioncr Qarnas, an~~ NUT10~! CARRIED
(Commiss(oner 'folar votinc~ "no")~ Chat the /1nah~tm City Planniny Commission docs hereby
conttnue conslderatfon of the request for trPe removal tn Tract ~~o. !~7>~. to l~r. consldered
wtth the subJect tract r~aps.
RfCESS: At 3:10 p.m.~ Chairr~an Johnson declared a recess.
RECONVENE; At 3:20 p.m,~ Chairman Johnson reconvened t!~e meeting a~ith all cnmmtssi~ners
~resent.
DIRECTIVE FUR STUUY OF RS-HS-10~000 ZON~
Cortmissior~er Ner~st offered a motion, seconded by Co~issl~ner aavid and N~TI~1;! CARRIED
(one seat being vacant)~ tl~at the Anaheim City Plannin4 Commissinn doe~ herehy direct the
Planning Department to study the RS-NS-10,400 Zonc t~~ ~valuate a minimum lot wid[h of 90
feet wich a pr~vision for some discretion tn be exe~cis~d by tt,e Conimissi~n ~nd/or staff;
and tt~at said study shill also evaluate the r.~inir~urn siJe yard setbacks and the inte.nt af
the Zone.
RECLASSIFIC.tiTION - PU~3LIC fiERRING. EASTRIDGE ESTATES II~ 3G4 Town and Country Drlve,
iJO. 76-7 J-ba 0 range ~ CA 9266~3 (Owner ); l1I~/{NF I"1 H I LLS ~ I t~C ., 33~ Anahp im II t 1 1 s Road ~
Anaheim~ CA q23o7 (Agent); requcsting th~t property described as an
irreguiarly-shaprd parcel of land cons(sting of approximatsly 2Q.~-
acres (gr~ss) i~aviny a frontac~e oi ~ppraximately ?.11~ fcet on the north sidP of Canyon Rim
Road~ havinc~ ~ maxirnwn depth of apnrnxfmately 1~60 feet~ and being located approximately
730 feet west of the centerline of S~rrano AvenuE be re:classified from the RS-A-43~~~~(SC)
(RESIDENTIAL/AGRICI1lTURAL - SCENIC CORRlUOR OVERLAY) ZONE to tlie RS-HS-1~~;10n(SG) (RESIDEt~TIAL,
S I NGLE-FAM I l.Y II I LLS I[)E - SC ~t~ I C CORR I bOR OVERLAY ) ZOWE .
~-/ 11 /77
{
NINUTES, CITY PLIINNIN~ COMMISSION~ Apri) 11~ tA77 '11'2~'?
RECLIISSIFIGATiON N0, 7~-77~k5 (Continucd)
No ~nr. indlcat~d their pres~nce In opposltt~n tn th~ !~uhject pctitinn. Althoi~gh thr_ St~ff
Report ta the Planninq Commisslcm datrc! Aprt1 11, 1~77~ was n~t ra~d ~at th~ r~u'~lic henrinct
It ls referred tn and made a~art oP the minutes.
Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry ~dvisecJ that ~ tent~~tivc tract mn~ (Tr~c.t ~l~, q4F6)
had already been apprnv~d ~n the subJect pr~~ertv and the oro~~sed recl~ssificr~tl~n a~ag a
"housekeep(nq" tyre ~ctlon.
Gomm(s~s(oner Ncrbst offered Resolution M~. PC17'~~1, and n~ved for its ~ns~,nde in~1 ~~<Inr~[t~~n~
t!~ai thr. Anahet• ~1t~ f'I~nning Commts5ion ~~~es hnr~hy rP~~rr~end tc+ thc City Councll of the
City of Anahcim t~iac petttion f~r Reclasslfication N~, 7~-11~~5 b~ a~nr~~v~~i~ suhi~~ct t~
the InterrJepartment~l C~nxnittee recanmen~fatinns. (Sac Rcsolution 8ook)
On rnll wll, thc f~reqoinc~ resolution wA5 (1~355Ct~ hy the~ follnwtnq votr.:
AYES; CON!11SS1(1NFRS: RIIRNCS~ DAVI~, HFR85T~ kIN~,, TOIAR~ J~NNSOhI
NOES : COMM I SS I Q~IERS : N~Nf:
Af35ENT : CO!1M I SS I OIJERS : P~OtlE
VAGIINCY: ONE SCAT
E I R CATEGOR I CALLY EXE'1PT - PUCL 1 C NEAR I-~~~ . ROGER C, Atll) '1~HAL I ~. J. SCH~RF ~ 1526 Eci i th 1~~
Avenue~ Anaheim~ C~ ~28~2 (Owncrs); requesting 1JAIVER QF (A)
VARIANf,E N0. 292~+ MAXI'1UM NI1fIRER OF ~OGS AND (B) PERMITTED ~1SF5 T~ PERNIT F~!1R
ADULT DOGS A;ID Cf1~1NERCIAI. E3RE~01-JR ~~n prot+ertY descrihed as a
rectangularly-st~aped narcel 01' land consistinc~ ef approximately
72~Q squarc feet having a frontaqe of approxlm.~tely F~ fPet on the south s(de ~~f Edithi~+
Avenue~ having a maxir~um depch of anproximately 12~ fer_t~ b~tn~ Incatr.d a~~raximately 15~+
feet west nf the centerlinc of Gllbuck Drive~ anci further described as 1;1~ W~st E~lithia
Avenue. Pro~erty presentlY cl<~ssifted RS-72!1~ (RESI~E~~TIAL, SINGLF~FAMII.Y) Z~NE.
1'wo persons indicat~d their presence ir, o~position to the sub.ject pronosal; and it was notec~
that approximately 1? persons endorsed the suhJect ~-etitlon in favo+' ef the pr~p~s~l.
Associate Planner Joe) Fick read the Staff Report t~ th~ Planning Crxnmissi~n ~i~ite~i l!nril 11,
1977, and said Staff Re~ort is referred t~ ~s if set forth in full in chc min~ites.
Mrs. Mahalia Scharf, the property owner, appeared b~fore the Plannin~ Commisslon and re-
viewed the weights of the dogs in question. stating that three of the doqs belonged to her
and weighed 6 lbs.~ 4-i/2 lbs.. and 3-1/2 Ibs.~ and the fourth cioq belonged to her son and
was 12 years old~ ti~eighing 22 lbs.; and that the dogs were kept immaculately and were
generally like<i by her neighbors.
Ms. Nickey Campbell, 620 South ~ilbuck Drive, Anaheim, appeared hefore the Planninq Cornmis-
si~n in opposition and stated she lived about six houses from the corner of ~ilbuck and
Edithia; that breeding of antmals was a ccunmercial bustness and ciid not belong in a resi-
dential area; that she was afraid that approval of this application would set a precedent
f~r other con~n-ercfal operations such as ., beauty shop~ carpentiry shap, ~tc.; and that the
subject ope"3tion could aet nnister than ~ust ownina a dog as a net.
4/11/17
HINUTES, CITY PL/1NNINR COMMISSION~ /1p~11 11~ 1477
EIR Cl17EGORICALLY EXEMPT - VARIANCE N0. .'.924 (Cnntlnued)
77-2fiq
In rebutt:~l~ Mrs. Scharf stated xhat the do~g wr_re SA ,mal) that thr,y could nnt he h~r~rd
for mo~c 'han t:hree h~uses away; that thP do~s SIc1~k ln the housp nt ninht; that the hrPed-
tng oper~tion t~ok about an hour ~er ~~isiC. ~nd tF~e peoplc usu~lly stayc~d that lung to be
abte to ~~dmire her g~rden; an~f that ~hr. h<~~1 bPC„ in operatt~n for sometime but had nnly
recPntly hce~ rerarted to the Cit~~.
In response to questioning by Comm+ssl~ner Y.lnq~ Mrs. ScharP 5[ACCt~ Chat the lifrsnan of
tha Sub)~ct type cloq w~~s ahnut 12 year~; and that she ~•K-ul~f stinulat~ that u~on the d~mise
„f nnP n~ thr ~1ogs, shc wauld then com~ly wtth thc CitY requirements ancl have only thre~
dogs on chc premis~s.
Nr. Elvin Hoch~ 1550 Hrande AvenuP, Anahelm, ~~p~ArP~{ In op~~~siti~n ~+n~1 gt~tP~ hP ltv~~l ah~ut
one block ~w~y fr~m the sublect praperty; that ~iny v.iriancc was an (nfringement on a res~-
~lentlal area; that a prevtous requ~st for ~n upholst~ry shop in th~ rrsi~i~ntl~1 ar~a on
l.oara Street h~d bwen denied~ ancl th~ .ippllcant's argum~nt was nhout the s~me as the subJect
applic~i~t; .~nd that he~ too~ fel[ that ~p~rovAl of the suhJ~ct proposa) wc~uld set a nr~c~-
dc;nt (n a ~estdential nelghb~rh~od,
tn r~~huttal~ Mrs. Scharf stated thrt if a m~~n ~vas ~1~ing an up~lOlStr.t'y husinea~• in his garaa~~
with no outsi~le evidence~ she mi~ht n~t object t~ it; and that al) of her immed(ate neighhors
had endorseJ her ap~~lic~tion for thi~ variincc.
THE PUBLIC HEARING tJAS CLOSf.D.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the cortr~erclal breedinr~ creat~d thc p~~hlcrn~ ~n his opinlon;
Lh~t the fc,urth doc~ could he~ justifled as d family pet, suhjett to the stipul~tloR m~~de by
the petitioner in the event of the dr_misr_ of ~nP dog; and that he wc~uld suct~est that the
petitioner take the do•is elsewhere for the brecdinci o~eration. Thereupon~ Mr's, Scharf
stipulatcd to breeding the doc~s away fran the prem(scs~ therehy eiiminatina thP need for
the waiver of permitted uses.
It was noted that the Directar of the Planntng ~epartmcnt had determined that thP nroposed
actlvitl' fell wtthin the definition of Section 3.~1~ CIaSS 1~ of thc Citv of nnahsim Gufde-
lines to the Requirements for a Environmenta) impact Rc~por[ an~i was~ therefo~e, categori-
cally exemot from the requirement to file an EIR.
CommiSSioner Herbst offe~'ed Resc~ution No. PC7,7-~7 and mc~ved for its passage ~nd adnptian~
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does herehy c~rant (~etiti~n f~r !'arl~nce ~lo. 2~24,
in ~art~ grantin~ [he requested +oaiver ~f maximum ~umber of d~c~s f~r thP four doqs prPSently
owned by the petiti~ner~ suhject to the stipulation of the petitioner that~ ~»on the ~leinlse
of the fourth dog~ only three dogs shall be kept on the ~ubject ~roperty, in ceripliance~ alith
the Zoning Code; anJ ~ienyina the rPquested watver of ~ermittrd tISES on the haSfs that the
petitioner Jid not demonstrate t:hat a hardshlp ~aould he created if said w~iver was not granted
and~ furt;hermore, the petiti~ner indicated that thr commerci~~l hr~eding could he dorm away
fran the subject property; suhJect to the Interdepartmental Ccxnmittee recommendations. ~SPP
Resoluti~n 8onk)
~~/11 /77
-11~~~1TE5~ CITY PLANNtNr COMMISSION~ l1pr11 11~ 1~77
Elk CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - VAR~IANlCf. NQ. ?.Q?.4 (CanLlnued
On roll c~11. the f~~req~ing resol~ition was ~.~ssed by tlie following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: CJMMISSIOIJf.RS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Vl1CANCY ;
BARNES~ HEaD57~ K11~G, 7f~LAR~ J~~~-dSOri
D/1V I D
NONE
ON~ SEAT
~~-~F~
Commi ss toner navi~J ~ua 1 I f icd hi s"no" vote hy titat lnu tliere wis n rr.ason f~r th~ 1 Ir~l tPd
numL•er of c1og; in hou,ch~lds~ j~ ~~~ f~rth in th~ Anaheln Municipa) f,ode~ and he wish•d
to uphold thc Codc in that res~ect.
E I R CATE~OR I C11LLY E XEMPT - PUf3l I C HEAR I IIG. W, f.ARL r,~RR ~ JR . AND S~NDRA R. ~ARR ~ 1 F78 ~~~~st
Broaclway~ Suitc~ 2Q4~ Anahcim~ CA q2$~2 (~am~rs); L~N~ REACH ~~E~"I
VIIRIIINCE t~0. 2A25 ~,DVERTISING, INC, ~ 1312 West Ninth Straet~ Lon~ f~each~ f,A 9A813
(Ag~nt) ; rr.quc~s~ Ing wl11VER ~F MAx IH~!M S Ir,~l HE I~HT TO CONSTRIICT ~
FttCE-STANDIN~~ SIGN ~~n pr~nerty desc~ibed as an irre~ularly-shapPd
parcel of land consisting of a~proximately 1.2 acres havinq a f ront~~e of approxima[ely 23~
feet on the west side ~f Narhor Roulevard~ havinq a m~ximum clen th of apnrnximately 3~~ feet~
and hein~ lncated approximately 195 feet north ~f thc centerlin ~ ~f R.~11 R~ad. °ro~-erty
presently classified C-R (COMMERCIAL-RECRfATi(1r!) ZQ!~E.
No one indicated their ~r~sence in opposition to [he suhiect it ems; a~ci~ althauqh the Staff
Report to the Planning Cam~ission dateci April 11~ 1~'~7, was naL read at the puhlic hParing~
1 t i s refcrre~ to an~! madr.. a p.~rt of the mi nutes.
Mr. Pau) Taylor~ the agent f~~r the petitioner~ app~ared before the Pl~innina fommissi~n and
described thc surra~ndiny land uses. Ne stated that thc rc.as~ n Mr. Garr had nurchase~l the
subiect property r+as to attract overniyht tenants frrxn the adja eent rnads; ~~nd that some of
the other siqning in thr. area was 60-fect high and chPy wer~ o nly requesting a 4~-font high
sign which could be seen from Lhe adJacent freeway and Harbor Soulevard~ etc.
THE PUE3LIC HERRING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion ensued concerninq the visibiilky of the proposed siq ~ing from the mobilehome
park to the nortl~, during wtiicl~ it was pointec~ out that the pizza parlar imnc~~iiately to the
north would pruvide scx~e buffc~ring since it separ,~ted the resid ential use from the subjcct
nroperty; and hlr. Taylor inrllcaLeJ t!~at the only way he cou1J prove that the siqn coulci not
be seen f ro^~ the moa i 1 ehome park aras to take a s i ght, i ng f ram t hP a i r anci they ha~i not done so.
Commissioner Y~inc; noted that most of the ~^~ hilehor,ies faced either n~rth or snuth~ hut with
very 1 ittle winriaw area to the south; anc: therefore~ he Jid not see h~;~ the prnoosal would
be detrimental to the mohileha~e park rPSicfents.
It was noted that the Oirector of the Plannin4 Uepar[ment `~ad d etermined that the pr~posed
activity fell ~•~ithin the dPfinition of Sectlon 3.C1~ Class I1, of the City of llnaheim Guide-
lines ta the Requirements fc~r an Environme-etal Impaet Repart a nJ ti•aas, thereforP~ cateoori-
cally exem~t from the requireroent co file an E1R.
4/11/77
M I NIlTE5, C I TY PLA11N 1 M~~ GONM I 55 t t~ti ~ Apr i 1 2 1~ t'f77
E I R CAT~~~~R I CALLY F:XEMPT • VAR I ANCE N0. 2~i2,r, (Cont I nued 1
~~-zF~
Cor-missloner Kinq offerecl Rn~oi~~tlon No. Pf.77-33 anci moved for Its hass.~ne- ancl ~doptt~n,
that the An~halm City Plannlnq CcxmilSSion does tierehy nr~nt netitlon for Varl.~nce No. 2~25~
granting thc requested walver of tho maximum sfqn hetght on th~ has19 that a restaurant
loc~ted on an adJacent parcel separ~tr.s the sub~ect prnpPrty frc~n th~ mnbllehom~ site to
the nnrth nnd wnuld adcquat~ly huffer the vlslbility of the slgn fr~m sal~i rc-s(dentt~il IAnd
use; and that che t~~oA~sed sic~n helnht Is c~m~atll~lr with ather Sl~nlnc~ in th~ immedi.~te
area; ~nd suh~ect tn th~ Int~rd~~~rtm~ntnl Commlttee recornmpndrtl~nS. (Se~ Res~lut(~n A~+~k)
Qn roll c.~11 . th~ foreqninq r~solution ~a~+s ~i~~.~d hy thP follnr~ln~ vnte:
l1YF S: f,OMMIS S I ~NERS : t~l1RNFS, D/1V 1 n~ IIEP,DST ~ K I ~I~ ~ T~I.AR, ,1~HNS~F!
N~ES: C~MHISS1t1~:E~'S: NU~:f
ARSF.NT: CO'1HIS510NERS: !~0-~E
VAGANCY: ~tIE SEAT
F:IR CATE~'JRICALLY FXEMPT - Pi1HLlr, riFARI~~~~. LARRY R. AN~ JIIDITN i. S"11TIi~ 13n~~t Evans Clrcl~~
Uestn(n4tr_r~ CA ~12~~i3 (~amers); EO CRn-~f~J9ERr,~ n1q South Kn~tt
CONDITIOI~AL USI: Strect, Anaheir~~ CA ~''S~A ,~nd 4~~ERT GER-~~N~~ 1?Fh2 IrvinP, Tust(n~
PERMIT N0. 1G9G Cl1 °2~d(1 (Ag~nts); re~uesting nermis~i~n t~ ESTnBLlSh A C~r,KTAIL
Lc~u~ir,F on ~roperty d~scrihed as ~7n trregularly-sh~~oed ~~~rce) nf
lancf consisting ~f annroxtmatr.ly t.•" ncrr~5 ~ACc~CCfI north~~est of
the intercer.tinn of ea) l Road .-~nd Y,nott ~tr~r.t. havi~a a~p~~xlm.it~~ frnnta~~s ~f 2~ fcet on
the north side of P.il l Road ~nd 1]0 f~et ~n the a~est Sid~ ~f Knntt Str~.r.t~ having a maximum
~fen[h nf a~nroxlm~it~ly 3~~ feet. and further describe~l as ~1~ S~uth Y,nott SirPet. Pr~~erty
presr.ncly cl assifl~d Cl. (CbMMERC IAL, l.l-11T~~) Zc1-~E.
Mo one Indie.ated thetr presenc~ in orc~o4iti~n t~ th~ Suhject ItPms; and~ althnugh th~ Staff
Report t~ th~ Planninq Crnnmissic~n da[eJ A~ril 11. 1977~ ~~+~~s nnt reacl ~t thp ~uh~ic he~ring~
it is refcrred to and m~de ~~art nf the minute~~.
~1r. R~bert ~erm~m~, thc agent far thr. retitloner. ~~~~oeireci bef~re thc Planntnq Cammisslon and
reviewed the request. stating that they wishr,d to ~fr~p the requ~rement for the s~rving of
f~od as far as the State of Cal ifnrni.~ was concerned; th:~t they ~regentlv ha~l a dinner-dance
permit from the Ci ty of Anaheim ancl wished to function only under thn Cicy laws: that thP
State llcensing hoard liad suggested this change in l icensing; ~~nd that Hr. Ed Cronenberq, the
present operator of the suh ject estab 1 i shr~ient~ waa more tlian i n conformance wl th the C I ty
~rd inances.
THE PUBLIC ttE1lNl~lrz WAS CLOSED.
In responsP to quPStion(ng hy Commissi^^a-• Tolar~ Mc-. ';ermano stated th~t~ in order to be
issued a cocktall license by the St~~te~ the establishmcnt had to serve f~od fc~r at least
two years. Commissioner Tolar m.id~ .n observation that it appeared that the ~pplicant wc~ulci
st i 11 be serving faod, I~ut was requ~est(ng that the City tel l the 5tate they wc~uld not he
serving foocJ,
Mr. Germano st~ted Comnissioner 7olar's observation wes currect; however~ they would not be
changing thelr busine:ss. hut only ttielr State 1 icensr_; and that [hey had been In oneratton
at this locatlon for approxim~tely 14 years,
4/11/77
~
I•1 ! tiUTCS. C I TY PLANN 1~1~ C~M~~ i ss I nN ~ Ap r l l 1 1. 1977
E I a CATEGOR 1 GALLY EXEMPT - CAND IT I OI~AI. 11SF P ERN I T tJ~ . 1 G9(,
~,.~~..~~. r - -
77-26~
Assistsnt Clty Attorney FrAnk Lowry clarlfied t.hAc the arpllG~nts wc~uld !,~~ re~~~ilr~d to
serve fon~' in relatlo~ship tc~ the ~fl~n~r-danGe pQrmlt flncl not tf~e cocktal l 1 icr.ns~~ If
tl~ee propos~ 1 tirns ~r~n te~ .
Comnisslor~<:r Uerhst ~oted th~it the suhJ~ct lacation. hclnq nnxt •.~. n childrer'a c.'~y nursery~
was n~t appropriatP far a c~cktol) h:~r.
~1r. German~ expl~ined th.~t the Statc re~ul r~ments Por a honAf iJc resCaurant werr, duhious hut
restralniny Slnce the Alcc+holic t~ever~ge C~~trol Rnard investiqat~rs dtffered In thelr Inte~r-
pretatlons of lfie requir•emr:nt~~ SOr1C requiring th~t r~hlP~ he! Ket ~a~ ~it ~1) tlme~~ t~ hav~
cloth~~ thit hr~rkf.~at hQ served if thc estahli~h~ent open~d hPf~rr.. 11:~~ a.m.~ etc.; a~nd
that they could ~~per~~tp more efficlently ~~i thnut the State I Icense hut Y~c~u1~l c~ntlnur. to
canply with the ~.Ity's C~c1c~ by milnt.~intnc~ a dinr~er-cl~nce nPrr~tt ~t thr. premis~s at ~~11
times.
It was note~i that tl~e ~irector of the Planning D~p~rtnent h.id deCcrmin~~1 th~t thp Ar~rnged
activlty fell ~~Ithi~i th~ deflnition ~f Sect ion 3.~1~ f,l.~ss l, ~f the Citv ~F An~heim ~ulrle-
lines tn tl~~ Requlr~.~r+ents for an Cnvironmental Ir~pact Rer~rt and was~ th~reforP~ catP~orl-
cally exempt frnm the rAquire~nPnt t~ file in FIR,
Cornmissloner Darnes offr_re~i Rcsoluti~n tlo. PC77~g9 .'~nd rr-nvecl for its (1~SS.yge ~~ncJ adortl~n~
th~t the Anahelm City piAnnin~~ Camnissic~n Saes hereby ~rant Condlti~nal 'Ise PerMlt "~o. 1~~Q<~
to permit a cocktaif lounge sub.)ect t~ a dinner-ci~ncP perrnit being ~^~'nt~~ined at thP nrem(ses~
as stipulated to by the petttluner; anc1, in the event th,it .a ~11~np~ ance p~r~it is not in
ef fect at any time i n thr, future at thr rr~mises ~ t~~ls cnnd i t ton~ I~se: h~rmt t shal 1 he deem~d
nul) and void; an~l suhject to the Interdep~~tmenta) Ccx~mittee rPC~nendation. (Ser. RPSOlutlon
Boo k )
On rol 1 eal 1~ thc f~regain~ res~lut i~n a~as ~assed hy th~A fol lowing voce;
AYES: C~~M-IISSIONERS: BAR~IES, !~AVI~, -iERRST~ KIN~, T~LAR, JnN"~S~N
t~OES: ~ON-11 SSIOh1~:R5: IJQNf
ABSENT: COHt11 SS IONERS: ~~~~~E
VACA~~CY: 0`dE SEI1T
4/11/71
~.
MINUTES~ CI7Y PI.ANNI!~G COMMISSION~ Apr(1 11~ 1~7]
y~-z~y
E I R CATEGOR I CIILLY EXEPIPT - PUBL I C HEAR 1 NG . ARAIIE I M L~ NCOLN CENTE R, c/o Roy 4-. Dece 1) ~
49~+1 Ora~ye 1lvenue~ Cypress~ CA ~1~F3~ (Owner) ; renuesting
C~NDITIAl1AL USE permisslon t~ fSTAALISN A COCKTAIL lOtfN~f WITN bANCiNR ItJ
PCRMIT NQ. 17~1 AN EXISTING RESTAURAI~7 WITH WAIVER OF ~4) !~INIMUM KITCNF-~
AREA AND (R) MINIMUII IIU-1f~FR ~F PARKIN~ SPAC~'S nn nro~erty
doscrit~eJ ac a rnctangulnrly-shapeJ ~arcPl ~f l~n~i const~t-
Inq of approximatAly 1.7 acres located at thc southe~st corn~r ~f Llncoln Avenue and ~ain
Street~ having approximate frant~'+9es of 358 feet on thc south sidr of Lin~~1n Avenuc and
210 feet on the east sldc ~f Galn Street~ anrl further clcscrihed as 2~~~ Nest Lincoln Av~nue.
Prorertv presently classifir.d CL (COHM~aCIAI., LIMITEp) ZQNE.
~lo one indita'.ed their presPrsce in oppositi~n tn th~ suhject ltems; nnd. alth~~uqh th~
Staff Report to th~ Planning Ccxnmi ssion dated Apri' 11 ~ 14T7. was nat rca~1 at th~ nuhl ic
he~ring~ it is reFer reJ to and micic i~arL c~f th~ . ,utPa.
Hr. Roy DeCcll~ thc pro~Prty owner, ap~car~d hefnrc thc Planninq f'~Mr~~aa t~ner t~ :+nswer
ques t 1 ons re~ard I nc~ the proposra 1.
THE PUl3LIC HEARIN~~ 41AS CLOSED.
Asaociate Pl~nner J~el Fick noted th~t pnraqr;anh 7 an r,:+y~~ 7~a ~f the StafF ~.~~~~rt ahould
ref ect ~~n "existinU restaurant to the nvrth ..,",and no? +.~ t,h~+ ^rnitt,.
In response to questi~~ninq by f~mmissi~ner Tolar, Mr. OeCell indi~ated fhit .~I1 ~f th~ ~ark-
Ing would he in the frc~nt of the huildinq and~ ther~fore~ there stioul~i he nn nrnh~p~+s to
the adjacent residential proocrtles; and that the ~roposed use would ha~e i!s u~ak ~arl~in~
space needs at different times th~~n the ~ther U4C5 in th~ r,ubject cor~mcrr.f~i center.
Discussion af the pr~posed kitcher~ area ensued, durtn~ arhich -ir. DeCe11 Indic;ite~.1 ih~~ ~h~
proposal was to provide 21q. of the gross fl~or area for kitchen area, ~~nd t'~° r~f~rei~~c~, t.?
1$4, in the Staff Re~~rt was incorrect. ~1r, DeCrl~ ~tinul~~ted that thr rr.ataurant s~atinc~
~rould not be expanded h~yond th~t ~~~hich ~•ras shoam on thp suhmittP ~ pl~~-i~s, th~C .*!'~^ st~ 'P
room shrn~rn on the plans ti~ould be v:l l ixed for pantry :,t~rac~e In eonnect don ~•ri th fonci v~nar-
lLIOn~ and that porti~ns af the t~ r.al f!..ur area ~•mu1~1 he f„r danc(ng and cocl<tail lounqe
uses only.
In response to !~uesrioning by Corniissioner ~<<~bst~ Mr. ~e~Cel} stated t~at th~! back ~~»r ~f
the bullding was f~r ~mergencY us~ only.
It was noted that the ~irector ~f the Flanning Department had cieterminPd tha[ the vroposed
activity fell within t.he definition of SPCtian 3.~1, Class i~ ~f thc Ci tv nf llnahelm GuidP-
ilnes :o the Requirements far an ~nvironmental Impact Rc~port and was~ therefor~~ cat~~orl-
cal~y exempt from tne requirement to file an EIR,
Commissioner David otfered Resolutinn No. PC77-90 and m~ved for itS ~assage an~i ~do~ti~n,
that the Anaheim Gi tY -'lanning C~mmisslon d~es hereby qrant peti tion fc~r Condltlon~l I1sP
Pe~mi t N~, ~ 7n~ , to p~rmi t the expans ion of an exi si i n9 restaurant to i ncl ude a cockta i 1
lounge wlth danc(nq, on the basis that the exlstinq uSe h~s not heen d~trimental t~ the arP~;
granting the requested waiver ~f the minimum kltchen area to permit 21~ of th~: c~rnss flonr
area for kitchen area~ on the basis th~it the p~tiiioner stipulated that the restaurant seat-
ing would not be ex~anded beyond that whlch is so .~lelineated on the submitted plans; that
4/~t/77
MIt~UTES. CITY PLANNING CQMNISSIAN~ Ap~il 11, 1977 77~2ha
EIR CATEGORiCALLY EXEMPT - CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT IJO. 1701 (Continued)
the storaye room designate~l on thr, plans shall be utiltzed ag rantry st~ra~e; and since
portlons of the tota) flnor aren will be for danciny and cocktall lounge us's only~ the
requested waiver of percentage of ~HStaurrnt floor space desi~natecl f~r kltchen ar~a is
determined to hc minimal; ~rantln~ thP requ~sted w.~iv~r of minlmum numher of parkin~ spaces
for 91 spaces on ehe b~sls th~t the peak parkln~ sp~~ce needs for the proposed use wil) he at
dlfferent tlmes than ih~ other uses In the suhJ~•c,k commerGlal center ~nd~ therefo~e~ the
existing parkinq ~n the site is deterrntned to be odequate far the pro~~sPd expensinn; nnd
subject to the Interdepartmentel Committeo recammendatlon. ~SCP, Resolutt~n 0ook)
~n ~ol) call~ the f oreg~inq resolution was pass~d by the followinq vntc:
AYf C; COM'115510NER5: HARNES~ DAVID~ HERBST, KINf,~ TOLIIR, JOH1~St?tJ
I~OES: CON~115SIONEP,S: NO~;E
n~s[~1T: Co~~-~ i ss ia'IERS : i~o~ae
V/1CA~~CY: ~1NE SEAT
EIR Cl1TEGORIC~I.LY EXE"1PT - PURIIC HEARIIIG, J/~'1ES E. IiUNDLEY, '13~ S~uth Plscentia Aven~iP~
"A"~ Plac~ntia, C~ ~267~ (Owncr); I)AVID JltCK50F;~ 1833 South
CONDITIONAL USE St~ite Colleqc f3oule~vard~ Mahc(m, CA ~12?~f (Aqentl; renuesting
PERMIT N0. 17~2 pe~nissi~n to ESTARLISH '1ETAL PR~CESSI!I; ANr~ REflt11'I~ on ~ronerty
descrihed as a rectangul.~rlv-,haprd ~arce) nf lancl consistin~ of
approx~~~~ntelv O.'! ~cre having a fronta~a~ of a~nroximit~ly 1;~ fect ~n thc cast sirie ~F Grove
; Street~ havirig a maxirnum drpth of approxlm.~tcly 2n? fPCt~ heinq ioc,ited appror.tmatety 71~
~~ fcet south ~f the eenterlinc af Miraloma Avenue, an~1 furthwr dPSCribcd .-s 125~ Gr~ve StrPet.
~~~~ Property presently classifir_d NL (INDUSTRI~L, LIN17E1-) J.O~IC,
~~~
No one ind(cated their presencc ln c+pc~~5itl~n ta [he suh1PCt ttems; and. aithough [he ~t~ff
Report to the Planning Cortmission dated Aprll 11~ 1~77~ 1•ras not read at the ~uhlic hearin~~
it is refer~ed to ~nd made a rart of the minut~s.
~~r. David Jackson, the agent fc~~ the petitic~ner~ aone~red befare the Plannin~ Com~ission to
answcr questi~ns regar~iing thc prnpos~l.
T}IE PtlE3LIC NEA?I!1G 4l/1S CL~SED.
The Planning C~rnmission entered into diswssi~~n with "1r. Jackson reoarding thc types ~f
metals to be proces~ed at the proposed facility~ durin~~ which the Commi551nn indicite~i
concerns that the types of inet~3ls be limited ~nd that ~ possihte time limit f~r revie~~ of
the facility might be apnrop~iate to assure no ~roblem, ~•ilth respect to air pollution~ etc.
Mr. John Clemenza. General !lanager of United 5tates Refining~ Inc.~ appeared to ~nswer
questlons from the Planning Commis~ion. Ne stated that other than the ~recious r~etals
such as gold~ silver and nlatinum~ they wc~uld bP usinq scv~e coopr.r .ind nickel to r~ake the
alloys which were then made into sheets~ wir~s and strips f~r the manufacturP nf ~ewelry;
that tt~ey would not be making Jewelry; and that ~1) ~f the equipment in the opera;ion
would be regulated and controlled by the Air Pollution Control District, and the use af
scrubbinq equipment w~~~l~~ protect the environment from fumes from the Aqua Reqia used in
the operatton.
4/11/77
M I NUT~S ~ G 1 TY PLAN~I I NG COMM 1 SS I ON. 11pr 1 1 11 ~ 1 q71 77' 2fi!-
EIR CATCGu~ICALLY EXE!tPT - CoNnITinNnt. usE Pt:aMIT ~IO. 1702 (Cont_inued)
In resp~nse Co quettioninq hy Commi~sionPr Hr.rb~t, thp petitlonrr stip~~lated th~it th~
sou~d gener~-~ted by the proposed use w~uld n~t excced f~, dbA ~~ measur~~l at the ~r~~erty
llnes.
It was noted th.at the ~irr~ctar of the Planning U~p~irtment hc~d cl~terMinc~i chnt th~ nro~~sed
activtty fell withln the definltlon of Sectlon ~.01~ Cl.iss i, oP th~ Citv ~f Anahelm Rulde-
lines to ttie Rec~uireinents for an Envir~,nmenlal Imnact Report and was~ th~r~fnrP, cat~~~ri-
cally exempt from the r~~uirement to file an EI~.
Commissioner Ilerbst ~ffPred Resolution I~o, P~77-`~1 an~i mc~ved for it~ ra~S~qe ancl adontion~
that the Anahelm City Planning Cammissicm dc~es hereby qrant ~etitinn f~r Con~liti~r~n1 lJse
Perr~it No. 1702 tU permit mctat processina and r~fininc~ in th~~ '~IL Zone, f~r a ncri~d nf
twu years suhJcct t~, rrvler+ and c~n~ldr.rnti~n Fr.r ~nccihl~ cimP ext~nsi~ns excP~d(nq yaid
two-year time limit, un~n written r~sq~.~est hv the petiti~n~r; SUti~!'CC t~ th~ StinulAtlon ~f
the petiti~ner that the mr.[al pr~cessin~~ an~l refinin~ wil) be limit~~ rn ~nl~i, silv~r,
platinum~ coprer and nickel~ t~ be su~~~lir.d (n thrt f~rm c~f sheet~ wirP ~in~l strl~ t~ the
jewelrY manufacturing industry; suhject to the stinulati~n ~f the netiti~n~r thit the ~ouncl
level ,hall not excecd 65 dbA ~s me~sured at the ~r~~~rtY lines; th_it :+11 „f the e~uinment
used in con~unction w(th the pronose!d use shall h.~ve Afr Pollutlon Cnntrol ~i5trict anprnval;
and subiect t~ thc Intcrdepartmr..ntal Committee recnmmendatl~n. (See Res~lution 8~nl~l
Qn roll call~ the fc~regoing resoiution was pasSed hy the f~liowinq vnte:
AYES: CUt1-115S1c)r~ERS: BAR~IES, DAVID, NERRSi ~ Kl,lr,~ TOLAZ~ JOHNSOr!
'JOES : C~MH I SS I ONERS: IJONE
ABSENT: CONMISSIOHERS: NOFIC
~JACANCY : ONE SEliT
TRACT tl~. !~~2~~ - Rec~ucst f~~ ~pprov~il ~f revlsi,~n t~ trre preservatinn nl~~n - PropertY
~~ cr,nsisting of ,~ppmxiriately 33,f3 ac~•es l~cnted n~rth of 'Ji.~ Arh~le~,~
a~~r~xir~itely 1~?~~ fe~t ~aSt ~f llnaheir~ !~ills Road.
Thc Staff Rep~rt t~ thc Planning Ccx~m?sslon ~iated 11nri 1 i 1~ 1Q77, ~•~as ~resented and ma~le
a part of the ~~~inute.s. It ~ras n~ted that th~ tree nreservation rlan nrevlously apProve~1
by the Plannin~ C~ u~issi~n fc~r the suhject tr~~ct incl~ided s~ivin~ 275 trees~ an~1 rer+ovin7
12•'~ lthy trces; ~~~d that the nro~osed plan (Revisl~n '~o. 2) ~•~as t~ save 2'1~~ tree5 and
r~: '>3 he.~ I thy trees.
Ilr. Lyi~n Buffington~ the devel~p~r of the suhject tr.ict, ap~ea~ed hef~re the Planning Com-
~nission and st.~ted th~y wishr~ t~ preserve as many of *.hP cr~es as ~ossihle; however~ thc
~•roperty was practlcally co~. ~ f with trees; that the engineering of the prr~iect haci neces-
sitated somc mndific~tions c~, the nrlqinal desinn~ ~rlth thr. ar~~:in~ ar,ountinq t~ an adrii-
tiona) 2~,~~~ cubic yards ~f di~t; ho~Yever, the r+•~«~sign invnlv~~f cnnsi~ierahly lr.ss gradino
than a terraced ~+lan; and that they would replace ~•'~ trees on ~ 1:1 rati~,
In response t~ ,uestioning by Chatrman Johnson~ Mr, q~~ffingt~n stated that the main impact
of the grading was ln thP street areas to .~ccomrnodate fire veh(clcs, etc., as requirPd hy
the Englneeri~g DivlSion an~i the Flre Depar'tment; gnc' th~it the gradin~ ~n the l~ts was
basically for the garage pads and not the housP p,~d~.
4/it/77
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIaS14N~ April 11, 1977
TMCT Nb. 952G (Conttnued)
Cvmmisslone~ 9arnes offered a motlon~ seconded by Comm(ssiener He~bst,
(one seat be:ng vacant), that the Anahetm City Pla~ntng Commisslon daes
the revlsed tree ~reservatton plan (aevislon No. 2) for Tract No. 9524~
th9t a maximum of 193 ~pecimen trees. ~s deflneci by the Scenic Cor~~dor
ards pertai~ing ta Trese Presorvation. shall be r~cmoved and rr.placed on
stipulat~d to by the~ petition~r.
7~-27~
and NOTIOr1 CARRIEp
hereby approv~
sald ptan spectfyinc~
Overlay Znne strnd-
~ 1:1 ratl~, ~4
4/it/77
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 11~ 1977 77'271
REPORTS ANa - IT(:t~ A
~ECOHHEtd0AT10P~~ ,~i; ALE Nn, 2};~? - RNf~~1P4t for aDproval of rev(sed plans -
Prope~rty consistiny of two portlons of land camprising approximately
g,2 Acres locacecl at the norihwest corner of Li~caln Avenue and
Dnl Alr Street.
The Staff Repo•t to Che PlAnning Ccxnmisslon da[ed April 11~ 1977~ wAS presented and made e
part af th~ m~,iute:,.
It was nateJ ;nat the appllc~n[ (Btll McCullock~ Arcl~itect) was requesting approval af
~-oviseJ plans for Variance N~. 2,s3'l, pursuant t~ CanJition Mo. 3 of thc resolution
appruviny thc varlance, "That prlor to tiie l~suance of bullding permits~ revised plens
shall be submfttc~ for Planning Canmisslon revi~wv and approval, said plans ta Indicete a
minin~um ~3-foot wiae 3GCess over P~~r.i<,n A of sub.)ect praperty to Portion l3~ and also to
cl imin~te f lv~ s~~c~n~t-story ~1wc~l l ing uni [s ~arr.pased wl khir the 150-fout bu) lding setback
adJac~nt ta sinc~le-fa~+iily resiclent.ial zoninq~ with the exceptlon of said setback adjacent
~~~~
ta Lot ~~a. '- 1~ 1rACt Nu. ::i~>~ ; lhtlt ll~~ applicant h~;! sube~(tted revi~pd plans Revislon
No. 3) for an ,.sl+-un( t~apartment ..omplcx wi th no ur~f ts wi thin ly0 feet of singic-faml ly
residenti~l zoriny~ exce~ptinc~ Lat Na. ~~ of Tract No. 7.730; lliat ~ divided access drlve
consistiny of two 1~^foot wi~1c tanes with a G-foot wiJe Jivicler was praposcd to provide
access tU Porci~n B af tlie prap:~rty; anci that due to tlie foregolny cfi~nc7es in the plans,
mc~difications had also been mad~ tn propo~.;ea buildln~~ locations.
The ~'lanninq Comn~ission entered into discussi~n regarding the subJect prqject~ noting that
tltis was a Former dump site; that thr. subjett revised plans applicd only t~ the apartment
portion (Portlon A) of tt~e project end not to the racquetball courts~ etc. (Portion B);
t(hat the projc.Gt was i~ein~~ revlsed from the oriyinally approved 8ti unfts to 34 unlts; a~nd
that the interinr circui~tiun proposed appeareJ to be more appropriate than thc prevtousty
proposed p~rirneter-type circulatian, Ch~~irn-an Johnsun noted that if the plans for the
semolnder af the praperty ch.~nged appreciably~ an adJitional public heariny may be
required in arder to ap~~rove tl~e p1Ans.
Commissivnsr Tolar offered a r,,otion~ secunded by Cannissioner Barnes and MOTION CARRIEO~
tf~at the llnalicim City Pianniny ConYnission cloes hrreby approve the ~evised plans (Revlsion
P~o. 3) for Vari~nc~ ~~o. 2~;2, to construct an ~1~-unit ap~~rtrnAnt cornplex vn Portion A of
the sub,;ect property, as submittecl.
I TEM R
TRACi ~JO. ')G1G - Request for approval of final specilic pla~s -
Property consisting of ~pproximately 1.3 acres on the south side
of Santa Ana Cany~n Raad, approximately 1~%~ feet east of the
centerline of Royal Oak Road.
Ttie Staff Report to the P{anning Commission dated April 11~ 1977, was presented and made a
pert of the rn(nutes.
It was noted that the applicant (Frederick M. Wilson, Vice President of Park Vi~w Homes~
Inc.) was reyuesting approval of final specific plot plans~ floor plans and ~levations for
Tract t~o. 3~~1G• in accordance with the conditian of approvbl requiring s~id approval by
4/11/77
MINUT~S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April ii~ 1977
77-77z
ITEM 8 (Continued)
th nning ~onxr-ission; and thot lha ple~~~ c,unforn-e:J tu Cade standards far thc RS-HS-
10~000(SC) tone.
Commtssioncr Tolar offered a moti~n~ second~d by Commissiune~ Kiny rnd MOTION CARRIEd
(Commissloner Johnson vottng "~o")~ tliat the Anahei.n~ City Planntng Comm(ssion does hereby
approve the flnal speclftc plans in connectlon with T~act No. yG16~ far a 2~-lot~ RS-HS-
10~000(SC) subdivtston, as submitted.
Conmissloner flerbst n~ted that tlie subJect tract was a good example of why the Planninq
Cummisslon must follow-throu9h with the RS-10~0(10 Z~~~nc.
ITCr; C
01~01 IOIIAL USC PCPNIT N0. 1(,~;~ - r~equest for termtnatia~ - Prope~ty
cansistiny of ap~roxtr-k~tely ~.7 acrc on tlic nartt~ slde of Li~coln
AvenuP~ appr~xlmately ~i2~ fcet east of the centerline af t3rookhurst
Street.
It was noted that thc petitioner (lVnr~tal Patel) was requcsting tcrminacion of Condittanal
Use Permit No. 1G;,t;~ pursuant to a condition of approval of Conditianal Usc Pcrmit No.
16a2 requiriny that tl~e ~r.titioner submit a written requ:st for saicl terminatian.
Commtssioner King offered a motion, seconded by Conxnissloner DPVid and MOTION C~RRIE:U,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does liereby recommend to thc City Cauncfl of the
City of Anaheim that all ptoceedings (n coni~ection wi[li Cn~dit'on.~l Us~ Permit No. tF~~8 be
terminated~ a3 requested by tfi~ petitioner.
ITEH p
V~1RIA~IC~ N0. 2L1; - Reyuest for an extension of time - Property
consisting of approximately ti.3 acre.s locateJ on the south and west
sides of Sequoia Aven~c~ and further dcscribecl as 223$ Sequoia Avenue.
Tfye Staff Report to thc Planniny Comrnission da[ed April 11~ 1y77~ was presented and made a
part of thc minutes.
It was nated that Mr. Vernor~ W. Monroc~, the petitioner~ had requested an extension of time
for Variance No. 2~63 but had indicated at the Planning Commissio~ ~neeting of February 28,
1577~ that if the tenant did not correct the violatinns at the subJect location within one
manth. the usc stiould be terminated; that City staff had investigated the property and
d~termined that the tenant had not fully complied with the origina) conditions of approval
of the variance and thE requirements of the Eiuilding and Zoning Cod~s.
Commissivner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Commbssioner David and MOTION CARRIEU~
that the Anahei~~ City Planniny Cocrmission daes hereby deny the request for an extension of
time for Variance No. 2863 and does~ further~ recornmend to the City Council of the City of
Anahetm that all proceedinc~s in connectian with Variance No. 2863 be terminated~ on the
basis of the foregoing findings.
4/11/77
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Apri) il~ 1971
77-?73
ITEM E
Aq~~per to permit drlveway at northe.ast cornQr of Knott Street
anJ Ora~go Avenue.
Ass~lstant Planning Director Annika Sentalahti presented the Staff Report to the Planning
Commission dated April 11~ 19/7~ a~d said report is refQrrad to and madc a part of the
minutes. She noted that the subject request was a site deve.l~pment policy ttem.
Mr. Hil) Landls~ ~epresenting Ple~nned Develaprt~ent Corporatlon~ the applic~nt~ appeared
before thc Plonning Commissfon and Indicated that they were proposing to eliminata only
one of the four exlsting drivcwAys at the sub,ject location (vacatad servlce st~tion slte);
that the rema(ning driveways Included one within thc 11Q-foot pralongstion from the
Intersectlon on Orange Avenue anS was normally prohlbited by City poltcy; how~ver~ the
othc~ drlvcway on Orange Avenue was at the rear ~f th~ proposed stores; and that the
prapos~d parkin~~ ~~AS tn compilance wlth Cade requ(rements.
tiommissio~er King note~l thal I~e tiad revicNCd thc propcrty in the fic~~ ~~d observed thet
the requested cirlveway was ve ry close to the (nterseGtion and was extremely dangerous~
especlally due to tl~r. amount and speed of traffic at t1ie: inlersectiun.
Mr. Landis then stated ttierr_ wa~ a catch basln that wc~uld prevent them from moving tht
drlveway back from the intersection.
Cormsissioner Nerbst rnade an observation tt~at it appeared thc property was ~e(ng overbullt,
with trucks golny in and out servicii~g the stores~ ancf ttie proJect should probably be
rearranyed to provide for adequa[e circulation wlthout askiny the City to be~d the rules
and pol icies and uK~ke ai~ unsafe corncr.
Commissioner Tolar note~ that appraval of the subject request would set a preceden~ for
other service statlon site conversions in the City; that the trafffc in the area was very
fa5t because of thc long spaces betwcen signals.
Mr. Lewls Morgen~ also representing Planned Qevelopment Corporation~ appeared befare the
Planning Commission and stated that w(th some uses th~y would have no difficulty closing
the dr(veway in question; however, because uf the Frice of ths aroperty~ in the $100,000
renge~ they were muking the best use of it.
Commissioner Nerbst then noted that the Planning Ccxnmissio~ would not be doing the City
justlce to allow an unsare corner based on the ~conomtcs of the project: whereupon~ Mr.
Morgen stated that a portion of the property was dedicated for an easement and~ therefore~
could not be used for parking. Commissioner Nerbst suggested that the easement mlght be
used for ctrculation~ if the plan was rearrangeci.
Mr. Landis suygested tiiat if tl~e Planning Conmission would not consider a deviation from
[he policy~ it sl~ould be made an ordinance.
Traffie EnginQer Paul Sinyer advisecJ that the 110-foot distance requirement for a driveway
near an intersection was part of the Orange County zantng ordinance.
Commissioner Nerbst offered a mo[ion, seconded by Commissioner David and M0710N CARRIED.
that the Anahei-n City ~'~anninq Commdssion does hereby deny the subJect rec~uest to retain a
driveway at the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Knott Street within 110 Feet from
4/11/i7
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ Ap~il 11~ 1977 ~7'~7~+
ITEM E (Continued)
~__
the curb prolongatton nf the curb llne of Knott Strcet, on the basls that said drtveway
would be detrim~~tal to the peace. health~ safety and general welfarc of the Citizens of
Anahelm.
ITE~q F
RCQ EST FGR EIR NEGATIVE DECLARIIT~ON - For Gradtn~ Plan No. 603
at 220 South Owens Urive.
It was noted that A1 Daker had flled an applicat
approxlmalely 2Z91 cubic feet of earth. wlth Sb2
lot at the subJect locatton. in conformance with
praposed grading ~lAn hy rh~~ Plmnnin7 I~epartment
that there would be no significant individual or
as a resul t of ttii s proJect.
lon for Gre~liny Plan No. 603~ to grade
cubic feet excess~ for one single-famlly
City standards; and that a study of the
and tl~e Enotneering Division (nd(cated
cumulativc ~dverse environmental impact
Cammissloner King offered a motlon~ seconded by Cummissioner Ilerbst and MOTI~N CARRIED,
that, {~ursuant to the provisions of the Calif~rnia Environmental Quality Act~ the Anahe(m
City Planning Commission does hereby flnd that the proposed grading ~lan for a single-
femlly lot at 'L20 South Owens Drive will heve nu siynificant indlvidual or cumulative
adverse environmental tmract because the Inilial Study indicates the project wilt tnvolve
only r~inor ~rading m(cic;ateJ by c~nformance with Clty stand~rds, policits~ and plans and~
therefore~ recommends to the City Council of the City of Anahcim tnat the Negative
Declaratlon from the requlrements to prepare an environmental (mpact reaort be approved.
A copy of this Negative Oeclaration is on flie at City tiall.
ITEM G
REQUEST FOR EIR NE:GATIVE DECLARAT101~ - For Parcel Nap ~lo. 626
at 1900 West Lincoln Avenue.
It was not~d that Myer Feuerberg had filed an application for Parcel Nap No. 62G, to
subdivide an approximately .7-acrc lot at the subJect loca~ion into th~ee parcels (Lat 1:
.378 acre~ zoned for comme~cial use on Lincoln Avenue; and tots 2 and 3: .165 acre each.,
zoned for residenttal with an approved variance fo~ undersized iots; and that an I~iti~l
Study of Che proposed parcel map by Ghe Planniny Department and the Enginee~(ng Division
indicated that there would be n~ si~~nificant ~.,dividual or cumulati~ie environr~ental impact
as a result of this proJect because no sensitive environm~nta) elements are involved and
the project is compatible wlth Gity plans and surroundiny uses.
Cornmissinner David offer~d a motion~ seconded by Corr~nissioner laerbst and MOTION CARRIEDf
that~ pursuant to the California Environmental Quatity Act. the Anaheim CtCy Planning
Commission doe~ hereby f(nd that the proposed three-lot commercial/residtntlal Parcel Map
No. 62G at 190G West Llncoln Avenue will have no significant individuat or cumulative
adverse environmentai impact because the initial Study indicates that the prcJcct is
compatible wiCh City plans and surrqunding land uses and na sensitive enviro~mental
elements are invalved and. therefore~ recomnends to the City Counctl of the City of
Anaheim that the N~gative Deciaration from Che requirements to prepare an environmental
impact report be approved. A copy of this Negative Deciaration is on file at City Hall.
4/11/77
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 11, 1977
71~275
ITEM H
RE~" qUC T POP~ EIR NEf.ATIVE DECLP.RATInN - F~r Percel Mep No. h33
at the west side of Jefferson Street~ ~o~kh of Coronedo Streat.
It was noted that Dart Industrtes had filesd an applicatlon for a two-lot tndustrie)
subdlvislon at the subject locatton, to subdlv(de approximately b.5 acres Into e S•2~acre
pareel and a 3.2-acre percel for the manufacture of Fiberglas r~inforcod polyeater; and
th~t a~ Inltlal 5tudy of the proposed parcel map by Che Pldnning Oepartment and the
Engineering Olvtsion Indicated that there would be no signfficant Indtvidual or c wnulative
environment~l impact as a result af this prQJect bccause the proJect was in conforn-ance
wlth thc City's plans, ordinances and surrounding lan~ uses~ and thc South Coast Air
Quallty Msnagement District hod revlewed the subject proJect~ granting canditional
authorizatlon for construction~ subject to their final Inspeccion and permisston to
ope~ate.
Commissioner King offered a motion~ second~d Ny Commissloner Oavid and MOTION CARRIED~
that~ pursuant to the provisions of the i.alifornia Envirc,n~rx:ntal Qualfty Act, the Anahetm
City Planning Commt~sion does hereby find that the proposed two-lot i~dustrtal subd(viston
(Parc~l Map No. 633) at the west sicle af Jefferson Street~ north of Coronado Street~ will
have no stgnificant indivi~ual or cumulative adverse snvironmental impact because the
Initlal Study Indic~tes that the project is compatibie with the City's ptans, ordinences
and surrounding land uses and will be mitig~tecf by t-~e South ~oest Alr Quality Management
District's review and approval and~ therefure, recorrxr-~nds to the City Counctl of the City
of Anaheim that thc Negative Declaretlon from the requirements to prepare an environmental
impact report be appr~vPd. A copy of this Negative De~:laraticn is on f(le at City Hall.
I T C!1 I
'~~~T FOR EIR NF.GATIVE DECLARATION - For Grading Plan No. ~91
at ~73 ~p) Glorgio Road.
It was nated that C. U. Dennis had filed an app~ication for a permit to grade
app~oximately 720 cubic yards of ear[h~ with G37 cubic ya~ds excess for an approximately
3/4-acre single-famlly lot, in conformanc~ with City standards and policies; and that a
study of the proposed grading plan by the Planning Uepartment and the EnginePring Dlvision
indicated that [here would be no significant individual or tumulaCive adverse
environmental impact as a resulC of th(s project.
Commlssloner Tolar offered a mot(on~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIEO~
that, pursuar~t to the provisions of the California Environmentat Quality Act~ the Anaheim
Gity Plann(~y Commission does hereby find that the pro~aosecf Gradinc~ Plan No. 5~1 far a
si~gle~famlly lot at 22j Del Glorgio Roed will have no siynificant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental ir,ipact because the initial Study indicates ~he project
witl involve only minor gradiny mitigated by conformance with Cfty standards and poltcies
and, therefore~ recommends ko the City Council of the City of Anah~im that the tJegatlve
Reclaration from the requirements to prepare an environmental impact report be approved.
A copy of this Negative Ueclaration (s on file at City Nall.
ti/11177
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Aprit 11~ 1977 77-a7G
ITEM J
Et~ QUE T FOR EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - Far G~adtng Plen No, 6p4
at 2gy South Chrtselts Orive.
It wes noted that Talile Rarkor had filed an eppltcation for a permft tn grad~
approximatsiy 709 cubic yards of earth at tho aub)ect locatlon, with ~o impor~ ~r expo~t~
for one RS-IIS-43.000(SC) single-famlly lot~ tn conformance with C(ty stendards and
policles; anJ that a study of the proposed g~ading plan by the Planning Oepartment and the
Englncering Divisiun (ndlcated that thore would be no significant Indlvidual or cumuletive
advors~ envtronmental impact as a result of thls pro,ject.
Commtssioner Kin,y off~red a motion~ seconded by Commtssioner flerbst a~d MOTION CARRIED,
that~ pursuant ta the provisions of the Californta Envlronmc~tal Quoltty Act. thc Anahcim
City Planning Commissian does hereby find thot tho proposed Grading Plan Ib. 604 for a
single-femlly lot at Zyy 5outh Ghrisalta Urtve wil) have no slgnttic~nt Indlvidua) or
cumulatlve adverse enviranmenta) impact because th~ I~lttal Study indicates that the
p~oJect will tnvolve or,ly m(nor gradiny mitigated by conformance wlth City standerds and
policies and~ therefo~e~ reconMnends tn the City Cnunctl of the City of Ananetm that the
Negative Declaration frnm the requirements to prepare an envlronmenta) impact report be
approved. A capy of tl~is Negat(v~ Declaration ts on ftle at the City Nall.
AUJOURNNEHT - There bcing no further business to dlscuss~ Cortriissioner Y.tng
of fe red a rr~t (on ~ seconded by Conxnt ss ione r Barnes and MOT t ON CARR I EQ ~
tha~t the meetiny be adic,~~rned.
The meeting adJourned at ;:05 p.m.
Respectfully submikted,
l! ' .
~
PatrtGia B. Scanlan, Secretary
Anaheim City Planninc~ Commission