Minutes-PC 1977/09/12yr
`...
City Holl
Anwhelm, Ca 1 1 forn i a
Septembcr 12, 1977
REGUTAR MEET I NG OF 1~HE E1IJAHE I M C I TY PLANN i NG CQMM I SS I ON
REGULAR - The regutar meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Cornmi sslon was cal led to
i 1
C
MEET I NG ord~er by Chai rman Talar ~unc
at I:3~ p.m. ~ September 12, 1971, In the
Chember~ a quo~um beinq present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN - Tolar
COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, David, Herbst, Johnson, King
Commissioner Linn ar•rived at 3:05 p•m-
Al.SO •• Frank Lowry Ass i stant C i ty Attorney
PRESENT Rpbert Franks Deputy City Attorncy
Annika Sanlalahti Asst. Planning Qirector~ Zoning
Jay Titus ~ffi~N Engineer
Paul Sfnqer fr~ffic Enyinecr
J. J. T~shiru Assist~nt Plonner
Ronalcl Th~mpson Planninq Directc~r
Edith Narris Planni~9 Cammission Secretary
PLEDGE ~F - The Pled~e of Allegiar,ce to the Flag af ihc~ United States of Ameri~.+~ tivas
ALLEGIAr "E led by Commissioner Barnes.
APPRnVAL OF- Comm(ss ioner Johnson offcrec a metian, seconded by Commissioner Oavid and
MIWIJIES MOTION CARRIEp (Lonxnitisioner Linn having not yst arri ved), that the minutes
~~f the August 29, ~917 m~eting be approved as submi tted,
ITEM N0. PUBLIC I~EARING. Owner: RICHARD .IAY AND TONIA LYNN
FIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT -CLASS I KAUFMAN, 803 Cinda Screet, Anaheim, CA 92806. Agent:
COND IT IONAL USE PERM IT N0. 175~ FAMILY GROUP HOMES FQUNOAT I ON . 1920 E. Ka[el l a Avenue ~
Sce. "U", Oran9e, CA 92667• Subject property ~s
an i rregularly-shaped parcel f land consisting of approximately ~.2 acre located at
thc cul-de-sac terminus uf Cinda Street having a frontaye of approximately 56 feet
on the west side of Cinda Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 190 feet, and
further described as 803 Cinda Stre~et. Request is for approval of a condi t io~al use
pe~rnlt to permit a chi ldren's group home.
There were approximately 31 persons indicating their presence in oppositicn to the
request and although the slaff report to the Planning Commission dated Septemter 12~
1977, wa~ not read at the publ ic hearing, it is rPferrzd to and made a part of the
mi nutes.
J. J. Tashiro, Assistant Planner~ read a lettFr dated September 8, Ig77, from Georye
W. 8e1) and Susan L. Be11, 5916 Minuteman ,~ad, Springfield, V+rginla 22152, inditating
they were the owners of the refzrenced property and were upposed to this request. This
let;er is on file in the Planning ~epartment.
77-sb9
~
~
MII~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ September 12~ 1977 71'S70
tll~ CItTEGURICALLY EXEMF'1 b GUP NU. 1 JyU (continupd)
~
Uavid Peter~ ESOj Cinda~ rc~resentiny Family Graup {lor~ Founclation and the An~heim home~
explalned his backyround; that he come fr~m West Pakistan to Caltfornta In 19G3and attended
severol universities a~d collr.qes and attained his P11D dcc~rec in cllnical psychology; that
he moved to O~e:gon In lyG9 and warke~i for tlic 5tatc: of U~ego~ for sr_ven ye~rs as a
Psycholog(cal Consul tant~ Sucial 4lorker I I I~ {~rov1~11ng in~fivlJual ~ yroup and f~~mi ly
c~unseling services for youn~~ buys~ and worked wlth p:ycholoc~tsts anc) psychiatrists in
maklnq program recommendatlons, cr~atinc~ inJlvldual ~nd group progrAms and had the
responsibility for manaytng the c~iscload for 32 young boys, fl(s wtfe, Terry~ worked for
the State of Oreyon also for fnur years as a Grc,up Ltf~ Supervisor anJ had responsib(lity
for thc care. cust~dy~ CrAining~ and supcrvision of thc :S?. young bays. Nis last honor was
an invltatiun from the q~vcrnor of the State of Oreyon to attcnd thc Govcrnor's Cnnference
on Child Abuse,
Mr. Pete~ explalned th~t he and I~is wif~ c.ame to the M aheim home as housc parents
approxim~tcly four wceks ac~a ~~n~ that the p~ist fc,ur wc~~1:s h.~vc becn spcnt gctting to knaw
the boys in the horne~ alteriny and creatinq new progr~~ms~ providir~g ?.4-liour supervtslon,
and attempting to ,et to know [hr_ neic~hl~ors, Ne stated that ne and his wife wer~ well
aware of the tragic incident involvinq tl~e two cars; ~nd [hat they were weli satisfled
with the responsiveness of t.he Family Gruup Nomc~ Foundatiun to handle this incident; and
thet he had been in`orr~~e~ that a Ful 1 anJ ca~~plete resti tutic~n had bcen mode and the
juveniles ir~vulve~ havc~ been returned [o thc pr~pcr ou[horitic~s. Also~ they were wel)
aware of the Internai problems in the ha~~e and fclt these problerns were mostly duc to 18ck
af supervlsion; chat thc usc of the swii~rniny pc~ol lat,e at niyht~ s~cret srnoking by very
youny boys ~ excess I vc I c~u~ no i sc ~ abus 1 ve an~i vu I~~,~r I an~~ut~y~: , 1 oud rad ( c~s and r~cords
wcre some of the problems~ an,~ th~t thcy fclt ~ luc ~~f nruyress h~id been rnad~ in the
curtai lment of these: probl~~~is. He ex4~lainc~d that i f thc boys are to l ive In thls home.
they must a,ume responsibility uf beiny yoocl nei~~hhors uy being re~~onsive and courteous
to thc neiqhbors.
I!e reported ~hat he an~ his wi fr ;~ ~~~ hacl onr. meciin~i wi th the nciyhl~ors and fclt that
meetlny with the nei~lhb~rs anu explainin~~ [hr. r~rograr~~ was a Step in the riqht directiOn.
ReyarrJing thc boys at thc horx:~ Mr. F'eter exPlainecl that five of the boys ar~ frcxn Qrange
County, refcrre~f to the hun~e i~y the Oran~~e County Uepartm~nt of Sacial Services; that the
boys need normal, stable~ lic~~lthy~ family environmcnts and must ,o thr~uyh an intensive
screen i ng process . Those who are accepte ~_i +~~us t derr~ns t ra tc an ah i 1 i ty to 1 i ve 1 n a
normal~ healthy home and follow the standards of tiie comnunity. Those who are in confltct
with soeiety and the neis~hborhoo~ must senk placemen[ elsewhere.
Mr. Peter explained the screenin~~ process deCermines the current menta) status ~f the boys
and reports from ttie neiyhbors are considereJ; t~~at r,~ emotionally disturbed or active
Juvenile del(nque~ts are accepteci. 11e stated hoys who a~e accepted f~r this home have
elther lost thel~ parencs or the par~~nts have lost interest, or they come from broken
homes; that these boys arA not n~e~~tally ili or criminals and do not need to be in
hospitals or instltutions~ but in a conmunity where, with proper care and train(ng~ they
can become responsible~ law-abidi~<~ and produccive citizens.
Ge~rge Knapp. 30~+ Cinda~ st~~ed he lives across the street from the sub]ect property and
that he has been the coordinator in ttiis situation and represented the netghborhood in an
effort to find out rare about ~roup homes. He felt it was unfair that Mr. Kaufman was n~t
9/12/77
MINUTES~ !1Nl1HEIM GITY PlANN1~~G CQMM15510N~ September 12~ 1~)77 ~j-5~~
E{R Cl1TEGORIC~ILLY EXENPT Z CUP I~Q. 1~50 (Continued)
present since he had purchased t,~e hr,me anJ was licensed for ti~is gr~up home:. tle reported
that Mr. Kaufman haJ been Invited to attend a irx;tinq on July 2t~th ~t his horn~ and that the
nelghborhood was outra~~ed with Mr. Kaufn-an's explanatl~n af thr pr~gram ~nd the th(ngs
that have transRired; that Mr. KAUfm.in misrr~resrntccl himsclf wl~en purchasing the home for
other than sin~~lc-fam! ly ~.~sc and Imn~edincc:ly rcl~cated his home c~ this locetlon and hos
been operatiny stncc July !,th ille~aally w(thc~ut the sanctioniny of the state and clty~ and
was only force~i to apply For the con~litiun~~) use ~ermit after his aper~tion was reported;
lhat Mr, and Mrs. Petcr are a very nice youn~~ couplr. hut that sunx~ of the concr.~ts of the
home are rcally be(ri~i ~Ilst~~rte~; that it was very difficult eo expect ~~n inexperienccd
youny coupfe tu i~ave thc responsibi lity for six I~uys; an~1 ti~at thr. hc,rn~~ h~5s already been
through onc set of yrou~i parents. Ne feit onc of th~~ main problems is the cont(nuous
turn~ver Af the bc~ys; thac thcy Icave when they are r~h~~bi 11 Catecl, fle fel t 1 F the
founelation was thuroughly concerned with the welfare of the boys~ they would mc~dify the
pragram [o allc~w two ~r [hrec boys. ~~r whatever the couple wuuld be capible of su~~rvlsinf~
beeeuse laek of su~~ervision is une of [h~~ r,iain pruf~lems.
Mr. Knapp presentecl a ~,etitlc,n with ~vr.r ]') si~~natur~s ~~F i~xne~li.itc~ nciclhbors who felt it
Is not conduciv~ to o~eratc a yra~~~ homr in a resi~.lcntlal nci~~hl~orhood and wcrc o~posecl to
tfte I ssuancc of t-i i s con~: i k iori,~ 1 u5C ~~C fnl l I,
Darlene ~'En~enhall~ /~~ South S[chlcy~ rcportccl that about twu ciays ~ifter the buys moveJ
I~~to the neighborhood~ h~r car was burned anJ com~>letely destroy~~~; and that the Fami ly
Group ~io~~w Fuundation has not ~nad~; rc~stitution to her. Shc~ st~-tud she (s very unhappy
abUUt thc: whole situation an~! is afraid it miyht bc somethin~~ wc~rs~~ riext tir~c; that it i5
not very pleasant to w~{.c u~~ ari~t fin<1 y~u car an firc; ~nJ chai all the reiyhbors arc
afrald it rniqht be thcir hortk: ncxt ti~rm,
Jirn Widenrnann~ 2uli~ East South Strcct~ s[ateJ hc c1i~ not get an opportunity to at[end the
n~etiny referre~ to by '~r, Gcc~r~~c: Knapp~ but ayrecd with all f~e hacl s~~id; that hc did not
sign the petition whicl; was circulatc~l~ but will siyn it or ~~ould havc si9ned lt; that his
immediate concern was not the nur,~er c~f boys in khe horne an~1 he realized that he rnay have
s i x boys ~~f hi s own and be I i eve~l h~ ~oul d be capab le of ts~k i n~~ care af thern~ b~~t that he
haC rnoved into hi; housc four n~nt' s a~~~ r~n~i haJ c.hosen i t partly because of [he schools
and neighbonc~~od 3n~1 felt hc ha~ 'icCked thc area out pretty well~ but had no i~~tention of
mc~ving lnto a neic~hborhv~d where ho~~es were bein~~ operated in the form oF a b~~slness; that
money does cxchanye hands~ ~~ncf he understan~ls that it is r,ot unprofitable to run a home
like tt~is~ ancl lic viewed it~ in part, as a business an~1 had thie feel ing if this permit
is grat~ted~ would it nut be fair tv grant several oth.~r permits if sixnebc~dy else made the
same request. I~e state~ lie was obviously concern~:d at,ouc tl~e potentlal pro~~lems in the
area tf further permits were grantcd for similar purpases; tt~at thcre are some obvious
discipline problems at this tio~e~ anci he and hi~ family were vF~ry much op~osed.
Davtd Pete~ stated that he was very sympathetic t~ the concerns of the neighborhood~
particularly the lady whose car was dcstr~yed; ti~at at the last meet~~~g he had had with
Mr. Kaufmann on Wednesday~ he was inforrr~d chat restitu[ion had been made; that it is
natural to generalixe the fears and think that if it happ~ned to me once, it will happen
again; that these prablerns were due to the iack of supervision~ and h~ telt they have made
yains with the boys; that they are experienced and have dealt with up to 32 juvenile boys
and may have seven children of his own ever~Cually; that the Family Group Home Foundation
is a non-profit organization; that ttie h4use p~rents~ pSychiatrists~ and social workers,
9/12/77
MINUTCS, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ September 12~ 1y77 71"~72
EIR CATECORICALLY EX~MPT 6 CUH N0. 1750 (contlnuad)
~tc., are pald a salary and thc rn~~ey dacs cume from someplace; and he agrced with che
gentlenw n that tliis ts a nice nelghhorl~ood an~ does provide a famlly etmasphere and does
imposc sCandards of normal family 1(viny on the b~ys.
TIIE: PU~L I G IIE~+RI IIG WA5 CLIiSCu.
Cliairrnan Tolar asl.r_~1 whae ~u~~s the wor~~ "rci~~~hilitatc~i" rncanc in thls instance and after
the buys in thls I~ome are rr.!,~bilit~.ted~ whcrr~~ arc th~y scnt c~r wliat ha~pcns to them?
Mr. Peter ~:xplaine~i that tiicy have to lcarn t~ hc responsible for [hcir orrn actions~ no[
to break thc laws ,~n~1 t~~ bc al>lc tu ~;~ ll~r<~uyh ',ifc wit.huut yctlir~~i intc~ dlffir.ultics.
Chc~irnt:~n Tc,l,~r .~s4cJ if tl,es~~ bays were. ~rc,ble~~~ cl~il~iren before thc.:y car~ to th(s home .. J
wher~ the Goys come fru~n, Plr. Pctcr re{~I ic~l that rx~st of the~~ hrivr no F»rents an~i ere
rcferi'c~ by thc. Oran~;c County Dr.~~~irt.~c~~t ~~f Social S~rvir.rs.
Chairman Tolar •~sl.uci if thc l.>uy5 y~~n~~rally dc~ nat ~vc {~~~rents ~i~~~ Mr. Peter replled that
this is eorrcr.:t~ or their p~r~nts I~~~ve lost ii~terc_,c in tl~ci~~.
Gornmissioner Johnsun aske<J I f [he Far~i ly Group lic,mc FounJati~n was a nacional or~aanization
and Mr. Pe~tcr reE~Iir.J th~t it , a lo~,~l ~~r~.i,~r,i:cation ~3nu th~,y h,ive fivc othc:r homes.
Cliairman Tolar as~.e~1 hc~w lonc; this or~~anizatian iias been in existenc~ anci Mr. Peter
replied that h~~ was not sure. Chairn~n Tolar as4~c~i if there w~~s a representatfvc present
from the Family Gr~up Home Fouiiclation. There was no res~cm~e. A lady in the audiencc
replieJ that shc had a br~~chur.r, fron~ this or~~~iniz.~tion an~i presentecJ it t~ thr. Comnisston
to rcvlew.
Goittmi ss i uner Jahr~son asF.e~i i f any of tl~e hoys clr i ve n~,tonK~b i les anJ i t was repl I ed that
most of these buys ~1o not havo ~ ciriver's licr.nse~ an~i none of them have a vehicle.
Somebody i n the au~J i cnce re~ 1 1 e~ [ha t the i r f r i en~1s J r i~~c ca rs .
Ganmissiuner Johnson askecf wt~at happens tu thc:se hoys when they becorne lti, Mr. Peter
replied that most of thair effurts are directed to seeiny th~~t the boys qraduata from high
schonl and are provide~l some type of vocational traininn.
Commissioner Johnson state~ he ha~ :~otten [he inpression that 11r, and Hrs. Peter's
experienc~ was with tl~e care of children and that boys 17 or 18 years old are not children
and do be2r a yreac influcnce an the nei~hbort~ood.
Mr. Peter replied their expe~iencc has been witl~ boys whose ages rar~ged from 1?. through
13. fle explained the ages of thc boys at this home are 1'l~ 13~ 15. 1G and i7.
Commissloner Herbst po(ntecl ou[ that accordiny to Gode a condittonal use permix would not
be required if there were only three boys involveci since the Code allows five unrelated
people ln one house and this is a non-profit oryanization. Fr~nk Lowry~ Asslstant City
Attornsy~ stated this was c~rrect.
Cortimissioner Herbst stated tl~at inasmuch as this h~rrv. went into the area wlthout proper
authori za t ion and the~c~ are too many ch i I dren i nvol vc:d, he fe 1 t i t was un fa i r to the
residents in the area Co allow the home to continue because the residents themselves have
had problems. He felt it is unfair to botti parties because the neiyhbors have devclaped e
wal l and ~roulcl not a! low a.ny new chi ldren to be treated properly by the other chi lc'-nn in
the area. He felt if the petitioner f~ad come in under ~t~e proper auspices and approached
9/12/77
MI NUTES. A~~AIIE I M C I TY PLA~~I11 NG COMMI 5510~~. September 12 ~ 1977 71-573
E( R Cl1TEGOR I Cl1LLY EXEMNT b CUP 110. 1 J50 (cont 1 nucd)
~~
the s i t ua t lun prope r I y b~ fore the t rc~ub I c; , tt~e ne i~~hhors rmu 1 d prc~bob ly havc 1 ~okod at 1 t
differently. He fclt th(s is a busincss ancl~ even thouyh hc has comp.issiun for thc foster
chlldren wh~, ~iu not hav~ {~~irents .in~l neeJ a place to livc; that th(s p~~rtlculan c~xne
sttlrte~ uff on the wrc,n~~ fuc?t anc! wl I 1 c~ntf ~~uc on [lie wrcm~; Faat; ~n~l th~t tfie number of
chlldren shoulJ be cu[ down so ~ pcr~nit w~ul~ not be required ~~n~l thcy would have better
co~t~al of the kids. He felt it would bc best For ti,r. community and the hcxnr~ to deny the
request,
Chalrman Talar statr.J he a9rec~l wi th Conrnissic,ner H~rhst; and, in ~ddi tion~ fel t the
St1'uCture was too Sr~al) to ace:o~~~x~d~t[c: this ininy ~~ec>ple; t~n~! th,ii tl~c Famlly Group Home
FounefAtlon shoul~l havr. clieckecl with th~ City rc:yar~lin~~ rr.c~ulati~ns befr~re estt~bl(shtny the
U4n.
Com,~i551c-~cr Joh~~sc~n ~t.~t~cl h~: fcit th~~ Foun~lati~n k.nr~, ihr r~rnunc.l ruic5 sincc thcy
apparent~y have ~~nc~ther homc ici Anaheirn; th.at th~~re w~~s a l;rxne for ~~irls In his
nelghborhood which w,~s granted a cc~n~fitic~nal use p~_rmic and Is uperatinq successfully;
that ( t is very casy tc~ s( t ha~c ~n~i hc smuq ana s~~y ~"Th ( s i s rry cast 1e ~" but that we J~
h~~ve a sUCla) r~sponsibility to the children, 11e stateJ he likeci what Hr. Peter is trying
to do~ but woul~ liavc t~ suppc,rt the rx~tlo~ for cleni.il becausP this home d1d qet a bad
start and becau~c hc fPlt Mr, Kaufm.in knew he should apply for a conditional use permit;
and because Mr. Y.aufn~an's fai 1 ure tc~ appear hacl nut tl~e ent i re burcien on ~1r. and Mrs.
Peter.
Commissio~cr Jahnson mC~dr. liis ~c~siCion c1~ar~ that unJcr nc~rmal circumstances h~ would
support a request c~f ti~is nature wliether it he across the street or next door to his
~esiJence~ c~r across from thc ~~eople appearing in oppositlon.
Commissloner 8arnrs statrci she was im~ressE~d with the Peter's credentials hut woulci
support the r~btion f~r ~lenial for thc re~~sons already statc~i. She st~tecl shc hoped Mr.
and Nrs . Pe tcr wou 1 c~ con t i nue the f i ne wurN. tliey are try i n!~ t~ do.
Cortmissioner David statcd hc agretd witti everythiny tl~at fia~f be~:n sai~ an~i belleves in the
rehabilitation of tlie boys, but not in the massiveness attempted here~ and felt the
continuity of the same i~~~use par~nts bein~~ present all the time is nece5sary, but is
lacking in this instance.
It was notecl that the Dinc~tvr of the Planninc7 Departr,~ent h~is determined that the proposed
activity falls withiri ;he definition ~~f Section 3.~1~ Class 1, of the City of Anahetm
f',idellr.es to thc Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and ts~ [~erefore~
catec7orically exempt fro~r che requirement to file an EtR.
ACTIOfJ: Commissi~ner 1lerbst offered Resolution No. PC77-1~3 ~nd moved for its passage and
a~op ~on ~ that the Anahe im P 1 ann ( ncJ Commi ss i on does I~ereby deny Peei t ion for Condt t lona 1
Use Perrnit No. 17~0~ on ttie basis that ti~is yroup home has been aperating without the
approval ~f a conditional use permit anci problems with the nei~hbors have occurred; and
that the use~ as propase~ and er.istinc~~ has had a deleterious irnpr~ct ~n the surrounding
singlP-famlly uses.
On rall call, the foregoing resolution was passe;f by the follawing vote;
9/12/77
r1 I Nl-TL5 ,%~~~~11Ik. I It C 1 TY PLANIi 1 NG COIV11 SS I Ot~ ~ S~~ptei~~t,e r 1^. ~ 1 ~ 7 J
tiK ~ATkIiUNIGALLY tXEnt'I 6 CUP N0, ~~50 (ccmtinucd)
~..,.._. ~ _. .
AYES: COHHISSIONERS: BARhES. UAVID~ HERBST~ JOIINSON, KItIG. TOIAR
NOES: COMHISSIONERS: NOIIE
AlfSENT: COMMISSIpNERS: LINN
77- 574
Frank Lawry presentcJ Mr, Pet~r the wrlttar; right to ~ppeol thc de~cis(on of th~ Planning
Commisslon wtLhin 22 days.
It was noted th~,.: wAS a gentleman destring
Managerrant Control Center. 1lowever, due to
impossiblc for thn, Commission to I~e~r I~Im,
Jemas Colbert from the Family Group Homcs F~
Colbert tliat final oct(on had been taken on
right to appeal to Dr. Colbert,
1 TEN t~0. 2
~~i~~V[ DECll1RATION
I r t . -77-54
VA 1 NCE N0. 293~
TEI~ AT~ IVE MAP JF TRIICT N0. 9a1;
feet east of the centerllne of Hastcr
(RESIUCNTIAL/AGR{CULTURAL) ZONE.
to speak concerning Item No. 1 in the
fallure of the ~3ud1~ equtpment~ it was
(This gcntlcman wes I~iter ldenttfled as Dr.
~undation.) Chairman Tolar explained to Dr.
this mattcr and Mr. Lvwr•, read the written
COr1TINUEO PUE~LIC HEARING, OWNCRS: WILI.IAM M. AI~D
~CTTY JO C101~, 2 Rue Valbo~ne~ Newport Beach~ cn gz66o.
Subject property is an Ir-•eyulerly-shaped parcal ~f
land consist~ny of npproximately 3.3 acres~ having a
frontage of ap~roxink~tcly 543 fcet on the north side
of Simmons Avenuc~ having a maximum depth of approxl-
mately 295 feet~ and being located approxinwkely 282
Sreet. Property presently classif(ed RS-A-43,000
REQUESTEU CL~SSIFICATION: RH-1200 (RESIDEtITIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE; WAIVER OF (A) NAXINUM E3UILDING t1EIG11T ANU (B) MININUM
RECREATIOtJAI•LEISURE AREA.
TENTA7IVE TRACT REQUEST: 12-LOT~ 41-UNIT. RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIf'lE-FANIIY)
SUE3D 1 V I S I 0~1.
It was noted that c~nsideration of this item I~as been continued from the May 23 and Juiy
18, 1977 meetings for revised plans and from the rneeting of June 20~ 1977, at the request
of the Planntng Commission~ and Chairman Tolar sxplained that Items 2~ 3 and 17 of today'x
agenda were related~ but wil) be considered separately.
There we re 53 persons i n~1 i ca t i ng the i r prr.sence i n dppos i t i on to tl~e reques t and a) though
the staff report to the Planniny Commissi~n dated September 12~ 1977~ was not r~ad at the
public hearfng~ it (s referred to an~l r~ade a part of the minutes.
J. J. Tashiro, Asst. Planner~ noted that 15 letters and one telegram in opposition to the
request havc been received to date and indicated these letters were from the following
persons and are on file in the Planniny Department: Marie Weir(September 9 and two dated
May 20); Cissell (August 11); City of Orange (June 15); Harold ~lelson; Mtlton 5. Weber
(May 21); Robert G. Scheffer (May 23); Katf~y Cutler (May 1&); Cissel) (telegram dated May
23); Mar(lyn Miller (Nay 21); L. B. White (September 12); P~t~icia Belanger (May 23):
Dennis ~elanyer (May 23); t~Ichoi,~s Netty (June 14 and September a); and Don Wohlt
(September 8).
9/ 12117
MIiJUI'ES~ ANAl1El~1 1.17Y F~~n~uii~ic COHI11:iSI0t~~ S~:pic:mt~~ 1::~ t~!)7 ~~^-~'~~
EIR ~IEGATIVE pECLARATIQN~ R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 76-//-~4~ VAIt1ANt,t 1~u. 29~6 ~ TENTATIVE hWP
OF TRACT N0. 9815 (contlnued)
~w.~.~.r`.~~ ~ ~
Mr. Tashlro also Indic.ated co~~IeB of E~etlti~ns were received; one c~ntalning apqroxlmately
1i32 siynetures and the most recent ~ne cont.iining 2~3 s(ynritures~ 231 of wh{ch were
Anahalm residents ancl 62 werc Orango residents,
Dan l. Rowland~ 1~00 West l.a Palma Avenuc~ Anal~elm~ rcvlcwed the progress on thls proJect
to date. He stnted +that sincc thc lost rnPet(n~~ when thls item was continucd to thls daCe
certaln, there had heen two ncighborhood n~ectinc~s (/lugust 2~th and September 9th); that he
had two different plans tr~ present whlch haJ bcen shown to the nelghbors; and that he hes
had many discussions wf tl~ rr~mbers of the staff exploring a numbcr of ~x~ssibi l itles. Ne
stated Mr. Clow's posltion chat this pnrcel of property is dlscinctly Apnr~prla[e for
medium-dsns(ty dcvelopment; that it is with(n walkfng distance of good shoppinq and a
r~~k; ~hAi It 1s serviced by public transportatlon~ both OCTU and LARTD; that lt 15 nee~r
schc~ols wf~icti ~re under utillzeel; tl~at publ(c heartnys on tliis p~rcel wcre advertised for
the General Plan Jesignatic~n of inecJ(um dcnsity; that th~ Citie~s of Garden Gr•ov~ and Orange
wcrc asked far inpuf duriny these public. hearin~~s and had ~yrecd that Anahcim's proposed
land use was approprlate for [his property; that Mr, and Nrs. Clvw had llved on this
property for many years and had partlcipated in the plrnnin~ process; that for the last 10
years the Clows have becn pl,~nniny to use thcir propcrty in conformance wlth the
advertised intention of the City of Anaheim to mr.dlum-den~slty res(dential; and that most
of the f~auses (n that arc~~ n<~w werc there Juriny this per(od.
He s~nted the flrst set of plans~ ~Ithau,yt~ conforming technically to tl~c develnpment
standards of Lhe zon~. wcr~ not particularly well-con.:eived for thls piece of propcrty;
and that the reason for the lony continu~~nce to this date was to allc~w Mr. Clow to develop
some sort of d revised plan that will be a i~re palatable an~ sensiblc developme:nt for
Ctiese Mo parcels; that the two parcels are conncctcd~ even thouyh at f1rsC glance they do
not appear to be~ but thcy havc to be devclope~~ together in orrier for the fiastcr Street
port ion to f unct i on bcG•~~isr. acccss woul cf t~e a proh 1 cm.
Mr. Rowl~nd presente~~ the first plan which hr had presented at the neiglibor;~~+od meeting on
Auyust 25th and ind(ca[ed h~w tl~e two ~ rccls are to be joined and statcd th~ pl~ns before
the Planning Commission are tt~e plan5 the homec~wn~rs liave seen.
Mr. Rowland stated thc plans shc~w that they have taken 100,3~~3 square feet of property
whlch under the Ordlnance woui~ permit t~3 units~ although it would be virtually Impossible
to accomplish. and that G1 units were proposed oriyinally~ and that has naw been reduced
by ~Ob on Lhc SimMOns Avenue portion and reduced the Nastcr Strcet property hy 30$ less
u~(ts; that there are na variances requested; tliat the: project cor~forms to the development
standards of the threc cities; and chat on Nasccr Strect there are no twa-story units.
Mr. Rowland stated he anuld not attempt to spcak for the people whc- oppose the proJect,
but that he had asked what their objections were and asked for suggest~ons f-r tmprovtng
thc plans so tfiat th~y would be acreptable to the nefghbors~ and that the primary
objectlon was that there would be an i~crease in traffic; that Slmmons Avenue is already a
bad screet. He stated he felt the traffic sttuation is bad because of the lack of
development and the unlmproved property and not hec~use of developme~t; that the
opposltlon rnentioned there are heavy instances of crime ir that partlcular area; that the
plan lacks recreational areas on-sfte; that the street liyhts would be an inconventence to
the reslde~~ts of Orange and Garden Grave; and it was pointed out vivldly that the density
had not bean reduced enouyh; that, in fact~ the ptan presented was vt~ed as something af
9/12177
MINUTLS~ ~~I~IIf.l11 CITY PLA~~NING COHHISSION~ September 12, 1')J7 77'S7b
EIa NEGATIVE DCCLAMTION, RCCLASSIFICIITIOR~ -~n, 7~-77-54, VARIANCE N0. 2~36 ~ TENTATIV[ MAP
OF TRACT N0. 9815 (continucd)
_. ---- ---- --
an insult to the t~ ~ple who were ktnd enough to come out to the nelghhorhood mecttng. 11e
stat~d he asked wt-at sort of reduction would he acceptable and there was nn answer to that
othor than thQy were adamant that the property be reclassificd t~ sinyle-family. Also.
the polnt was made lhat what Is butlt would decre~se the value of their h~mes. Mr.
Rowland felt tlils was not a val Id objection b~cause wlietl~er the arr.~~ Is dcvcloped or not,
tl~e value of the hames will increase because of our economlc climote; that he had
presented rough ~~conomic facts sliowinc~ what it wpuld cost to develor sin~~le-ft+mlly hcxnes
on that parc~l af property. Ile felt rncist of the people he had talked with In tl~e clty
and outslde tt~e c,ity agrecd that sellin<~ houses betwecn S1S~,000 and S115~0~0 at thts site
at this tlme woulcJ not he a{~feasant prospect for the people hol~iing the loans.
After that meetiny he went back to thc draw(ng board, and Mr. Clc~w reviewed his plan and
explored alternatc proyrams~ l~~~luding townhamcs. A new plar w.~a ~repnred which qreatly
reduceJ the numbcr of units anci was presented on Se~tember 8th ai. a neighborhood meeting
wlth 2~ people present~ ancJ then aftcr the presentation~ 1~ rem~incd and questions werr
asksd cover(ny rn~st of the physic~il aspects of Che project. Tl~ose op~osed met privatelY
after he Iiad answereJ quest~ons and after they liad talke:d ac+ong themselvcs hAd Invited him
back Into thc m~eting and asked him to revicw the cosc of single-f~mily housing again~
which ha did. He staced I•c had asked the home~vwncrs what suyges[ions Chey would have for
the improvement of the `lan and thc suy~~estlon was for s~nylc-family housing,
Mr. Rowland presented [I~c plan to t-~c Conxnission whici~ lie had presented at the September
Sth meetiny~ which combined both parcels into one developr~ent of a ve~y simplc~ stra(yht-
forward tawnhouse propesal~ with tf~e access from flaster Street and fram Slmmons Avenue.
tle indlcated the two-story unlts and point~~d out a point of acccss on Sirn~nons Avenue which
would be a divided access in order to pre~erve twa large trees, one Sycamore and one
Magnolla; the development will be jQ feet frcm tl~e property line on the east because at
this polnt MounCain View butts into thls property and ends, lie stated that If the City of
Anaheim will abandon its desire to ~iave Mountain Vlew c~o through the rema{ning 30 feet of
property~ it would be inc~~rporated into the project as o~en space and extra parking; that
there will be a two-car gara~e for each unit, with 38 extra parking spa~.es on-sitr; that
indtvldual tras!i pick up ~Nill be provided; that a tennis court and ~ swimming po~l wlil
take care, in par[~ of the problem for recreatlon on-site; that the plan seems te conform
to the City's recent solution to the problem of by-pass propert ~s by allowing them to be
developed into townl~ouses; that this ls an incredible compromise on Mr, Clow's part; that
this plan reduced the density frorn 81 to jA individually-awned townhouses.
Mr. Clow requests that under this appllcation the Planniny Commission reciass(fy this
property t~ th~ appropriate zoniny for 34 sinc~le-family townhouses and they wili be
developed ~ith(n thc dev:lopmen[ siandards of ttie zona,
Chairman Tolar asked Mr, Lowry if the Commission could vote on anythin~ otlier than the
pl~n before them and Mr, Lowry explained the Commission could act ~n the reclassificatfon
to a lass d~nse zone.
Nicholas Netty~ G25 East Palmyra, Orange, commented on several of Mr. Rowland's
sta~ements; ~')that Mr. Rowland had stated the ar~a was distinctly approprlate for
medium-density development and specific reasons were awailability of public streets and
tho~oughfares and major shopping centers. Mr. Netty stated you could Justify stlcking
apartments wherever you want them using those same arguments; thai almost anywhere in
9/~2/77
NIf~UTLS~ At~AlIE:111 CITY i'Ll!NHING C(~MI115S1011, Septombcr 11~ 1y77 77•577
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAfWTIQN~ RECLASStFICATION N0. 76-77~54. VARIANCE N0. 2936 b TCMTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 9815 (conti~ued)
~ ~'r~~i~
Anaheim would be close to ma~~~ thoroughfares and sl~opping centers; (2) that there Is a
park ncarby~ but he wented th~ Commisston ta know thst park ts already overcrowded; (3)
tliat Mr. Rowland stat~s he lias develaped his plons ~ccording to the Zoning Ordinance now
on the books. Mr. Necty falt thc only thin~ I~c has compliod wlth Is the deslgnatlon
withtn the Generdl Plan and those in oppo~itton felt the Ceerel Plen should be ame;nded;
that the zoning is sttll RS-A-43~000 (Res(dcntial/Agricultural); (4) that Mr. Rowland had
Indlcated Ghe potenttal units f~r the slte is 83 an~ the initia~ prop~sal wa~ fdr 61 whlch
is already a reJuction of ?.~$; (5) Mr. Netty stated tl~at reyardlnc~ Mr. aowland's comme~ts
regerding thc value of tha hom~s~ if your f~amc Is wortl~ S5q~00t~ and is decrcased by 55~000
by havlnc~ apertments~ even thougf~ the value a~lll incrcasc witl~ ir,flation~ you have still
got the loss; (G) he indicated therc was a small curnuut at the neighborhoad meeting fdur
days aqo; and that he had personally toi~l Mr. Rowlnnd that h~e woi~ld nat meet with h(m and
had urged other homec~wners nut to mect witti him because thc petition~r had fo~r months to
devclop revised plans and thc opposition cou1J just assumc this wos anothcr vehicle to
continue this thiny and dray it on; that the homcowncrs wanted this tltiing resolved; and
(7~ IasL~ regardiny Mr. Rowlana's statcrnent that thts was an incredlblc compromise; that
the maJor(ty of [hc Comm(sston did indicat~ that the orlyina) G1-unit apartment was
clearly too larye for this parcel of land and suggested the denstty be cut In half to make
the proJect more feas(ble; that It has been cut (n half which Is merely what was asked of
him~ and not an incredible compromise. Mr. Netty stated he believed [he maJorlty of the
homaawners are opposed to tatniion-es; ttiat therc arc people in favor~ but the Commisslon
sf~ould rule on Lhe maJority anJ not just a few p~oplc.
Jim I~arris~ 13032 Simmons~ Orangc, across tlie strcet from thc subJect site~ brought a
letter from thc City of Garden Grovc to Mr. 1~tcholas A. Netty dated Septcmber 11~ 1977~
from Richard 0. Rafanovic~ Director~ Department of Public 4lorks r~ Development~ by Dave
Robsc~n~ Manager of Development Services. Ile read this lettcr as follows:
"5eptember 11, 131;
Mr. I~icholas A. Netty
Suite )10~ Crocker Bank Builcfing
1200 North Main Stre~t
Santa Ana~ CA 92741
Uear Mr. IJetty:
Sub'ect: Arsa Soukh of Simmons Avenue~ EasL of
Naster Strret in the Ctty of Garden G~ove.
In response [o your request for information reyardiny thc zoning and
General Plan designatio~~s for the area located ;outh of Simmons Avenue
a~d east of Naster• Street in tfie City of Garden Grove~ the subject area
ts zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential) and designated Lciw Density
Residential on the General Plan.
The Lav Density General Plan designation in the C(ty of Garde~ ~rove
allows devclopment at a density up to ten units to the ar.re. However,
since the area in question is developed with single famtly homes, it is
9/12/77
MIPIUT~S~ N~~IICIM CITY f'LAtU~ING COMMISSIQ~~~ Septembcr 12~ 1`371 77-518
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECIASS~FICATION N0. 76-77-5k~ VARIANCE Np. 2936 b TENTA7IVC MAP
OF TRACT N0. 9815 (continued) - -
.~...~.~..._.. .--- -
unllkely that any type of multiple family development would be
compatible in thc area at this time.
It is hope~~ this informatlon wlll be helpful to you. Should you have
any questions~ plcese contact mc ~t 638-6831.
Sincerely~
s/R I CHARD 0. RAFl11JQV I C. U 1 RECTOR
Department of Public Works 6 Development"
Mr. Narrls also read a letter dated June 15~ 1977~ frcxn Derk Yamasaki, Director~ P1' ~in9
and Devnlopmenc Service~ Oer~rtment af tt-c City uf Orangc~ to William Talley regarding
their meetin.~ of Junc 6, 197i~ as follows:
"June 15~ 1~77
Mr. Wtlllam Tallcy~ City Managcr
City of A~aheim
20~+ E. Lincoln
Anahcim~ Ca1lfQrnia
Ocar Mr. Talley:
At the City Counc(1 meetiny of June 14, 1311 the Orange Clty Council
considered thc follawing item from the Orange City Planning Commissfon:
'At a re~ular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commiss~on
held on June 6~ 1977 the following minutes were recorded
regarding a request for r~viaw of publlc hearing notice from
tl~e City of AnPheim for proposecl multiple family development
on the north side of Simmons Avenue, east of Ilaster Street.
Moved by Commissioner Ault~ seconded by Commissianer Har~:~
approval of a recommen~fatlon to the City Councll of Orange
that both the Planniny Commission and the City Council go on
record rAcommendiny to the Ctty of Anaheim that this area not
bc developed witi- apartments and dupiexes which would in~rude
into the singla family residential area.
AYES; Commisstoners Coontz, Nart~ Master~ Ault
NOES; Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commiss:vner Mtckelson MOTION CARRIED
RCCOMMENDE~ CiTY COUNCIL ACTIOt~:
1. Direct a communication to the Anaheim Planning
Commission, prior to their June 20~ 1977
hearing date, and to the An~heim City Council~
expressing the obJection of the Orange
9/t2/77
MINUTt5~ n~~Aii~IM CiTY PLAt~i~I-~G coM-~1sslor~~ Septencbcr 1?.~ 1')JJ ~~-579
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-5~~ VARIA~~C~ N0. 2g36 6 Tf.NTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 9815 (contlnued)
--- ----- -
Planning Commissian and the Orange Clty
Council to the development of apertments and
duploxes on this property whlch would intrudc
(nto the single fam(ly residential area,'
The C1 ty Counc( 1 concurred wi th the recomrr~endatton of thei r t'lanning
Cwnmisslon. The Council directed staff to cnmmunicace tf~eir wnce~n to
you at~out this proposed zona change In the City of Anahelm.
Very iruly yaurs,
Be~t K. Yan~asaki ~ D! rector
Plerin(ng b Development S~rvic~~
Departmcnt
s/John Lene~ AJminiscracur
Advenced Planning"
Mr. Netty askeJ for a ruling from the Gomr~ission as co whcther or not a decisian was going
to be made on this Item today; that therc is a plan on fl~e for a 53-unit apartment
proposal whtch Mr. Clow has filed as his rcvised plsn and the homcowners do want a ruling.
Chairman Tolar assured Mr. Netty there was 9oing to be a ruling of sane kind on this
proposa) today.
Gera'd Gheifl. 4;-+2 West Sirtmons~ Orange~ neighbor of the area, and property owner and
taxpayer In the City of Anahelm~ and a f~rmer resident of Anaheim, stated a number of
neighbors In Anaheim were concerned wlth sanr_ statistics and read the followin~ from a
ietter which had previously been submitted from Don Wohlt~ adding several comments:
"8 Septarrber 197/
334 Bluebell
Anaheim~ CA
tlonorable Members of the Anaheim Planning Commission, and
Anaheim City Councii:
A nurrber of our Anaheim neighbors have been discussing the proposed
intrLSion of apartmr.nts or condominiums tnto our single family
neighborhoo~J near Simmons and Haster Streets. Since some of us cannoC
attend the Commission meeting on September 12th to voicc our opposition
to this intrusion~ I have been asked to send tliis letter.
Our distussions with neighbors included the following statistics which
shaw the declininy rat(o of sinyle family homes to multiple famlly
untts (n Anaheim during the past G ysars. This decline alarms us.
The Official 1976 Anaheim Census ~eports, on page 11:
In 1970: !n 1976:
58.3~ were single family residences ~+7.5X
9/12~77
MINUTL:,, ~~fIAIIC.l11 GITY PL~V~NINC I.UMNIS510~1~ Se~itcinber 12~ i311
17•580
Eif'. NCGi\IIVE Ut~LAW1f1UN~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 'J6-77-Sq~ VARIANGC N0. 2g3f, 6 TENTATIVE IU1P
OF TMCT N0, 9815 (continuod)
_..__~.._, ____.~..
36.A~ wera multtple fami ly units
4. ~~ we re mob 1 1 a h~mcs
~+ 7 . ~$
S.Sti
Uy contrnst~ !he Offlcial 1~7G Oraiiye City ~':n~.u4 reports:
I n 1976:
G1.£3$ si nyle faml ly homc~s
34.1$ multiplc Family un(Cs
4. 1~ mr~b( le h~rmcs"
Mr. :,h ~ 1 f 1 added, they are concerned wi t~i tl~ i s t rend ~ i t seems to be 1 nc~ns i s tent w i th
Urangc and the~:e two cittes are very rapidly d~~,•~lnrin~ tn the County of Oranyc.
Dy contrast~ I have statistics from Fullcrton:
1977 - July 1 ~G.1$ single family
h1,7'b multi-famlly
Anal~etm srems to be go(ng down in sinylc family homes significantly aver that of their
nQighbors~ one of whic:h is developing as rapidly ds Anahcim,
"Wt are encourayed with thc ~~rowth of Anah~im but feel the trend (n
single famlly homes should be rcvr.rsed back to the 197~ rar.ios. This
will reduce the trAnsitory character and return tc, a better community
a2rt~spherG~ wh(ch stabi 1(ty is bc~tter for schools, for pol ~ce~ fi re~
and c(vll govPrnment.
41e draw your attention to anotiier fact: The co~ccrtrati~n ~f thPSe
mu'tiple family units aapears to bc in the cstablished "flat land" of
Anaheim~ not (n Anahelm Hllls~ where only 2 projects of ~ipartments so
far tiave bcen proposed--bo~h in an arc:a toward the frceway and f~~rther
from sinyle f.~mtly hames--and the one facility now constructed is
rumored to become a condominium. This fs not an equitable b~lance ~~d~
we feel ~ si~ows geoGraphfcal discriminati~r..
IS the estahl(st~ed~ olde~ section of Anaheim now beccxning the "dump!ng
ground" of ~par•tments and other m~~ltiple family unttsl Particularly,
is not this happeniny aiony the fringes of Anaheim Cicy llmlts where
land still is vacant aneJ the citizens less able to articulate the(r
concer~ns because of the division of city )urisdiction divides the v~lce
of ,inyle f~mlly home owners7 Is this not especially true in our
section of Anahsim where there is considerable development but nonc for
sin~le family homesZ
We fecl strangly the answer to these quF tions shaulJ be negative.
Your support for maintaining our exis.'~~g single family community will
help CorrPCt tfiese imbalances.
Sincereiy yours.
s; Uon uoh 1 t"
9112/77
MIiJUTE5~ AI1-~i~E:IM CITY Pl,l1NNING CUh1NIS51QN, Sc~~tembcr 1?.~ 1')/1 ~7•~81
E1R I~EGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICAI'ION N0. 7G-77~~~ti~ VARIANCE N0. 2936 6 TE~ITAIIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 981y (conttnu~d)
.._~ ----
E 1 eanar Day ~ 21 ~~8 West Grayson ~ Anahe i m, stated she was act i nc~ on behal f of Corl I t lon of
Anahelm Leaders (COAL) In the area in question anciliad been asked to coma and speak. She
stated she felt~ undoubtedly~ the seco nd plan (s better th a n the one proposed f~r RM-12~!];
thet I t i s not up to he r to deG I de wha t the res I dents wan t, but raw hour~lny I s not tl~e
most attractlve housiny in tl~e world; that she attendeJ th e mecting with the devetop4r and
thc hamavwnors wl~ere tt~e questicn was askcd~ "Whae would one of thesc unlts sell for?" and
tt was replled that a unit of ap~~roximatcly 110(1 sc;uarc feet would start at $75,OOQ, and
to her that Is not l~~v-income, it is rx~t for the retlred~ and for a younq couple (t wo~~ld
take Cwo incorr~es to handic that; and thn_ th~~ sr,hools werc me.ntioned and chlldren In that
area are bused ta ott~er areas. She statr.d sl~e believrJ the Clty Council hacl instructed
steff to work with thc Planniny Cor,ur.ission to establish some snrt of concept of what woulc'
bc thc bcst wa~,• to dcvclop these smaller parc~ls thr~~~,h~~,f thP Citp~r and that :,tudy eould
not posstbly have bcen done. Sltie ~tated she was very anxious to se~: how the study comes
out and she felt with the archite~t Mr, Clow hos hlrrd~ they :.an c.r,es up with a better
plen.
Rose I~ i ndman ~ 501 Eas t Wi 1 ken Way ~ s t aled she was c~ pol I ce af f i ce r wi th the C i ty of Santa
Ana and that tier husband wes alsc a 1~-~w enfc~rcernent ~f f i ~e r and they are wel 1 awore of the
high cr(rr~ problom wl th any hi gh cuneentra~i~n of people i n a smal t area, She stated that
thcre is a tremendous problem alrcady In An~hcim north of Qran~ewood which Is filtrring
tnto thls area; that they have niyl~cly visits from thQ pol ice helicopter bocause of the
high crirn~ rate and problems with na•cotics~ pornogra~hy, burqlary, arson. etc. She read
a statement from Llo•~d Trapp of the Anaheim Parks and Recreotion Department that the
minlmum s:andaro for Anaheim par~s is one acrc per 1;000 people; that Pondcrosa Perk is
the only pa~•k in that area anci serv~s the cities of Anaheim~ Orane~e, Garcien Grovt and the
Caunty of Uranye and that as of thc 1972 census~ the ~ acres of parks ser s 10~ 8~£~
HnaheEm residents only and tf~at fic~ure has !ncreased great ly in the last t ive years.
Concerning Mr. Rowland's c~nunents regardiny the traffic problem beiny created by thc
un~leveloped portion uf Simnons Avenue ~ sl~e stated that Simrnons Avenuc is not the problem -
it is Nastcr Strcet; that if ycu I ivc theru now you can hardl~ ~;et out onto Ilaster~ and
even '' mc~re familfes would make it impossible to get into liastcr traffic; that most of
the p_ople have to go ba~k and usc Lew1s to go anywherc eaSt or west of Haster Street.
Jfm Narr(s presented a small map prepared by tf~e C(ty of Orange for thelr Plann(ng
Ccxnmission meeti~g. shvw3ng the area in question and Ponderasa Park~ inciicating the
aensity of thc area.
Mr. Net*.y stated Mr. ~low is present ly usi~.., one of tl~c homes on his property as a duplex
which is in violaiion of ;he 2oning Ordinan:es anci felt the Commission should inquire into
that s i nce he d 1 d not seek che i r pe rrni ss ion .
Oominic TomaiuolU. 116 West Sl~m~ons Avenue, stated he thouyht the biggest problem with
L`+is praject is that the ar~a is already overcrowded and highiy populc;ed and has mo~
:han i ts sharc of apartments; that F~e wi shed hc had a maF , s imi 1 ar to the o~ie ahown
prevtausly. showing the area between Narbor to Lewi, east and west and from Katellt~ to
Chapman north ta south; that a ghetto Is being establ ished wi th al i these apartments and
th(s ls going to .ost taxpayers more ana more maney all the time; that he bellpvCd
apartments arE needed because cveryhody :.annot afford a home, but a~artment~ should be
9/12/17
MII~UTCS~ nr~~IlLll~ CITY ~~n~~~~iur C0~1111S510f1~ Se~,t~rr~cr 12~ 1~117 71'S~2
EIR NEGATIV~ 11FCLARA710N, RF.CIASSIFIGATION N(1, ](~-7]-~b, VARIANCE N0, 993f, F TENTATIVF MAP
OF TRACT N0. 981y (continucd)
~`
distrtbuted throughout the ctty. He feit th~ main issue herc is r~ally to stop apart ts
encl keep somQ of the single-famlly A~eHS.
Chatrman Tolar felt the Commiss~~n had heard enouyh comments and st.~ted hc hoped the
appltcant fiad made notes an~1 would answer some of the concerns.
Mr. Rowland stated he is tiilly awara of the problems ttiat thc nelghl~ors fcel but felt some
uf these problems will be allevtated by this development ancf some. no doubt~ will be
aygravated.
Mr. Rowland stated he did not want t~ imply at all thaL 21 people wes a"skim;,y" turnout
for tf~e last meetin~~; tfiat he thought that was a fantastic number to come out and spend
their tlir~ on ~ Thursd~y eveniny wi lh e fcwtisal i ydn~ un trievislun tl-et night; that he
felt tFe ne(ghL~urlioc~d was well represented~ partlcularly when lookinc~ at a map of the area
and plott(ng the nan~es on the lots witi~in 300 feet of tii~ subJect arca~ there were lq
slgnatures in thc City o~ Anaheirc~~ an~l witl~ 21 peoplc attendinc~ n meetine~~ obviausly you
are yetting AI1 the per~plc wl~o rcally havc an axc to !;r1nd. He stated he did not want to
discuss the City ~f GarJen Grove and the City of Anahelm's differcnces in zoning and chat
the City of Oranye's ~olitical decision was easy to come by and their positlon w3s
warrant~d~ and it was a nice thln~~ For tt~em t~ do because they have no money in the Issue
as a community ur A5 incl(vid~~,ls.
Ne fe 1 t tlie prob 1 em wi tt~ tlie t raf f i c on Ilas ter ~ and agrced tiie prob l~m I s on Ilas ter
Street~ has been recoynlzed by the traffic enyineer retained by Nr. Clow to make the
trdffic study of the area, and he fclt the uit(mate development of Haster Street as (t Is
wldened and developed an~ wlth the possiblc installation of a lesft-turn pocket~ south to
east~ got~y scuth on liaster, 9olny east into Sirtrn~ns, to pull the traffic out of tt~at
rear-end situation will be a Sclution to a yreat deal ~~f the problems,
Mr~ t•illiam Ciow~ 2 Rue !albonne~ New~ort tieach~ steted that all thc property along N~ster
Street has becn deecf~ci tc~ the City a~~d sf~ould be wiclened in the very n~ar iuture.
Mr. Raaland stated the apr.licant would likr. to see thl: property reclassified to the zone
wliich is appropria[e for 34 townl~omes, ind chese townhomes will chen be devetaped within
thc develoF.nent standarJs ~f that zanr.
TIiE PUBLIC HEARit~f, Wl1S CL05E0.
Frank Lowry~ Assistant City Attor~ey~ stated he un~ferstood Mr. Rowland's request is for
reclassification to tl~e RM-4000 (Residenti~l~ M~~ltiple-Family) Zone instead of RM-1200
(KeslJential~ Multiple-Family) Zone.
Chairman Tolar asked if the action taken is for reclassification to RM-4~~Q0~ would that
autanatically take care of the variance request and tentative tract request of Items 2 bnd
3~ and Frank Lc~wry explained the Commission should deny the tentative tra~t and variance
requests if the rrclassification is a~proved.
Cortimissloner Herbst rasked Mr. Rowland if the reclasslfication is approved and the
tow~i!~ouse developrnent is submitt~d, would it be possible co redesign the parcel in a
manner so tS~at traffic will flow out onto t~aster and Mountain Vi~w~ and not onto Simmons;
9/i2/77
MINUTkS~ AIJl111lIM CITY PLIIN1~INf, CU~1~11SSIOtI, Septci~~bc:r 12~ 1~)77 77-583
E 1 R NCGAT 1 VC QCCLAMT I OPJ ~ RECL!1S S I F I C ATI 0-' Nl1. 7fi• 77-54 , VAR I ANCE NO ~ 293b b TENTATI VE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 9815 (continued) --
.tf~at he had analyzed Simmons Avenue a s being totally singlc-fr~mily resldential as it is
daveloped to dote ~nd recognized tha t this parcel cloes abut multi-famlly unlts to the r eo~
and felt lf this parcel is isolated ~ nd macie a cantinu~t(on ~f a mulct-famlly zone~ it
should not put more Craffic onto Slrmx~ns, tlc felt there ts a nccd for condominiums and
tow~~houses ancJ that they are more compatlble with the single-family re~identlal area
because thay are owned i ndi v i dua 1 I y a~d do shaw mor~ c~r i de i n ownersh i p and p;•ov t de lo~er-
eost housiny than single-fam) ly uni ts, ~ecognizing tl~at sinc~lc-fami ly homes were sel l i ng
for about S10~~Q00.
C~Mh115S IONER L I NN CNTERE~ ~ THE CnUNC ~ L CHAMUEa AT 3:05 P.M.
Commissloner Herbst in~lcated he had driven on Mountain Vlew on Sunday ancl !here were very
few car~ parked there and less traff:c tl~an on Slmmo~::.~ ancf felt thar. if tr~+fftc from th~.
developmcnt were directed toward Mo u~tain View it wauld be the best solutlon to the
trafflc problem.
Commissloner Flerbst stateJ that this was the first t(me the Commtssion had ssen th(s p lan
and fel t i t does I~ave somc mer i t~ and one of the th inns ~~e 1 i ked about townhousc
develapments 1 s the abi 1 1 ty to deve 1 op In that parcel i ts own recreat' al facl 1 1 ti es
which does keep the chllc~ren involved closer to their rosi~ience wtiich could be an
advantage rather than a Jisadvanta~e . Ile fcl+ tliat by slight modification and
rearra~gement and with tfie access to hbu~~tain View, r.his could be a vtable project.
Mr. Netty stated he felt cor.siderati on af tl~is item was completely out of order; that the
Cornmisstcn do~s nat knc~w what the pl ans are goiny t~ ue; that th~re is no stoff reporz
avallablc:;and that h~ did n~t [hink thc Commission should be cansidering thls m~tter at
this time.
Frank Lowry explained ttiat reclassi fic?tions are beiny requesteci on both Items ? and 3,
and that the r~quest for variances and approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. ~3815 a r ~
beiny withdrawn~ and ttiat tf~c: requcst undcr item 1 j is for a Ge~icr~l Plan amen~iment.
Cfiairrnan Tolar exPleined tf~at if th~ plans For Items 2 and 3 are denied the pctltfoner is
still requesting .eclassification, not to RM-120Q but to RM-1~OOU~ ~nd when specific p lans
are submitt.d thcy will have t~ co n form to the RM-4000 Zone.
Frank Low ry e.~~lained that the orig inal reclassificaCion was for a resident(al zone a nd
that the request may be considereJ for any lesser dense zone at the same public heari ~g at
the request ~f the applicant.
An unidentified lady ln the audien e e asked the meaniny of the RM-4000 Zone.
Chairma~ Tolar explained this is a zone far conduminiu~n; or towrhouses; that the ori ginal
plans submi tted are not goi ng to be appr~ved and Lhe uni ts arc not go) ng to be bui 1 t_ He
stated the Commission would try to resolve this matter and make it as cloar as possible.
A gentlPman ~n the audience (unidentified) asked why the opposition was here and stated he
had attended the meeting in opposi tion •.~~ the apartmencs anci not townhouses. He asked if
nottficatton would be sent wh~n th e tuwr~nouse plans are submitted.
9/t2/77
~
N I f~UTk`~ ~ ANl111C I M G I 7Y ('LI1;~N i NG COF1h11:;S I UN ~~c~~ tc~~hc r 1: , 1^ I I ~~"584
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATI011~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-54~ VNRIANCE N0. 293G b TENTATIVE NAP
AF TpALT NO . qHl S ( Co~t f~ ~ued) __
Mr. RowlAnd explalneu that he was fol lvwi~~,~ r.xactly the seme procedurr. tt~~t hc had
outtlnad at thc meeting when lie he~J explrinr.d how t~~ls matter would be resolvad.
An unidentifie~i lady In th4 audlence ~esked Mr. Rowland hcna f~e I~ed known th(s Is the we~y
things would happen. Mr. Rc~wland explaine~' thet tt-e ardinances ere puhlic information and
that he ( s a technlcla~ in ttils area.
Mr. aowiand ctated~ (n answer to Commissic~ner Hcrbst's questlan regerding Simmons Avenue
acccss~ that he wou1J make tl~e traf~ic study P part of the r~cord. 11e explalned that this
study indicates the peak hour of a.m. tr~ffic woisld be increased hy Apnraxirr~tely 1~+
vehicles and tl~e peak I~our of p.m. ~raffic would be Increase~i by approximately 23
vehicles. Ile stated the c affic enylneer w.~ ~ had made the study in~licpted this adr~e~i
traffic would not brin~ tne foci Iity near its capaclty and the mi[ic~ating me~sure woul~ be
a left~turn pc I;ct. Nc stmted the pc5;ibtlity of hrin~in~ f4niintr~n V(ew thruu~~h and
making e c.u1-de•sac was discussed but In connection with ~!~c medium-den5i ty developme~t.
Mr. Rowla~d Indica[ed Mr. Clow owns 3~ feet adJacent to MountAin View and that thr.re ts
ell multi-family develcpment nortl~ ot this proJect~ and ii Mr, Clow is asked ta develop
tl~is all singlc•f.~rntly units~ then he Is bcing asked to pay liis dues twtce for abutting
multl-fami ly uni ts.
Mr. Row 1 and e> ;( ned that i f the acccss to S tmr~K~ns i s closed of f~ there w) 1 1 be nn i mpact
on the c i t 1 es of Oranyc and Garde:n f ~ove so thcrc woul d hc nn reason to not reappl y for
medlum-denstty c,evelopment. Ile exp!~ined that thr proposed townhouse pr~Ject would be
using single-family Streets a~~d woul~ have one vei ~ular access ~n Simnun,~ and there
would be no real reason for ~~ectestrian access because there wi 11 be s G-foo: wal l. Ne
staceJ tt~at tu develop anythiny else would be prov~d(n~~ dout~ic-headed lots on one end of
the prope~ty~ but tha[ i t could be done. He st^~ed ~ie had proposed to Mr, Clow that he
acqulre another parcel nf property so tl~at this coulcl ~e ci~~sed off and cauld be cieveloped
at a hl,yher den~l ty and tliere would be no imFact on anyone except visual ly.
Saaeone from the ~u~icnce aske~ about the impact on the parks.
Mr. Rorr 1 ~n~i exp i a t ned that the park deve 1 oped 1 n that area has 9 acres , and that ! s j us t
about the right amount of acrcage for a neighborhood park~ and the fazt that it serves
areas uther than tf~e Clty nf Anahelm does not negate tt~e fact the ''ity of Anahelm Is far
above co+~~munities ~fits siie in their recreational facilities. tis stated that if the City
of Anaheim had i~oked at t~~is thiny from a more sclfisl~ standpoint, they would have pulled
the park further north and let *_he people on the southcrly end of Anaheim travel a greater
distance to use tha4 facility.
Commissioner tierbst stated tha~t it appeared thcrc was a 30-foot ac~ess now and that mast
of the tawnliouse developR~:nts are developed with private ~oads~ that there could ba a
private roecl from Mauntain Vlew; and *.hat one of his main concerns~ even though the
project i~ developed with townhouses. the Conxnission knows by p~evious experience, people
do have a tendency to park on the street raeher than in garages and iF this is cansidered
for R J00~ total blo.kage o~ traffic anc nedestrian access to the site frum Stmmons
would i ~gate the proRerty own~,rs parking or~ the street. •
9/t2/7~l
MII~UTE.5, l1~IAHLIM CITY f'LAt~I~IIIG CUHNISSIQ~t~ Septcriber 12~ I jJ7 ?7-,ri$5
EIR NEGATIVE pECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION No. 7G-77-Sb. VaRIANCE N0. 2936 6 TENTIITIVE h1AH
~ TRAC~T ~NO. 9$15 (continued) ~
Chalrman TolAr stated It would make more s~ns~ to f~m (f they were tAlking abo~it en RM-
4~00 condominiur- xone [I~at they talk about a concept rather than spectfic plans, and that
s~. ~, of the yontleman's conc~irns (In Che audlenc~) about being c~nfused wero valld because
the Commisslon did not have a speciflc plan in rel~+cionshlp to RM-40n0 development.
Commfssioner Ilerbst stated that if the ''ommission Is going to consider multl-famlly
developmcnt in that ar~~~ at all, one of thc: thin9s hc is gc~ing to bc vcry adamant abou[ Is
that there b~~ ~.u~~~pletc pr~tection for Simmons St~cet.
Mr. Rowland expleined that Mr. Clow had ind(cated hc tiacl 17 feet instca~ of 3~ feet which
overlappnd Mount.,in Vicw.
MS.Hlndman, the pol ice nfflcPr frc,m SAnrA An~, stat~*d she needed to clarlfy t!~e polnt she
had made rQgarding tlie statistics presented from the Anaheim Parks and Recreation
pepartment; that these statistics warc reyard(ng ~n.yhcim resldenta only and not residcnts
of other citles~ and these fiyures wcrc ~rc-m fiv~s years ago. Shc stated further that no
rr~tter what development yoes tntu this area and no matter where tMe acce~s polnts are~
there is stt ll yc,lny c~ ,e congestlon onta Ha~ter,
Chairman Tolar explained that he had allc~wed a Ic~t of latitude in this hearing and that
Mr. Clow is going to do sometlitng with thls picce of property and has the right to do
somethtng wlth the property~ ar,d it will (mpact this area som~vhat; and that everyane
sl~~>uld recognixe that tl~is i~ a g(ve-and-talce situation,
Jim Harris asked what else can be bui!d in [hc RM-4~)00 ~:one. anJ Cnairman Tolar explained
that nothiny othcr tl•~n townhouses or condc~miniums can bc built.
A l,~~y In the audlencc asked the qucst(on, "Don'[ we have riqhts, [r,<,." Chairman Tolar
repiied that. everyonc has thc riyht to requcst whatevcr they want for their land.
Mr. N~•tty askecJ if all u` the oppusition's CUn~,T1C~t5~ letcers~ petitions, etc.~ wc~uld appiy
t~ the new proposal and the nc~v reclassification. Frank lo~~ry r~plied that he did not
ui.derS[and Mr. Netty's -~uestion. Mr. Netty stated that there are two proposals f,;r
reclassification a~d tr~at the opp~s(tion havc macfe. a lot of commE:nts about these
reclassiflcailons anu ~,~anted to icnow if these comments were appficahle to this new
recldss(ficatlon wtiich is bein~; discuss~d. Mr. Netty also stated that chere ar•_ not a lot
uf rules and reyulations being fol',owing in considcration of this matter.
Mr. Lowry explained that al l the co~.~ments are a matter of recorcl and wi l l apply to any
re~tdenttal zone on t~hE subject property.
.I, J. Tashiro~ Assistsnt Planner~ ext~l~ined that in the RM-~~Q0~1 2one condamin?ums and
townhouses can be built in addition to sinyle-family residences.
Mr. Rowland indicated that if there were any w~y to acquire access to Mountain View and it
physically could be done, he wasn't sure what kind of rnarketing problem It would give Mr.
Claw.
Gomnlssioner Johnson indicated he felt the biggest v~olation is that Simmons Avenue is
developed entirely single-family in any direction you go and that narth on Haster Street
9/ 12/ 17
MII~UTE:S~ l1t~~\1141ft ~ITY i`LI,~IJII~G (,Ot1MI5S1011~ ~c{~tcr~~bcr 12~ 1)~l 77-5$6
CIR NEGATIVE DECLnRATION~ RECLA5SIFICATION ~~U. /b-/!-5j~~ VAItIANGt Nu, zyS~ b(tN1AIIVt MaN
~F TRACT NQ_ 815 (cont(nued~
there are san~ apartments~ and this prope~rty is between an~1 Is a kransltio~~ arca~ he
suggested tt~c i~eal situation would b~ to bulld single-femily on tha south en~i to metch
tl~e rest of Simmons and build son~thing thet would bc compat~ble with the Apartment to the
north~ and hc askcci Nr. Rowland tf he liacJ looked at that ~ossi~tiity,
Mr. Rvwland replled that lhPy hnd l~oked at this possibility and that tt is al) multl-
famlly on the north sidc ~f Mr. Ciow's propcrty and I~e had paid h(s buffer price to multi-
family once and that to ask him to ~ievelo~ sing!e-f;~mily would be rskinq hlm to pay his
dues twlce. He felt thet Just be causG Nr. Clow had owned f~is properr.y ter 15 yet~rs and
already pald hls dues~ f~e did n~t tf the Gity of Anaheim could rightfully say multi-
family and thcr ask I~im to devclop it 5inqle-family.
Mr. Rowlan~i asked what the chances would be to sell sine~le-family residences on tod s
market on Simmons Avenue.
There was a loud respor~se from thr audiencc,
Commisstoner Herbst skated I~~~ felt tlie people in thc audience shnuld g(~~e Mr. Rowland the
courtesy to answer the qucstions.
Cpmmissioner Johnson stated h~~ a~~ree~1 with tlre .~udiencc; that if you are trying to tell
them that you wauld not I~urt ct~eir ~ropcrty by building multi-f.~nily units but you .~ould
be hurting your prope-ty~ then he would havc to a~ree with the auaience.
Commissioner John;~n stated he was n~t trying to hang Hr. Ra+land with a trick quest(on
but asked if he had looked at tl~at approach and stateci he dld not understand w'~at Mr.
.vwlend meant when he said Mr. Cl~w had ~oid his ducs to the north e~d as a buffer.
Mr. Rowland st~ted he already 'is multi-famlly to the north and if he is required to build
s(nglc and multi-family, •lien he has lt twi~~• and that single-family houses would bn
gell(ng betWeen S710,000 and $115,000 and the proJect ~ould not "fly" - that It was an
econamlc impossibility - and tlie cicsest tl~ing they could develop would be townhouses.
Mr. Rowland explai~ieci [his is tl~e device the City of Anaheim has used under less tense
situatlons to fill in and bypass propertles and they had ap~roved qui[e a feH. tie
explained ~his is a well-organized group rt t~ort~ec~wners who are pretty sure thcy are going
to get [his proJ~ct dc~wn-zoned after ten years of being nn the General Plan f~r mediun
density~ anJ they are looicing to have th(s property reclassified to RS-7200 and asked the
Commissi~n if thcy reaiized thc hardship they would be imposing on 19r. Claw. He stated he
felt this plan for townhouse concept develop~d wi~th(n the urdinances is really quite a
good compromis~: for the neighborhooJ~ as well as the fact that Mr. Clow can ltve with it.
Ile stated tt,at fr•wn their studies there was no way he cnuld live with single-famtly units
unlass the Commts5ion is talking about inc~easing s.ame portion to medium denslty and not
stlcking Mr, Clow w(th the single-family restrictions in a multi-family zone ~rhich he
could not develop because of the two-story restriction agatnst si~~gle-family; and that~
effectively, you have taken away tt~e man's property rights which he still has, at this
poin t,
Chalrman Tolar stated he felt the Commission had discuss~d this proJect suff(ciently.
9/t2/77
MIIIUTI.S~ l1NAllf IM CITY f'I.l1N~! r~G COMM15510'1~ Septei~~l~er ll~ 1`3// 77 ~A~
CIR tJECl1TIVE DECLARATION~ RFf.IASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-5~+- '~ARinNCE ~~o. 2936 6 TENTATIVE -'~~'
OF T_ RAC _ H0. ~815! (Cont 1 nued __ -- -
Mr. I~etty asked if I~c could ~~wke one more statement and stateci that th•: Clows had opposed
development of thc enartments on Will:en Way back ln 1962 or Ir~63.
Chalrman Tolar stated tt~at this proJect had st~rted out with ~pproxlmately Gf1 units; that
he was not even sure they coula yet 3~~ units under th~ RN-AQ00 zoning; that it seemed to
him llke RM-4000 zoning~ knowing tl~e restrictions. would certainly b~ ~i compromise and a
lonq way tvwards gettiny what would be a good. vieble proJ~ct in the area. He statcd 'f
M~. Clow elected to yo down ta sin~~le•family zoning~ it would still give him that
vlability~ and tl~at he rnuld nut suppart these units but felt certain that he could
conslder RM°4000 zoning and felt tl~ey woulci make Just as gooJ a proJect a~ sin~le•family
development.
Gortxnissioner parnes stateJ sl~e; had 1c~o~;ed at the are~ an~i ~mrf~r~~ood h~w Mr. Clow felt but
was not sure he was correct. She stated slie ayree~i wlth Commiss(oner Johnsan's comments~
that with the depth of the property and lc~ok(ny a~ [he properttes ocross the street~ she
fell th~s property could be devcloped as an RS-~000 development. She stated she would
llke to see Simmons Avenue remain the k(nd of strc:et It has begun Co be and would ltl;e to
see single-family development along Simrn~ns because she felc it would protect the
integr(ty of the neighborhood,
Mr. Ruwland stated tl~ere wou1J be a problc~~~ with access to thc property with that type of
development; that if 6U feet were taken for thc stree( off Haster~ there would bc no stte
left on iiaster ancl very little left on the back; that the pr~nerty cannot be spltt; that
the Commisslon I~ave spent a lot of time tryinr~ co assemblc {~r-aperties so that they can be
developecl into viable proJects and are now askiny Hr. Claw to destray a viable project and
split the zoning on this parccl. f~~: stated tf~at people who arc opposed and who arc askln~
for RS-7200 lots are liviny on RS->)00 lot~~ ancl that ~~11 the lo~r cost houstn~ in Anaheim
already exists and therc will ncver :~.. any more.
Chairman Tolar stateJ he d(d not thin{, it ~as the Gomnission's intent te sug~~est that this
be developed as RS-7200.
Gommissioner Ilerbst referred t~ the RM-4000 devel~pme~t at Vermon~ and East St.reet wlth
single-family t~omes dev~loped on RS-~+000 lot, with private streets and thought they were
about : to an acre. He stated he felt the t~v+nhouse proJect woulc be a good compromise
because of the problems wiiere you are abuttii9 mult:i~-family units rith single-famtly
residences~ and thaC thc General P?an has show.. this area for medium-density use for 10 or
12 years. I~e felt because thz RS-4000 Zone does a~~.: can equip itself with its own
recreational facilities and takes the impact off the parks, that if the proJect could be
developed similar to chis conc^pi~ he felt the reclassification should be approved subJ~~-t
to the condition that speciftc F•~~ns are braught back before the Planning Commission for
thelr review.
Mr, Rawland statied the Commission wo.,ld automatically have anothe~ look at this through
the tentative tract mar app:'oval; that tt~e plans for developrnent w~uld be with that and
the City of Anaheim is fully pro:ecte~.
Cortmlisioner Herbst wanted to be surc Che pe~pl~ present in opposition knew that the plans
would be bruu9i~t haGk for Planning Commission revicw and would ~ot be approved unless they
9/12/77
~
Mi~~uTt.s~ ni~n,~~ ir~ c~'rv PL~r~t~IN~ Cor1NI5yInN~ Scptembcr t;~~ t~+11 '17-58a
Eif: f~CGATIVC C~CLnPJlT10Pl~ RECL/1551FICATION Nn, 7l.-77-54, VARIANCC N0. ?.936 ~ T[NTATIVC MAP
QF TRACT N0. 815 (continucd) ~, , ,"_ __
met wlch thc Intent of tliis mectiny; tl~~t he felt tfils was a co~~~promise and that the
Commiss ion shoulci ~~nsi dcr what has ~~onc on in the p~st.
AC710N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motlon~ seconded by Comnissioncr Ktnn and MOTIOPI
~~D (Cammissioner Linn abstaln~ ~)~ tt~at the Anahelm City Plt~nning Commission has
reviewed the subject proposal t~ ~~classify the zontng fron~ RS-A•43~0~0
(Residential/Agricultural) to R~ 400Q (Residentlal/Multiple-Fam(ly) on approxirn~~tely 3.3
eeres~ havfny a fronta9e of a~~ roximatcly 51+3 fcet on khe north side of Simmons Avenue~
having a rtk~ximum depth of ap oximat~~.ly '295 feet~ an~i beiny located approx~matcly Za2 feet
east of the centerline of f+ ~tFr Street; and does hereby approve the Negatlve Declarntlon
from the roquirement to p~.Nare an environmental impact report on ttie basis that thcre
would be no si~nificant ~~~fivtdual or cumulative aJverse environmental (mpact due to thP
approval of this Neyati~: Declaratiun s(~~~~ cl~e Anaheim Genc:ral Plan dr.~.ignates th~
subJect property fc~r me,liurtrdensi ty res iclent ial land uses c~mr, nsurate wi th the proposal ;
that no sensittve environmeni~~l impacts arc i~ -~,1veJ in the rroposal; that [he ~nitial
Study sub m(tted by the pr.titlor~er indicates no sicanificant individual or cumulatlve
adverse environmental impacts; an~i tliat thc Negative Dcclaratic~n substantlating the
foreyofng findinys In on file in the City of ~lnaheim Planning Department.
ACTI~N: Commissioner Herbst offered ResUlution No. PC77-1~~~ and moved for Its passage and
ad pt~on~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commiss(on does hcreby ~ar~nt P~rition for
Reclassificatlon No. 76-77-5~+ to the aN-4000 (Residenttal~ Multlple-Family) ~onc, subJect
to the c~ndition that prior to intraduction of an ordinance rezc~nin~~ subJect property and
followiny public notif(cation of nearby property owners~ as ori~~inally made~ ftnal
speclflc, plans sfiall be submitted ta and approved by the Plannin~~ Commission~ said plans
minlmiztny the impact of th~e ~roposed development on the existing singlc-famtly residcnces
to the s~uth across 5(mnons Avenue and chowing no vehicular r'1CCF.55 onto Sirmx~ns Avenue If
tl~e proposal is for multlplc-family residentic~l use.
Prlor to voting, Commissi~ner Klny asked Jay 'ritus, Uffiee Engineer, if a traffie signal
is planned fo~ the intersection of f~aster and Sim.mons and Mr. Titus replled that ane (s
not planneci ai this time and explained tliat the traffic count would have to be review ~
b~forP he could say whethkr or not a traffic signal would be warranced. Hc also pointed
out the City is in the process ~f widening liaster, n~rth of Simmons~ and that portlon
which is undevelopo now will be widened to ti~e ultimate width with curbs ~nd gutters and
will imnrove the traffic situation on Ilastcr Street.
Commissioner Johnson stateJ that Commissioner Herbst liad askecf Mr. Rc~wland about cutting
off the entrance to Sirtmons and tliat Mr. Rowland had indicated it would be Just about
impossible to d~~ and asked Commissioner NerbSt if he fr_lt the RM-~-0~0 deuelopment would
st~ll be viable if an entrancP to Strnmons is utillzed.
Commissioner tlerbst replieJ that with the 17 feet [I~cy have~ he woulci like to see an exit
point only on Sirtanons and~ if possibte, to acquire an entr~nce with tf~e adjc, ning pruperty
owner.
Chairman Tolar asked if the Commission should deny any reclassifica~ion at this time and
let Lhe ~eveloper and owner come back in and request a reclasslfication with specific
plans rather than do it this way because if the zone is changed to RM-~-000 and the
9/12/77
MI NUTCS ~ ANI111C I t1 G I TY rL11tIN 1lJG CON111 SS IUt~ ~ Scp temGcr 12 ~ 1'l'J'J 71•~89
E 1 R t~EGAT I YL GECLARi~T I Oti ~ REf,lA5 S I F I CAT I OiJ ~~0. 7L- j 7-~~~ ~ VAF 1 Ai~GC ~, . 29 ji, o i ~irT~tiT I VE I~4AP
OF TRACT t~0. g81 y (con t i nuedl
dtveloper wants co develop wlth a slnyle-famlly devel~pment~ then the propercy wauld have
to be reclASSifled agoin.
Mr. Rowland repli~d tliet sin~le-fAmily residenttal cnnn~t be develored In thr RM-4QOQ
Zone.
Chelrman Tolar clarlfi~d thak If the property is reclassifted to RM-400U~ then the
petitloner could devcslop to a lesser zone.
Commissloner Davi^~ was concer~~eJ ~is to wh~tl~er or not tl~e ~roperty avners would be
notifled when tlie tentative tract map ls considered.
Chetrman Tolar asked if the reclassification approval cc~uld be t(ed to the approval of the
tract mtip, and Frank Lowry~ Ass(stant City Attorney~ stated a public heartng (s not
requlred In connection with a tentativc tract map~ but that staff would bc h.~ppy to -
notify the property owners In this tnstancP~ if that is the Commisslon's de~ e.
Commissioner I;ing stated f~e was concerned that closing ofr tl~e ouclet to S~mmons Avenue
would throw the traffic load over to another neic~hborhoad.
Cortmissioner lierbst explaincd his origina) suggestion was to close off the entrance~ tf
posslble~ and that th~ {~etitioner had explained they have only 17 feet of access to get
onto Mountaln Vir.w and felt it would be possible to make an cxit potnt and LhAt would g(ve
three way3 out of the property.
Cha~rman Tolar reminded the Commission tl~ey were not tal{~:iny about specific plans, ~nly ~
concept.
Cornmiss(oner Qarnes stat~~~ sl~e clid not think the reclassific~~tion shoul~~ be granted at
this ttme; that there would be no harm in the petit(one~ coming back when the traet map is
considered.
Chairman Tolar stated Lhat after heariny the ~x~lanations ~~~ felt RM-400~ zonirg would
protect the integrlty of thc Simmons Avenue, but tI~C density would never be anymore tf:an
the maximum of 3t~ ~•,~i ts ~ an~ the peci tioner could cut tl~at f iyure down i f he so desl red
and the neighbors would like that even better.
Commissioner Johns~n stated he was still concerned ~ith Comnissioner Herbst's ap~,roach
regarding the 'simmans Avenue access and wondercd if opening Simrtr.~ns Avenue would destroy
the entire concept.
Commiss(oner I~erbst asked Mr. Lowry if tf~e Commis~ (on could sti, 3tc ttie densi ty on this
RM-400G reclassification approval~ ancf Mr. Lowry exptained that, theoretically~ it is
po5sible to get 10 units ~nder the Code, but physically impossible to lay a p',:~n out that
way.
Cortxnissioner Nerbst stated he recagnized that under RS-5000 zoning ft is possible to get 7
units to the acre, and in this case they were talking about a units :-o an ar,re~ and wanted
it clear this was his intention of the zone; that this zoning r~ould a'iav one uni+. per
acre more than the singlc-family zone; that this development wo~~ld pruvide private strtets
9/12/77
MI~IUTCS~ l1NAlICIM CITY PL/1NNINf, CUMMISSION, :~ntem~cr 12, 1~%7 77-590
CIR t~~^•ATIVC DCCLAiLaTICid~ RCCLASSIFICATIOt~ ~~0. 7G-7i->~+~ VAR1AiJCC I~b. 293G b TENTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 9815 ~continued)
~.__..~_ .~ ..~._
anci reGroat(an areas to serve the peorle whc li~rc therr,, greater than the RS-~000 zoning
would~ and doas ellaw a person to bu~, a smaller s(ze home and the r~creatlonal ~reas can
bn incorparete~l into tl~c C~bRs, and inrJ4vidual owncrs~~ip Is provided,
On roll call~ the foregoing resolut(on was pASSed by the following vote;
AYF.:: CUMMISSIONERS: HERBST~ DAVID, JOII~~SON~ KIP~G~ TOLAR
NOES: CONNISSICt~ERS: BARNES
ABSENT: COMMISSIOt~ERS: NONE
AOSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: LINN
ACTION: Commisstoner Herbst offerecl Resolution No. PC77-195 and moved for 1:s passage and
a~opt~on~ that the Anahein City Plnnning Commis~ion docs hereby deny Petltlon for Variance
No. 2936 on the h.~sis that tFe petitianer has withdrawn his requcst.
On roll call~ the foreyotng resolutio,~ was passe~' by thc folla-~~ing vote:
AYE~: COMMISSIOIIERS: HERE;S7, pAVID~ JOHNSO'~~ KIt~G, TOLAR
NOES : COM111 SS I Ot~ERS : BARtJES
AaSENT: COMMISSIOHERS: NO~dE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIO`~ERS: LINFI
ACTION: Corr~missioner Herbst offered ;i riotion~ seco~ded by Comm(ss(one~ King and MOTIOH
CARRIED (Commissioner Linn al,stnining)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commtssion does
hereby deny Tencative F1~p of T~act N~. 9815.
ITEM ~~0. 3 LONTINUEU ?UBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: WlLL1l1M M.
E I't- NEGATI VC DECLARAT I~t~ A!~U ElETTY JO ClOW ~ 1 Ruc Ua 1 bon,~e ~ Kewport Beach ~
C SS C N.~-77-55 CA 92GGo. Subject proaerty is a rectangul~rl•~-
VARI NCE N0. 29) shaped parcel of lan~ cans~sting of approximately
0.5 acre, having a fran[age af ap~roxim~tely 9~
feet on thc east sidc or 11ast~r Sreet, having a
maximum depth of approximatcly 232 feet~ anJ be'ny tocated approximately 1'73 feet 5auth
of the cc~terline of Wilken Way. Pro~~.:rty presentiy classified RS-A-43~~C0 (RE5IDENTIl1L/
AGRICULTURAL) ZONf,
P.EQ~CS'~ED ~L~SSIFICATION: '~M-12~0 (RCSIUEI~TIPI, MULT'IN~~-FANIL'f) Z~'IE.
REQUESTCD Vl1RIAllCE: WAIVER OF MAX1~1Ut1 E~UILUII~G iiEIfHT TO CONSTRUCT A 10-UIlIT
APARTNENT COMPLEX.
In~~smuch as this itern was considered in nnection with Item 2~ the fatlc.win~ actions were
taken:
ACTIOIJ: Commissioner Herbst off. -ed a rr~tion, secor.ded by Commissionc: King and MOTlOt~
CARRtED (~on~~i=,si~ner Linn abstal~ing)~ that tnu Anaheim City Planning Comr~fsslon has
reviewed tf}e subject r~oposal to reclassify the zoning from RS-A-!~3,~0±1
(Residential/Agrt~ultural) to Rf1-40~0 (Rssidential~ i1~.i~tiple-Family) on approx(mately ,"!.5
acre~ having a frontage of approximately 38 feeC on the east side of liaster Streat~ having
a maximum depth of approxinately 232 feet~ and betny located approximately 173 feet south
~f the centerline of N11ken Way; and do~s herpby approve the f~Pgative Declaration from the
9/12/77
MI NUl'E.S ~ ANl1HE I1~ C I TY F'Ll,NN' ~IG GOMMI S510N ~ Septcmber 11 ~ I '~ /7 77-59)
E I R NEGIITI l'E pECLl1RAT1 ON._RECLASS I F I CA'f I ON N0. 76-77 -55 b____ ,~~,~ NC~ N0~ 2~31 (cont I nued j
requirement t~ prepare an environmental lmpact report ~n the besis th~t there would bc no
slgnlficant lndlvid~al or cumulative a~Jverse environi,~ent~l tmpact due to the approval uf
this hJegativ~ Declaratton since the Anaheim General Plan designat~s the subJect property
for medlum-denslty residentia) land uses commensuratc r~ith tl;e propasal; that no senslt(va
Pnvironrnenta) impacts arc involved In the proposal; that thc Initial Study submltted by
tl~e petilioner incllc.ates no siyniflcant Indiv(dual or cumul~~tive adverse env(ronmenta)
impacts; a:~., that tl~e Negative Declaration substantiating the forec~~~ing findln~~s Is on
file In the City of Anr~lieim Planning Department.
ACTION: Commissloncr Herbst offerecl Resolution No. PC71-~^~ ~~~vec1 for lts passage and
a~option~ tl~at thc llnaheim City Planning Comm(ssion does ,rAnt Petition for
Reclassiflcation No. JG-77-55 for R11--fOQ~ (Itesidential~ Mu ~-Family) Zone, subJect to
thc eoncl) tlon t`'+~t pr(or to introducti~~n of an ~r~iin.~nc~ rezoninc~ sub)ect praperty and
following notification of ncarby propcrty ~ywners~ as ori<~(nally maJe, final speciflc pla~~s
shall bc submi[tc~~ to anJ appruve:d by tl~~ Planniny Commission, sald pl~ns minimiziny thr
impact ~f the p~opusej develapment on the exisrln~ sinyle-farilly residences to the south
across Sir,mons Avenue and shc~ving no vehicular access antr ~~,..--c~ns Avenue 1f the actua)
development propo~al iS for multiple-fam(ly residential uses.
On roll call~ the forcyoiny resolutiun was passed `~y t1~e followiny vote:
nYES: C011MISSIOPJE,KS: HLRf35T~
NOES: C0111~ISSIQi~ERS: fil1RI~ES
ABSEIIT: COt1MIS510NCRS: t~01~E
AtiSTAIN; COMMISSIQNERS: Llt~ll
D~v I D~ JotiNSO-+ ~ K I r~G ~ TOL~\R
ACTION; Commissioner ilerbsi offcred Resolue ~n No. PC7J-197 ancf mnved for its passage and
ac,~opt~on~ that the Anaheim Ci ty Planni~y Conniission cloes her~by deny Peti tion for Variance
No, 2937 on the basi ~, tl~at the peti ti<~ner has wi thdrawn the reque~t.
On roll call~ thc foreyoing resolution was passed by the follawiny vot~:
AYES: COHMISSIONERS: fIERBST,
NOES : GOFW I SS I ONERS : E3ARf~CS
ABSENT: GOMMISSIOt~ERS: NOt1E
ABSTAI~~: C(1MMISSIONERS: LINtd
DAV I U, JOt11~50F1, KI NG ~ TOLAR
Chairman Tolar stateJ he wanted to be certain :~~e advertisinq procedurr_s would be followed
on these two items in connectEon witti the rec+assificati~ns~ and Annika Santalat~ti~
Assistant Directar for Zoniny~ stated tl~at prior to finalization of the zoning. specific
plans wili be appr~~ve~i by the Planning Commission with p~blic notificaiion as originally
made.
Frank I._owry, A3sistant City Attorney~ E~resented Mr. Clow witi~~ a written righ~ to appeal
th~ P~~cininy Comnission ~lecision wlthin 22 days.
RECESS: A 10-minute recess was called at 3::~5 p.m.
REGONVENE: The mecting was reconvened at 4:05 p.m. with all Commissioners
~~
present.
9/12/77
MI NUTCS ~ AN11HE I 11 C I TY PLANN I ~~f COMM I SS I Otl ~ SepteMhc r 12 ~ 19'/7
77-592
ITEM N0. 4 CONTINUEU PUI3LIC HcARING. OW~~ER: FRED W. ANU
Elh'- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PATRlCIA U. MORGC~~TfiALER~ y01 Hermnsa ~rtve~
R CLASSIFICATION N0. )- ~t~- Fulle:rton~ CA ~)2(~35. AGE.NT: ANAl1EIM SKATE
0 U L ~~'ERMI~~' 17;3 CENTER~ 121; 41est Katclla Avenu••, Orengc~ CA
""-"'- 926G7. Subject property is ,n '(rregularly-
shaped parce) of lanJ consisting of approxl-
mately 1.9 acres locat~d at the soutt:~~~t corner of Llncc~lr. Avenue and Oranc~e Freeway
off-romp~ h~v(nc~ approximatc frontayes of 1~+h feet ~~n ;he south side of Lincoln Avenu^
and 407 feet on the southeasterly siJe af the Oran~e Frc~way off-~~amp. PropPrty fs
present 1 y el as~ I f 1 ed RS•A-~~3,000 ( Rf:S I UEI~TI AL/AGRI CUL1 URl1l.) ZOtI;..
REQUESTLD CLASSIFICAT1011: CL (COMMERCI~L~ I.IMITED) ~Ot~E.
RL'QUCSTCD GO~~GITIOr~AL USCc TO PER111T l1 ROLLER St~J1TIIIG P.INY~ WITN W.~+IVER OF (A)
M!NIf1UM NUMBER OF PARKIIIG Sf'~GES, (li) MAXIMUM STRUC'fURaL
i1LIGIiT~ AI~U ~G) REQUIRED ULOCY, WALL.
It was notecf cpnsid~eration of subJect petition was cnntinued fr~m the August 15 and August
29~ 1~77 rr~etlnys for rcvlsed plan~.
There were 13 pr.rsons indicatin~~ thcir presence in opp~..ltton to the request~ and althfl ugh
the staff report to thc Planniny Commisslon ~iated Scptcmber 12, 1~77. was not read a~. tFte
public hsaring~ it is referred tu ancl made a par[ of the niinutes.
J. J. Tashiro~ Assistant Planner~ indic~~ted a petition had heen submit[ed eontaining 70~1
signatures in oc~position to th~i~. requcst, statiny [lie follcri.in~;: "This petition Is
against "he huiidinr~ uf a rollcr rink at Lincoln and Rio Vista, a publlc amusement centrr~
next to a residen[i~l area crcatiny traffic and undesirable ~~C~1CI1L5."
f.halrman Tolar explained to Mr. Cckert~ the aycnt for the r~.[itioncr~ that the Commlss~~n
had not respon~fed to I~is request for a continuance inasmuc.h as [hey are attemptir,g to
develep some ty{~e of protocol in relationship to continuanc~s and had declded Co hear thls
iter~ anJ to hear the opposition.
Dale Eckert, ~~1~:3 LaFayette, Rive~side~ stated that after lt was decided thc ttem w~uld be
heard because of the people Involved~ nis archltec[ ha~~ r~rawn a new plan which would
alleviate some of the problems for the neigl~bors adjacent to ti-e si[e. He stated ihe new
plan places the entrance to the building on the north and would still meet the
requirements for their uses nn tfic Inside of [I~e buildin~. Mr. Eckert placed the new plan
on the wall and cxplainecJ the ~ntry to the narth and pc~inted out that the plan provides
good tra'Ffic clrculation an~i has imprc~vcd thc oriylnal rc~uest for a vari.~ncc of parking
spaces, increasiny the spaces frnr~~ 100 to 102; anJ the cr:~st~ conta+ner had been rel~cated
fro~ the rear of the property to the front. He staced he thought this was a workable plan
ar~ the internal comp~nents inside the facility havr, chan~~ed but that they could stil)
llve witli tl~em. He sta[ed thc petitioner is still in cuncurrence with tl~e Planniny
Commission concerr~i~ig tfie £,-fc>ot block wal l on the south property 1 ine. and an 8-foot
block wall with a 10-f~ot landscaped sethack will be provideJ.
Cd Garscx~~ 2725 Puritan Place, stat~cf the ;~ew plan was a~urprise; that the last plan he
had sPen was totally unacceptabie; that he had taken the (.or~mission's advice and met with
9/12/77
~~~UTE.S~ A~IAIIEIM CITY PLl111N1KG COMMISSION~ Septcmber 12~ 1977 77~593
CIR t~EGATIVE pECI.ARATIONi_kECL;~SIF AT~O~~ N0. 77-78-9 b CONDITIOI~AI. USE PERMIT N0. 1733 (cont.)
Mr. ~ckert and the nad t-.~^n Mr. Eckert's rec~~r~mendations and had vislt~d cther roller
rinks at F~untain Val'ey~ Fullerlon, Cypresg and Orange; that what hc had seen at those
faclllt(es had }~st harJc~ned his oppa5ltion ag~inst thc rink instcad of makinq hl~ more
an~en~blo to hAVin~~ a rollrr r(nk ncxt dcx~r because (t does create a I~angout for teenagers;
and that he had fvund tcenayers sittinn (n their c~~rs with loud radios playlny full blASt
in the parkiny lots at mnst of the f~cil(ties he had vis(tcd. Fle referred to the petltion
with JOA names In ~~pt~ositlon and indie:ated the concerns have not chanyed. He stated the
opposlttr.^ was conc.~~rned ahout the u[hr.r 4 t<~ G acres adjacent t~ th~s site. Mr, Carson
stated he felt if the Commission secs a precedent far this typn facility n~xt to single-
famliy dwc;~(ngs~ _hcy would bc ~uttiny themse.lves in an awkward position of havlnq to
deny requests f~r this same type vr+riance for anotlier recreatlnn faclllt~/ on the adjacent
land. Tha traff(c canc~~.stion 41~I5 al5o a maJor concern, and hc dIJ not uncicrstand wl~y
there Is not more concern about ~he frec~way off-ramp and the ~roposed clrlveway whlcl~ fs
located two or thre~ car Ien~aths frc~m the off-ram~ of the freeway. He stated the reviSed
plan does not I~ave thc 5ame objections as the one hc had ori~~inally scen with a 2?.-foot
Hal) ric~ht up ~cxt to the houses.
Uarbara Challen, 'L1~~~ East Viryini~~ statr..d she h~d just recencly bouyht a house on
f,hantilly about one block fram thc proposed rollpr rink. Shc sta[e~ sh~ grcw ~p three
doors frum a rollar rin~; in TorontQ, Canacla~ an~1 lived thcr~ 1~} ycars and knew thc kind of
nofse and the kind of crawd that a roller rink at.cracts~ anc; chat she does not want to
live n~xt door [o another ~ne. She stated the gentleman buil~iing this rink is no[ ~~oing
to be thcre to supervi:c it; that hc is not ~uiny to t,e sur~ therc will not bc any noise;
that they p1a~ tu run it ~ntil nicinfyht~ ~nJ she kna,rs [hat most of the act(vlty goes on
on thc outside of th~ ri~k an~1 it is difficult to supervise. She stated her parenLs would
have moved if they coulc: have affordeJ 1c, She .ie~ not thlnk this w~s ~he place fo~ this
type af develapment, ne.t to sinyle-family homes. She felt therc would 'oc a terrific
prot~lem with traffic ~n~ that [here would no[ t~e enough parkinc~ and people would be
parkiny on the streets. Shr referreL to a churc~i on Rio Vista Street and felt wlth thie
rink open on Sunclays there would L~ a terrible traffic and parl.ing problem. She stated
s~~e d i ~1 not th i nk en~~ i nea r i n9 h 3s 1 m~rovec! enouyh to cake ca re of the no i se prob 1 em. Sl~e
stated she went to S4:ateland ar~d parked her car and walked 3 blocks at ~:0~ r m, and could
stil) hear the noise. She stated you cannot control louJ kids and that there wi~l be
aelults attending the facili[y; that the id~a that only young chil~iren will use !he
facillty is ridiculous; tl-~at those adults Mho now go down to Skate Ranch ar.d who live in
Anrneim will go thls facility, and sornetin~es adults do not care whether they keea other,
.awak~: or nof. and ~he has young children, She as~ed the Commission to think very seriously
before they approve this requcs[~ forcing her to live ~ext door to somethiny that they
would not want to livc next door to.
Fienry Kuea~ 2J11 Puritan Place~ felt a traffic ~~roble~~i is going t~ be created and stated
his back yard is adjacent to the praposed area, and tl~at em~rgency vehlcles such as fire~
police~ etc. turn their sirens on when they come off the freeway and tha[ they are goinq
fast. Ne stated he belicved humans are naturally lazy and tl~at same parAnts will stap on
Lincoln to drop off ttieir children; that w(th cars parked on Lincoln they will be bl~ck(nq
tlie bike lane on Lincoln~ and there is a downt~ill slope and the bikers will pick up speed
and will have to go aroui~d cars that are parke~; and t.hat people heading west would not
have a way of getting in other than making a U-turn on the southbound off-ramp and going
back to Rio 'Jista.
9/12/71
r11i~1+'T~S~ A~~Ai1Cll~f CITY P~ANfIIr~G ~uMMIS51ur~~ ~eptamner It~ ly// !!-5`.)4
EIR NE:GIITIVE DEGI.l1MTION~ACCLASSIFICl1T101~ N0~77-78-7 6 CONnITIONAL USE PERMIT ~~0. 1~ (cont.)
Mr. Eckcrt statccf tl~at the owncr of o simi lnr foci l i ty was nreseni to answcr any
opcratl~nol yuestions, He stated the owner/bulldcr would not be maving nut of the rrca
after the permit Is approvecf; c~~at It wI ll he opcratcd essentlally hy 1~~.:nl rr.sidr.~ts, In
answcr ta thc qucstlr,n of th(s f~~cil(ty bQCUm;ny a hangout for teena~ers~ he stated this
could be a problem, hc~wever, wi th the supervis lon wi thin the f.~ci I i ty and thr_ mdnae~emCnt
usual ly works out ~~ pl~~n t~.~ have sc~ricone go outside to check to see what (s ~oing ~n on a
pariodlc basis~ dc~pendt ng on ;h~ n~ed; t.hat thfs is m~iint~iined by thr. supervtsion wf thin
the facllity and on occaslun there coul~' I~e a problem when no one would hc out there, but
fcl[ that with tl~c Jress coJe anJ thc use of tl~e facilitics, this prablem should rrot be as
detrimentA) as It scems ,~t this p~~int.
Ne stateci as far as the .id.jacent ccmnnercial {~roperty~ he c~uld not speak to t~~nt point~
but ec~ulci only requect tiiat wha[ever cJevel~~rm.:nc r~~iy be a) lowed on thnt site that they
would havc juint ~su of ac:cess throuc~h thcir propcrty. Rec~,ir~in~~ Mr, GdrSOn~S contcrns
ab~ut the trafflc and tt,e problem cominy off the frceway~ hc statcd that froM thc
intersect(on of tlic ~roperty ~'nc to tt~c driveway is approximatcly 125 feet~ which Is
about a~-car length Jistancr, fle statecf that the pelitioner woulJ have no obJectlons ta
mak(ny that portlon ,~ "no parL,lnq" ~rca it aqrccable wlth the CiLy~ nnd as far ~a sound
attenuation wl thin the facil i ty~ stated i c has been contral lsd t~ the utmost and that the
outs i de nol sc shoui~l no t be ~ny rrn~re th~~n tlie nc~ i se f rr~m thc f rcewey ~ ancl tha t wl Ch thr
addeci heiyht of the wal 1 anJ the 1~-fo~t lan~.iscapec7 ~uffer zone~ the sound impact should
be lessene~l sornewh;~t,
TIIE P:JIILIC IIEARING IJAS CLOSIp.
Chairman Tolar corm~ente~i un Mr, Eckcrt's conuxnts ragarJing the orrncrship of the facility
anJ state~l Yhat this may be thc intei~tion at this tiric but onc.c thc rcclassifieatian goes
on the propcrty tl~e pe[ i tloncr car~ ao wi Ch it as he pleases, Hc stated thaG he probably
wo~ld not even conslJer a rofler rin~. an this property except for che fact that tt is
located ~djacent to th~ freeway anJ Lincolr ~ven~~e, and hoth of thesc are busy and nolsy
street5. fle sta[ed I~e was toncerned ttiat tl~e resiclents may not recognize that ~his may '~e
the l~sser of so+.~a evlls since this is ~~oin~~ to be comn~ercial an~i no one knows what coul,i
go tn there. In rclationshlp Co the ~ppositic~n's fcars rcg~irding the [eenagc hangout, hc
stt~ted hc: was also concerned ahout thts ancl felt the 1~•fooc buffer and ~-fooe wall wou1J
help the noise proble;n somewhat but would also p~ovide a lot of privacy tn tl~e back and a
great pl..ce to kids to have a dray rar_c.
Mr. Fekert stated he fc 1 t that pro~er lightin9 and s~ec~i bumps would deter that problem.
Chai rman Tolar askcd Mr . Eckert what the proposed hours of operatlore were~ and Mr, Eckert
replied that a session would start at 7:00 p.m. and last for two h~urs and another sesslon
woutd start at 9:00 p,rn. ~ endiny at 11:00 p.m. ~ and on Fridays a~~. Saturdays they would be
operat ing .nti 1 midnlgh t.
Commiss(oner Nerbst stat~d tf~at afc^r ~areful exam~n~tion of the sitc~ and because of the
controversy~ he felc tl~at due to the size and shape oF tl~is parcel and the size and shape
~f the commerclal property next to lt~ whicti is totai!y vacant~ he did have a particular
obJectlan to the roller rink on tliis site due to the proximi[y of the hames thr.re. He
slateci these ere nlce homes and some liave very shal lor~ ';~c-c yards wi th patios in the rear
and sorne havc bedroons i:~ the rear; that. a 20-foot l~r,clscaped buffer area would be
9/22/77
riitsuTC~. nlJlltlElM CITY PLANNINr, ~rM-,~~s~n~~, Septemher ~2, ~977 77-5~5
E I R IICGATI Vk DECLARAT I ON~ RECL~551 F I CAT I ON N0. 77-78-~ b COND 1 T I ONAL USE Pl:RMI T N0~ 1733 (con t. )
necassary on tl~is particul~r site. lic felt the roller rink n~eds to Acqulre mo~e property
ancf move further forward to the street tu be away from lhe rr~~icfent (nl Are~~, Ne stAtecl
thare Are sew,:ral acres of vHC~~t land for commc~rclal use a~nd the Commissl~n wo.~ld be
gra~ting somr.. varla-~ces, but i t appeared tc~ him tl~at I~,c.~use of thc (nq~CSS anJ eqress ~f
the property. ttiat with a recre~~tional facility of this lyp~~ ~v~n thou~h I~ is ahutting
the freewoy, It daes not ht+ve the grc~unJ nrta nr_cc :sary to servc It, He stated the morc:
he loeked et i l the worse i t hecame, and he thouyh ; a rol 1 e~ r 1 nk on th 1 s si te woul d f I t
but did nni thini: (t should bc this clos~ tc~ thc homes.
Chalrma~ Tolar asked (f the ad,joining parccl was c~wned by thc sa.hc owncr~ anci Mr, Cckert
replle~i that tl~r.se parcels have two cfiff~rent owners.
Commissloner Linn stated he was concerned that this corner co~ld bp developed Inta n 2G-
hour bc~wl (ny al ley an~ hs fcl t that wvuld real ly c.rcatr nc~isc. He stated he w~s r~lso
Concernvd abou[ the en~ parkin~,~ spacc; that a person would have tn clrive all the way into
the property anJ turn around in ord~rr t~ park in that specr., He felt th~s property just
did not 1cnJ itself tc~ this typc devclopmt~nt; [hat ~~ skacin~i rink oux Ir *hTt area would
Ue fine but when you wmbined the next recrear.ional t,~cil(ty~ which mighc o~ a bowling
allcy~ thc tra,`fic anJ [hc tcr.nogcrs at nir~ht ~~ould he ~ trcmendpus problcrn; enci that hc
fe) t concern for the pec>plr. whc~ ar~~ I ivin~;~ in the pru~~ert ic; .~but: ing this sl te.
Chairman Tolar asl~ed Mr, Morc~an[halcr~ tlic c~mer, if hc ha~~ d;seusscd thc possihlllty af
assernbl iny land to nwkG a bli,~e~er ancf hetter proj~~c[ wi th the ~d joi ning lanc! o~,•~er. Ne
stated that these pr_UpICS~ toncerns ~re very v~lid and hr shareci them; that it woul~i
~ppear to him that if the lan~ assernbly of such r~ ~~arcel into a larc~er parcel would make a
mueh bctter planniny job anJ cc~uld proviJc sometl~ing ,just as good for the c~wner and
certainly malcc: a more vlabl~ product for the resid~nts of th~ ~rea. He aske~ Mr,
Moryanth•~ler if he had discussed some type of joint vcnturc with [he land owner abutting
the propcrty in qucstfun.
;ir. Fred Mory~nthaler replied that he ha~ not had much luck hut had discussed i t with the
adjacent a+ner and he secnx;J ~c~ be morc ar-~enablc to talkfng about It. and that he would
invesztget~ this possibllity further.
Chairman Tolar statecl that he thouc~ht that certainly would he an appropriate solutlon;
that thls is a very unique piece of property; tha: he sti l i had some 9~ave cuncerns. even
now mare than before; anJ tl~at oriy~nally there wFrc only threc or four pcople contern~d
who were no~ really opposed tu the projec[~ bu[ that nczw there is a lat of oppositton.
Mr. Ccke~t stated that attempts t~ w~rk out somett~ing witt~ Ll~e adjacent property owner had
been made as recently as that mc~rning to procure adclitlor.al land~ and that their latest
offer had been refused, Ile stated tt~at they necded a~iditional land. but at this poi~t
could not say whether or not tf~ey would be able to get it.
Chairman Tolar stas~:J t~e has some reservations about makiny that area a commerclal-
recreational arc:a; ?.~~t there (s a tremendous amour~t of comr~ereial-recreational area in
the area of Disneyiand and sti I 1 evai lablc: for t!~is type of use, and he did not know
whether it would be economlcally feasi6le to develoR it~ but that economics cannot piay a
part in the Planniny Commission's decisions; that they are to talk about land planning,
9/~z~77
MI N,'TCS ~ IINAHE IM C ITY PLA~~N ING COMMISS ION , Septcmber 12 ~ 1977
77-59F~
EIR NEGATIVE OECLAMT. ON,y RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 77-]6-9 L CONDITIONAL USE PL_RMIT N0, 1733 (cont.)
but felt thAt other ccxm~ercial~tecreational uscs aprl(ed fo~ in that area cauld cnuYe a
groat ~eal :~f prc~hlems for thc residen+.s.
Commtssloner Borncs esked wt~ere tlie ne~rest avai l~~ble rccrcatlonol land Is locatod in
this erea~ and Annika Santalaliti. Asalstant Girector for Zo~ing~ statced It would prob++bly
be the aree south of Kat~~l la, off State Collegc~ anc! fndic~ted It would bc tt~e area shown
as brlght p~~~: on the map,
Chairman Tolar Indicated a recrea~lonal use had been allaved north of Kat~lla~ and Ann(ka
Santalehtl explolned that property has nevcr been r~roned and has a resolutlo~ of lntent.
Commissfoner Johnson in~licatr,d he ac~ree~t with Commissioner He~rbst that a 7.4-foot
landscaped bufFer zane would be necessary fn this instance an~i ns~p~ if the 1~-fcwt buffer
was ~ tre~lc-uff fc~r the 8-f~at wal1,
J. J. Tashiro Indfc<~tcd that ~~t the prior mreting it M+as discussed an~J tl~c `3-foot wall and
10-foot. hcavily lan~iscaped buffcr zonc was thr. comnrcxnisc.
CUmmissioner Llnn Incficate~ thac th~ noi se w~is a cnncern; that hc live~! a~iJacent to the
parl;ing lot f~r a ehureh anci Wf~c~n che ct~urch had recrcea[ional activftie~ over midnight, he
could st(11 hcar horns blow(ny and other n~ises. He ask~d what coul~i go onto this
property ancJ nut distu~b Che screnity of tlie ncic3hborhood.
Cormi(ssioncr Klny ~sk~d if the petltic~n~r had considcrc~l apartmcnts at this locAtlon.
Mr. Morgenthaler Inciitat~~i It haei hecn eonsiderea a nuriber of years ago~ but slnce It
abuts the fre~~w,~y ~nd barJers Lincoln Avenue~ apartments were not a rcasonahl~: use and
that Is why he had applied for thc General Plan amendmenc far conmerclal zoning,
Commissionc;r Y,Ing askeci if it would be ~;dvlsable to consider apartments~ and Commissloner
Johnsan statcd he thou~~ht thc s~und ottenuation would be a pr~bicm and the Plannln~
Commisslon would nrobably bc .~trict aboa~t that.
An unl~ieni 1 f ied laciy i n the audier~ce indic~ted she would not object to townhouses or low-
dens 1 ty houses on t!i i s s i te.
Cl~airmar, Tolar Indicated the p~an GeforE tt~e Comm(ssion mu=_t be discussed.
Commissioncr Barnes askc~d tl~e petitioncr (f hc haJ indicated he would llke more tlme to
talk with the adJa~ent property cr,rners, and Mr. Morganthaler and Mr. Eckert indicated this
was correct_ Mr, Eckert indicatcd he h~ad requeste~ a continuance to try to acquire
add i t iona i p r~iperty , and that they arere not aya i ns t cont i nui ng the i tem to see i f there I s
a solution i~ that ar~a,
Cortmfssioner Nerbst Tndicated he felt the Commission should act on the particular plans
befor~ them and he feit they Merp total ly unacceptable~ and if the petitioncr would like
to acqulre more land and come back with a npre sultable plan~ he has that right.
ACT10N: Commissioner Ilerbst offered a motion, ~econded by Commissioner Johnson and M07{ON
CA~RR~ED~ that the Anat~eim City Planning Con-mission has reviewed the subJect proposal to
9/12/77
MI IJUTES. ANANE I M P.1 TY PLANI~I NG COMMI SS ION ~ Seplembcr 12 ~ 1977 17"~`~7
EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~7'7~'9 6 CONQITIONAL USC PEkMIf Nu. 1733 (cunl.)
reclessify the property from thc R:;-A-43,OOn (Rasidential/Ac~ricultural) Zone to the CL
(CommorclAl~ Limitcd) 7.onc to permit a r~llcr skating rinl, wlth walvers of minlmum number
of parking spACes~ maximum struGtural I~eic~ht ~nd requlred block w~ll on property
conslsting of aprroxirn~tely 1.9 ~~crr.s located ac tl~e southcast corner ~f Lincoln Avenue
and the Oran~~e Freeway off-ramp~ havir.y approximatc frontayes of 144 f~ec on the sauth
side of Lincoln Avenue and 1~A7 fert on thc southeasterly si~le of thr. Oranye Freeway off-
ramp; and does hcreby approvc the Ne.~ativr,. Declaratlon from the reryuirement to preporc an
anvfranmentAl imp~ct report on tl~c b~~sis that thcrc would bc no siyniflcant Individual or
cumulative advGrse envlronmental imp~-ct due tu th e approval of thi, Negative Declarr~tlon
since the Anahelm Genera) Plan designates Ghe subject property for gen~eral commerclal lAnd
us~s comnx:nsurate wi th the praposal ; thal nc~ sens i ti ve env( ronmental impacts are Invalved
in the pruposal; tf~at the: Initial Stu~fy submlttecl t,y ti~e petltioner indicates no
significant indiviJuai c,r ~:umulative ~i~fvrrse ~nvir~~nn~nt~~) ir~~acts; an~ that the Neg~tlve
Oeclaratlon substantiatiny tl~c foregolny flndings Is on file in t~~e City ~f Anaf~eim
Plannlny Uepartmenc.
ACTI011: Commissioner Herbst offcred Rcsolutlon I~o, PC77-1`~~ ~~~~~ ~ved for its passage and
ed- op t 1 on, [h.~t the l~nahe i m C I ty P 1 ann i r~~~ Comm( ss i on cloes hcreby deny Pe t i t i on for
Reclassiflcation Nu. )7-7~-9.
On roll call~ thc foreyoinyresolution w.as passed by thc fullowin~a vate:
AYCS: C011MISSIDNCRS: IIER~3ST~ DARIIES. UIIVID~ JOI~N5011~ KING~ LINI~~ TOLl1R
NOES: L0~IMISSIONERS: NOt:C
Aa5EtiT: COMr~ISSIO~iCRS: N~rIE
ACTION; Commissionr_r Herbst otfcreJ Res~lution ~~o. PG77-19`) and m~v~d for 1 ts passage and
a~coptTon, [hat the Anal~cirn City Plannin~~ Commissicm docs liereby deny Petition for
Conditional Usc Perm;t Plo, t133 ~n the basis that the ninimal size and irrcgular shape of
the subJect site necessitates the proposr.d roller skating rin~: be~ng placed t~•o close to
the adJacent residential area without praperly protecting thc existiny residences from
this ty~~e oF recrcati~na) devclopment.
On roll call. ti~e forcyoiny resoluti~n was passc~d Gy the follo-vinc~ vote:
AYES: COr~MI551oNERS: HERE35T~ t~ARNES, i)AVID~ JOH~~SON, Y.ING, LINtI, TOLAR
NOES: C011M155lONE:RS: IlQNE
ABSENT: CON11155IOI~ERS : NONE
Frank Lowry, Assistant Clty A[torney~ pres~ented the petitioner with tl~e written rlght to
appeal the Planniiig Commission decis(on within 22 days.
ITEM N0. 5 CO~aTIr~UEU NUE~LIC NE:ARING. Oti~NER: BLAND NUFFMAN
EIR I~ ~~ EGATIVE: DECLARATIO`I AIJG 51~IRLEY S. HUFFMAN~ t 156 Linda Vista Street~
CL C O~a N0. -73-12 OrangP~ CA 92669. Subject property is an
irregularly-shaped pareel of land consisting of
ap~ roxi ma tc ly 1.1 acres ~ tiav i n~~ a f rontage of
approx(metely 96 feet on the west ~ide of Wester~ Avenue~ having a maximum deptli of
approxlmately 61n feet, and beiny located approximately ~[~ feet north of the center~
line of Dall Road. Request is for reclassification of subject property from the
RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRlCJLTURAL) ZOt1E to the RM-1200 (RESIDFNTIAL, MULTIPLE-FANILY)
ZONE.
9/~2/71
MI NUTf:S ~ I1NA11E I M C ITY PLAHN I NG C~MMISS ION, Septem-.~~r 12 ~ 1977 77-5~$
E I lt I~EGAT I VE ULI.I.ARAT ( ON~ LASS I F I CAT I UN N0, f J- 78-1 Z ( c~n t i nued)
It was natr,J considerat(on of subJect petltion was cont(nued from the August la~ 1gJJ
mc~:ttng for ~cvised planc.
Tnere were 11~ pcr yu~~~ !^,; i c~t I ny tl~e i ~ presence 1 n oppos i t(on to thl s rec~ues t~ ~,nd
~-lthaugh the staff report t~ thc Planniny Commission dated Septembcr 12~ 1977~ was not
read at the public hcariny~ it i~ refcrred to an<f madc a part of tfic m(nutes.
Bland Iluffrnan~ i1~G Linda Vista Strcet~ Oran,ye, state~f tliat after tt~e l~~st Planning
Commission meetln,y ~~n attempt was maJe to answer somc of thc ot,jecti~n~ of the resldents
in the area an~ the pl.~ns were recir.tiwn. 11c pointed uut the~ ~~lan has bcen r~vcrsecl~ the
driveway has been taken away frt~m thc north s iJc of the ~rop~rty~ and t~iat he had gotten
toge;ther with sorne of the p~:~ple in the nc(~~hborhood ~~nd thou~7ht had ~~nswered thelr
obJ~ctlons ancl was at a loss to I,naw what the objections were uf the people indlcating
thelr pr~sence In opposition,
Dill White~ Paslor of thc Anahefm Uaptist Templc at 1;32 West Qall Road~ indlcated that at
the (nforria) mectln, held aftcr thc Plannlnq Commission mectlnc~~ Mr. Huffinen had dts:.ussed
this project and seEmed to be (n agreement with tl~e increase of thc fence; that they hpcl
ortg(nally proposed 10 feet but would likc to have o fcet ~ and I~c thouc~ht verbally thls
wa5 agreeable with Mr. Iluffman~ but that Mr. Iluffman hacl not c~ntacted him anJ had already
subi+~ltted his reviscd plar~s wiien they pl~oned him, ~IP statecl he was speak(ng for some of
Lhe neighbors and for some of the peopfe fro~n the church~ and [hat all they are asking is
for an increase in the fence [n 3 feet. t1e ref~rred to Cornnissloner Linn's corxnent durtng
a previous hearlny reyardiny nois~. from the churc_-~ and staeec! that E~aptists are noisy
sometimes. He ind(catcJ thcy had n-c~~;ure~1 the existi~g fe7ce anJ it is 4 feet~ 11 inches
and thdt tharc are two appro,ict~cs to thc nortti and thi~ cauld bc a problem with llght:,
f~om vehicles. I1e st.~ted thcre also c~uld be rroblems e~i th noise by the cf~i ldren.
FRAN~. LOIJRY ~ ASS ISTANT C ITY ATTOR~lEY ~ LE~T Tt~E ~OU;IG I t. C11AME3ER TE:MPOkAP, I LY AT 4: 50 P.N.
AND ROBERT 0. FRAI;KS~ OL'PUTY ClTY IITTORtlCY~ ASSUM[D NR. LOWRY'S CIiAIR.
Chairman Tolar inJicated the Cnmmfssion was aware of the problem witli the height of the
fence and as ked Pas to r Wh i tr i f frc had any other concerns , and I~e 1 nd i ca ted th i s was the
main concern.
Jim Cogwin~ 922 South Westcliestcr~ asked co see a capy of tttie plans ana indicated the one
he i~ad seen dId not have the dimensions of the wal I to tfic west noted on tt.
J. J. Tashiro, Assistant Planner~ stated the pet~tioner I~acf indicated an 3-foot high wall
on the west property line woul~f be provided.
Mr. Cogwin asked if thls would be for the entire G1-faot length~ and it wa~ replled that
this was thc lntent.
Mr. Gor~wln stated it was verbaily a~~reed after tt~e last meeting that an 3-foot hlgh wall
was going to be the comprornisc~ anJ he h~d a copy of the minutes in~ficatiny Commissioner
Herbst's comment that he woulci like to sce one or two of th~ units climinated and more
recreaCtonal area be provided because he was concerned about ti~e densiky. Mr. Ca9wtn
~ndicated he w:,s also conceri,ed ab~ut the density anci further pointed out tliat
Commissloner Johnson had ayrced with Comm(ssioner t~erbst and stated that f(ve or six of
9/12/~7
MINUTES, AI~IINEIM CI1'Y N~ni~~~i~ir, COMMIS510N~ Sept.emL~er 12. 1~'J7 71~,7~
E I R NEGAT I VE DECI.ARIIT I ON b RECLASS I F I GAT ION N0. 77-7E3-12 (cont 1 nuecl)
t!~cs unlts In thc rear nf the proJect would be dtfflcult to r~ach~ ancf thet the new plans
shaw soven units at that Ior.Atlon and hc wos confuxed about that~ and fllso asked if the
traff(c study requestecl fiad bc~en doi~e. 11e statcci lie pcrsonally woulci llke to sec the
wholc project c~o down the drain as he fclt he has +~Ircady becn ovprdosed wlth apartments
and overpaid w(th a lot of promises.
Mr. Uonovan, 9~5 South Western Avenuc~ stated he haJ nol kn~~+n how to res~ond when the
Chairman liad askeJ for thosc persons who werc present in op{~oslti~n to ra(sc thr.lr hands.
Ile fclt a~~rrat dc.~l of prn~,~ress had been i~ir~Je and InJicatc<f he had taken the timc t~
draft out ~ letter t~ the Comrnissionc~rs ancl palnted out [here wer~ sorie inconsistencles in
the format ion af thc I et tcr ~ as th i nc~s ha~f happened wh i 1 e thc 1 ct ter wos he I nc~ clr~if ted .
Rcyarding the particul~~r c~~ncern of h(s fami ly part+~ining t~ the cnrrort c~dj~~cent to the
suutii wa11~ I~e; {i~Jic~~t~J this h~d been rectified by Mr. Ph~l~~ ~nci ind(c.ited to Mr, Phelps
that the letter ha~ been written prior [c~ the tlme f.hey !~ad talked, Ne Indicatecl he
cons i clered h I msc 1 f onc of thc ne f yhbonc~x~d ~ but i l was evcryb~cly' s Job tc~ spcak for
themselves. !n rel~tionship to the spccific rcorient~~tion of the c~ir~ort~ he State<i hc
was stil) nat wild al,out it but understoc~J it because he is in tl~e construction b~~sincs~.;
ttnd that it is acceptable. Ne mentioneJ his cnncern about tl,r_ e~c[r.rior ihaterlals and
asked (t' he was with(n his rights to ask that tl~c matcrials bc liStcd in the apprava) anc!
(ndicate~l Hr. Phclps had given hirn ~atisfaclory answr_rs as [o the exterl~r~ indicatfng it
would br. stueco with shnke roof. He st-~ted he would apprecia[e tf thi~ could be written
into the final ap~raval as it would be ~c,ntributing to the valuc of thc lanJ rather than
diminishir.g thc valuc; ~n~J th:.~t as far as the Uan~van~.; arc conccrne<I~ thcy ~rc at pcace
with the situatic~r providinr~ th~e prcviou, th'sn~js outlin~~:i would be p<~rt of thc final
approval ancl tl~at the proiec! woulcf be bui!t precisely as indicaceJ c~n thF plans.
Mr. Nuffman indicated hc ciiJ not t:now wnat clsc to a~id; that hc had a~rced to an ~-foot
fence on thc north sidc of the propcrty~ on Nr. Donovan's side~ bccause he hod an existing
fence and wanted te maintain the samc heiyht; ancl [hat he had ,tipul~ited to do this. On
the west sicle of the pro~crty thcrc is a residencc an~i he stipulited to .in P-foot fence on
that side, I~ith r~:~~ard t~ the E~-foot fence on the south side adjacent to the church
propcrty~ hc statf~J [hc propFrty awncr next door to the church, ~1 fcet in width~ felt
that to c~o up to an i,- Foot wa 1 1 on al 1 thiree s i ~Ics wou 1 d yi ve the proJect the appearttnce
of a handball court und aestheticaliy woufd not fit in.
(n cliscusslons wi[h the minister~ Mr. HufFinan inJicated he ha~i F~ointed out that he feit
thc existiny fence which is less than G feet now would be more aesthet(cally acceptable
with a couple ~ourses of bricE: on [op~ ane! that the minister liad a~Jre{:J to this.
Chatrman Tolar ask.eJ Ptr. liuffrnan to cornment on Pastor Wt-ite's comments~ as hs felt he was
still talking about an ~-faot fence,
Mr. Huffman s[~te:J he f~acl had a phcne canvcrsation with Pastor White and had made the
offer~ anJ it was t~is op(nion tfiat Fastor White ha~1 ayreeJ to puttiny a couple of courses
of brick on top of the ~xistiny fencc, He stated tie felt the opposition now was because
there was no indicaCion ~f tt~e fence on thc plans submitted. t~e stated that Mr. Qonovan
had objected to the place,~ent of the carpo~ts anci he had ~elocated the carp~rts~ but the
plans dtd not specify thc f~nce on ttie sou[h side to be raised, so he felt ttiat was what
the peop~e were objecting to.
9/12/77
MItIUTES~ AIJAiIEIM GITY Pll1tJNING COHMISSIOIJ, ;eptumbcr i:. 1'17~1 71'~~~~
E I R I~EGAT 1 VE DECLl1RAT I ON ~ RECLIISS 1 F I CAT I ON N0. 77' 1~" 1~ l con t i nucd}
Ch~lrman Tolar asked hc~w many of those in oppos(t(on ware frc~m the church an~J th~
indlcatlon was th~t mc~st of the people were fran the c.hurch. Ile ~+sked if It wa5 the:ir
dosir•~ to have an is-f~ot fencc~ and t-~ey replled th~~t It was.
Mr. Huffrkan restetacl he (cll ll~is woul~f makc thc proJect luuk ll~c ~ h~n~ihall court and
ayrced that the 5- foot fente i s toa 1 ~~w and i t wou i d bc rr~rr. des ( rab lc co b ri ng t t up to
at lc~~st f~ fecC.
THE PUBI.IG IIEl1RING WAS CLQSLD.
Commissloner DavitJ ;.iske~i if the fence was yoiny tc~ be 3 fc~et or G fe~t, ~-nd Mr. Huffman
1 ndi c~~ted I~e agrcc~ to addi ny to the eni st i nc~ fe~icc to br i ng i c up to L feet.
Commissioner Barnes askecl 11r, Donovan if ~I) his oh,je~:.tions .+nd concerns had be~n answe~ed
and lf both hc ancl th~~ {~utftiancr ~~rcc~l on -yliat thesc wer~.
Mr . Donov~in rep 1 1 ed that hc t~~~s tc~ ns su~-~c an undcrs tand i r~r~ c~f the ~h i ngs he h id put I n
writinc~ werr. carnpllecl with anl he was satisfic~d; that hc woul~l Ilke tc~ see thi~ thing
worked out so that it is fafr to PvrryboJy concerncrl.
Commissi~ncr Kin,y a,ki:d Mr, Uonavan i f hc wan[c~J tltc s~amc type wa11 as he has on Lhe west
side~ and Mr, Donavan stated he woulcl I ilce for ther~ tc, do tFie best they coul~ in matching
thc wall hut undcrstoc~d thc problems,
Conmissionc:r King asked Mr. Uo~uvan if hc plznned to u~ntinuc thc beautiful row of trees~
and Mr. Donovan state~l therc nv~y b~: ~ problr_m bF.c:~use he ~till has cattle the.rc and needs
to put in an clectrfc fencc bccausc tl~ey Jo e,~~t the Cypress trces.
Commissioner flerbst st~te~i he. was ,t i 1 1 concerned abouc tt~e Je.ns i ty ~nd wanted the
developer to creatc morc rccreaCion+~l arca; th~t thcy hAd put in a spa but that this ts ~
long, narrow hards~,ip pa~cel anJ should be treated as a har~lst~ip parcel. lie f~lt the
development should be li,hteneci Gy a c~uple of units an,1 recreational facilltles provided
for the rear purtion; tl~at there a~as no place f~r ct~i I<iren to play; and he fel t the
revised plans hacl accompllshed evcrything but thc reductlon in the density.
Commissioner Joh~s~n stated that both hc anJ Can~nissiuner Ner~st had strongly recommended
tl~~ reduction by at lcast one unit.
Commissioner Linn stated he haJ alsa been cuneerne~l about the denslty and that he is also
concerned about the property owner to the west; thc~t even with an ~-foot wall on two sides
ane! the th i rd s i Je 1 ef t c~pen ~ thc sound wou 1~1 t rave 1 1 i kc i n ~ wi nd t~~nne 1~ and un 1 ess the
landswping is solid and hi~~h the nolse wlll bc r.erribte.
Wi 1 1 iam S. Phclps, ageni~ state~,i hc was proud of doi ng a prc~ject wi xt~out a varia~ce of any
particular c~nsequence; 23~0 sGuar~ feet per clwclllny ~nit was being prov~ded Instead of
1200 square feet~ 43~K ~~vcraye, and 311 one-story unlts~ an~i hie felt they were reaching
the bottom of the density level and one or two units less means a lot econom~cally; that
there ls more recre~tional area than Cocle requires~ and he f~lt to put a recreatlonal area
in for 1G or 1:; units is a pretty difficult. concern because there a~e not enough peaple Co
really use it; that he 1(ves in a 40Q-unit complex and the recreational areas are used
9/12/77
MIt~UTES~ ~~NAHEIM C17Y Pll11~NINf, COMF115SIbN, Se~,ten~cr 12~ 1~7% 7)-601
E 1 R NEGAI' I V~ DE.CLAMT ION b RECLASS I F I CAT ION NQ. 7-7tS-12 (con t I nucd~
lightly~ if at all; and thet he c~uld see what the Commission was saying. but the fact
that the: flyurCS Arc in such proportlun t<~ thc ~bund~ncc~ th~y had dr.cided to s[ay with
thc lf3 ~.~nits bc:causc the flgures werc riyht.
Commiss, lorier tiarnes asked about the sp~ al tl~c soutli end and fel t i t wa~ ln o bad
lo~atl~~n~ feellnc~ sum~one caulcJ walk lnto it with thr meanderin~ sidewalk.
Mr. f'helps '~dicated this was a visual as well as a clesign rec~uirement and it would not be
necossary to fe~ce the spa off if Icss lhar~ 3 feet in depth ancl tc sl~o~lc1 be placed where
it can be s~en~ ancl he wuuld n~~t want to put it back alony the nefghbor's side because
then thc nc~ise w~uld bc in excess. He in~iicat~~d the spa is aEr~ost 17. fPet frcxh the
apa~tment. C~ncerning the ray ~~f [rees~ he stated they wo~ld likc to dupllcate Mr.
Donovan's CyprcSS hedgc or. thc west~rly ~~r~{~~rty linc.
Cammis~~ipner Johnson st~teJ iie i~ad vuicr~,i his vlcws rcgar~finq the density on the n,~rrc~w
strip of land.
Chalrman Tolar stateJ hc fcit that wlth thc ciens~ land5c~~~ing and -~w of t~ees ~~galnst the
west praperty llne anJ thc 8-foot fen:r. with densc land,caping on thr. s~uth property line,
tlils coulcJ be a viah,le p~oject~ and if you cut tlie ~lenslty It would make it higher
economi ca 1 1 y~ and hc ,1 i d nnt th i nl: 1':3 un i ts wou 1 d creatc an excess i ve arrnunt of nol se
because thcrc is not that riany pcaplr_ and wi[h the proper landsc~~ping on the south~ west
and north property linrs, woul~l nc~t have the nofsc problem~ ard hc stated hc was impressed
wlth thc plan,
Comnissioner Herbst stated that e'te Commission shoulcl nat just laok ~t the f{gures but
shauld look at the site, and if ~~ou have ehild;en in the b.~ck p~rtion :~nd they st~y closer
to where they resi de, tl,cre wi 1 1 be no place for thGn to play; that lie fel e be~ause this
is a hardship parc.el~ iun~~ ancJ i~rra~~~ it needs more recreational area~ and thal. is what
hc tr18d to put aCr~ss to Mr. P~~cl~~ a[ [he last hearing.
Chairman Tolar stated hc hones!ly fclt that thcy had 9otten as much ou[ of thts proJect as
they could; that this w~s a g~ve-anJ-take situation.
Cartxn3ssioner Merbst sai~ he elt chat the project shoulc! be rcarranqed; and that the
Jeveloper has not reduced [h+~ dc~is i ty.
Cortmissioner Linn was concerned about tlie heigh[ o~ thr. fcnce nn the south~ feeling
ehildren tould throw thing~, over the fence.
Chairman Tolar pointed out that the church parking lot is in that area.
ACTION: Commissianer King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner David and NOTION
C~t~-E~, that the Anaheisn Gity Plar,nin~,~ Corxnission has reviewed the subject propos~~ to
reclassify the property from the RS-A-~j.0A0 (Resid~ncial/AgriculCural) Z~nP t~ RN-1200
(Res(dentiel~ Nultiple-~ramily) Zone ~n propcrty consisting of ,~ppr~ximately 1.1 ac~es
having a fronta9e of approximately )fi fcet on the west side of Western Avenue, havtng a
maximum depth of approximately Gl:s feec, and being loca[ed appro;~imately 325 feet nortl• cnf
the ceiiterline of pall Road; and c1~~es hereby approve the ~~eyative Declaratian from the
requirement to prepare an environm<:ntal impact report on thc basis that therc would be no
9/12/77
MINUTES~ At~ANE1M CITY PLAP~NING COMh1~SSION, Sept emt~er 12~ 1~77 ~~"~'~?
EIR Nf.GATIVE_ DECIARATION b RkCLASS~FIf.ATIOM NO. ~•/b !t (continuc:J}
signiffcant in~ividuol ar cumulative adverse anvironmental impact due to the ~+pproval of
this Ne.yativc Declaration ~Incc t~~e AnaF-cim G~neral Pl~n designates ttie subject proporty
for meJium-density resldcntia) lrnci uses commensurate witl, Lh~ proposol; that no sensttivc
5ubmltted h
environme~tal impacts are involvs:d In the proposal; that the InitlAl Study Y
the pet(tion~r indicates no signlflcant IndlvlcluAl or cumulative adverse es~viranmental
im~acts; and that the Ncg~tive beclarAtlon substantiatinq tha foreg~ing flndinc~s (s on
file in tl~e City of Analieim Plann(ng Uepartmcn!.
ACTION: Comrnissloner King aff~~red a resolution tliat Petition for neclasslftc~tlon No. 77-
~1''. hr. grant~d subject tu tf~~c Interdep~~rtment.~l Committec rccornmrndn[lons and subin~t to
gtiFu~~tlons by the petitioneY' to pr~vide an ~-fcx~t wall c~n [hr_ westerty pr~perty
with den5c lan~lsca~ing an<J an u-fool wall a~ljacent [o thc RS-A-1~3~~~'1 development on the
south propei ty 1 I nc:.
Commissic~n<~~• Johnson Indicatecl he woul~l not support thc r~tion H,~cnu~,e thr. dr.veloper had
faileJ to ta~:c the preCty stron~ su~~ycstic~ns of the Couunission t~ r~~lucc the density.
t mmtssioncr L1nn 1n~licat~~d hc was al~o apposc~f W thc ~lensi ty.
rol ~. cal 1, thc resol ut ic~n FAI LEU TO CARPY l~y thc f~~l 1 a+i n~~ votc:
,Y:~,~ CO~tr"ISSIOhEP,S: KING~ UAVIU, TOLl1R
; ~: : COr~~;l SS I Or~ER.S : BARtaCS, t1ERf-ST ~ JoNNSOr~ ~ L I ~~t!
~r ~.~ ': C~1MM1 SS I OtIERS : NONC
;'r,~ri~~ i ss i oner ilerbs t aske.! Mr. Phe I ps i f hc wau 1 J be wi 1 1 I ng to cut the dens ( ty by one un i t
~~ the back portlon. Mr. Phelps scated tl~is wAUld be u~~ t~ Mr. Nuffm:+n as they u~uld
9pneal thc decisic~n to the Ci ty Counci I. Mr. Iluffman ~.c.~tc~i h~~ araul~i be wl 11 inc~ to reduce
t+~:c dens i ty by onc un i t.
Commissloner Herhst vffcred Resolution No. PC77-200 anJ moved for its passa~c and
adoptian, that the Anahcim Ci[y Pl~innin~~ Commission d~>es he~eby grant Petition far
Reclassification No. 77-7~3-1~~ sub.jcct tu tl~e petitioner's stipulation to submtt revtsed
plans reducing the project by onc un{t ~n tl~e rear portion ~~f the prujecc to provide more
recreat(onal area for chat po~'ti~~+~; anJ subject to thc peCitioner's stipula[ton to provide
an 8-foot hiyh blocl~: wall on ;he entirc lenyth of thc westerly t~roperty line wit', dense
landscaping and an fs-foot high block wall on the s~uth property line aeijacent to the RS-A-
1~3,Q00 developrnent with dense l~nJsca~iny.
On roll call ~ t'ie foreyuing resolutio+i was pass~d by t!~e f~l lc~winy vote:
AYES: coiir~iss~~r~eKS: IIERUST~ OARNES~ DAVIU~ JQHNS01~~ I;ItlG~ IINI~, TOLAR
NOES : COF1~11 SS I OPJE.RS : ~lOtiE
~I3SEIaT; COMr11S510~JCR5: NO~~E
FRaIJK LQNRY RE7URNED TO Tl1E GOUNC I L CHAttE3ER.
9/12/77
MINUTES~ ANI1h1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMlSSIO~~~ September 12, 1977 77'~~3
ITEM t~0. 6 PUBLIC NEARING. O~JFIE:R; THELMl1 1. WIN?ER~ 12y~1
E I R i~ ~E+GAT I VE OECLAR/1T1 Otl Junr. Ur i ve ~ GerJen Grove ~ Cl1 ~1zGh t. I1f,ENT:
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-7d-1G 81LL PHELPS~ 10~; North Maln SLrcet~ Suits 5,
Oranyc~ CA ~2GG7. Subje~ct propcrty is a
rectanyularly-shaped p~rcel ~f lancl conslstlny
of appraxlmately 0.~~ acrc I~~~ving a f'rontanc of ap~roxim.~tcly l;n fer,t ~n th~ e.~st
slde c~f Western Avenue anJ haviny ~ rn~~ximum d~~p[h of apprax(m~tcly 1'l> fee*,, being
located approxlmately 17Q ~~.~et nurt!± nf the cen[erl ine of dal l Ro~id, ~~nd further
described as 920 Soutl, Nestern ~vr.nue. Reyuest is for reclassificatlon of the subJect
prapcrty from the RS-A-~~3~00~ (RESIU~I~TIAL/AGRICULTUPJIL) 20tIE to thc RM-1200 (RESIDCNTIAL,
HULT I PLE-FAH I LY ) Z0~!E.
Ct1AI RHAN TOLAR LCFT TNE CQUtIC I L CIIANDCR TtMP01tl1R1 LY AIIU CIit11 RMl1'J PRQ TEMPORG HERE35T
ASSUNED TNk CHl11 R.
There werc 7~co~~l~ indic~~tiny thr.ir presence in opposltion to this requcst, and althouqh
the staff repart to thc Planning Conxni.:si~n datcd Septcmber 1~~ 1;)J7~ was not read at thc
public hearing~ ic ts referrc~ to an~ rna~fe a p~~rt of the rninutes.
Bill Ph~lps, the agcnt, indicatc~d this project is aeross the street from the proJect
di5cussecl duriny the previuus hear(ng; lhat all City s;an~iards havc been r~ct; and that the
parking and recreational area~ arc yrcater than rcquirc~l.
11. L. McGauyhy, y10 E~st Westcrn llvenuc~ An~~hcim~ statc~l he w~s thc prnpcrty owner next
doar to ttie subject property and liked thc plaiis~ b~~t would lfke to sce an i3-foot hiyh
bloc~, wall along the nortl~ pr<~perty lino, and t~iat he wanted tn kee~ his Eucalyptus trees
and was concerne~l th~t the roots would be ~Jam~,~aed whilc constructiny the fence. Fie also
asked that tl~e ~~xterior rnaterials be s{~ecified as stucco ~aitl~ shake roof.
Chatrman Pro Tempore Ilerbst explaincd the Planning Conmis~ic~n does not have u~ntrol over
ar~hitectural design of the buildiny~ but the approval co~ld be tied to [he speclfic
plans.
TNE PUBLIC ~iEaRtNG WAa C~OSEO.
Carnmisstoner Y.ing asked Mr. Phelps if he had satisficd thc Sanitation ~ep~rtment's
cencerns regar~iiny the trash locati~~n~ and he repl'ied that this has been worked aut.
ACTIQN: Coromissioncr Kinc~ offerecl 3 motion, secondcJ by Commissioncr David and MOTION
A RIED (Cha~irman Tolar bciny temporarily out of tfie Council Charr~ber)~ that the An~~heim
City Piannir~y Commission iias reviewed the subJect propnsal to reclassify the property from
the RS-A-43,~OQ (ResiclenttallAgricult.ural) Zone tn ;hr_ RM-Z~00 (Residential~ Multtple-
Family) Zona on property consistin9 of approximately 0.~+ acre, havinc~ a frontage of
approx(n~atciy 1~6 fcet on the east s(de of Westcrn Avenue and haviny a rk~xlmu^~ depth of
approxtrnately 12~ feet, beiny locat~d approxim~7tety 17~) feet nnrth of the centerllne of
Bal l Roaci~ ~ind further described as 920 South 'rlest~rn Avenuc; ~~nd daes hereby approve the
Negative Ueclaration from the requirenx~n[ to preparc an environmental impact report on the
basis that there would be no significant indiviJual or cumulative a~fverse environmental
irt~pact ~fue to the approval of this tlegative Ueclarati~n since the flnahelm General P1an
designates the subject property for rnediur~-density residerrtial land uses cammensurat~ with
9/12/77
I±
M) NUTE5 ~ I1NAIiE 1 M C I TY PLANP~i tiG COMMI SS ION~ September 12 ~ 1977 77-604
EIR NEGATIVC DECLARATION b RECLASSIFIGATI~N N0. 77-78-16 (continued)
tlie proposat; tt~at n~ sQnaitlve envirunmrntal impacts are invc~lved in the proposal; that
the Inltlal 5tudy submttted by tlie ~etitioner• Indlcates no stc~nlflcent Indlvldual or
cumulat(ve adverse environme:ntal ImpACts; and tl~at the t~cyative Declarotton substantlstin9
the forcyoing f(ndinys Is on file In the C(ty of An~hcim Plonning De~a~tment,
ACTIOIJ: Commisstoner King offered Resolution Na. PC7'7-2Q1 and moved for Its passaye and
adopt~on~ that tt~e Anaheim Clcy Plai~ning Cammission ~ocs hcreby grent P~tltlon for
Reclassificntlon No. 77-73-1(~~ subJ~:ct to the ~etitioner's stipulatlan to provide an a-
foot I~i~h block wal l alony tl~r. r~ortl~ {~ronerty llne~ and subJc:ct ta Interdepertmenta)
Corrmf [tce recomn-endations.
On roll cali~ the fureyo(nq r~sr.,lution was passeJ by thc following votc:
AYfS: COMMISSIqNfRS: Y,INf;, EiARt~ES~ Dl1V10, HER[i;T, JOHNSQN~ LItUI
NQCS : COf1M I SS I ~f~ERS ; NONE
TEHPORAR I L Y Af3SENT ; COMMI55 I O~~ERS : T01_I1R
Prfor to votin~~ Commissiuncr K(ng .askc~ if the G-foot wall or th~ s~~uth wou1~1 be
adequate, anJ Mr. Phelps explain~cd thcrc is an exist(ny scrvicc station bt Lhat site.
Gommissioncr Kiny askecli;r. Phelps ahout t~ie cluster of threc trces and asked tf they
would be preserved~ anJ Mr. Plielps repl ied tf~at thcy wcrc in tl~~ miJ~itc of the drlveway
but tl~at they woul d try to preservc thern~ i f at al !~~ss Ib lc~,
Con~missloner Johnson asked if there was any concern regardin~i the ronts of Mr. McGaughy's
Eucelyptus trces since an 3-foot wall rcquir•cs footin~~s~ anJ Mr. Phelps replfed that he
was not cor,cerned.
Cf'l11ftMAN TUL~R KETURNCU TO THE COUt~CII CHMIQER.
I7Ef1 N0. J PUOLIC liCARItlG. OWPJCR: FRAftCES PLOU A~IC J/1ME5 A.
E I R~~VE DECLIIRl1T 10!~ NAU~lTSMAfI ~ 703 S~ut!~ Wasco, Anahe i m, Lf1 ~~2$04. AGENT :
C ~ ~. -7~3-17 t~GUYEI~ CAO ~~~UYE~i~ 30G3 West lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim~
VA ! t E NQ. 29 S CA y2801, Sub}~ct property is a rectanqularly-shaped
parccl of land cansisting of approximately 0.3 acres,
haviny a fr~ntac~e of ap~~rox(mately 80 feet on the
north siJe of Lincoln Avenue, hav(ng a maximum depih of apprc~ximately lh~ feet, being located
approximately 660 fect west of the centerllne of E3each eoulevard~ and further described as
30-i3 West Lincoln Avenuc. Propcrty presently ciassified RS-A-~+3,:lOn (RESIDENTI~L/ACRICULTURAL)
ZOtJE.
RCQUESTED CI.ASSIFICATIOtI: CL (COMMERCIAL. LIMITED) ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIAtJCE: WAIVER OF MII~IMUM FROrIT SCTUACY. TO ESTAI3LlSlI At~ ;~cT G~LLERY A~aD STUU10.
Therz was no o~e indicating the(r presence in oppc~sltion to this request~ and although the
staff report to tt~e Planning Carnmission dated Septemb~sr 12~ 1977, was not read at the
public he~ring~ it is rcferr~d to and made a part of the minutss.
The agen[~ Nyuyen Cao Nguyen, was presen[ to answer any questions.
9/12/77
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ ~ONMISSION~ Septembcr 12~ 1~77 77~f,05
EIR NEGATIVE bECIARATION. RECLASSiFICATION N0. 77-7A-17 ~ VARIAPICC NA. 2~65 (continued)
TNC PUBLIC NC.ARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTI0~1: Comml~sion~r King offered a n~tton, seconded hy Comr~lssioner DaviJ And MOTION
CARRIED~ th~3t t~e Anahelm City Plannin~ Commissi~n has revtewc,cl the subiect proposal to
reclasslfy the property from Che RS-A-~-3~f1~n (Rcsl~ientlal/Agrlculturai) l.one to rhe C1.
(f.ommerclal~ Limited) Zon~ to establish an ~rt q~11~rY And sti~Jlo in an existing single-
famlly resldence witf~ wa(ver of minimur,~ front setbacE~ ~n property cnnststing ~f
approxlmatcly ~,3 a;.re~ havinq a frontage oP a~proxtmately `~~ feet ~n th~ north side of
Lincoln Avr_nue~ havt~~c~ a maximum depth c~f approximately 1(~n feet, an~ heinq located
approximatcly <i~0 fect west of the centerltne of C~erch tloulevard; .~nd ci~es hereby approve
the Ncgativc L~eclaration from thc re!luirement to nrep~re an envir~nm~nt~l IMpac:t report on
the h~sis th.it there wc~uld hc no signtficant individunl ~r cumulative a~tverse
envirr~nn,entai im~~ct due t~ the a~proval of this Ne~+~tiv~ Deci~r~tinn since thP l~naheim
General Pl~n designates the subJect pro~erty for qrner~l ccxnn,~rcl.il l,~n~1 uses commensurate
wlth the proposal; that n~ sensltive envir~nmental tm~ict5 are involved ln the proposal;
th.~t the Inltlil Study suhmitted l,y the petitlone~r ~n~~(c,~te, n~ sirynificant indtvidual or
cumulativP adverse envir~nme~ta) impacYs; and th.~t the ~~enar.lve Decl~~~ation substanttating
the foreg~inq fl~dinc~s is on file (n thP Clty of /1nAheim Pl;~nninq Department.
ACTION; ~:ammissioner King offered Resolution No, PC77-2~?. an~i moved for Its p~ssaqe and
adopt an~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Conxnission does herehy g~ant Petltic+n for
Reclassi`lcation No, 77-73-17~ s~hJect to the Intcrdep~rtr+eneal Committee rec~nxnend~ttons.
On roll call~ the forecloing resolution was passed hy the follrn~in~ vote:
AY~S: CnM'115SIONERS: HERPST, BAR!~ES~ DAVID~ JOIINSON~ KIN~~ LIN~l, TOLIIR
NOES: COM'i15510~lERS: NONC
AB;[NT: CQM~11 SS IONERS: ~~n~~E
ACTiON: Commissioner King offered Resol~tion No. Pf.77-?_n3 and Moved for its passage and
adopt on. that the Anaheim Ctty Plannin~ Commissian does herehv grant Petitlon for
Varlance No. 2n(;, on the basls that t1~e p~citloner cJ~mO~STI']iPG th~t a hardshio exists in
that the building is existing and thP request is minimal~ and that although the building
is being convertcd to commercial use, removai of thr front portion of the huilding to meet
thc minir,,um sethack requiremr.nt ~rould dpstroy tlie F.eauty of the tuilding.
On rol l cal l~ ttie foregoing resolutlon a,as pass~~d hy the foi lnwinc~ vote:
AYF.S; Cf1M'11SSIONERS: Hf.QRST~ BARNf.S~ ~~VID~ J,~t'NS~-l, KlN~, LIN!I, TOLIIR
N~ES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE'
ABSE~lT; COM'~S I SS IO~~EP,S: NONE
Chairman Tolar noted he was voting in support of this resotution hi~t w~s concerned about
setting a precedent involvinc~ the sethacks.
RECESS Commissloner David offrred ~ motion, s~con~led hy Commtsstone:r King and
M~T ION CARR I E~ UNAII IMOUSi.Y~ th~~t the r~eet i n!~ be recessed unt 1 1 7:0~ p.m.
The meeting was recessed for dinner At 5:35 o.n.
RECO~_ ~VEtJE The meeting was reconvened at 7:05 p,m. with al) Commissloners present.
n/12/77
~
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIH CITY PLANNIfJG CQM?115SION~ Seplemb~r 17., tg)7 77~F~6
IT~N N0. II PUCLIC HF.ARI~IG. OWPIER: RADf.r,T ANn NE~EN DULT7.~
IR CA EGOZICALLY EXEMPT-GL~SS 5 3o2r~ West Bal) Roa~i, llnahcim~ CP, ~?.404, 5ub)ect
I ~~ E N . 2~~5 RE DV .R I Ep pronerty is n rr.ctangulKirly-~haped parcel of land
~^ c~nsisting af a~proxt~~~tely ~,E r~~re~ having .~
frnntaqe ~f spproxfmotely 132 fePt ~n the south
sicie of Ball Road~ haviny a maximum depth of approximAt~ly 277 f~~t, anci being located
approxi~~~at~ly 2^7 feek west of the centrrline of Beach Doulevarcl~ and further ~iescribec!
es 3~ZR a~d 3~3~ W~st Ball Road, REQUEST IS TO n~!E~m Cn~~btTI~N~ OF APpROVI-L.
There was no one In~licatinc~ thelr p~esence in op~osition t~ th~e req~~est ~nr1 although the
steff rc~port to the Pl~nning CommiSSlon d~ted Septr_mhcr 12~ 1~77, w~~s not rcad at the
public hearing~ lt is referred [~ and made a~art of the r,inute~s.
Robcrt Dultz~ 3~2F West Ball Ro~ci, was rres~•nt to ~~nsw~r Any c~uestlnns.
TNF PUf3LIC HE~RINr, w/~c, CLnSFD,
Conmisstoncr HerhSt ~s~.ed Mr, puit~ if he ormed thc prn~c~rty ner,t ~lo~r and whv he had
divl~~)e~1 it (n this manner.
Mr, Dultz explained hc Jivicied t-1e ~~ro~ertY origin.illy r~ith the intPnt of devel~ping it~
but it has nat heen Financially fea~~lble at t~~at time ~n~f he d1~1 not have a development
plan and had asked f~r a trmpor~ry lot 5pllt to f~rmulate a~lan; th~t ~ifter extensive
studles ancl feaslbility reportg, a n~an has I>een ~1PVel~ped which hP fPels v~ill enhance the
area and believes thls is the only fr.asihle dcvelopmcnt for this ~~~rcel.
Cha)rman 7olar asked r~hat devclo~mcnt aras pro~oserl f~r the nroperty next dnor to the east.
Mr. Dultz stated it wc,~~1d be a 11i~f10~ svuare fo~t shoppin~ center .in<1 th~~t he had plans
with him which wauld he cnnsidcred at ~~ later r~ACC !y thA Pl~nninq Commisslon.
Chalrman To1~~+r indi~ated h~ felt seein~~ the plans mighe hel~ with hls decisinn because he
did have some rFServattons Fec~usP ef the I~~ndiock.ed parce) with thP existinq house.
Mr, ~ultt stated that undr_r normal r_1fCU~gt~~nCe5 thls wr~uld ~ fair statemPnt, but tecause
of the loqlsttcs of this particular parcel, he did not belicve lt w~ould .~nply in this
instante.
Mr. Dultz's architect~ Will Fesler~ nressented ae.rial photoqraphs of the ~a~cel and al;~
Indicated he had ph~tograrhs of L.he land)ocked p~rce) ref~rred tn, and stated he felt the
Commissl~n w~~s not aware of the quality of this niec~ ~f pronerty. He pointed aut the
shopping center directly east of the su~Jec[ property with ~ ~-fo~~t s~~tback t~ accarnnodate
the e~~sement. He statrd it was felt tFie best solutton wnuld h~ t~ tlr the two proprrties
together wlth reciproc~l acc~gs easmcnts for inyress an~1 eqress.
Commissioner Herbst indicated he felt this wc~uld really landloc~ the property; that the
building is where the present easement comes throu~h~ ancl referred to an "L" shaped
building,
Mr. Fesler indicated it was thPir desire to do the best they could with the situat~on they
had, rcalizing this was not the ideal si;uation~ but rather than sacrific',g all the
property. had tak,en the vacant la~d and devel~aped ii to the highest and best use and had
provided adequate ~c:cess to the back portlon of the property which is intended to be
developed for a medical use or somethtng of thai nature consistent with the proposed
de~el~pment on the fronC portion.
9/12/77
M I NUTCS ~ nr~n~ie i~~ L I TY PLl1~~N I N~ COMM I S5 10N ~ SGptembcr 1?. ~ t~377 77~E~~7
EIR ~ATCGORi~A1,LY EXEMPT-CLl155 5 b VARI~NCE N0. 2t~85 (contlnued)
Chatrman Tolar osked abour p,~rf.irsq f~r the landlocked parcel~ anci '1r. Fesler Indicated
th~~t ih~ parkln~ pl~n had heen suhmitted with thc lettcr; enrl that th~ fr~nt pot'tion has
an Pxisting dr.nGr~1 and n,tdlcal building anc~ ls drvelorerl t~ its hir~h~st an~i bPSC ~~se.
Chairman Tol.~r was a.~ncernecS ahaut ~~ccess tn the rear ~~rtion~ ~n~i Mr. Fesler fndlcated
that access woulc' dene~d upon how th~se uses were~ put t~~cth~r,
Chalr~-~n To1ar ask~d if the pr~ncrties havP tl,~ s~ir~~ owner~ ~~nc1 th~ clevel~~er repl ted Mr.
Oultz ~wneJ these propertles ~~nd the ,~cJJacrnt pro~~rty.
Chairm,in Tolar indlcated he di~f n~t hnvF Any symn~t.hy f~r pPnr~l~ wh~~ c:rr_~ce their awn
har~shl~s.
Ftr. Dultr stated the creation of thc hr~rdship w~s lf y~,~r~ a~~ when the mecllca) building
hid t;cr_n developed and thr. h~usc had heen ~~~~ve~i fr~~~ ~h„ fr~~nt to [hr hnck~ creitinq a
noncc,~~fnrming p,~rcel v,-hich coul~l not he fin~nced~ and th.~t w,~s th~ re~ison h~ had sought
the l~~nd spllt, t~ ~ct financin~, a~hich h~ did; th~it hn rcalized th~• Ccxnr~isslon was
c~nccrneri that hc w.~s the pres~nt owner~ hut wh~ ~•rill he th~ ~wn~r in thr, future, He
scated~ if y~u look ~~t the front Iuilrlinq which is che me~ltcal huil<ilnc~~ it is built to
thc hl~hest and hest use~ and the ~nly ttme that ~vnul~i chan~;P is w'~~n the a~hole arca is
bcing recievelo~ed, hut at that ~oint he <.+.icl not thln{: it aroul~i mak~ ~i ~iiffer~nce,
Referring to the sh~p~(ng ccnt~r property ci(rectly on the corner~ he tn'IIrA~1!c1 he had made
8-1 agreement wl th LhC owners Qf Thi3C pr~perty ~A~ P1UiU~i~ P.ASP~'lpnt fnr inhress ~~C~ e~~CSS~
tlia~ he ha~i als~ changed the entrance to thetr ~r~~erty on Sall Ro~~i at hls own Pxpense
becausc: the Traffic Department had in~licated this to be a d~nc~erous entrance; and that the
new plan w(11 conform to the Traffic De~.~rtment recammendations,
Chairman Tolar stateJ he felt thc Cornmission ha~i seen ennuah t~ tic the pro~erties
to~ether and asked the devr.lnper tc ta1~: ahout the c~ase~mnnt.
Mr. Dultz stated~ referrin~ co wh~t che Commissi~n c~nsi<lered to be t'~c p~oblCm~ he has a
map which indicates the nr~posed park(ng for [he extstin~~ houses and st~tr_d he w~uld turn
the property into a mcdical f~cility~ and that ctie hAUSeS v~uld presen[ themselves readily
to be chang~d to that use; that che-~ is plenty ~f parkinq on the nro~erty that can be
yrante~ hy easement; and hc felt he should pass around the t~h~t~araohs sh~a;ing that there
is a iot of room for parkine~ ~ind indic.ated th~ p,~rking wnuld bc~ a cohhlestone-type parkin9
arc!a, in ~eening wiih the ~ld decor.
Commis,ioner Johnson asked if there ts a N~alk~,ay fr~m the fr~nt ta the rear of the
bulidings~ ancl Mr. Dultz re~licd tt wauld he o~en and a 2i-f~~~t eas~r~ent wc~uld be
p rov i deci .
Co~nrnissi~ner Herhst asked ahnut the canversl~n of [hese h~uses t~ ccx~mercial use, and J,
J. Tast~lro, Assist~nt Planner•~ stated tliat the entire ~rope~ty ls z~ned CL and medical use
is allowed.
Commissloner Herhst asked Mr, Dultz if he is stil) using the house for his re5ldencr., anci
h~ repli~ci that he is liviny there,
9/12/77
MIHUTkS~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANIdII~f; G011MISS1011~ Se~lember 1?.~ 1^77 77-E~8
EIR CATEGORICALL~ L'XEMPT•CLASS 5 6 VARIANCE N0. 26$~ (cont'nued)
J. J. Ta~hlro oxpl,~ined that when thase hou~e~ .~re c~nverted tn commerc,l~~) use~ they will
be requircd to meet all thc st,~nd,~rds ~f that ~~nc.
Commissl~ncr Hcrt~st stated hc+ fclt thc petltl~n~r h,ici dtvidr.,~' thc prop~rty lnto twc~
separ~te p~~rcels ~nd that f~nrcel arould hav~ to stanc! on lts own un1eS5 ~~ l~nry-lerm parkinq
agreement ~f ahout 5~ ye-~rs c~uld Ip ~rovirircf for hnth ~ircela, an:l It ip~PArerl to htm
that the ret I t loner wanLcd the hr. st ~f hoth ~mr 1~IS ~~i reS idence an~l r.r~mr~r.re ir~ 1 usc.
~Mr, Uultz Indlcitcd he would rith~r hnvc c~~m~crci~il usa f~r thr v~h~l~ ~~rc.~~l, and the
drawinqs arould indicacc thit ther~ is sufficient par4 in~t.
Commissfonr,r Herhst a5ked h~~•~ m~iny sniccs Sl~~~~ilr1 hP re~uir~d~ .in~i "1r, TaShiro rchlled that
15 spaces wn~al~l I.~e nr.eded t~ m~r.t the r~qulrrr~~nt5 f~r th(s site.
Conm,issioner Hr.rhat inclicated hr. ~!~'IS c~ncernc~: hec-i~isr. ~rhen .i resi~ier,ce I~ nll~wed t~ he
useJ co~~erci.illy it .'~lways crm~s up later hf~C~lUSr It ~~r~ves to h~ ec~nomlc~~lly not
fc~sihle~ then thc net(tioner wants t~ t~,~r d«Nn th~ hullciln~ anrl ,I~velo~ a commerclal
bulldlnq and rec~uest5 varl~~nCeg hPCauSC somc~ne did n~t l~oL•. int~~ thr fut~ire. II~ felt Che
petitloncr h~s .~n o~portunity t~ drveln~ th'S ~ig ~ne p.~rr.cl nn~1 to genarate it i5 not ~ood
plannlnc~. He stnted thF Coinmission h~i5 fo~~n~f ~ut the us~ of hrM~es f~r cammerci~l use (s
poor pir~nninn,
Mr, Qultz yt,itecf it arould he poc~r plann(n~~ t~~ tP~ir cf~~•m ~$1 ~'1~~~~ hnu~se tn put a S200~~00
corxnerci~il bull~fin~~~ and that he di~l not thiri~ ~nyon~ rx~uld f(nd th.~t f(n<~nclally
fe~sible, Ne lndicated he I~ad I~o~.ed at every possihlr ~~ay to ~i~ve'~~p [his site and that
this was the nnly fc~islblc a~ay; that he had ~•,anted to nut In a 5~r.;il ~~obilehoree park and
use thc house and the swlnminn nool t~ noo~f ,iclvant~~~c~ hu[ thit in order t~ make It
feasible~ he neFdecf t~ put in 1'3 rtx~hi lehc~mrs ner r~cr~ an~1 caulcl only ~ut in ~; that he had
eonslderecl sinnle-wlde unlts which ~au'd mal•.~ [he cicnsity ~+h~~ut ?? ne~ple per acre ~nd
presently there irP ~ipartments qc~ing i-. ~~it~~ 51 n~•npl~ ~er ~cr~.
Chalrman Tolar 1nclic.ited that hc nc-rn,~lly ~roulc.+ aqrPr with a~h,it Cc~r+r,+lssi~nnr Herhst was
saying, but in thiq case~ his Fr_,~-rs h,iri heen allevl~t~-i hy the fact th~t the e.~sement that
h~s bcen dedtc~~r.e~l t~ get to thaC pl~ce of ~ro~erty is ~~in~ to hc~ccx~e ~art ~f e separate
plece nf pr~perty~ and if thcy ~1~~ convert thls house~ lt ~~ill noL. h~ th~ no,^mal
convcrsion; [h'~ there wlll not he du~l z~ninq on [hr pr~~erty; an~1 thi~ was not spot
zon 1 nc~ .
Chalrman Tolar indic~ted that In relationship to the ~-fo~t casement, if the petitloner
noved the huilJing ir~ ~ feet an-i tri~s to sell the parcel c+ff, it wlil stand c+n its own
fect, He (n~Jlc~ate~~ he fPlt there is ~ prohlem with this ~arc~l, hut it Is a btgger
problem the way lt stands riqht now.
CoMm)ssioner Johnson fndicated he agreed th Ch.~irman Tolar.
It was no;ed that the Director of the Planning Departme~it h~s ~leter~ined that the proposed
activity f,all, wlthl~i the eieFinltlon of Section 3.~1~ Class 5, of the City of Anaheim
Guidellnes to the Requfrements fnr an Environmpntal Impact Rep~rt ancf is~ therefore~
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
A/12/77
MII~UTES, nun-~Ei~~ CITY PLAr~NIIJG COMt11SS101~~ ~aptambcr 12, 1~)J'1 ~~~Fn~
E I R C ATEGOR 1 CALLY EXEMPT-CLASS ~ b VAR 1 ~~ICE N0. 2~E1~ (con~ Inu~d )
ACTION; Commissioner Johnson oFfere~J ~~ motinn~ seconde~f 6y Ccxn*tssinner Kinq and HOTION
ARRI ED (Commissloner Nerbst votinq n~), that the AnAhelm Clty Pl~~nnin~ Ccxnmisslon did
r~vlew thr petitioner's requast for Amenclmcnts t~ can~llti~ns of ap~~nvr~l of Res~~lutlon Ma.
75R-212 and does thr_rehy recommend to the C i ty Councl 1 of the C i ty ~f Anaho Im that
Condi tlon No. 7 hG amended to read: "That ~ pcrpctunl c~isemrnt dqr~ament for a strlp of
land 20 feet wlde fo~ access purposes across the pnrcel to ;fic eas; of suhiect nroperty to
Parc~l "d" shall he submltted to an~ approved hy the Clty Attorncv'~ Office and then be
f 1leJ nnd recorded in the offlce of the Or,~ngF County Recordr_r c~nccirrently with the
pare~l map~" and that Conditlon No. 1~ whtch re~aJs ns follows h~ de leted: "Th,~t thts
var 1 ance ls granted for a ~eriod of h~ (2) ye~~rs from dntr. hereof , durinq which t Ime the
property owner ari 11 tnke necessary SC('-~S t~ comhine Parcel "fi" a~) th nn acl.jacent parcel
having fr~ntage on a public street~ th~reby elimtn.itinq the n~ed fn~ a v~rtAnce."
Comm+ssioner Johnson ~ffered this r~~tlon hec~iu5e thls is ~~ I•~ncllocE-~rl ~,~rcel :~nd is well
protected w(th the e~asem~~nts which will I~ec~~~e a n.irt of the tltlr. pnllcy.
ITE~i N~, ~ PUPLIC Nf.A~IN~, OIJ~ICZS: W/\YI~F C, Ai~~ LAURA L.
I R NE411TIVE DFC LARIIT 101~ LAWHO~~, 222 West Ba 1 I Ro.ac1 ~ An.~he tr~, C/- ~?~305.
VARIA~~CE P~O. 7.9 7 SuhJ~ t prnpPrty Is ~ raGtan~~ilarly-shaped parcel
of land cnnsisCin~1 ~f ~ippr~xfrately f?,~i acre
located ~t the snuthcist corner nf Qall Road and
Cla~-emont Strer_t, !~aving approximate fr~ntaq~s of 7; fcec on thc south SI~P of Bal) Road
and 21.~ fect on the ~ast side o` Cl~rer~~nt Str~et~ and f~~rthAr d~ser(hed .~s 222 West Aall
Road. RfO.UCST IS fOP, WAIVfR OF PERMITTTD USES TO f.STI',~I.ISN A WI~ L~SAIF TIRE STORAGE
YARD .
The~e w:~s no one Indicet(nq thetr presence in opr~5ition to tl~is r~qucst (alth~ugh ona
person later spoke In appo5ltlon)~ and although thc staff report to the Planning
Commission d.~ted Septemher 12~ 1~77, was not re~d at th~ puhlic hearinq~ it is referred to
and made a part of thc minutes.
COMMISS IQ~IE4 JON~ISON LEFT TNE COUNC IL CHn*~RER TE'1PORl!RILY.
Way~e Lawhon, 222 West Bal) Road, the petitioner~ explalned he h3d orialnally applicd for
a eon~;i tiona) use permit rather than a varlance because the nature of the business did not
fal i(nto the industrlal classif icai ton; t~at he does nnt wi sh to eh~inne the property in
any way except to Improve lt hy rest~ring the existinq dwel i ing~ p lanting trees, putting
up a block wa) l, etc.; that the hou~e is ~~~+ years olci snd he h~s j»st recently purchased
the pr~~c~erty; that he felt the phystcal handtcap (s the oversl•r.e of thF lot compared with
the other iots f~cin~ Ball Road; that the busines5 is light ccx~mercial rather than
indust~ial; that he has one employee an~ does not fahric~te or pr4duce anythtng; that hls
stoek averac7es about 1,~~~ items compared wtr!, ., nearhy husiness rrhich probably has
thousands of items; and that his storage ts ~~utside bEhlnd a f~nce rath~r than inside the
bui lding,
Mr. Lawhon stated he felt the only r~ ~on there had been any cc~m-~1 aints was the fact that
the Stanto~ Pol ice Department had removed al l of h~is tireg ab~ut six weeks ago~ claiming
they were stolcn~ but ln the past r~eek thcy had al) heen returned to him at his expense;
that the pollce department had removed the ttres at nlqht and c~+used a dtsturbance. He
also indicated that the petition which had been ctrculated in ~ppositfon was tak~n before
9/12J71
5_~
~
MINUTCS~ NJAHEIM GITY PLANNINf, CpMf11SSI0N~ SepkemGor 12~ 1')11 77"~»
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAaATIQN t', VARIANCE NQ, 2967 (continued)
-
he had explalned the nature of hi s businP4s t~ his netqhhors. He tn~licatecl some of the
peoplc who had signrd the petltlon had told hlm they hnd slqneci lt hc~c~use they ~~ere
homeowners an<i a~ere c~ncerned that he planneci ta t~,ir down thc housr. and h~ve tons of
k)r~S st~red on the ~roperty. Ne stated th~t hc had no Tntentinn of rem~vin~ the hous.~;
thAt both 1,~~ and hls wife loved t~~e hous~ nn~i have macJ~ a lot of impr~vements to It.
ConcGrnfn9 hts huslness~ he stAted he buys the tires~ Inflntes ther~~ t~nct then sclls them;
tl~~it hP 1s saving the country ml 1 l lons of gal lons of cr~~-1~ o~ 1 hy recyc) tn~ thp moht l~home
t irPS. Ne Indlc~~teJ he has threc chlldren nnd 1 il.es hav i nc1 hi s b~i:,'ness at hrnne s~ that
h~e can spc~nd more time wtth them. Mr, lawh~n th~n read a Iett~r ~vhlch he had canposed and
cireulatc~l among his nelghhors~ as fnllows:
"To c~ur nei~hbors:
(f I had to r~nov~ my tires, thls ~~ill incur nr~at Pxpensn anri I would he wasting
my monc~y t~ he,~utlf~, these ~rounda when in a fev: ye~rs wc c~uld scl) it t~. a
devel~per wh~ ~~mu'd eventual 1 y tPar down the h~use ~~d put ir. '~~h~ knows wh~it'.
I wuulcl llke t~ ~+revent this. mostly my wife~ would~ shr l~vcs th~ h~~uty and
charm of old houses and we tx~tl~ PPP) (t is a loss t~ the clty's herlt~ge each
time a ~~el I-constructed house goes c1~wn for nr~~rP~s . We ferl upsec by the
nele~hhors here a~hc, h~ve that ~~etltl~n in havF nur t i res ^~nve~f. bJhy can't we
re~~ch ~ c~R,nr~~;se r~g~rding the h~use~ ~.ir hours~ t~ucks. et~. ~nd s:~ve thls
trouble th~t h~is c~me u~. tJe Ilk~~ this housc ind we~ fecl you irc conriemninq It.
For the months ~~re rented 1C. we made such mac~nlficent plans ft~r lt. I w+~uld llke
t~ a 1 so af~pea 1 to you as a f~thcr, I have a lways ha d co ~~r~ pr~~~ I ous 1 y punch I ng
a tlmeclock ~nd my wifP ~•~as a major hero ~•,ith thP ct-Plclren. No~- ~ c~binin~
work and home~ I am ,~hle to ~ole part in my chil~iren's nror~th, know that it is
unusual far fathcrs. but now tliat I have t,ad lt~ I ~cally enj~y it. Is my
business really th~t much, ~f an inc~nvenience to ~11 of y~u, Why haven't you
knock.ed on my ~1~or anc' g 1 ver~ me .in ot+~ortun 1 ty t~ e~+prr~r~ i se wi th y~u. Our
bus 1 ness of recyc 1(ny moh 1 1 c- home t 1 res 1 s a~ ~cal og ?ca 1 base~'. h~~s I ness. I t
sav~s thP country mi 11 ions ~f ga) lons of crude oi l a year hy re~fucinq the number
of nev~ mobllc home t(res needing to be manufactured. I would Iike to repeat
ac~ain that a~e are wi 1! ing tc~ compromige In or~ler to he ahle to ~:~eo c~ur l ives
n~rmal and I:eep from disrupr ing yours."
Mr. Lawhon lndicaceJ there may not be an;~ opposlt'on pr~sent bec~use of this letter. Ne
also indicated he had been informed by one of his neiqhhors that another disturbance had
occurrecl when tires h~~c1 bounced off tlie tr~.~c: and that this neighh~r had stated that was
the only thing he was concerned ahout.
TNE PUE3l.lf. HEARI~I~~ WAS CIOSED.
Chairman Talar indicated he had noticed i~~ r.he photo~raph a larc~e seni [rucl~ sltting on
thp lot~ and Mr. Lawhon explalned th!s truck ccxnes in once every twc~ weeks.
Chalrrnan Tolar asked the averag~ daily dellverles, and Nr, Lawhon re~lled that this flgure
would vary but there are about three or four smal) pickup tr~cL~.s a diy,
q/12/77
MINl;7L5. l1NAlIEl11 CITY PLAN~ill~r, COMMISSION~ September 12~ 1917 77-~~11
EIR NEGATiVE OECLARATION b VARIANCC N0. 2967 (continuPd)
Chair•man Tol,~r asked Mr, Lawhon what were his normnl hours of np~r~~tl~n, with Hr. Lawhon
re.~ly(ng his hc~urs wPrc from a:0~ a.m. unti) 1~:~~ ~.m.
Ch.~irman Tol.~r stated the problem he ar~~s h~vinc~ was rilth thc ~~u~t usc of thc propcrty;
that he appreciate~l 4,hat Mr. lawhon w,is trylnc~ t~ d~~ hut th~t therc ~re a lnt nf peaple
along maJor houlevards who ~~u1~1 like to do somethinn simllar t~ this with thelr
propertles and use them fnr hoth huslness ~~nd residc~nce~ f~r rxomple~ he knew ~ couple of
printers a~ho woulci llke to m~~k.c residPntial use nf their pr~~erty, fn ~d~iltion to the
printinc~ husiness.
Cha I rm.~n Tolar asked Fr,~nk Lrn~~ry 1 f thl s use wou ld Qu~~ 1 i fy unclcr the hnme ~~cupancy use.
Frank Lowry, As~ istant City AttornPy~ repl ted th,~t outdo~r stc~r~~~e clnrs n~t qu.31 ify for
home occupanc~,; th~t thls is 7 u5r vari;nce and th:.~ t'~e Pl~nnin~ Conmfssi~n has p~rmltted
uses of this type (n the nast, Mr, Lawhon ex~lainl th,-~t he ~Mll~(J ll~~c t~ ~.ise the
prop~rty for the [ i re hus lness f~r about a ye~r or .~ ye,ir ~incl i ha 1 f~ ancf Frank Lowry
statr.J the Commissi~n c~ulcl put ~~ timr. 1 imit on thP ao~rnv~~l.
Chairman Tolar indlc~tec; thc netitioncr h,~~l ~Il~vlit~~i thr_ f~~rs of h,~ re~i~ients ~~nd that
thls w:ts an unusual propc~rty, and he ml~ht consider apnrnval c~f ,~methi~q 'iike this for a
peric,~i of a ycar or i ycar and .~ half t~ sr_e how It g~~s.
Mr. Lawhon sald this was a l~~rge piece of prnpertY and chit he ciicl w~~nt tn keep the house.
Ne explained th,~t hc had spent sever~) thous~ind dol l~~rs r~st~rlr~q thr~ t isl<ie ~f thc h~usc
and intended to st~rt on the autslde. Ne st~ited thac ri~7ht no~, th~ nro~eriy is an eyesore
to the nelghhorhood,
Chalrm~n Tolar statc^d he was wondcrlny why Hr, La~•~h~n ,vould huy a rnsfdence nf ,~~15
magnttude on Bal l Roa:i to raise his farni iy.
"ir. Lawhon indicated he had hought the property hec~iusP it w~s ~ic~ricu+tur~ll~ zoned a:.
not being famll tar with the zonin~ ordinances~ was not sure what he coulci c~c; with the
property and decided to go ahead and purehase i[ ano ,e~, what could he ~ion~. ~ie s~ •ted
that he lnlended to retire at this housc~ and had plans for imprnver~ent, a tennfs co~~ri
the baek,etc. He statcd the tirr. h~slness Is only for i counle of years in make money and
th~n evrntually to retire, Chairm:~n ?o',ar as~:ed -1r. La~~hon if he wr~uld h~ve houqht tht
propcrty anyway~ and hp ~~splied ti~at hc~ ~roulc~ hav~.
Carolyn Young, ~i?3 I3~rry 5treet. rrhich is th,. r,treet ~~d~acent to the subject property,
stated that she h.3d known tf~ere was ~~e sort of h~~s~ness qoin~ on at this property for a
couple of months but d Id not Quest ton I t• and that she fe 1 t i t loo4%ed a mess; that she tiad
not rec~ived a notlce of tl~ls meeting and haci found out fram her parPrits who live a couple
of blocks away. Sh~ tndicated she felt there were SOm~ peoDlr_ In thP ~~udlPnce earlier who
were ~~,osed b~ t who had t~ le~ve and had not come hac~: for this meetln~.
Gornr~lssioner Barnes asked M(ss Young the location of her home~ tryinc~ t~ determinP if her
rr.sidr.nce was within 3~~1 fePt of the sut~Ject property.
Miss Young indicated her home was closer to the subject property than her parents' home
and they had receiveri a notice, She Indicated that she goes by this prope~ty on her way
to work about 7:k5 a.m. and tha[ there are trucks par!ced on the stre~t~ and these are not
9/12/17
MIt~UTCS. ANAHCIM CITY PLAN NING CONMISSI~N~ SeptembPr 12~ i~77 77~~12
EIR NEG~TIVE DECLARATION 6 VARIANCE N0. 29F.7 (contlnued)
pickup truc~s but big trueks. She skatPd that she coulci see the trucks Inslcle thc wooden
fence; thr~t Qall Ro~d h~~s gone commerclal~ hut thnt she h~~te~f t~ se~ ~thr_r ~+ropertir.s
faclnq ~n ~cher strPetS st~~rting to qo commercial. ShP indtc~~te~~l she h~s owned her home
for two ye~irs and a motel had Just heen hut It. Sh~ st~terl 5h~ ciiri not think she should
p~y taxes far schools and other tl,inqs and n~t get the benefit from thcm; th~t she has a
b(g lot and su~gested she could put In a ch(cG~en farm If thts sort of thinn ts allowed;
AncJ that her hushand ~rould l~ve to st~y homc durinc~ thc ~iay~ to~.
Ch~ilrman Tolar aske~J ~rhy she had not Indicated her opposition earllcr~ ~nd Nl,s Young
inc.ltcated she did not hav e an agencla and dicl nnt kn~w whlch item hc w~~s rAferring to.
Mr. l.a~.~h~n in~1l~~te~l thit h~ rlld n[~t w~nt t~~ 5~~ rh(c ~r~~~rty h~!'~'~e c~'+~rtl~l; that he
wante~l to use it fnr living quarters. He indic~ted the fence ~•~~s ; fpet, 2 inches htgh
and that he has pl~ns to _yn -iiyl~er wil'h [he fence. Ne incflc,~ted therr wPre c~tf~r.r large~
13--•~hee) trucks on the streets fn his nPighF,orhood ~ind referre~l to ~ Gl~bal truck and
others which come Int~ the tract every ntght. Ile stated thc; subJPCt property had bpen
looking rundown for ~i lonq time; that he Is rc.~lly puttin~ i lot of moncy into it Since he
has purchasecl lt and has o*.'~er plr~ns for improvement; ~n~l th~t hc h~s contacted a man
re~arding the hloclc wall. He in~iicacecJ [hat after thP block a,nll (s constructed you will
not be able to see anyth~inc~; that trees wtll be plantecl anc! other (mproveinents made. He
felt this house woulrl t•~ :~n asset to the nei~hhorhoocl ~fter it has been restored. He
indlcate~l he (s askinci f~r ~5'1~ squ~rp feet ~f Crnperty t~ ~;t~re tires on ~nd scxne time to
clean up thc hcuse, plant trees~ and improv~ thF nr~perty.
CORtt~1~55I-ner Barne~s as~~.e:i Mr, La~•rf~on If he had nl.~ns to est,ahlish ~ hU5If1!`55 elsewhere,
.~ncf Mr, L~whon tndic~ted that he did. Ne lndicated th~re w.~s noc a l~t of proflt when you
are deallnc~ with an ecology-ha5ed business.
",missioner Barnes asked how long he had heen (n this businecs~ :.~nd he indicate~ two and
.~~~~-!~al f years.
Chalrman Tolar aske<1 aho ut the wor~ area f~r airtnq ~nd re~~ir5~ with Mr. Lawhon
indicating that he ~.~lrs up tires usinn a 11~-volt compress~r slm(lar to a paint
compressor~ which ls partially under a metil shed wtth ,iardly .~ny noise. Hc tndicated tf~e
only complaint he has had regarding n~ise was ~~hn_n a tirP which ha~f been aired u~ bounces
on the CP.~'lr_~t ar~d sh.~kes the house next door. He st~tr.d hc had (~ISCUSSPCI this with the
neic~hb~r next door and ha d promised him he wuuld takF care of the probl~r~ and that
neiyhh~r had no ~ther complaints~ and his hause was within 3~ feet of the subject
property.
Laura Lawhon~ the pet(Cioner's wife~ indicated whether they have this bustness or not~
they do have the right to park tlieir truc~s on th~ street.
Cammissloner Herbst asked if tl~ere was an ordtnance regardinc~ cc~mmercial trucks b~eing
~rked on residential streets.
FranF: Lowry indicated there is an ordlnance ~•~hich makes it (llegal to park trucks on a
street between 12:00 mid nlght and F:O~ a.m, in the ~ity of Anaheim. Chairman Tolar
indicated he felt this p roperty had more off-street parking than any r~ther site in
Anahelm,
qt~2/77
Mlr~ult5~ /~iIAtILIM I.ITY ~LNNi~li1G GuNHI~Siull, Septembcr 1;~~ 19ii ~i"r>>
EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARl1TIbN L V!-RIII~ICt N0. 29~7 (continucd)
Mr. Lawhon again st~ted that hr~ (n n~ w~~y, wanteci t~ ch~nne the r.~ning nf the nroperty;
that hr_ want~~d to enhance the value of thc pro~erty and ~•mulci do nothlnq t~ dim~nish the
v~lue ~f the ~rorerty. h~e Indicated thr~t hc- nwns ~~m~ ~thcr h~,~4 in th~ trar,C rl!~ht
b~~hind h(r~ an~J wou1J n~t want tn ciecrr.r,se th~ v.ilue ~f t.h~se h~n~~s.
Ch~~lrman Tolar ,~sked Mr. Lawhon whpn hr vfoul~l plan to hulicl thr. 1,1oc1 w;ill if thls, request
wns appr~v~c1~ ind Mr. Lawhon rn~,lleri ~h~t he c~uld si~rt tnn~rr~w.
Chalrman Tol~r askc~.f if thi~ tlres coul~~ ~e stacke~! I~wer th~n t~~c~ fence, .~n~l Mr. Lawhon
replicd that thr. st,aff r~~ort SI1AUIc~ have rr~~l thc tires are st~~cl~nri 1~ tires high and
th~t 1~ eirc~s wc~ul~1 come un to ahout 5 fret~ 2 inchrs~ ~nd thF fenc~ ~•~u1~1 be 7 or 8
inches h(c~her tha~ the tires,
Jay Tltus~ Uffice Enqineer~ st~tnd that ther~ is a Lot "'~" lndic~te~f r,~ the traet map
al~nc~ C1.3rPm~nt Strc,r_c ~,hich restricts -1r. La~~hon'S le~il access t~ CIAYf!r~pnt StrPet and
indtcated that lnt would have t~ he ~urc,ha5~d, '1rs, Laa,tinn ln~~lcited From the audience
th~~t thcy alre~dy rn•m~d th15 l~t.
Corxnissloncr Nerbst st~itecl thi[ the nrn~+~rty ~il~ng Rall Ro~ici is znn~d C~ ~nd is basitally
sttll residencial prr~perty anc! thls narticul~r ~iec~ of nronerty is ~5-11-h3~~~~'1; that this
corner ~~r,~s laft out of the z~nin~ ancl h~is hec~me .~ harcishi~ narc~l, Ile st~~tc~f it vx~uld
appear that this parcel could be devel~ped into h~mes~ ~articularly thn c~n~~ closest tc~
Ber,•y Street ~~nd ahutttng Clarr_m~nt Street. He thr~unht the Cc~rx~lssion v+c~uld open
"Pandar:~'S box" by allowing thls use t~ c~ntlnue hPCAUSr it wr~ul~l hn_ settinn ~ precedent
for othe.r nroperty owners t~ want to have simil~r c~^minrcial use~s. He felt it was an
encroachmr.nt Into the restdenti~~i are~~+ for cnmmerci~l use an~1~ 1n f:~ct, tt would not be
good planning to condone tt,is ty~e of orerati~n which ls nor~ industri~~l than ccxnmerclal
as far as the outdoor storage is conc~rncd. f.or~misstoner Nerhst stated he felt Mr.
Lawhon's intentl~ns wcre vcry good ~,nd he undcrst~od his rcas~ns for a~antino to use thc
prop~rty ~~ t',is manner~ hut th,3t hc ~iid not tabc into c,~nsider~tion the nelghborhood in
Its entire -; th~t the ~cccss ~f hls trucG:s on Ci.~rem~nt Strer.t, a residential street,
ancl makln~~ Jeliveries until 1~:0~ p.m. arould no[ be con~f~~cive to 9ood plinning and sho~~ld
not be ~1lowed to continur_.
Chairman Tolar statecl he agreed with Cor~miss(~ner Nerbst and re~tat~ci his feeling
concf~rninc~ dual use of the pro~erty; [`iat he recognized Ball Road is going commert(al but
that tlie peiltioner `~as electeJ t~ use this resl~j~ncP as his hcxne; tl~at h~ also
apprer'•~•~d whaG the petitioner was trying to accomplish and that his intentions ~rere
good~ h,~t the residents in that area neede~ ~rotectton hy elir~inating this di~a) use;
and s wondered iF the petiti~ner were living hehind this pronerty w~ulc! he not w~nt
the sar,,~ ~rotection if 5omc~onP else wanted to use tt~e property f~r husiness, lae indicated
at this po(nt he sttll has not heard enough to 311oa~ him to ~~~~~c favorably~ even for a
sh~rt period of time, Mr. lay~~ inclicated that hls ~.5e of thr_ praperty nroduces a
minimum amount of traffic and ,,~•sc up untl) the incic~ent r~ith thA Stant~n police~ he had
not botherPd anyone. Ne indicated the reason for the St,~nton police incident was that two
men were stealing tires on a mabilehor~e lot and when ~vked ~,here they v+ere taking the
tires~ they had lndicated they ~~ere hringl~~ theM t~ .~is business.
Mr. Lawhon tnciicated that he has done a tremend~us amouht of work on the house and that
his nelghbors have been s~:rprised with the appearance of the house on the inside~ and now
9/12/17
1~1f~1~tk~~ i+~~AilElll GiTY PI.ANNIN~ ~u1~Mf5~lui1~ yeptemi,cr It~ ly// i7-t~1~,
EiR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOM f VARIANCF NQ, 29G7 (eontinue~l)
hc w-shes to d~ somethlncl wtth the out~ide of thc h~usc. ConcPrnln~ tlr business~ '~r,
Lawhon indic~ited he was not pr~ductncl ~~rociuc:t or mnkinn ,~ nr~cluct~ it was strlctly a
procluct g~ing t~ w~str ~t th~ nr~SPnt [ime, nncl all hr~ n~~~ig iS stnr~c~r, AS f~r ~s th~
largc triicb. is conccrned~ he could ellminatc that r~nd c~uld m~v~ t.h~ tires on Sm:~ller
truc~s wlthout ~iny pr~~hlcros.
Comr~tssioner Llnn stated hc a~rn.ec! with Chalrr~~in Tolar in~f Co~misSinncr Ilcrbst that the
lot could be s~lit into RS-7?0~ lots and th~~ existin~ h~use c~uld 5[~iy ,~s it (s .and the
othcr ~1~1IP of thc property c~u1~1 he sold off as RS-7?^0 ~r wh7tev~r, He stated he aqreed
that the outdo~r st~r~yc is an tllegil us~ and that thc ~ctiti~ncr IS trytn~ to ~et two
uses on thc property.
Chairman Tolar indicatcd hc c~ul~i bc rnnre recentiva if the usr a:ere rior~ compatible with
thc neiyhborhood~ hut that outdo~r st~~r,i~~e Is sa far awiy fr~~n wh.it thc Crxnmission is
tryin9 to accomplish th~t h~ iust c~ula not su~~ort this request in ~ny wny,
ACTI0~1: Commiss(onr.r Davld offer~d a rrotlon, s;rconded -+y Corinissi~ner B~irnes ind ~~OTIf!N
AC~RRI[~ (Commis~toner Johnson temporarily ahsent)~ th,it the Annheir~ Clty Plannin~
Commtsston hos revie~,~ed the suh.ject r~r~ject cc~nsist' ~ ~f ap~roxim~icely n,~, i~re located
at the~ southe~~st corner of Ball Roid ~nd Cl,~remont :,trFet~ h~vin~ .,nnrox~~ace frantiqrs caf
75 feet on thc south sidP of ~all Ro-id ind 22^ feet on thc ~,ist siclr_ ~f Clarem~nt Strcet.
to r~tiin an existin~ wholesale tirc Stnr~~~e y~rd wlth walv~r ~f ~crr,itted uses; and ~Ir>es
heret•y ap~rove the Ilegative Decl~iratien from thr re~ulrr_r~ent t~ pre~,irP ,n environm~ntal
irnpact rerort on the hasis th~~t there rrould hc n~ s(nn(Ficant indivic!ual ~r cumutative
adversr environmenta) impact due to the npproval ~f chis 1leg~tivr neclarati~n sinct the
An~iheim General Plan desi~~n~tes the Suh)ect pror,erty for cor~r~ercl~l/~rofess(onal and
sln~iP-family ~esidential land uses cnrnr~ensurr-tc with thr pr~n~sal; th~t no sensitivc
environmenta) IMpacts are tnvolvr.d in the nro~osal; th~it thr.. Initiil Study sub~ittec! hy
the petiti~ner indicates no sic~nificint inclividual ~r cunulative a~iverse environmCntal
~~~p%~cts; and that the ~~e~atlve ~ecl,~ration suhstant(atlnq t~~~ f~reqoln~ fln~itn~s is on
f lle in the City of 1lnaheim Planning De~+artment.
ACTI~N: Commissioner David offered Resolution No. i'C77-?.~4 and moved for its passage ~nd
ad- option~ [hat the Anahelm City Planning Cammission d~es hrrehy deny Petlii~n f~r Varianee
No. 2~~~7 an the basis th~t the petitioner fatled to demnnstr~itc that a hardshin exists and
that thc size and shape of subJect pronerty ~•rould nermlt devel~pment of ;~ use m~re
canpatlhle with the surrounding properttes; and that the existinr~ ill~~~il USP~ ccxnbin~ I
witF~ thc c~xisting residentlal use, comnrises ~~n undesirahle, dual use ~f *he pro~erty.
On roll call~ the foregoing res~>lutlon ~,as passed hy the fnll~wing vot~:
AYCS: COM"115SIONERS: HER@ST~ BAR!IfS~ O.AVIb~ KINr,, LI~~`~~ T~LI'.^
NOES; COM'1lSSIO'IE'l5: NQ~1F.
TEMPO^,1' iLY AESENT: COMMISS IOtIERS: J011`~50~!
Frank Lo~~~ry~ Assistant City Attorney~ presented the petitloner with thc~ rrritten right to
appeal the Commission's decision within 27_ days.
C0~~~115510IIER JO~~~~SOr~ RFTU2NFI1 TO THE COUrJC I l Cf~A~1RER.
9/12/77
MINUTE:S, AI~Af1EIM CITY PLANIJING COMMISSION~ Septernber 12~ 19Jj 1I'hi5
(TEH N0. 1~ PUBLIC NE~1RI~~r,~ OI~TJf.R; DF.Ll1~1~~ LT~.~ tOqy North
IR A ?~tlC~I.LY Cxt~1f'T-CLASS 1 Maln Str~et~ Sulte D~ ~r~nge~ CA ??~,(7. IIGENT:
O~IbI IOF~~L USC En'1 N. 17 JAMES R. RREWSTE?~ 1!722 Nale Avenue~ Irvine~ C~
4271~i. SuI~JPCt ~roperty is ~i rcctanhulariy-shaped
parcel of land c~nslstinn of appr~xtmately (1.5
acre locateci a~ rhe southwest c~rn~r of Ltnc~ln llvenuc onci Del~no Stre.rt~ h~~ving ~pproxt-
mate frontage~ nf l~h fee[ ~n the south ~idr~ of Lincoln hvenue nncl 1(3 feet on [he west
side ~f Dclan,_ Str.~zt~ an~1 further descrihc~l as 3~~~ West Linc~ln 1lvenue. REO,~lEST IS FOR
!1 C~t10IT I ONAL USC PF:R-11T TQ FXPAND A D^, IVF-THROII~,N Rf StA1~R~NT.
J, J. Tashiro~ llsststant Planner, tn~it~Ac~a a petltlon ht~d been recelved in favor of the
rcyu~st cc~nt~~ini~g ?.7 si~natures an~.l th~t ~ne lett~r ha~i heen receive~l tn ~ppositlon to
the re~uest. J. J. T~ashi r~~ reici the lfrttcr from Jusl in T. ~tuscel 1 n5 fol lows:
~'I obj~^ct t~ any rxpanslon to pe) Taco !~cc~use it attr~,cts many nolsy~ l ittcrbug
cu .t~~r~~rs.
I b~licvrr in a husiness hein~, succcssfu) and pros~r_r~us hut n~t ~it the expense of
ot-»rs. D. 7. ~lne5 not havc v~rY q~o~~ cor~trol ~f thcir customers.
As an ex~~;n~lr: Som~. ~f their cust~,ers~ ~•~hile oraitin~ (n line for thelr order~
gun the mot~rs ~n th~ir cars which hav~ v~ry nnisy muffler5~ oFten latc ~t nlte.
They speecl c~ut c,f p. T. squeelinq tl~eir tires in front uf our .inartment builcl(ng
or in thr n11PV, Wc h~~vc r.vcn ha~1 sev~ril that ran into aur hullctinq.
~. T. clocs n~i hnvr en~u~h n~irl inq r,ow~ inc{ the trafflc fl~w is dlrected onto
Delano Strect ~ifter their purch~~se~ r~herc thcy .r,it. mishehave an~1 throw out
trish.
Delan~ is not a thru street. We hive to pick. D. T. cupa~ nap~in~ an~i bags from
c~ur 1~~F~nS, street and ~lley at Ie.~st nnce each Jay.
~. T. someLimes turr~ up their loucl speakers wtiile customers a~e ~rdcrin~.
(1) To ccrrect D. T. sl~oul~ not Fwve any exit ~n De13no Street whatever. All
exits shou'.d be onta Lincoln for safety and to help c~rrect the trash problem.
To contlnue on Lincoln traffic must cross 2 lanes both south and north.
(2) A~all ~r it least tall shr~aht~crv should hc installeci on th~ ~clanc~ Street
s i cie of D. 7.
s/Justin 7, Mostell
112. Del~no Street~ Apt. 2
Owner of ~4 units"
Jar~es f3rew,ter. iF,722 Nale Avenur_, I~vine~ agent for the ~etitioner, ~~as present and
indicat~d his desire to increase thP dlning ~rea of the Del Taco restaurant by 14 feet.
THE PU[iLIC NEnRIN~ WAS CLOSED.
Cornriissioner King asked the petitioner to clarify ;he pl.~ns regardinn the proposed K-foot
high blocl; w~ill along the south property 1(ne. Mr. Bre~~ster staYed he would have to check
q/12/77
t11I~UTCS~ 1ttInNEIM CITY PLA!l~Ilrlr ~OHMISS~~~~, SF~rPmh~r 12~ 197'1 7~-(1(>
EIR CATEGORICALLY EXE'tPT-CL~SS 1~ CONOITIONAL USE PERNIT N0. 17~i4 (contlnued)
Into thr. f~ntlnys but that this ax,uld either he <~n acldltl~n tn th~ ~xistin~ fence or
another fence ~•xiuld hr c~~nstrur.tcd~ nncf Canrnlsslonrr Y.inq In~1(r..at~~l h~ w,~s conce~rned that
thc pr,tltloner ~lanned nn having trro scp~r~~te wills, to which -1r. Brc~•~ster replled thls
Wd5 nOt tlle C05e.
f.ommissi~ner King asked ~~h~t was the rurpasr. of th~ 2-foot ~~~.ill ic thc west pr~perty Ilne.
Mr. Drewstor rc~l(ed there was n~ pu~p~se hut he thou~ht thFr~ r~ns nn existln~7 w,~ll
thcrc~ and Comr~,(ssl~ncr -ting rc~lied that h~ d(d ~.cc i~•»11 hut th~r~ ~l~75 some ~reenery
thcrc.
J. J, Tashir~~ ll5sistant Pl,~nner~ indic~~teJ there ~•~,~s n~ reaulre~~nt sincr th~ idjaeent
property is ,~15e> >one~l cumrnercl~~lly.
Chatrman Tol~r incilcitc~i hc dld n~t ;cc n.'.-fo~t will o~ th~~ ~~l;~ns.
Cammis~ioner ~Ierhst in~1(cated he ~»s c~nc~rned ~houl th~ ~arhinn in~1 thr• 17-fo~t drivr-
throuc;h. ?hcrc ti~~a5 ,~ hrief discussl~n re~nrdln~ thc nnrl~in~~ ,~nd ih~n C~xnm(ssloner Hrrt~s=
as~:ed thc ~ctitlon~r If he a-oulri stipulite to r~~l~siqnln4 thc~ 3 innlc-l p~rking s~ac~~K
olonq Lincaln Avenue tn ?. ~~rallel p~rbinc~ snnces, ~~~hich Mr, Rrc~•~ster igre~c! t~ c1n.
Conu~issioner Y,ing e~mmented [hat he th~u~ht thi5 ~•~~s ~ne of thr cle7n~st snots ~n ~r~n~n
County ind w~is Impressed with ttic c~recnery ,~t thi5 sitc,
ft was n~~ted [hat the Dlrector of the Plannin~ ~erartment has ~feterr~lned t'•,ac tr^ ~roposed
activity falls wlthin thc dcfinltion ~f Sectton 3.^1, Cl~~ss 1~ ~f ~h~ CSti• ~~ ~~~.ihe(m
~~uide•lines t~ the Rec~uirement5 for an Environm~nt~~l Im~act Re~ort ~jn~~ is, t-~ern_rrre~
c~~tcc~orically exempt from the re~ulrr_r+ent t~ flle an EIR.
ACTI~'~: Commissiancr Y,in~ offcred Resolurton ~~o, PC7~-2~; an~! r~~ve-i fnr irs nassage and
ac~tTon~ that the An~hetm City Plannin~ Ccx~mission does her~hy nrant F~tit~on for
CanditEonal Use Permir. No. 17~+4~ subJect to the stl~ulation th~t the• u«~~icioner will
reclesign the 3 annled par'r.ing sp~~ces al~rg Lincoln Avenue tn ? nC~r.~l ~~1 ~~rkinc~ spaces;
saici p~ans to be rCVlewed hy and approved by the Planninn Canm(s~i~n prinr to the issuance
of a building t~ermit; and subJect to Intcrdepartmental Co~mittec rf~-~rndations.
On roll c ll, the fore.goinq resoiution was passed by t`ic foliowing vote:
AYES: COM"1155 IONERS; Hf.REST~ BAR~~ES ~ U1V i(~, J~IItJCn~l ~ Y,1 N~~ ~ l I"a~l, T~L~R
NOES: COMHISSIONERS: NONE
P~DSE'IT: COMIiIS510t~ER5: NO~~F.
17GM N0. 11 PUf~LIC HE/1'tl!!~. (11~!FIER: SNAW AND T~LB~T, 1303
Elft C~ EGORIC~LLY EXEMFT-Ct/t~S 1 ~vocado~ '~earport deach~ CA ~?~(~. AGfNT: H041AR0
OND N L USE. R'11 N0. 1 F. T~~~)'tPS~~I, 2~3~ East ~~th Street~ Suite 2~2,
Santa Ana~ CA ?2?n,. Subject propcrty is an
irregularly-shap~d parcci of land conststing of
approximately ~.; acre, having a front.~ge of appr~ximately 11-+ feet on the cast side of
Osprey Circle, having a maximum depth of approxim~~teiy 121~ ~eet, heinn located approxi-
mately 21~ feet north ~f the centerline of Eaa1e Drive~ and further ciescrihed as 1176
Osprey C( rcl e. REQUEST I S FOR A COHD IT IOriAL USE PERM I T Tc1 PEZM iT Ol1T(~(~04 STEAMCLEAN I NG
OF FORY, LIFTS.
Th~re was no one indicating their presence in uppositlon to the request, and a~though the
staff repart to the Planning Commission daLed September 12. 1~77. was not re~3d at the
public he~~ring~ it is referred to and made a part of the mtnutes.
9/12/77
MINU7CS~ nr~nNtlM CITY PL~1i~~ili~G CONMlSSION~ Se~t~mh~r 12, 1977 77-h17
EIR CATEGORICALLY EXENPT-C1A55 1 E CON~ITIOriAI USE PERMIT M0. 1746 (contlnued)
Jim Smith~ opPrator of the Ablc Fork Lift Cor~~~any, w.ys ~r~sent t~~ nnaw~r any questtons A~d
(ndtcated hP w~a apnlyin~ fc~r a condlt.lonal us~ nr.rmit f~r ~,t~im clc~nln~ tn the yard
only. He Indtcatcd hr. ha~i pl~ins showinn the hui l~iin~ hr, o,nul~l h~ ~cc~ipYln~1.
T-~F PUf~LIC NE~RI-~~ uAS CL~SfD.
It was natr.d thr Direct~r ~f the Planni~~ De~~rtmcnt h,~s ~1~terr~in~d tnat ihe ~ropascd
actlv(ty falls withln the definition of Secti~n 3.~1~ Cliss 1, ~F th~ City ~f ~nahelm
Guidelines t~ the R~~uirements fnr in Environm~nt~il Rcp~rt ~n~~ Is~ therefnrc~
ca teyor I c.~ 1 1 y exempt f rom thc requ i rernc~nt t~ f i 1 e,in E I R.
ACTION; CoRxni,sioncr Herhst off~:rc~l Re,olutic,n "!o. pr7J_?^~ ~n~~ mnvrri for ltg c~assaqe and
a<~~on~ that thc Anahclm CttY Pl~inninn Cc~mr~issl~n clons hrr~f~y gr~~nt Pctitlon for
Condition~l Us~ Perm(t No. 17~~~~,
Prior tc~ v~tfn~ on thc foregoing resolution~ COr~~1TSSIOf1(`r Johnson n51•ed ~bout the notse
from the steam cleaning on the ~ut5lcl~ nf thr.. f~uilcfinq~ ~~ith thc ~et(il~ner lnd(cating
ther, amuld he vFry 1lktlc noise.
Corm~issioner Johnson also aske<i ihout the -.ir~~in.~ne, wlt~~ th,~ ~setiti~ner indicar,Inq the
drainage ~muld he hooi:ed up ic~ the. sewer In thc strr.ci~
A time limit w~is c~ISCU55Cc~ hy Ch~~lrman Tc~lar ~ind Commissi~ner Johns~n due t~ thc*. sizablc
investme:nt. Commissionr.r Johnson in~ilc~~ted he di~i not feel this w~s necessAry.
On roll c~ill, thr f~reg~in~ res~lutIon w~s ~~~issp~i hy the foll~winq vnte:
AYES: GOM`" I SS 10~lLRS; N~RPST, LAR~fES, D~V 17 ~ KI t~r, ~ L I`I+! ~ T~L^R
N~~S: C0~1'~ I SS I~NEPC; ~~~~~~5~~1
AItSC~lT: COMM I SS 10'lER.'~ : NOtif
ITEF! NQ. 12 P~ICLIC HE1RI'!~. !)',1NE~.: A'"E^IfA"~ "~P,TfONA!
El~t~ GnPICl1LLY EXEMPT-CL~~S 1 PR~PERTIES~ 1~7~~ Milliken .avenue~ Irvine~ CA !l2714.
OIJ~I Inr~Al. ~JSC E'tMIT N~. 17+~ AC,E~JT: WEPER STATInNF.ZY~ I~IC.~ 134 West Lincoln
Avenue~ An~helm, CA 97.'t~5. SubjecC property ts a
rectangul~~rly-shAped ~~~~rtel ~f lan~l consisting of
appraxinately 2.~ acres~ havinn a front~4e of a~proxlmately 275 fect on thc nnrth side of
La Palm,3 Avenue. having o maximum depth ~f a~~proximately -~~^ feet~ beinq located approxi-
mately 8~3~ feet east of the centerline ot "1a~nolia Avenu~~ ancJ further described as 2511
West La Palma Av~nuc. RE(~UEST IS FOR A CONDITIO'~.4L USE PERMIT TO PER"!IT RETAIL 5AI.E5 IFJ
THE ML ZOI,E.
There was n~ one indicating thelr presence In opposition to this requcst, and although the
staff re~ort ta the Planninc~ Cor~lssion dated Septemt~er 12~ 1~i7, w.is not rea~i at the
public h~aring~ it is referred to and made a part of the min~~tes.
Dale E111s from Weher St~t,onery was present to answer any questions. Nc referred to the
le*.ter which had heen submitted to the llnaheim City Pl~nninct Commission dated Auaust 11,
1~77, reg~rding this c~~.:itlonai use permit and the reason it is being requested (a copy
of this letter is on file (n the City of Anaheim Planning De~art~ent).
THE PUBLIC NEARINr WAS CLOSE.U.
Q/12/77
f41~~UTC~~ l11lN1CIM CITY PI ANNING COMMISSION~ Septembe~ 1%~ 1~7J 77_(,1~
EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT-CLl~SS 1 t, CON~ITIQNAL IISC PERMIT N0. 17~+~ (contlnue~i)
Commisslonrtr Harnes asked ho~, many cnst~+cra ax~ulcf thc St~rr h~iv~ ~ft~r It 5witched over
t.o the cc~mmerc.tal ~~ccounts. Mr, E111s repllecl th:~r is ic stnn~is n~w, normAlly there are
n~t mo~e than 1~1 cust~mers ~~t onc tir~e in the st~re~ but th~t they ire r~~iucing the ftoor
spacc and euttiny out many of the Ite~s that ar~ conclucivc t~ ln-St~re tr~ffle~ ~nd St~~tPd
he fclt therc wnuld prohably hr_ nr~ more th~~n 5 cu5tnmcrs at .~ny onP Llme.
Co-'xnissioncr Rarnes ~s~'ec1~ clurinn tl-c c~ursc ~f thr ~1ay~ hnw m~~ny C~iStnmr_r5 w~uld he
est imat~ they aroul~l havF1
Mr. El l is ln~ficatc•<1 th.it ~erha~s t'~~rr ~mul<i ~~c 1~~ cust~~m~ra tn •i i~~y.
f,o~nmissi~ncr Ilcrhst ~~sl'.cd ~~hat pcrc:rnt~~n~~ nf t`',c ~:i',inr5s 1•~~i1~~ ~~ r~~+erci~l v~rsus
Jel lvery tr~~de~ ~•~tth Nr. Fll is st~~ting t!~at ir-stnrc~ sal~s ~r~ ~~r.nroximately ~ne-half at
thc ~resr_nt tlnc~ hut arhen thcy move thcy ~J~ n~t ~~risl~ t~~ ~~~'~~isl:.c ln-store sales. Ne
expr_cte~~ that fi~~urc to hc reducecl t~ 1.~1 of thc snl~s ~nci fclt th~ futur~ ~rowth would
not c~me frnn, in-store s,~l~s hut from ~~utsi~le s~l~s ~in-i they Px~~cted ih~ pereentage to
dr~n.
Ch.~irman Tal,ir indtcated hc ~•~,~s not s~itisficcl an~1 f~lt. th.~ C~~issi~n wis ~~tting into
samc v~ry clangcr~us c~round. Ne st~~ted this ~•ri~: onry of thr.sP 5ltuations wh~re hc could
~nly vatc f.~vor~hly If ~ timc limit ~~as inv~lved. 11e Stitcd thnt since he had heen on the
Cnin~nisslr,n, he had seen ind,strial zones pr~selytr~l ~•~ith c~~-^~~rcl~il ventures and thought
the intention ~~~as very honorat~le in rcliti~~nsl~i~ t~ 'r~;e~ina thc nunh~r of people down to a
~~holesale distrihution; he felt lf thcy did not c~r.t the ~~holes~ile ~listrlbution, then they
would be go1n~ hac4. into ret~i) S~ICS. !1e st.7ied they have t~ sc}) thr•lr ~+roduct and tf
they c~~nnat h~ve the ~•~holesale ~listrihution~ thcn th~y a:ill h~. trylnn to ~et the foot
traff(c hack. He st~ted th~ii thr_. Co~is~ion has never allowe~i in nverabun~iance of
eomr!~erclil intc> industria) p~irks unl~5s it was rclatc~i to in~iustriil ~15^5 in thF arca.
Co!-misslonrr Oarnes stated sevr..ral requc,ts h.id hren arantPd in thc industri~l area with
the requlrc cnr that they he related to the hUS~~rSSPS thrre~ ~~n~{ s'~e felt that this was
onc of the closest in relationshi~ to tt~e huslnesses bec»usr. th~ usr is a statt~nery-type
business.
Commissi~ner Kinn in~iicated that the City ~f l1n,~heim is reSn~nsihle for this move because
of the reclevel~~ment project in the ~rea.
Chairman Tolar indicated he fclt there w~s nt• ty ~f c~r*-r-~erci~il s~~~ce (n the. ~'owntcwn area
and felt hc w~uld lik~ to s~e Weher Statlonery 5tay downk~wn.
Camr,sissioner aarnes stated sh~e would hate to think. th~~t this coulci hr. ~i conditlon the
Commission coul~i use in the futur~.
!t w~is noted that the Director of the P1<~nning Department h~as determinect that the proposed
actlvity falls within the definition of Sectton 3.~1, Cl~ss 1, of the City of Anaheim
Guldelines ta the Requlrements for an Environment~l Impact Re~ort an~i ts~ therefore~
categoricaily exempt from the requirement t~ file an EIR.
AC710N: Cortmt3sioner 8arnes offe~ed Resolution ~la. PC77-?.~7 and moveci for its passage and
a~tTon, that the Anaheim City Planninct Commission do~s herchy nrant Petition for
~onditional U,e Permit No. 17~~R~ subJect to revlew hy thc Planntng Commission at the end
of a two-year period to determtne whether tt~e use remains primartly industrial in nature
9/12/77
,
7
MINUTCS~ ANAIIEIH CITY PLANIIII~C COMMlSSt0~1~ Septembcr 12~ 1977 ~~"~'»
EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMP7-C1ASS 1 E CONDII'IONl1L ~!Sk: PER'11T N0. 1748 (c~ntlnu~d)
with a sec~ndary ~c~r~merclal functir~n and Ii~~S n~t b~rn ~IrletCr'IOUS t~ the surroundtnq
industrial uses,
On rc,it call~ th~ f~reqoing res~lutian was ~~,SS~d hy th~ followinn vnt~:
AYCS: CQM~11 SS I ~tIE~'~ : HC~t~ST ~ BARNf.S, D.n!~ I ~~ J~11-15~~! ~ Y.) N~~ ~ L I'1'!, T~l,~~
P~OES: COMt~IISS10~lER5; N~tlF
AR~ENT: CC`1'11551~-JERS: N0~lE
ITEN N0. 13 P!1PLIC NF~IRII~tG, ~~,~NE'~: LII.YN1 P. I.YH!1~ ALFRCD F.
~ CA ~G~RIC,ILLY EXEHPT-CLA55 3 SKLItTII AN~ NO~i~Rf) LY~~~J~ 7~^ North Roxbury~ Aeverly
O~~C~I i I~N~;L USE ERHIT N0. 17,~ Hi 1 Is~ C~ '~~?t~, A~CtlT: '1~IFFLE4 Ml15TER5~ INC. ~
1~~0 Dovc Strret~ '~~?^~ '~e~~~~~rt R.~~ch, C!1 ~~f~fi~.
Suhiect property is ~~ rrctanciularly-shaped p~rcel
of lan~1 c~nsistina ~f ~~pnr~xim,~tely .3 ~cre locite<I at thr n~~rt~~east corn~r of 8a11 Road
and Ma9n~,1(a Avenue, having approximatc front~~qes of 12~ fc.r.t on th~ n~rth side of flall
Roa~ ind ~4 fcr.t on the e~st side ~f Ma~n~lia Av~nur.~ ind furthrr ~lescribed as 25~1 West
Bat1 Roau. RE~)UEST IS F~R !l C0~»ITI~~~~L u5E PfR~~1T T^ pC^~~IT ~ r?/1KF A~~"~ r~iiFF~F!?
s-in~.
Thcre w:~s nn onc indicating thclr presrncc in onposltion to this rc~ucst, and ~lthough the
staff report to thc Planning Gor~missi~n ~'~te~i Se~temhcr 1?~ 1'~77~ ~~ris not rcad at the
publ ic !~e~rin~, it is referred t~ anJ r~adr_ ~ part ~f thc+ m~nUt~S.
J. J. Tashlro, ASS~5C~int Pl~inner~ lndlcatc~i that thcrc ~~~~s ,,,n error In the staff rep~rt
indicating thr_ ,uhject p,arcel was 3.5 icres, and lt st~ould hive re~~l .? acre.
The petitioner~ Robert !?vArdc~vest, representin~ ~luffler Mast~~rs~~ Inc., was present and
stated he ~qreed with all c~nditions cif th~ staff rerort~ hut ctue5ti~n~e' Condition No. 3
rec~ardin~ thc strr.et lights~ st,itin~~ thev ~~r~ alre,i~iy exl~,tin~ ot this lor.ation.
Chalrman 7olar pointe~l out if the li~hts ~r~ in and paid for~ the ~etitt~npr will not
havc to p~~y f~r them analn.
~1r. OverdevPSt ind(cated they had discovered thc ex(t ~n Magnolia ~•x~uld nut the wrb cut
right over a storm drain and asked that they be a11r~Yred t~ move thit eyit ~ or 7 feet
towards tfie tntersection.
Cor~rnissioner King pointed out that there was a cunc ~ut in the north proprrty line and
askcd why hc could not put his drive~~~ay at that point.
The ap~.licant indicated th3t he ~•-oul~i then have to move the buildin~ to make the turn~ and
he indtcated this would eliminate parking and, also~ if they wante~f to expand the building
later~ tt~ey could not do it. Ne st~ted that th~ vol~~me of trafftc fror~ a servlce station
with four different exits and t~•ro of tF~em very Close to the intersecti~n would be vastly
different from what they propose; that their volumc of traffic ~ro ut~i he 1~ to 12 cars ~er
day~ witl~ abaut 15 c~rs on Saturday, whtch is ebout Sz or 1~3 of the traffic from a
service station. The applicant Endicated that there will be ~11 new curbs~ gutters and
sidewalks r~ith extensive landscaping.
THE PU9LIC HEAr,1NG WAS CLOSED.
g/12/77
MIf~UTES~ ~NANEIM CITY PLANNIN~~ COMMISSION~ Septembcr 12, 1~71 77-F2~
EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CL~,55 3~ C~NOITIONA~ U;E PERMIT N0. 17b~ (continued)
Cumrilss(~nrr Ltnn ~sked Paul Singer~ Trhffic Enc~tnc~r, hls opininn ~n movin~ the ~riveway~
an~l he indicated he would likr cn ser_ ~i11 ~lrivcw~~ys on nrt~ri,ii ,,re~ts be 11~ feet fr~.,m
the corncr.
The appllr.int (ndicated that th~ dr.vel~rmNnt ~n the c~rnrr ,~cr~~ss fr~r, thts nroperty (s
lncatacl 21~ feet anci 31a fc~et from the intersection~ w.hlch yK~UI~I hc c~nsi~ler~bly closer to
thr. ir~tersect ~on th~an a~hat is ~r~poc~d here. Th~ a~~t ic~nt ln~iir,.~trrl he wc~uld 1 ike to put
a ric~!~~-tu~n oniy sic~n ~nr.o Ma~nolii.
Chalrm,~n Tol~~r Indtc~~ted he r~ould lnsist up~n th~t; that hc~ ai,is r,~nc~rne~l th,~t If someone
sloa~s down ~n Maqnolia ancl somPOne else ls cnr,lnn ,~raunri thr corn~r from Q,~1) Ro<ac1~ lt
woul~! he i d,ina~rnus aitu~rlnn,
Thc ap'~lic,~nt st•~ted thnt 1f the ~Irive~-,ay is i~c~ve~f further n~rth, it a.~nulrl he necessary to
m,,4~~ a 1';~-denreF turn~ and this ~vo~~lri n~~[ he rr~ctic,~l,
Comrnis~inncr Hcnc~t su~c~estccl puttinq thc~ "L" ~h~~n~d huilcfin~ nt ,i ~iiffc•rr_nt locatiun.
The .~rchttect~ JameS f3uchannon~ statc~l th.it it WAl1IlJ he neces,<iry t~ r~akr. i qutek turn,
and to move th~ b~~il.!in~a and try t~ ne~oti:+tc a 1'~~-dcclrr.c~ turn tn ~et hac~~ ,~round to the
srrv i r_e h~iy5 a~~>u I~J ~~e v~ry conqe ~ t 1 vu,
Ch,~irm.~n Tol:tr ~skecl Mr, f'.uchannon lf h~• hn~i cr.nsirl~rc~~ fhr n~~clbility of having an
in~re5-, frnm f3a11 Roacf an~i r~n r~rrss nnt~~ -~~~~1nr,li~~, a~ith ,i riqht-turn exit c+~ly onto
M~~ynol i,~.
Thc p~titionar lnrlie:~tr.d this w~~u1~1 hc f(ne.
Thcre w,~s a brief discusslon as th whet',er or not this ~r~u1J h~ crfnrcc.ihlc~ ~yith the
applic;~nt rtatin7 he ~~auid put u~ siqns :+nd p~int .~rrrn~s ~n th~ ~aver•~en; to Chis effect,
Ca^unissi~ncr Herhs[ asked ~~hat ti~ou1J he the riifficulty of c~inn ovqr the storm d~ain~ with
the ~ppijcant re~l~inr, ther~ r»s only 5 or ~. feet [hat was hPin~ di5cusse~l. 11e indicated
hc ha<I loo4;ed .~t the storm drain and lt ~ppe,~red thi ,+vas the only one; that if you qo
further on '~aqnol ia~ th~re is n~~ othr_r storT dra;n, ~~rhtch Hroul~f in~ifcate that this
catchh~sin is a de:~dr_nd, and th3t he cou1J n~t pluq into the storr*~ clrain; that If he went
closer t~ the intersectlon he woutd he lnterfering ~•,ith the City as f~r ~s [he City's
storrr drains are c~ncerned; and Iie stated h~ r~as aqree~hle to the entrancc ~nly off g3~~
Road and exit onto "taqnolia Avenue,
It a~as n~xr.d that th~ Direr_tor of the Planninc; Department has determined that th~ proposed
activity falls ~•rithin the ci~flnition of Section 3.~1, Class ~~ of thiF City of Anaheim
Guideilnes to the Requtrements for an ~nvironme.ntal Imnact 4epor[ and is, therefore~
c~tegorically exem~t frc~ the requirernent t~ file an EIR.
AC?'I~rl: Commissioner Johns~n offered Resolutlon No. PC77-2.~A and mover' for its passage
and adoption, that tlie Anahcim City Planning Commission does hereby ~rant Petition for
Conditiona) Use Permtt No. 17~+~+~ subJect t~ the netitioner's stipul~tlon to designate the
access point on Magnolia ~venu~ as a rtght-turn only er.it, satd driveway to t,e posted with
a nppropriate signs and arrows painted on the pavement so desic~nating.
Paul Singer stated he +~rould stil) recom~r,er~d that the driveway be movec! hecause right turns
from private property are not enforceahle.
q/12/77
'~ ~
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNi~lG COMMISSION~ September 1?.~ 1Q77 ~~-l.Z~
EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-Cl,hSS 3~ CONDITIO~JAL USC PER`11T N0. 174~ (continurd)
Ch,~irrian Tolar inclicatsd that thc ~ctiilonr..r statc~l he w~,ul~i r~>st the proprrty wlth signs
an~1 arrows on thF pivement.
On roll call, the for~*goln~ ~Pgolutlon was pr155r..;1 hy the fc,lln~~in~~ vot~:
AYf. S: CQMM I SS I OI~ERS : Rl1R~l~ 5, D~.V I 0, J~HNSt'-I ~ K I ~J~ ~ L I IIF~ ~ ~ ~L~~'?
NOCS: CO'~I.MISSIQNERS; NEPPST
NDSE~lT: COM!~ I SS I nNERS: tln~~F~
RECFSS Thcrc~ ~•~~~s a f ive-minutr~ r~cn,s .it ?; 3~ n,~~,
RECutIVE-.II[ Thc mcr.tin~~ w~~5 rec~~nvencd ~t ";4^ n,m, H~ith ,:~11 Cdrx+iissinn~~s presrnt.
ITLrt N~. 11~ PuPLIC HC~1~In~. rn'-lC~s: rtll_FS Atl~ EMIIY f;uICNET,
EIR CItTCGOP.IC~,LLY fXE~iPT-CL/1SS 3 1~~ Str,~~1n Fl~ce, 11n<iheim, C~ ^''^0~, Subieet
II~RIlIt;CE N~. ?~ 3 property ts an irreaul,~rty-shanc~~!
~~i rce 1 of 1 and
Cr~nS~5LIf1~ ~f ~~~~roxim~tcly 1.1 ~c.res located at
the cul-de-s~c terr,inui nf Strac~:~ Place~ haviny a
frontac~e of ~~pr~xirnitely ;~! feet on th~ n~rth si-!~ of Stra~J~ P1,3ce, h~vin~ n naximu~
depth of ~~nr~ximytely ?~3; fcet, and furthe.r descrlhed ,as 1~~ Strari,i F'lace. ^E~)IlES7 IS
F~n, wa1~~[r, oF ~~I~i1~~~~~1 r.cr~u~r[~ SET~~,C~' TG C~NST~+~C7 A TE'I'lIS C^~~I'T,
Thcre ~•~r~s no ~n~ (nJ i c~~t ( nn the i r prese~ce 1n .~p~os i t l~r. tn ~he request ~.~nci ~i 1 thaugh the
staff rco~~rt tn thc Pl,innin~: Co^+mission <iat~cl Septembcr 12~ 1^77~ was not read at the
publ ic hearing, i[ is referred tn and r~•~de a nart ~~f t',c r~inutcs.
It w~s nc~ted th~it thc Hill and Canyon Municipal ~dvis~ry Corr+nitt~c (I+~~CM~C)~ with 10
members prr_sent at Its P,unust 3~tk, mcrtin~~ hid w~~trd unanirrn~.~5~y tn rec~~nmend ,ipprovil of
Variancc N~, ?~~~3,
J. J. Tashir~~ ~ssist~int Plinnr_r~ indicatrya [hat ,~ letter h.~d heen rr_c ive~l in r,pposition
fror, Joan Caln, 11;1 f,crr~ '/ista Way~ .~lnaheir~~ CA ~?Pn7~ ,3n~1 rrid thr letter ~t the meeting
(a copy of said 1et~rr is on file in the ~itY of Anah~ir~ Pl~nn(n~ Depart~+ent). 'tr.
Tashiro als~ inclicated th~t a pr.titton ~•~ith fivn si~~n~itures cnciorSinq thP request had heen
rece i ve~.i .
Choirman Tolir asked the location of the suh~ect ~ron~rty fn relatinnship to "trs. Cain's
property.
The ~pnlic~int. Niles Guicliet~ s[ate~f that the s~ro~erty is iust to the north~ below the
subject property. He indic~ited he ha~f sp~ken wtth Mr. Ca(n before hc had the plot plan and
felt therr ~~as ~o prohlem; that ~ir. Cain had stated he wanced to see the plan, and the one
he had sho4~n him did not have the landscaped screenln~ shown on the corner; that it was
about 2~ tineal fect of fencing they ~,r.re talkinn ahout; an~i that he had heen over several
tir~es t~ visit Mr. Cain hut he ha~i been out of town and he h~ci not brCn .~ble to contact
him~ and he wanteci to show him the plan indlcatin9 the corner wil) he scr~•ene~i. He
indlcated that the light ~tandard is not ~•~ithln 15 fee~ of the property; that they planned
to put in ta11 1y-gallon a~~d 2u-inch tuh• sf~rub~ and tr~es which~ within twc~ years, would
completely sc-c~•n that corne~; ttiat if he could have explai~ed this plan to M~. Cain, they
couYd P~ave overcorne tF~is obJ~ction; and that !~e felt the letter was written without
knowledge of wh~,t was intended.
9/12/77
MINUTES~ ANAHCIM CITY PLANNINR C~MF115SION~ Septamber !2~ 1477 ~]-~~~
EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 3 b VAKI~NCE N0, 2~h3 (continu~d)
THE PUt~LIC NEl1RING WI1S CL~Sf~,
Commission~r Jahnson asked if hc had c~nsidcred dPnre~ssina th~ iernts cnurt, anci the
applicant re~ 'ed th~it he ~ilrea~fy nl~nncd t~ d~prn5s the court. The slo~r_~ of th~ land and
thr_ c~r~dc ~,ere discusse~l,
Commissioncr Ktnn referred to the sethacb renu~st f~r ~ to 7 f~~t an~1 ~iskc~i where the 7
fe~t ard cl fe~t were. J. J. TAShfr~ r~lnt~~i out thit this wns th~ f~nr,P Itself which
ab+~ts the pr~~,~rty 1 ine; th,~t tl,~rc is ~i iS-fnc,t srth,ick rcnulrem~nt for ~~-11 struct~res
~~nd thls is a fPncr. In exces~, ~f r fcAt~ in a,hich casc ~~~ would crnst~l~~r th,it ~is a
slructurc.
Comr,l5sioner J~hnson indic,ited he felt it would he ~ crir^r. t~~ h~vr. to put i v~riA~ee on
$ach ~ I~iryr ~lecc+ of pronerty ~1 noinr.c~i nut this ~~,.is ~ v~ry dern lot.
Cornitssl~ncr Linr~ st.it~cl he wo, c~ncerr~d fnr the r~:~n 1 ivin~ helow; thnt thcre was no
qucstion hut that I~c ~rc~uld h.avc t~ 1~~~• at th(s t~nnis c.~urt. He ~st~cd h~w close it was
t~ thn ~r~~erty 'ine and if it will he adj~c~nt tn the n~i4hhnr~s livtna ~rea.
Cmily r,uic~,ec~ r~ife of the ~~~titicmPr~ indi!;ate~d th~~t "~r, Cain ~,,as hr~r hacky.~rd nelghbor
and that h~• is .~Iso bui ldi~ ~ tennf, cnurt ind It is with(n 1~; fc~t ~f th~ property 1lne;
that they ha~l nc•t rH~uesteu ~-, vari;.~nce~ ancl indicated th~t the v~iriancP nr~c~ded ri~~s only on
tlu• back, corne~r of th~ property; ~ind thit th~y cr~uld ~~~t even put ~ fc•nce in that eorner
and 1~^[ thc hall; q~ ont~ thc n~t~hbo~'s proG~crtY.
Ch.~irm;.~n Tolar .iskeJ th~ ~uichets if thcy were tennis trachrr,~ ~inri they replied they dld
not pl~y tennis ancl wanted to c~nstruct this cnurt for [h~ir chil~irrn.
Corimfssi~ner ltnn ;~,~:ecl whit ~, on that oortion of the n~iryhbnr'~ nroperty~ with the
a~nlic,nc r~plyinq tfi~t it rra5 thcir drivr.~i~~y.
Cammissl~ner Klne~ inrlicaied th.~t Mrs. Cain wis conc~rne~f ah~~ut the noi5c and lights ir. he~
letter ,~nd that Hl1C'1Af, ciistussr_s the fencr_ ~nd sai~1 noth(n~ ab~ut the nolse and lightinq~
ancl he was confused ~hout thts.
Ch~irman Tolar statecl he ciicl not sce ~ny prohlem~ hut th.~t he was s~rious when he asked
whelher or not the Gulchet~s r,ere teachin~ pros h~c~~use t!~ere wr_re a couple of properties
(n Peralta Hills wherr there was somp question as to whether ~r not th~ tennis court~ were
b~ln~ use~ strictly for family and pPrsonal use.
Dr. Guichet stated he thouhht this was the best use ~f tlie land ~nd was something they
wants~J r.n have ~~nd that he had personally visitecl everyone of chF <~~iJacent neic~hbars and
tl~ey diu not register any ~bJectlons; tliat tl~ree c,r four of the nPi~hbors were liere to
suppart the requPst.
Commissioner Barnes ~•~as concerned th~t the southeast pro~erty line w~u1~1 requlre a
var)ance ~lso, ar,d J. J. Tashiro explatned th~t tl~e only portion t'~at Frould require a
variance would k~e that corner in addition to the north praperty ilne,
It was noted that the ~frectar of the Planning Department has determ(neci that the proposed
activity fails within the deflnition of Sectlon 3.~1, Class 3. of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines tc ti~e Requtrements for an Environmental lmpact Rc~ort and is~ therefore,
categorically exempt from the requlrer~ent to file an EIR.
~/12/77
MII~UTLS~ ANAlIE1M CITY PLAIJNING COMMISS101~~ Soptember 12~ 1977 77'h~3
~IR CATEGORICl1Ll.Y EXEMPT-CLASS 3 b VARIANCE N~. 2yG3 (conttnurci)
ACTION; Commisslaner Linn offered Resolution No. PC77°2~^ .in~f rnove~l for its passage and
ad~pt ~~n~ th~t the An~~hetm City Planning Comm{ssion does her~hy nrant Petitlon for
Varlance ~da. 2'-f3~ on the b~sls chat thG petitl~ner derx~nstr~~t~-ri th.it n h~rdship exists In
th,~t si~bicct ~rn~Prty ha~, in trregul~r shr~pe ~~nci Is d~val~pe:l In a manner prohtbitinc~
clevelnpment of th~ st~~ndard siz~ tPnnis c~urt v~ithout en~r~~china into one or the other
si~ie y.~rds~ ~~nd suhject t~ the ~~tltloner~s sClpulntlon to p~•ovl<ie dense landscaping ~s
shc~wn on Exhlbft No. 1; that the lie~htlnq a~ill be envir~nnental Il~htin~ dlrected down nnd
a~•~~~y from adJacent resident~al areas; .ind th~~t inprnrri~~te scr~~nin~ shall he nrovided ~n
the ch,~inlink fenc~ t~ th~, nortl~~ northc~ist~ n~rthwest nncl snuth Sirics of the tennis court
In aecnrd,~nee ~~~Ith pl~ns marl~.e~i Cxhthlt ~lo. 1~ In ~rcler tn scrrc~n vlew ~f 5at~1 court from
a~ii~~cent nrapcrties~ ~ind suhJ~ct to Int~r~lc~artmcntal Committ~~^ rer.nmmcnrlAtions.
Un roll erll, the f~rec~olnc~ r~solutlon r~.~s p~SSC~ `~y thr tollrn•~in~~ v~~lc•;
AYES: Cl1'1M I SS I ONf'RS ; EiARttE S~ DAV I'), F~E RrST ~ K. i-!~ ~ L I-1~I ~ TnL/'~"
IJnF~ : C~M~~ I S: I r~~FRS : J~-+NS~'J
Af~SEriT: C~~~~~~ I S5 I n~~Er,s ; ri~~~E
Prior [~ v~tln~ ~n thr_ nrevlous r~soliitton~ COmm(55IOI1C~ Johnsnn ,is~:~~' the netltloner why
he ~~u1~1 not mnve the tennis cnurt closer t~ his h~use, +•rith tli~ ~etttloner Indicating
th~~c thr norri~~l tennl~ cnurt hati a 21-f~ot h~c~. c~~irf ~~n~i t~,it t~~is haGl~ c.~urt hay been
sh~>rteneri to 17 feet, ~nd if the [r.nnis court h~c1 to he m~v~~1 c.l~ser to th~ house, It
would br imnns~ihl~ to havc rc~~sonahle nlnyln~ ro~~ in chc b~c~. court,
Comnissioner .Johnson inGic,ited hls ne~l.itive votc w~s du~ to thr lir~~ narc.el; h~ felt that
a varlarr.c shoul<1 n~t havr ~~FCn nccess~ry.
ITCN N0. 1~ PIIC'L~C Hf~?III~. O1'-1E",S: t1~~R~Y S. ~i~~Ne~ nri~
Elit CATFGORICILLY E,(E~~1FT-CL~~SS 1 b1ALTE? A. FRO~~tE~ Jr,,~ P, 0, Box 72Sn~ New~ort
Co~~~ITlo~ir~l usk PF.R'"IT NO.~ 17~7- Qeach~ Cl1 '~2<f3, ~~E~IT: J~NrI "1. ROI±tIDS~ 155Qg
-1ulCivle~r !)rive, Perr(s, C/'~ ^237~, Sut,i^ct
propertv is a rcctanc~ul.irly-shnpe~l ~arcel of land
consistin~; of a~proxir~ately R.-> >cres~ havinn ~ frontocle of »nroximateiy 5tE feet ~n
the south si~1e of La Palma Avenue~ h~vinn a maxlmur~ dcpth of iprroximately 7F2 fee~t~
bein~ loc~atecl approximately >~3 feet r~est of the centerline of imperial Highw~y. an~!
further descrihed as ~(~~ East La Pal~a Avenue. RE~t1E.ST IS F~R A C~'l71TI~t!!~l USE FERMIT
T~ PER'11T A"J /1UTn REPAIR Stlnf',
Chairman Tol~r indicated h~ has ~~ confiict of interest as dPffnr_d by Anaheim City Planning
Cnnxnission Resolution PC7~-157, idopting a Conflict of IntPrest Code f~r the Nianning
Commission~ and Government Co~le Sectlon 3C2> et. 5c~.~ in that he leases property from one
of the owners of the suhJect prc~perty an~ that pursuant to the pravlston, of the abovc
codes~ hr_ Jeclares tt,at he is withdrawinq frc~~ th~~ hearin~ tn connectlon ~rith Item ~io. 15
of tl~e Pl,~nninc~ Conimission agenda and ~t111 n~t t~~c part in either the discussion or
voting thereof~ indicating that he h,~s not disc~lsseci this matter with ~~y merr.ber of the
Planninc7 Commission,
C!~11: RH~1M TOLA^ TE"1P~R/1R I LY LEFT THE C~tINC I L CHAMBE.^, DU? ! tl~ THE CONS I(IERAT I ~N R-dD VQT 1 NG OF
TNE AF~RE-•tE"ITI~tiE~ ITEM.
Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst assumed the chair.
9/t2/77
~
MI~IUTCS~ ANANCIM CITY PL1I~ININf CONMISSIl11~~ Se~teml>~~r 1^, I~y7 71~F~~+
CIR CATCGORICl1LLY CXC~IPT-CLIISS 1 L CO~JDITIOMAL USE °E'QMI' N0. 1 4 (r.~nttn~i~~i)
it was n~t~d that ~+ith 1~ memhers prPSant ~t thc Au~,~ist ~^th m~~tlnq of thc 1~ 1 and
Canyon ~tun i c i p~ 1 Adv I sory Comm t t t~e ({IACMAC )~ 1 t w~ s v~trct un,in t m~us 1 y t~ reccxnmend
approval of Condltlonr~l Use Permit No. 171~7.
There~ w.is nn ~ne indicati~cl thel,• presence in opnns itl~n co t.hi~ ren~~est~ ~nd althougl~ the
staff report t~ thP Planning Comm~ssi~n dated Sc'nt~Mher 1~~ 1~7), wns n~t rr..ad ~t the
publlc h~~~ring, It ls referreci to and mnde n parc ~f the min~ites,
John Rounds~ the agent far the ~etitioner, lnrficat~d th,~t ~iil r~~.~trs will be inside the
22^(`-sq~r.ire fo~t hulldln~ ,~nd ~rr..5ented ~i cnnY of the Flnor nl~in,
THC Pi19LIC HEIIRIN~ WAS CL~SF~.
Paul Slnc~er~ Traffic ~nafneer~ st~ited that thr dCV~l~pment a~ijac~nf t.n thP pruuerty ta the
east had heen requlred t~ construct a median islinci; that this mrdian (sland is stubhcd
out nn.l I t I s recommendecl that the stuhhed mc:dlan i slinrl h~ cont Inued for ~~ feet and then
terminater;, or continuc thc mecllan l,land :~l~n~ La Palmi I1vFn~~e.
Chatrman Pro Temporc Herbst str~ted that the ~Ptition~r ~~~is j~i-t l~~sing th~ buildinq ~~nd
th.~t this p~rticul~r ~Iece of nroperty h,~s t~een bui lt, ~nd Mr, Sin~er (n~flcatecl that he
w,3s merr_ly mn~:inq ~~ rrccxnmendattc~n slnc~ the island Is InG~mp~~i~~.
i.h.~irm,in Pr~ T~m~,~re Herhst a~kec: 1f constructlen ~f this m~ li,jn vr;~s ~i sti~~ulatton of the
approv~~l ~,f th<, orl~inal develonment, and Nr, Sinqe• r~~nl icJ th,~t this camc ~fter the
devclapment of [he sho~p(n~~ center on the 5nU[IIWCGL corner of la Palma ~n~l Imperlal.
Con~nissl~ne~ '~hn5on stited hc fr_lt all the Commissinn c~~~l~i ~in I, request th~~t the medldn
i s land bc cx,~ ~'.
Mr. Sinqer stitr..d he aias mal:in~1 a su~~~lestlon ~ind r~c~mmr.nclitlnn that th~ r~ecilan islan~~ he
ton;pleted in s~me m~nncr.
FranL. Lowry~ Assistant Cit~ llttorney~ stAc~d that this rec~uPSt w~s for a srecial use and
w,35 not sure whether or n~t the .innlic,~-nt t-ad power to cc~~rrct this~ th:~t the c~wner should
h~vc to construct thc median tsl:~nd~ and Mr, Rounds ha, ~~pl ir.cl as thc aqent.
Commission^r David .3ske~l Nr. Rounds if he foresaw any problems with complettng the median.
"1r. P.uuncJs stated that he c~uld s~eak to the aqent ~ hut fPlt that ti•~ith the low rent he
would be ~-~iyinc~ they rrould not ~~.~nt to be bothPre~i ~~~lth htm an~1 w~vlcf deny him the lease.
Commissioner Barnes stated that the owner may realize that any request for a permit might
carry L.his same stipulation.
The a~p 1 i cant s ta ted ~ to h i s ~norrl edge ~~ n 1 y taro rPquests have heen sia~++i t ted for use
permtts on thts property.
Commissione~ David asked if there was any other ~~~~y the mEdtan could be effectFd without
implicating ti~is business.
Commisston Linn stated that he Jld not r-ant to hang the petittoner up with this
st(Gulation.
9/12/77
MINUTLS~ At1Al1EIM GI ~Y P1.ANNfNG COMMISSION. Se~toml~er 120 1`)I7 77'F25
E I R CATEGOR I CALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 1 6 COND i T I 0*1A1. USE PERM IT N0. 17~+7 (cont I nue~l )
,....~_...
Cholrman Pro Tem~ore Herbst stAtr.d It Is ve~y cllfficult to h.~vP an nnnltcnnt of thls type
stipulAt~ for the p~operty owner; thflt hc unclcrsto~d thc USr w~s totilly Insfde the
buildinc~ and ~sked hrn~r many cars rmuld th~re~ hr_ on the~ pr~~~lSes nt ~n~ tir~e.
Mr. Rouncls indie.ite~d thcre mlght hc 12 c~~rs hut th,~t parl<in~ lnside the hutldin~ was
suf Flctent to acccxnrtx~d.ite them.
Commissioner King suc~nestcd that Hr, Rounds t~ilk wlth Chc awner ancl tell him what Mr.
S 1 ne~e r h~is rec~rronen deci rer~a rd 1 nq the med (~n 15 ~ and ,
Mr. Rounds stated hc would mentlon this t~ the a!7r_nt. He ~15~ ~tate~i hP planned to open
hi, shop after th~ flrst of October.
Cormisstoner Joh~snn .isked how fnr the median rims fr~m Imperi~~l~ wlth Mr. Sfnc~e!r replying
that it runs il) th~ way to thc east of the prop~rty line~ ;~3 f~et. Comr~issi~ner Johnson
cl~rlfled that ~~n ;~ aclditional fret was wantrci~ .7nd Mr, Sin~er reoli~d th~t an ~ddltlonal
5~'f~~t I~.nq~ 11+-f~ot wide sectlon is nec~ssary to con,~let~ ~he med(~r~ island.
Chairm:in Pro Tcm~ore Nerhst stated it hothercd him in r~~ard -~ the mrdi~n on this ~4DC of
a~~lic~~ti~n; thaf. th~r~ are pr~p~rtles ~n hoth sidcs of th~ r~aci which Shrnild partitipat~
in 50mP m~~nner; that hc~ fe~lt it was unfiir to include~ this on i c~nditlon.~) u~e perm~t for
one huslnes~.; ind not for othcr5.
Comm'ssioner Jnhnson asked if tl;re wis anythinn in t:he ~riqln~l agrePment to canplete
this median, and M~. Stnycr renlled that th~r~ w•vs nc>t.
Chalrman Pro Temnore Ner!~st ~tated we h~~v~ ~Ilowed this typ~ ~f usr In the industrla)
areas tot~illy encl~sed in the building~ an~.l lt SCCr~S a little unf~jir to requ(re thls
petitionc~r t~ hut in the whole median,
Commission~r Johnson st~~tn,f thit he c~ncurred wlth Ch~~irr~~an Pro T~m~ore Herbst.
It was noted thai thc Director of thc Plannina Departmr.nt has heen deter~~lned that the
proposeci ~ctlvity fa11s within thc <1Pfinition of Section 3.o1, Class 1~ r~f the City of
Anaheim Guidelines r.c, the Requirements for an Ene•ironmental Impact Report ar,c is,
thercfore~ cateqr~r i c~~ 1 ly exempt From thc requi rement t~ f i le in E I R.
ACT IOt: Comm i ss i oner Y. i nq of fered Resol ut i on No. PC 7?-~ 1 n an~i m~vc~l for i ts passage and
a~io~cion~ ;h~: the An~heim Clty Plannlnq Ccx~,n~issi~n d~es hereby grant Petition for
Cond(tionai Usc Fermit No. 1747, subJect t~ the petitloner's stipulation that all ~aork
~ai 1 1 be cJone i nS i de the t~ui Id in~ and that t h~ ~~et i t t~ner Ind icat~~i the h~urs of operat ion
w111 be frcxn 3;00 a.m, t~ 5:3^ p.r~,; and suhject to InterdeparLr~ent~l Cornmittee
recommendati~ns.
On roll call, the foregoin~ resolutinn ~~~s 7~SSP_t~ hy the fnllor+in~~ vote:
AYES: C~M-11SSIn"JERS: HERRST~ BARNES, D~,VID~ J~NNS~rt~ Y,I~~r,, L1~~~!
NOES: f,0-1M I SS I ONEP,S: riONF
TE~IPC~R~R I LY AF,SEtdT : CQMN I SS i 0`IERS: T~L~R
CHAIRMl1N TOLAR RETi1RNFD TO THE COUNf.IL CHAMBER AND ASSI1MEb THE CfiAIR.
~/1~/17
~111~UTES~ ANI11iEIM CITY PLANNINf, CQMMISSION~ Septcrnber 12~ 1')JJ ~~_~,~
ITEr N~. 1(~ PUGLIC NEARIN~. Ot~riEa: ANANFI-1 HILLS~ ING.,
NV 1'2 UMI !if/1l INPACT Rf P~RT N4. 2(15 3R~ llnnhc (r, H 1 1 I s Ro.~~i ~!-nAh~ i~, CA 91i~~7.
VARIANCE N0. 2'- Af,E`!T; JAMES FI. BERRY~ l~nn~ Sk,y Park South~
N nTiVE MA TRACT N~. 1~031 Sultr A~ Irvinc~ Cl1 A771h, Suhjcct ~ropPrty
REQuESt FnR wl11Vf.R OF L~T LlNC is an Irrr~ul~rly-sh~~~d parc~l ~f land
REQU IRf!1ENTS ~F NILLSIDE G~ADI-~~ con5(Stin~1 ~f ,~nnr~,xim,it~ly 1~.7 ~~crrs~ havinq
ORp 1~~l1NCF_ ~~ frnnt~~qe ~f ,in~r~ximnt~ly 3t'~ fe~t on the
snuth ,1~1~ nf Noh) Ranch Ro~d~ hivlnq ~ maximum
dnpth ~f anproxim~~t~ly hM p~et. ~~nd heing
locat.ecl ,3pproxim~7tely 8~12 fcet wP.SL af thr centerllne of llnahrir~ Hills Roa~i.
REOt~FST IS TO f.STABL151I A 2~1-L~T~ RS-;~~~(SC) SIIRDIVlSIb"~ 411TN W~IVER nF 'tlNl"1UM
PAD l1RE 1 AND W111 Vf ~t Of' LOT L I Nf_ RFQU I RFME-dTS OF H I LI.S I DF r,Qnn ~ ~ir, f14(- I Hl1NC F. ,
ThHrf+ w.~5 nn nnr In~i~ntinn thnlr rr~~~n~r tn r~nnn~(~lnn f~ rhis r~niiPSt, :tn~1 ,~lthnugh the
staf f rep~~rt to the Plannin~ Commtssi~n datecl Sc~t~mhcr 12, 1~77~ wis n~t read at the
publ +c henrln~~ it is rrfcrred to ancl m~dc n~~~rt of t.hc minut.r.s.
phil lIp Bettenc~,ur[, repre,entlnc~ An~heim H(Ils~ Inc.~ indic.~t~d on th~ wall map the
re~iional settinc~ ~f the property located s~uth of -Joh1 itanch Raicl~ ~nsr af Imperi~)
H(gh~-~ay~ and incllcr-t~d the ~rospecttve devel~~~~r of thP ~~ronerty~ T,iyl~r ~rant~ and h(s
archit~c[ were ~resent tn discuss the ~rnjcct.
John Datcs ~ archi tect ~ present~d colored rend~rin~ts of thr ~r~~ose~~ proJect and stated the
are~ Is zon~d RM-24~~ for planned comr~unltv r~sid~nt(al. He stated there were
diff icultie5 in findln~ the ap~rnpriate veh(cle f~r ~r~~c~ssinq the pr:~)~ct; that the
hi 1 1 si~fc~ terra!n ha, he~vy slanes an~i thcrc Is an existin~ ln~nc~d r~~~+~ c~nsequently
cre.-~iin.; a prohlem r,f developinq ~~ c~mpatihle housin~ nr~ject which ~mul~i work on a pad
with an app~oxlmate depth of 15~1 fPet. He statr~l It was feit th~ n~tlo hanes devel~pment
woulci be± the most nppro~~ri.~te sinc.e s(d~ yards to enhanrr_ livincl ~otr_nt(~l could be
deve l~ped with more us~~h1P ,~rea than the convc~nti~nal~Sl7.Pf~ h~use with the two ;-foot sicle
yarcts which Just ~r~vidc liyht inc: vr.ntil~tion and har~ily any us~blc yard; that by
cleve lo~inn patlo hor+e5~ ~~ net 1~-f~~ot usable side yard which enhances the outdoor usable
area i5 ~rovi~ed; tha[ this i5 bzina ~cc~m~lishr.~i h~ ,~ usF an~1 e.lraina~e easement which
establishes a de~d wall of one h~use ~~nci all~ws the use ~f the ~~re.~ to the adjacent unit;
ihat there vr~uld be n~ windows or o~enings on thit wall tn ~nsure thP homeowner's privaGy;
th.~t the primary 1 ivin!~ area (1 iving rocxn~ dinin~ r~c~m~ ind ki tchen; wi I 1 be oriented to
that space; thai un) ike the typicil RS-500~ develo~~ment~ there wi 11 be 1; f~et between the
houses instead of 1!~; th.~t thc~r~ Is more sep~r~tion hetween Il(lInPS so the street appears
1r_ss cliittcrecl; th.~t they h~ve pr~vid~d mor~ than the rec~uired parkin~; and thai the lot
sizes ~vert~ge approxinatcly 1n~~n~ square feet with p~d siz~s average 514~1 square feet.
liike Perry~ representing NACMAC~ 4365 Alderd~ie, explained the Hill a~d Canyon Municipa)
Advisory Committee had not addressed itself to this particular vartance request because
tw~, se~arate presentattons have been made to them by t`~e cfevel~per and now only one is
being presente~f. Ne indicated that HACNAC had directcd m~st of their attentlon to the
trae~~ which they feit hAd the most serlous prol~lPms, ~nd, ~s ~ result, c~id noC write a
report on this particular tract. Ne incJicated~ however, the general consensus of the
comm ittee was that they agreed with this concept and recognixed the need for thts type of
hous ing, pointtn~ ~ut he thouaht the units of Lake Summit were similar to this. and the
cam~ittee dld tend to agree with this conct~pt.
Chai~man Tolar asi~d Mr. Perry's reaction now that he had heard the presentation hy the
devt loper, and Mr. Perry stated he had no serious ob)ections to ttie tract and felt
these units would be functional with the larger slde yards.
9/12/77
MINUTCS~ ~NAHEIM CITY PLAI~NING CnMM15SI0N~ Soptember 12~ 19J7 77"~21
EIR N0. 205. VARIANC~ N0. 2964 6'tCNTA7IVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10A31 (continued)
Commisslone~ King asked Mr. Parry's op(nion regnrding the recommendatlon from the staff
that the Planning Commissi~n conttnue consideration ~f Tentativ~ Tract Nos. 1AQ31 and
10~32 unti) draft ~IK No, 2~, has baen comple.tcd and released.
Jan liall~ ~~Iso representing HACM~C~ Indicatecf they had discussed thP EI4 and realized it
was not complete. and AnAhelm Nllls, Inc. had realiz~d It was not ccxn~lete. also~ and that
some traffic information had to he suppliecl,
Chalrman Tolar slated he did n~t knoa~ why the Planntnq Conxnlssion was hear(ng th(s (tem
and dicl not see what actlon thev could tak~ at this time.
Pau) S(nger~ Tr~fftc Enginee~~ indicated h~ had received a sup~lement to the EiR ~nd only
bricFly looked at. It today~ but prcv~o~s EIRs for this arca havr been dtscussed and the
tr~~ffic impact presented by thts developmrnx is not qoinct to he s~ sinnifir_ant th~t it
would make a great de~i) of d(fference at thts timF, He SU~~JC`SCP_~I that after the report
had been revlewed hy the Commtssloners that ~in informal discussion on this should be held.
Commission~r Barnes stated the Commission cc,uld not vote on this ancl that she had not
receiveci any p~rtian of this EIR.
Ann(ka Santalahti, llssistant Dlrector for 'Lontnq, stated this partlcular piece of property
has had prPvi~us EIRs ~repared tn connection ~rith certain aspect5 of the project, and that
st~iff ha~ ovcrlooked thc remainder of the EIR when thc trafflc fnformation submitked to
Mr. Sin~er had heen unaccept.~ble. Sh~ indicated Lhere ~~re ott~er fIR reports have been
certified~ one in connectlon w(th the ~r~ding an~i on~ nn Anaheim Plannerl Ccr~xnu~ity~ which
would h~ve all~wed a h~gher d~nsity than the currently-pro~osed proJect~ but th~~t the
traffic concern ha,J remained active, and thit wa, thh aspr_c:t the~ ,~~iff ha~i tr(pped aver.
CommisSi~ner Barnes stated she wis n~t qoin~ t~ vote ~n ~n EIP, which she had not seen.
FranF: Lowry~ Assist~nt City Att~rney~ statcd that the Ccx~m,ission is deall~~ with a series
of EIRs that have ~reviously hePn appraved hy eity~r~ the Council or thc f.~,mission~ and
that EIR Plo, 2n5 attempted to suhmit the suppl~r~enta) information that tied a1) of the
other reports to~echcr. Ne state~ that ap~arently that rP~ort had h~~n short in the
traffic area but that new informatlon 'sd been submttted~ and while it may be truP -hey
had noC rece(ved a co~y ~f EIR No, 2~5~ thty h.~d seen other reports~ and that he could
find no quarrei with certify(n~ tF~e report tn t~~is manner.
C~mmissioner Barnes stated that she dld not think the Commission c~~~ld legally vote on
somethin~ they had not seen.
Commissioner Nerbst indicated he was concerned about the tract itself; that he lived in
Lake Summit and liked patlo home living~ ~ut that he was concerned that this subdivisian
w~s being designat~d R$-5000 and he did not think [h~is was the proper desi~nation. Ne
indicated that at Lake Summit al~ the o~,en space ls owned by th~ property owners
associatlon and not by the hor~ec~wners~ and felt that rnade a great difference; that this
type of home would fit the site~ but that the devel~per was using the wrong tool. He
stated he felt that patio-type living with the haneownci~s owning the pad and the
association orming the greenbcit so that the slopes would be properly maintained over the
years would be a gaod use for this site with the ~roper designation.
Annika Santalahti~ /ssistant Director for Zoning~ explat~ed ttiat one problem with this
development is that In the RM-400Q Zone it (s required that all untts he attached in onc
9/12/77
MII~UTE:S~ AMAi1k.IM CITY PLANIJING GOMMI''~SI01~~ Sc~-temhcr 12, 1yJJ 77-628
EIR N0. 20~~VAR1l1NCE_N0. 2~64 L TENTATIVC MAP OF TRACT t~0. 10031 (continued)
way or another~ and the developer tn thir, cas~ felt vcry str~n~ly nb~ut th~ un(ts be(ng
detached.
C~mmtssl~n~~r Nerhst r~fcrred to the zr.ro lot line drvelo~ment nf Lak~ Summtt, po!ntlnq out
th~t th~re are indlvldua) ~<~tlo h~mes with th~ asS~ctatlon owninc~ ali th~ ~,lopes ~~nd
havinc~ cc~ntrol of the sl~pes. !ie inclicated that he felt th(s dcvel~pment plan is very
nood and this type of develnpment Is carrect~ If tl~e homr.~wners ~zgnclat:lon can own the
slo~+es~ enel thnt he coulci see n~ prohlem It th~ ric~ht tonl c~uld b~ foun~i.
Ch7lrman Tol,~r .iqreed th~t th(s was i c1~od plan,
Phillir BEttcnc~urt st~ted he would Ilke t~ discus~ ch~ Slop~• are~as; that the tcntative
m~~p will shaw th~ lat linr,s extending dorrn th~ rl~ht-of-w~iy of tlohl R~~nch Road; that the
propcrty ~wner -•~ill havc fee titl~ to the full l~t~ and Itnah~im Hills Pl~nned Community
Ass~ciation (master ~1550C~~~tion for thN Areo) would take haci; an easement from the
property owner for all the area indicated in 9reen on the nlan; th,it Anah~tm Hills~ Inc.
is lanclscaping all of Canyon Rir~ Road anJ Not,l aanch Ro~~i ri<~ht-nf-~~ays ~nd thes~ areas
will bc matntained hy thc association.
Frank Lowry~ /lsslstant City Attorney~ ex~lained thot .i fBYI m~nths ago the City Attorney's
Office set up CCr.Rs for a master association to de~l wit-~ ill the unimpr~ved propertiy and
any (rnproved pr~ncrties whio wished to abandon their sm~ller h•x~~e~wner associations because
~f thc hl~h cos;~ etc.~ a set of CCF:Rs are no~r in ex(,tence~ nnd .~s e~~ch tract is
an~,roveci~ it is .~utom~tically included in thc mastc~r ass~ciatinn; that this a kind of
dream for the Attorney's Office aric: cuts do~~n on the ~rohlem ~f settin9 up individual
associatlons For M aheim Nilis~ Inc. and ntves a g~od~ ~v~r~ll control tool; that they do
have cross easements that are ivail~~hle which the Planninn Ccmx~ission may use as
conditions; ~~nd that Anaheim Nills is takin~ hack the e~iser~ents to n~~int~ln all nf the
slopes voluntarily.
Chairman Tolar ~sked how these dediCOt(~ns ~ire tiken h~~ck f~nr~ e~ch in~ilviclual owner~ and
Mr. Bettencourt expl~iined the env(ronmental pr~tection ea5emenLS over the slope artas are
included as a condition of the sale of the ~ronerty.
Commissioner Herbst stated that tt,is answers his nrohlem ~s far as maintenance of the
slopes is concerne'~ but he is still concerned abouc the RS-5!~nn designa[ion; that the
developer is using thc slopes to meet the requirements.
Chairman Tal~r stated he did not share the same concern; th~t he felt the finished produtt
was what the Commission should view.
Phillip Bettencourt stated t(~is d~velopment does not fit the RS-5~~~ Zone~ which requires
a 5~0~-square foot pad area; that tf it ciid, he could request a varlance which the
Commissl~n could deal wlth, but this ls the RM-2~+00 Zone~ whic.fi is a less dense
developnent than would be legally pcrmissible if thc units wcre attached, however, the
zonE provides that in tht ahsence of units being attachrd, the RS-5~on requirements shall
be adhcred to. He explainesi with the lat coverage the development is less dense than the
zone, and that chere is no bonus or credit for placing the house on the lot line and
expanding the usable yard area.
Mr. Lowry stated that the City of Anahetm does not have a zone which this development
wc~uld fit lnto. Ne explained to Commissioner Herbst that the area in which he lives has
mixed units, both detached and attached,
9/12/77
MINUTES~ ANAlll1~1 GI7Y PU1Nt~iNf CUMMI~SIQN~ SeptembGr 1:~ 1~~)7 77-G2~
kIR N0. 20y~ VARIANCF: ~~o. 2y64_6 TENTATIVI: N/1P OF 7R/1CT NU. 1~)Ojl Iconcinuedj
Cnmmissioner Linn stated that In prevlous stmllr~r rrqu~sts hc h,id h~en opposed because af
the substand~~rd slzed units, but he felt he c~u1d su~port thls d~vclopment.
Mr, Lowry stntr.d hc wouid h~sitate to ~et a maJorlty ~f the f.ommtsslon takinc~ a positlon
one way or the other on thls d~vclopment untll th~y hr~~i ci~cicieci how to handlr_ the
enviranment~l impact report.
Commtssicmer King polnted out khat Mr. Sl~~er h~~d (ndicatccl the traffic Impact for thls
Aevelo~menc w~uld he lnslgnific~~nt.
Corriisst~ner Barn~s Indlcated ~,he believecl Mr. Slnc~er~ hut th.it she co~~lri nc~t vote on an
envlronmental tm~act report unless it h~ic1 heen thrnrou~hly rev'cwed.
Ch~~irrnan Tol~lr St~~ted he h~d the same cnnc~rns but ~ifter Mr, Sin~er's n~lni~~n regardiny
the traffic~ sor~e of h(s cnncerns haci hePn all~vi,~ted. He ~sbed Mr. Lowry if he fe1C the
Cormiis4lon h~~l r.nouqh inforr~~~clon from the vthcr envir~nmc;ntil imp:ict rcnorts In order for
hi~ not t~ h~vc. a prohlem d~fending the~ nosition.
Mr. Lowry st~ited that he ~~rould not h~ive any rrohlem v~lth this with '1r. S(naer's
su~p1F^~ental information ~~s ~rovid~c!.
CormlSSf~~ner Herhst indic~ited he felt the ~rr1ln.~nce sh~uld he cl~~nnecf to allow natio hcxnes
i n the RM~h~~~~ Zone ~-~I t~out en^~mc~n w~ 1 1 s ari thout re~nu i r i nn ~ v~r i~nce.
Mr, Lowry indicated [hat this was somethinn that c~ulci bc ctone, ~~n~1 that if lt was thc
f.,~nun(s;ion's ~Jesire that the ordinance hF chanc~ecl, then they shoulcl instruct staff to
prr~,~re ~r .,~~~~,n.:c~~nt f~r n~~tio-type h~~rs th~t irr_ det.~checl~ thus crcatin7 a ltr+ltation or
postin~ a r;arninct that the Cor~mission is n~t ryoinn to ~llnw ~atlo-[YP~ h~mes until the
Codc i s ci,•in~ecl.
Coru~iissioncr Herhst lndic~~tecl he ha~f no abjeciions to t'~is n~rticular nr~ject and felt the
zonc shnulci 6e changed.
Co~issloner Johnson isked if this rccomrnend~tion ls m~~~ie t~~ ir~rnd tF•~e Code~ wou!d that
elimin~tr_ the recomr~endation fr~m the staff that the Plinnin~ CcMxnis'lon continue
consicieration ~f the tract map until th~ EIZ i~ ~~r^plet~cl?
!ir. Lowry re~~l icd [hat he felt thP Ccxrx~ission ~.~ould ~P on ,.if~ ~rounci to certify the EIR
with the additi~na) information r~hich has hcryn providc~d,
ACTI~~l: Canmissioner David offered ~ notion~ seconded by Cc~nx*~issioner Kinc~ and H~TI~N
C~RP.IE~. that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Co~-mission h~s rcvies~red Environmenta) Impact
Report No. 2~~ for Tentatlve Tract Flo. 1~031 consistlnn of 2~ detached residentta) units
on appr~xinately 10.7 acres of l,~nd and heinq a portion ~f a trtal devel~pr~ent consisting
of a t~tal of approximately 7~ detached resldenttal units on approximately 23 acres of
iand Incated ~outh~aest of *_he intersection of Flohl Ranch Roaci and Anaheim Fiills Road,
having been considered this date hy the Anaheim City Planning Conxnlsslon and evidence~
both written and orai, having been presented to supplemPnt said EIR N~. 2nS~ finds that
patentiai project~generated and cumulative adverse impacts have been reduced to an
acceptable level by conformance with City plans, policies~ an:i orciinances~ and draft EIR
No. 205 conforms to the California Envtronrnental Quality AcL and State and City EIR
Guidelines; therefore, based upon verbal tnformation presersted at thc public hearing and
9/12/77
t~Ir~uT[s~ n~~nfi~ir+ CiTY r~ntn~iiir, COMMISSIO!i, Septembcr ~2~ t~l~ 77-G3o
LIR No, 2U~, VARIANCE NU. 29Gh c TCr~TnTIVL MAP OF TRAGT N~. 1U~31 (ec~ntinued)
previously-approved EIR Nos. 1~14 :~nd 1~5~ th~~ Annhcim Ctty Pir-nnin~ Commisslan does
certify Envlronm~nta) Impact Report N~. 205. ~Corr~nissioner BarnPS v~ted "No'' on thi5 motian,)
Conmissioner Dav(d Indicated he dic~ not wlsh to offcr ~ rrsolution for ap~roval ~f
Varlance No. 29~4 inasmuch as the Nill and Canyon Municl~~~l I1dvl5ory Cammittee had not had
an opportunlty tn ~ffer ~ recnmmendatl~n on thts ~~ro)ect.
ACTIOM: Commissloncr Herbst offered Resolutian ~~o. PC77-211 an~l moved for Its passage and
a~ioption~ thot the An~~hetm City Planntng Commission doe5 h~rel•~y qrant Petitlon for
Variance No, 29G4, on thc b~isis that the pctiti~nc~r drmonstr:~ter1 th~t ~~ h~~rdshlp exlsts in
that thr_ si=e and shape of the suhJect nroperty ts suitable for r~~tia-type development~ in
which cas~ minimum huilclable pad ~ireas ~ire acce~t~ihle; thac ;he ty~ical ~roposed lot sizes
substantlally excec~i the minimum r~.~uirFd hy the Zonl~~c~ Codc; th~t Subst.7nttal open space
is part ~f each lnt in the form ~f l,in~lsc~r~~ slnres; nn~i thit ciue to the existinq
substantially sloped terraln~ ~d~itct~~c~t grading ~~u'<i h~ re~uirrci to ~siablish minlmum
buildinq ~~ad areas nf 5f?~r1 square fPet, ~ncf suh]ect tc~ Interdepartm~ntal Committee
recommenc+ations.
On roll call~ the foregoiny resolution was nassed hy th~ f~ll~win~ vot~:
AYCS: Co~~HISSIOfIERS: NfRf'ST, Jofi~~snri~ K1~1~,~ TOLnR
NOES: COM!11SSIONERS: BARNES~ DJIVID~ LI!I~I
1BSE~IT: COM1115S I~rJERS: NONE
ACT14N: Commissioner Herhst offered ~~ motion, seconded by Ccxm~iss(oner King and MOTION
IIRRIE~ (Commissioners darnes~ David and Linn voting no)~ that the Jlnahelm City Planning
Commisslon does hereby find that the proposed subdivisi~n~ toc~ether with its design and
improvement~ Is consistent a~ith the City of Anaheim's Gen~ral Flan~ pursuant to ~overnment
Code Sectlon f~~~1~J3,5; and does~ theref~re~ ap~r~ve Tentative -1ap of Tract ~I~, 10~31 for
2~~ RS-5~00(SC) lots~ subject to thc following conditl~ns:
1. 7h~t :he a~proval of Tentative Map of Tract Na. 1~^31 is grante~ subi~ct to the
approv~ 1 of Var i a^ce ~lo. 2~F~4,
2. That should this suhdivision be developed as rn~rc than one subdivision~ each
subJivision thercof shatl be sut,mitted in tentativp form for approval.
3. Thot in accord~nce wlth City Council policy, ~~ six (~~) foot hinh~ open~
decorative wall shall Fe constructed at the to~ of sl~pe ~n the north pronerty line
separatinc~ L~t Nos. ?. through 17 from N~hl Ranch P,oad. Reasan~~ble t:~ndscaping~ ineluding
irri<aation f~~cilities, sh~ll he inst~~lled in the uncementecl p~rti~n ~f the arterial
highway park~~,ay the ful) ciis[arr.e of said wall; plans f~r said 1<indscaping to be
submittecl to and subiect t~ the ~pproval of the Supcrintendent of Parkway !laintenance; and
followinc~ install.ition and acceptance~ the Ctty o1` Anahr_tm shall ~ssume the responsibiiity
for mainten~~~ce of landsca~ing.
4. Thac ali lots within this tract si~all be served hy uncierground uttlities.
5. That prior to the int~oduction of an ardtnance~ a final tract map of subJect
property shall be submltted to and approved by the City Cnuncil and then be recorded in
the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
G. That th~e co~renants~ conditions~ and restrictions si~all he submltted to and
approve~i by the City Attorney's Offlce and City Engineer prlo- tr~ City Council approval of
the fin~' tract map~ that all "native" sl~pe de.slgnatians shall be approved by the
Planning )epartment and Fire Chief prior to City Council ap~roval of the final tract map
and~ further~ th~it the approved covenants~ conditions~ and restrictio~s shall be recorded
concurrently r~ith the final tract map.
9/12/77
MINUTf.S~ /1NAf1EIM CITY FLI1Nr~lt~r, COMMIS~IOfI~ Scptember 12~ 1~)7J 7~'~31
E I IZ I~U. 205, U/1R I ANCE t~0. Zyf,4 b 1'I.I~TAT I V~ L M/1P QF TRACT N0, 1 p031 (con t I nued)
7. In thc event th~~t subject ~r~~erty is to be divt~ir~i for thF, purp~se of ,a1e~
le~~se~ ~r ftn~~ncinq~ ~~ p,~rcel m,~p, to recor~~ the irpr~ve~i ~1lvision ~f subject ~roperty
sha~l) be suhmltted to ancl a~proved hy the Ctty of An,iheiM ~ncl then bc~ recordeci In the
offlce of the Or~~nge GountY Recnrclrr,
8. 7hat the owner ~f suhject pr~~c~rCy sha11 n~~y t~~ the City ~f Mihefm the
ap~~ropriatc parN and re.crFation tr~-! ieu f~es as ~feterrrinerl to hP i~p~c~pri,ite hy the City
Council, saici fees M he p~~id .~t the tlm~~ the huilcltn~ per~ it is issu~~~f,
9. That drainage of s~ld property shall he di5p~srcl of in a manr,pr SB~ISfactory to
the City Engineer, IF~ (n the prepar~tion of the site~ 5ufficlent nrac)fnc~ Is required to
necessi~~ite a c~r,idin~ permit, no ~~~ork on ~ridin~t will h~ ~er~nttted hr.tween October 1Sth
and April l;th unir.cs all required ~ff~SI~P. ciraina~~c~ fac111tIPS have hFen installed and
arc opcrativr.. Posltive ~s5urnnce sh~~ll be nroviJr_d the C(ty that Such r.lraln,~e~e
faci 1 i tic; w( 11 !~c cam~Iete~.l prior t~~ Octul,er l;lh. NeccSS~ry riqht-nf-~,r;~y for off~site
dr~~in~~e facllitie~ shal) he dedicated to the Ctty~ ~r the City Counci) sh.ill have
initiate~l condemnation proceedln~s therefor (thP CnStS ~f whlch shill be borne by the
dcvclo~cr) pri~r t~ tl~c c~mmencemr_nt of nr;~ri)~~ opr.r~~ti~ns. Th~ rc~u(rc~i rlrain~9e
facilities sh.ill hr_ ~f ,i si7e ,ind type sufficicnt to ~•~rry run~ff ~•~aters ori~,nating from
hi~,ner propertie, [hr~ugh S.~id ~ronertY co ultimate d(s~ns~~l as an~rove~i hy th^ f.ity
En9lneer. 5aic1 draln~ic~e facilities sholl he the firsk itPr~ nf co~strucc(on ind shall be
c~mpleted ancl hc functional throuqhouC [hP tr,~ct ~nd fr.,n thc !In~~nstrA~m b~und,~ry of [hc~
propcrty to thc ultimate point nt disn{~5~~1 ~rior [~ thr ISSU.lI1C1' ~f ~ny final bu(lding
ins~ecti~ns c>r ~cc~ip,~ncy ~erroits. Drnin~nr, ;listri~-t r~irihur~ement ~nrerr~rnts may be m~de
av.~il~hlc t~ thc dev~ln;~~rs of said pr~nerty !m~.~~ their r~nuest,
1~,. Tha[ qr~,iinc~~ cr,c~vation, inJ nll ~Ll~cr c~ns[ructinn acciviti~s shall be
concluct~~cl in si~ch ,i ci,inn~~r so ,75 t~ mini~nizc~ the nnss(hility ~f ~~ny sllt ~rin(natinq from
this prnject hcinn c.7rri~d into th~ S.~nti l1~i Riv~r hy st~r~~ w.~ter ~riqinatin~ from ~r
flrntinr~ tlirnuqh this ~r~icct.
11, That ,innronriitc ;aatErr .~ssessr~~nt f~~s ,~s deterr~in~~l tiy th~ ~irector ~f Publie
U~ i 1 i t ies sh,~l 1-~e raid to the C i ty ~f An,~hc (~•• nri~r t~ thc is5uanc~ nf ,i hui ldina permit.
~i. ~f pr_rn.inen[ SLI'~'('-~ ~l~n~` ~inn~ ~~:1Vr f1p[ nl'C~ ~nSt1I I~~I~ ~("~(~nr,3rY stre~~t name
si~ins sh.ill hc inst.:~lled ~ric~r to any occup•incy,
1 3. Th~t i n ar.cordancc ari th ~he f'rr1~~ I I'E~rlr. ~t5 nf Sect ion 1"~, ^?, ~~~? perta f n i nc~ to [he
initi~l sale of r~sidr_ntial hOrt1r.,5 in thc City of An~hcir, Planninn ,4re.~ "E3"~ the seller
sh,~ll provide eich buyer hlth wrltten infprma[ion c~ncerninq the ~n~hf~im r,eneral Plan and
thr. exl5tin~ »ning within 3~0 feet ~f the houndaries of sub~ect tract.
1~+. Th,it any s~ecimen tree remov~l sh,i11 be suhJect to the r~nul<~tions pertaininq to
tree prescrvat'son in the Scenic Corridor Ov.r.rlay ?onc.
It wis noted that the staff report Indicated that thc renuirr.nent that lot lines be
located 2 to 3 feet from the to~ of slones was placed in the Nil)side Grading Ordinance so
that the c~ntire face of slopes would be the responslbility of the owner of the lower lot
in the belief that said owner would bc more apt to maintain th~ stope than the owner of
thc~ lot at the tot~ of the ~lope; however~ in th~e su~Jec*_ tract~ al) of the slopes in
question would be maintained by a homeowners association anc1, r.heref~re~ the request for
waivcr of the rec~uirmen[ shnul~i t:e granted,
Cor*missic,ner Herbst offered ~ motion~ seconded hy Commissioner Kinq and r10TI0N C/iRRIED
(Commissioners Barnes~ David ai~d Linn voting no)~ that the Anaheim City Planning
Commissinn dors hereby recommend to the City Council of the Ciky of Anaheim that the
request for waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance rer~uirement that lot lines be located
2 to 3 feet from the top of slcpes be gra~ted for Tract ~~o. 1~~31.
9/12/17
MII~UTES~ ANAHEIFt CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ September 12. 1~77 ~7-632
EIR N0. 2d~~_VARIANCE N0. 2964 b TEt~TATIV~ MAP OF TRACT N0. 1Q0~1_ (contlnuod)
Commissloner Jahnson potnte~ out that the Plann~ng Commisslon had benC over backwards to
give Anah~im Htlls and other developers a consider~ble Amount ~f l~tltude to develop some
nlce pra)ects, and he hoped the Commisalon would not ftnd a m~nkey wrench where advantage
could bQ taken bec~use of the lateness of the hour and the p~ssiblllty that aomething
could have been overlooked. Ne polnted out ~hat th~ Commtssion trusts Anahelm Htlis~ Inc.
9/12/77
~
MINIiTES~ A11AFiE:IM CITY PLA~IfJING COM!11S~ION~ Septe~r,Ler 12~ 1977 77-G;3
Commtssloner Johnson stated that slnce thc Hill and C~nyon Municlpa) Advisory Committee is
a new committce for thc City of Anahelm~ hs felt tl~is would be t1~4 tfine for the Plrnnl~g
Commission to go on rocorcl 4~y a lettcr from the Secreta~y of tha Plann(nh Commisslon
cor-~ndiny the Hlll ~ncl Canyon Munici~al Advisory Commtttr_c for the(r input.
ACTION: Commiss(oner Johnson offercd a matic~n~ sacandcd t~y Commisstoncr ~arnos And MOTION
CARR I EU U~~AN 1MOUSLY ~ ttiat thc Anehc i m C( ty P I ann i nc~ Commi ss lon does hereby
commend Ctie Nill and Csnyon Municipal Advlsory Commlttee for (ts valuable tnput
and consclentious c~nslderation to date on the speclal items revlewed by them~
end thelr op(ntons and thc informetion furntshed have bcen helpful to the
Planning Commission in reacliing its concl~~sions.
Commissloner Johnson a~fded that I~e persvnally is very cAreful to review the actlons taken
by HAGMAC, and even though the Commi ss I on and FIl1CfU1C are not always I n t~greement ~ the i r
inpuC ts very valuable.
Gommissioner Uarnes added tliat sh~ apprectated the considcrable amuunt of tlmc and effort
by che NACI~AC committee members to review these ite~ns to asstst the Planning Commission
with its decisions.
Commiss(~ne.r fierbst offered a motion~ seconded by CommisslonPr Ltnn and MOTION CARRIED
U~~l1NIMOUSLY~ tht~t tl'~e Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to create
a change i n tt-e aS-400Q Zone t~ al lcnv pat io homes wi tt~out common wal l s and wt th "0" lot
line and to be a part of thc ordinance s~ that the developers will not have to request
variances,
I 7_ EH N0~1 J
REPOR''i A~~D RECOHMENDAT I ONS
(TE11 A. REQUEST FOR EIR NF~GATIVE DECLARATIOt~ - For lnstalletion of temparery
telepf~one cAble.
The staff report to the Plan~ing Corn~niss(on dated Septemcer 12~ 1977~ wa~ presented~
indicating the Pac(fic Telephone and Telegraph Company proposes co install an additioi~a!
cable on an existing pole llne located along Santa Ana Canyon Ro~d between Lakeview Avenue
and AnaN.aim Hills Road.
ACTIOt~: Commissloner King offered a rtwtion~ seconded by Commissioner Linn and MOTION
CARRIED~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission finds that~ pursuant ta the
prov(sions of the Ca~ifornia Environmental Quality Act~ ihe tnstallation of a
temporary telephone cable on an existiny pole lfne along Santa Ana Canyon Road
between Lakeview Avenue and Anahe(m Hills Road will not hav~ a stgnificant
individual or cumulatiye adverse environmental impaci because the Initia) 5tudy
indicates the praJect will involve only minor constructton actlvity of a
temporary nature and, therefare~ approves the preparation of a Negative
Declaration from th~ reuuirement to prepare an environmental impact report.
9-12-77
MINUTES. ANANtIM GIIY PLANNINt, COMHISSIOIJ~ SeNland~ri' i2~ i9)7 ~7'G~~
ITCM Ft. CUtiGIT10NAL U5E PEftNIT 1~0. tE.~3 - Roqucst for tcrmin~~tion.
The staff report to thc Plann(ny Corm(sslon Jotca Septemtyer 12~ 1~77~ w~~s presented~
indic~tiiig tlie subJect property is an irrc~~ulHrly-shaped ~~i~ce) of l~nd consisting of
approx(mately 0.) ecrc: having n fr~nta<~e of e~proximi~tely 27.~ fret. at the westerly end ~f
Wrlyht C(rcl~:~ belny located approxiriatr.ly ~3~ fcct west of thc centcrl(ne of Stt~te
College Uoulevard. 7he applicant~ Jose~~t~ Maa~~~ requests tcrin(nation of Cond(tlc.~nnl Use
Pet~nit t~o. 1G;3 which was grant~J l~y the Pl~+nnln~ Commfssion tor a one-year perl~d on
September 1)~ 1~JG~ to estahlfsli a privatc club (headyuarters~ mectinc~ hall. prectice
facllity~ anJ storage for a marchiny band). The perrnltted use has not been ~~sta~~l(shed~
and there arc no plans tu establlsh it in th~ f~ature.
ACTION; Commissioner Kiny affered Resolution No. PC7J-212 Ancl movc~l for Its passage and
adoptl~n~ that thc Anaheim City Plannin~~ Commission docs hcreby terminate
Conditlonnl Usc Permit No. l~~~j.
Or~ roll call~ the foreyoiny resolutic~n was passed by ehe fc~llowinc~ vote;
AYLS : COMN I SS I OF~E RS : E311RilES ~ UAV I U~ HERDST ~ JOHNSU'I ~ KI ~~G ~ L I NN, TOLAR
I~OES : COMM I SS I OI~E RS : NOIJE
n~sE~,t: co-~r~+issi~r,er~s: ~~o-~~
ITEN C. GEI~CR~1L PLAI~ AMCtIfiI~ENT - ~~ortl~ sidc of Sir~,~-ons Avenue east of Haster
Street and yenr~rally wcst of Vern Str~eet.
Th~ staff re~ort to the °l~nniny Co~mnissian ~atecl September 12~ 1~)J7, was presented. If.
was yenerally felt tliac ~uc to e~rli~;r action~ this dAtc~ of the Plannin~ Cummissian on
Reclassification Nos. lF~-71~51~ an~l 1~-71-55, classffy;ng thc suhJect pr~psrty RM-~0~0
(Resic)cntial. Multi~~le-Family), no further actiun re~ar,f~nc~ this request for a General
Plan Arnendment on tl~is property woul~l ~e necessary,
ITE11 U. CONUITIONAL USE PERNIT N0. 174i) - Reques[ for approval of revised plans.
The staff repo~t to thc Planninc~ Commission dated Septembcr 12~ ly7J~ was presented~
noting the subject property is an irreyul~rly-shaped parcel af land consisting of
approxir~ately L'.I acres locate~ nortli and west oF Che nortf~west cdrner of La Palma 1lvenue
and State Colleye Eioulevard, The applicAnt requests approv~il of reviseci rlans for a
drtv~-tf~rouyh restaurant. Conditional Usc Permit No, t74n (to construct a drivc-[hrougl~
r~staurant wi th w~iver of tlie minirnum numb~r c~f parkiny spaces) was granted by th~:
Planniny Commissiun or. Auqu;t 2~, 1`.)77~ wi tl~ ti~e scipulation that ~evised pla~s be
subr~itted showine~; modified interior circulati~n ancl ~arktnq.
Paul Sinyer~ Traffic Lnyineer, inclica[ed that althaugh the revlsed plans provide l~ss than
thc recomrn~:nd~d lenyth for ci~c driveway to pravide f~r back-up storage~ they are
acceptable.
ACT I OPI : Conx~ii ss i oner Ki ny of fercJ a mot i ori ~ seconded l~y Comm i ss i oner L i nn and MOT I ON
CARRIED~ that ti~e Analieirn City Planning Comrnission does hcrr.by approve the
revised interior circulatlon and parkEng plans, as submitted~ in connection with
Conditicx~al Use Permit No. 17~i0.
9-12-77
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CI ~Y PLANNING CUMI~115510~1, 5epternber 1Z, 1377 77-~~3~
ITEM E. RECLASSIFICATIO~~ N0. 7G-77-51 • Requcst for ~ppr~v<-~) of ffnal speciflc
sitc ~lan ~floor plan. and elcvet(~~ns.
_ ..
Th~ staff report to thc Planniny Commissl~~r~ dated Septembcr 12, 1~71~ wes presented by
Ann(ka Santalahtl~ Assistant Plannlnc~ Dircctor-T.onin~~~ noting tl~c sub,Ject property Is a
roctangularly-sfiaped narcel of land canslstinc~ nf approxlr~tr..ly 0.; acre locAted at the
northcast corner uf Katclla Ave~~uc and Easy Way~ I~aving ap~roximatc frontag~s of 216 feet
on the north side of Katella Avenuc and 100 fect on thc cast side of Easy IJay. Shc also
n~tad the appllcant~ 411111am P. Bredyer, fs requesting arproval of fin~l speclfic site
plan~ flo~~r plan an~i elevations for the west~~rn pnrtion of tl~c si te. The ~rro~erty has
bcen approvecl for CL zuniny uncler Reclass!fication No. 7f~-77-~1, and alI c~ndit~ons of the
reclassiflcatlun havc been rnct. The City Council~ at its ~~~ecting of Junc 21~ 19JJ,
condl tinn~~i th~~ issu~~fncc c~f a bul Iciin~~ ~crmi t upan Plannin~ Commis~ic~n ~~nd Ci cy Counci l
approval of final specific sitc pl~n~ fle,or plan ar,c1 clev~tions. She indicatea approv~)
of thc final spocific: ,itc plan~ t~loor plan and clc,vntions for thc eastern po~tlon of thc
sfte had bcen approved by thc ~'I~~nniny Commission on August 27~ 1977.
ACTION; Commissi~~ner King ~~ffercd a motion, seconJe~i by Conxnlssio~er L(nn and MOTION
CARRIEU~ that the Anaheirn City Plannin~~ Comr~ission cioc•s herct~y approve final
specif(c site plan, floor plan and clcvations f~r tl~e western Nortlun of tt~c. slte
for Recl~ssification Nc~. 7G-77-51~ as suhmittc~l.
I TEM F. DLVELOPMEr~T OF nEM-~ANT PARCE:LS I ~~ TIIE C ITY OF AI~IIHE.1 M.
Ronald Tl~anpson~ Planniny Director, prescntecl thc rnc~nc~rancJum to thc Rlanning Comrn(sslon
dated September 12~ 19J7~ indicating the City Cauncil~ at tt~eir meetin~ of August 3~,
1977~ tiad Jirected the Planniny DcFartn~ent staff t~ Jetermine th~~ cost of a study
analyzing ~he development of isolate~ parcels located in resiclential areas in the Cit;~.
Ne stated that staff has determin~d a study of this ma9nltude woutd re~uire approximately
300 staff hours and that conyulting firms have beer contactrd and estimates range from
$10,000 to S1S,000 for a stuc'~;. Ne indicate~l it may be ~ossible to comb(ne a similar
consultant stuJy beiny prepare:d for thc Community Development Dc~artment with this
propos~~l at a substantiai sa~iings of time and mnney, an;: that thfs study would undoubtedly
be usefu) in compl~~ting the new Housing Elcment which is presently being prepared.
ACTION; Commissioner Barnes offered a motion~ seco~ded by Commissioner King and MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOuSLY~ that the Anahelm City Planning COmtn155IU1~ daes hereby
recorrriend to the City Gnuncil that the referenced study to analyze the
developrnent of is~lated parcels locat~:d in residential areas In the City be
cornbined with a s(milar consultan[ sLudy being pre~are~~ for the Community
Oevelc>pment Department.
~rank Law ry, A~sistant City Attorney~ stated he would no langer bc responsible for
handl(ng the Planning Commission meetin~~s a~d this wo~ld be his last meeting; that it had
been a pleasure to work wf[h all the planniny Commissioners fcar approxlmately ten years~
anci that he would scill he available t~ help the Commission in any way he could.
Chairman Tolar thanked Mr. Lov+ry, on behalf of the Commission, fo:- his assistance to
the Planning C~~rxnission over the years and st~.ed that f1r. Lowry has always been very
helpfui.
9-12-77
' I,.,.~TC~~ ANAiiCIM CITY PtAlIMING COMMISSION, S~~t~mhwr 12~ 1977
77-63G
ADJOURNMENT: Therc betng no furthe~ bustness~ Commissloner N~nrbst offerod a motlon~
se:.onded by Commisslon~~ Devid And MOTION CARRIED UNANINOUSLY. that the
meetl~g be odJourned.
The mectlny was adJnurnad at 1~:00 p.m.
R@~pactful ly submi tted~
~~ °~ • /~
Edith L. Harris
Secretnry
Anahelm C( ty Planning ;ommiss lon
9-12-77