Minutes-PC 1978/07/03Clty Hall
Anaheim~ Caltfornta
July 3, ~978
REGUTAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R~GULAR - The re~ular m~,eting of the Anehelm Lit~ Planning Commiss(on was called to
MEETING urder by Chairmen Tolar at 1:30 p.m.~ July 3~ 1978~ In the Council Chamber,
a quorum beiny present.
PRESENT - CH,4IRMAM: Talar
;:OMMISSIONERS; Bernes~ Uavid~ NGrbst, Juhnson, King~ Linn
ALSO PRESENT - Jeck White Deputy Ctty Attorney
Jack Judd Ctvtl Engineerfng Assfa~r~nt
Paul Singer Trafftc Engtneer
Annika Santa~lahti Assfstant Dtrector for Zontng
Jay Tsshiro Assoclate Plenner
Edith Herrig Pienning Commisslon Secreta~y
PL~OG~ OF ~ The Pledg~ of Allegiance ta the Fldg was led by Ca~rnisstoner Jc,hnson.
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - Commisstoner Osvid Affered a motion~ seconded by Commisstoner King and
THE MINUTES MOTION CARRIED~ that the minutts of the meeting of June 1g, 1978 be
app~oved as submttted.
ITEM N0. 1 CON71NUE0 READVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS:
~~FJ~'fTVE DECLARATION BERNAflDO M. AND MARGARET L. YORBA, 5440 Santa Ane
DE E UI M NT ~anyon Road~ Anaheim~ CA 97.807 and RLEXANOER HAAGEN~
• 18Q 2029 Century Park Esst~ Qne Century Plaza, Sulte
3460, Los Angeles~ CA 90067. AGENT: CHEVRON U.S.A.,
1201 South ~each Boulevard~ La HBbra~ CA 9Ah31.
Petitioner reque~ts permissio~ to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SERViCE SYATION 4lITH WAIVER OF
PERMITTED SIGN on prope~ty described as an trregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting vf
approximately 0.~ acrr located at the northwest corner of Avenida Bernsrdo North and Imperial
Htghway~ having approximate fronteges of 186 feet on the north sic~e of Avenlda Berr~ardo No~t.h
and 2$A feet on the west side of lmpe~tal Highway. Property presently classified CL(SC)
(COkMERCIAL~ l.IMITED-SCENIC CORRIOdR OVERLAY) ZONE.
SubJect p~etition was conttnued from the meettng of Febru~ry 27, 1gJ8 in or~er for steff to
advertise a negative ak claration~ and from the meeting cf March 13~ 1978 for the
petitioner to submit an EIR.
Chalrman Tolar pointed out a request had been submttted b~ the petitioner to wtthdraw the
aforementioned appltcatton.
ACTION: Canmissioner David offared a motion~ seconded ay Commissioner Linn and ~10TION
~I~D UNANiMOUSLY~ that Petdtton for Conditional Use Permit No. 1803 be withdrew~~ as
rnquesxed by the petitioner,
78-497 7/3/78
~
MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1y78 78-498
ELECTION QF 1978-79 CNAIRMAN. CNAIRNAN PRO TEMPORE. AND SECRETAaY OF THE P~.ANNING
It w~s notad the te rtns of offlce for the Ch~innsn~ Chalrman Pro Tempore~ •nd Secret~ry of
the Anahelm City Planntng Commlssion expirad es of June 30~ 1978 a~d~ tharefore~ it was tn
order co elect a temporery Chairman for electton of s~td officers for the flacs) year
1978-7g.
Te~^ ,~ora, ~Chairrnan - Cha(rman Tolar appotnted Commisaloner Johnson ss temporery Chatrman
~or thes elect on.
Chelrmen - Commissloner Johnson call~d for nnrntnr~tions for Chairman.
_.._._..__
Commisslo~er Linn nomineted C~artn~issloner Herbst as Cheirman.
Commtaslo~er Tolar offered a rnotfan~ seconded by Commissiortcr Oevid end MOTION CARRIED~
that nominations be closed.
Commissloner Linn offerr.d a mottun~ secunded by Commissfaner David ai~d MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOIISLY~ that Commissioner Ne~bst be and hereby is elected Chsirman of the Anahatm
City Planntny Commisston for the 1971i-79 fiscal year.
Chatrman Pro Tern ~re • Chairman Herbst assumed the che(r aiid noted thet nominattons were
tn o~der~ o~the o ice of Chalrman Pro Tempare.
Commisstoner King nomtnated Coim~isstoner Barnes as Chalrman Pro Tempore.
Commiss~oner David offer~d a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MATION CARRIED~
that the nom(nations for Chairman Prn Tempare bc and hereby erc closed.
Canwnlssioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Cortmissioner David and MOTION CARRIEO
UNANIMOUSLY, thet Commissioner Barnes be and hereby is elrcted Chatrm~n Pro Te;mpore af the
Anshelm City Planning Commissia~ for the 197$-79 fiscal yea~.
~Secretar~ - Chairman Herbst noted that nominationa were in order for the office of
ec~~-~ etary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission~ and Commissioner King offered a mot(on~
secondesd by Commtssiorter Oavid and MOTION CARRIEO UNANIMOUSLY, that Edith Harrts be and
hereby is raappointed Secretary of the AnsheiM City Planning Commission for the ~978' 79
fisca! year.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
Coim:~issloner Johnson offered a Resolutlon of Appreciatlon No. PC78-157 and moved for its
passage and adoption~ that the Anaheim City F'lanning Cvmmisston shall present to Harold 1,.
T~,lar ar~ expretsion of thelr appreciation far his performance as Chatrman for the 1977-78
.tscal year.
On roll call~ the faregoing resolution was passed by the following votea
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID, HERBST~ JQNNSON~ KthG, LINN
NOE5: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A9STAIN: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
7/3/78
~. ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3. 1918 7~•499
ITkM N0~ 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARiNG. 01~N~RSs ROBERT A. ANU
~~~~RICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 11 ROSEMARIE SMITH~ 1372~ Rosec~ens~ Sante Fe Springs~
N. CA 90670. AGENT: AMOS JOHNSTONE~ I140 Mest
Hampshi~e~ Anahelm~ CA 92802. Petittoner rsquests
WAIVER OF (A) P~RMITTEO IOCATION OF FREE-STANDING
SIGN, (B) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE•STANDING ~IGN. ANO (C) MAXIMUM AREA OF FREE-STANDING SIGN,
TO CONSTRUCT A FREE-STANDING SIGN an property descr(bed as e rect~~gularly-sh~ped p~rcel of
I~nd consisting of spp~oximately k.2 acres having approximate frantages of 317 feet on the
south ~Ide of Winston Roe~d end 1~~ feet on the west sido of Sunkist Street~ P~opertY
preeently classlPled M~ (IP~DUSTRIAI, LIMITED) 20NE.
SubJect petit(on waa continued frnm the meetings of Mey 22 and June 5 end 19~ 1978~ at the
raquest of the patitioner.
Chalrmen lierbst pointed out a request had been submitted for a twa-r+eek continue~ce in
connectlon wi th this 1 tem end asked i f there was anyonr, present ~ep ~esanting the
petltioner or his egent.
Mr, Mandenha 1 1 i nd I ceted f rom klie aud 1 ence tha t he wa~ emp 1 oyed by Mr. Sml th and po i n ted
out nelther the attorney nor Mr. Smt th were ab le to attend and ha~d raqueeted that thf s
matte~ be co~t(nued.
Chalrrnan Herbst polnted ~ut this item has been continued twlce bnd he felt sufficient time
hadbeen granted the petitioner; that tt is a simpl~ requr.st reyarding the size of the
sign and he felt sufficient evidence was av~aileble to hesr che matter.
Commissione~ Tolar indicated stnce there was no opposition pre~ent and the appl icsnt is
not present~ he saw no harm in allawing another two-week conttnuance; however. ha would
not be in favor of any future requests for continuances.
ACTIONt Commission~r Tolar offered a mntlon, secondcd by Commisaianer King and MOTIQN
~R1~D (C~mmissioner H~erbst vottng no) ~ that conslderation of th~ aforementToned item be
continued to thc rQgular n~eting of the Planning Commission on July 17~ 1~78, and that no
further continuances be granted.
Commissione~ Jot~nson pointed out to Mr. Mendenhall that no further requests for
contlnuances wi Ii be granted an~ this matter wt 11 be heard on J~~iy 17, 1978.
ITfM N0. CONTINUED PUBLIC NEAfiING. OWNER; CIINYON PLA2A
~~~~RICAL EX~liPTION-CLA55 11 OCVELOPMENT~ 10522 Greenbri~r~ Santa Ana~ CA 927Q5~
Q. ~p2_1 AGENT: MOBIL Oll CORPORATION~ °. ~. Box 2211~
Tustin~ CA g2G90. Petittoner requests WAIVER OF
PERM 1 TTE D S I GNS ~ TO CONST'RUCT SEVEN FREE-STAND I NG
SIGNS AT A rROPO'SED SERVIr.E STATION on praperty c~scrlbed as a rectangularly-sha,~ed parcel
of Isnd co~~sisting of approximately G.6 acre located at the northeasc corner of McKinnon
Drlve and lakevtew Avanue~ havtng approxtrnate f~antages of 164 fe~t on the north side of
NcKinno~ Drlve and 160 feet ~n the east side o~F lakeviea Avenue. a~d further describe~' as
440 North lakeview Avenue. Property presently classified CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITE!
SCEN 1 C CORRI DOR OVERLAY) ZONE.
Subject petition wss c~nttnued from the meeting of June 19~ 1978 at the request of the
peti t toner .
7/3/18
ti.
M 1 NUTLS. ANANE I M C I TY PLANN 1 tIG CONM I SS I ON ~ JULY 3~ 1978 78-500
~IR CAjEG~1RICAI. EXEMPTION-CLASS il AND YARIANCE N0. 021_ (contlnued)
Thoro wss one person indicattng her pr~sence (n oppositlon to subJect resquest. and
ol though th~ staff report to tl~e Planning Comml~slon dated July 3~ 1978 was not read at
the publ ic hearing, (t Is referreJ to and m~de ~ pert of the minutos.
G~orgo R11e~r, arch(tecc~ lagune t1111s, t~dicated he had done the maat~r plan for tha
entirn center end would 1(ka to make modi ficAtlons to the re~uest so that the number of
wwiverd raquested would not be so severe. tle pulnted out they would ! Ike to use e wel l-
mounted siqn with square foatage of 37 feet~ In conformence w(th City cc~de~ ~nd the enly
other stgns they would Itke would bo the "self-service" and "full-service" ~tgns on the
beglnnings of the two islendz and the logo ropresentin~ the Mobll O11 Corpuratlon on the
back side of the bui Iding. H~ polnted out tha monument signs had boen el (minated and
repleced by the stgns on the bullding, which are allowed by co ,
Csthy Shepherd~ 471~ McKtnnon Drtve~ Anahelm~ pointed out the stetion is on the corner of
thelr street and they do not went the added treffic they feel these signs w~uld draw from
the freaway; that this carner is very aasy to see from the freeway snd they fael it wcwld
draw additiona) treffic onto their street, She pofnted out there la only one entrance ~nd
extt (nto the{r housiny trsct of z4U homes and on McKlnnon the crafffc fs el~cady
l~cradlble. Shc felt ttie whole idea of a shopptng ccnter was poor~ but that thry hed not
been lnform~d whcn It was oriylnally ~pprov~d,
Chalrmen Herbst polnted out the servlce statlon would be facing toward the shopping cant~r
and woul d b~ an intcgral part of the shopping center, and Mrs. Shcpherd pointed out there
is a drivewa}~ off McKlnnon into the service station. She pointed out chay had rev(ewed
the plans and st 1 I 1 fe I t the t raf f i c wou 1 d be ve ry bad and there wau 1 d bc a 1 ot of t ruck
traffic tur~ing around In tlieir tract since It is easler than turniny In a shopping
ce~ter.
Chalrm~n Herbst palnted out the o~ly natter before the Pl~nning Cortimisaion today ts the
signs for the service statian. nut the servlce statton ltself. Ne indicated there would
be no e 1 eva ted s 1 gns .
Mrs. Shephe~d polnted out they were sti 1 i opposed t~ the slgns and thought they would d~aw
addltlonal traffic frc~n the fraeway and did noe feel they are needed.
THE PUDLIC MEARING WAS CIOSED.
Chalrmen Ne~bst clarified which signs we~e being eliminated and Mr. Riley rrplied that
they wsre trying to minlmixe the concerns of the cittzenR and had obtained special
approval from New York which was the first approval of its kind; that the signs woutd be
on the back stde of the bui lding facinq the shoppiny center~ but they would ! ike to have
Lhe Mobi 1 iego sign so that peoplc could see it is a Mobi 1 station.
Commiss i one r Barnes osked the s i ze of the logo s i gn and how fa r i t woul d i 1 I umi nete,
i~dlcattng hor concern that it would illuminete the back yards and windows of the homes
near there.
Mr. A(ley polnted out it is 4 feet in diameter a~d is on the building~ and thc bullding Is
not very ta 11 and is separated from the houses by the shopping center.
Comnissioner Johnson asked staff if the square foota~ge had been cAlculated for this new
s i gn, and Jay Tashi ro~ Assoc~ate Planne~, repl led thet staff had not had the opportunity
to evaluate the revised plana.
7/3/78
~, 1
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ JUIY 3~ 1978 1Q'501
EIR CATCGORICAL EXEMPTION-CIASS 11 AN~_VARIANCE N0~ 3021. (to~tlnued)
Annik~ Santelahti~ Assistant Di~ectar fo~ Zaning~ expleined that the coda allowe l0Y cf
the buildfny facede for one w~ll-mounted ~i~~~ anci~ in t!~le ceue~ they would be laoking st
two sig~s. and Mr. Rtley polnted out there is a total of 3] square te~r in both slgns.
Chairman Herbac potntad out the only concern of the Pla.ming Commission v+ould bo the
service identlfication si,yns end esked if the "self-service" ~Igns are covared by code or
Counci l pol icy~ and Jay Taehiro pclnted out i t (s in the code, but Is not eppl icable Tn
the comme rc i e 1 h(1 1 s i de zone .
Chat rman Herbst aske~l i f the siyns we~e on the pump is lands snd asked why the "ful l-
servic~" sig~ was needed.
Mr. R) ley pointed out there Is a lot ~f confus ion when both pumps have not been
Identifled. He pointed ouC this pro)cct ts ~oc vlstble from the hills above; that it Is
In the Scenlc Corridor but is not vlslble and could only Ue see~ fran the shopping center
itself.
Chelrman He~bst asked if the pump islands are under canopics~ and Mr. Riley replled that
they wnre.
Commissiona~ ~arn~s asked Mrs. Shepherd if she understood tFie revised plans, snd Mrs.
Shepherd replfed that she dtd.
The Commission dtscussed the number of waivers reuuesteJ, ~rith .~ay T~shiro pointing out
the wall-rnounted siyns could nnt exce 10$ of the building fscsde.
I t was noLed that ~he P ianniny DI rect~~ or h i s author i zr~d represen tat i va hes determi ned
th~t the proposed proJect falls within the def(nition of Categorica) Exempt(ons, Class 11~
as daf i ned i n peragraph 2 of che C i ty of Anahe f m Env i ronmon ta 1 1 mpact Report Gu 1 de 1 1 nes
and is~ therefore~ cateyoricelly exempc from the requirement to p~epare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissloner Tolar ~Pfered Resolution No. PC7~-13~ a~d nwved for Its passage and
aiTptTon, that the Anaheim City Planning Cornmission does hereby grant Petltton for
Va~lance No. 3021 ~ in part~ to permit the constructton of four f~ee•standing slgns st a
serv(ca station on the basis that this iy a"reversed" service statlon site a~d the purtQ
islands a~e not located ad)acent to the adjoi~ing streets and ere not fully visible f~om
the (ntersection~ and the service identification slgns located on the pump isla~ds are
neceasary to ,!iminate confusl~~ for the customer and unsafe on-site t~affic circulation~
end sub,ject to Interdepartmental Committee recortwnendatinns.
On roll cali~ the foregainy resolut(on was passed by the follawing vute:
AYES: COMMISSlONERS: BARNES, OAVID, HERBST~ J~HNSON, KING~ LINN, TOI.AR
NOES s COMM~ I SS I ONERS ; NONE
ABS~NTt COMMISSIONERS: NONE
~i3i ~a
MlNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAHNING GO~MISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 78-502
ITEM N0. ~ PUULIC HFARING. OWNER: TEXACO-ANAHEIM HILLS~ INC.~
~~~VE DE:CIARATION j8U A~eheim 11(lly Road~ Anaheim~ CA 3260'l. AGEhIT;
. -78-G3 ANA~IEtM ~11LLS~ IN(,.~ ;b0 Anahefm Nllls Road~ pnahelm~
CA ~2K07, Petttloner re~quests thet propa~ty described
as dn irr~gularly-shaped parcel ot land consisttng of
approxlmstely 15.9 acres having a frontaqe of approximaTely 1640 feet on the south slde of
Nohl Ranch Road~ h+~ving a maximum depth af appraximet~ly 65n feet~ end being loceted at the
southerly terminus of Anehelm H(lla Road~ bc reclassiPlcd f rom the RS-A-43~000(SC)
(aESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE: to the CL(SG) (COMMERCiAI~ l.iM~TEO-
SCENIC CORRIUOR OVEItLAY) ZONE.
There was one person tndlcetiny her presence In opposlti~n to subJect reques`.. end
although the staff report to the Planning Canm(sston ciatcd July 3~ 1978 was not rPAd ~~t
the pub 1 i c hear i ny ~ i! 1 s re f~:rred to ancf rnade a part of the mi nutes .
John Bohack, representing Anah~im NillS~ in~., indic~ted th~ subJect ~+roperty la two
parcels consisting ~f approx(mately 1G acres at the intersectlon of Anr,fieim Hillx Road and
Nohl Ranch Road and that the current designation under the planned cor~munity zone ts for
comn~rclal ofF(ce. Ne stated they wer~~ rcq~~esttng redeslgnati~n to the commercirl limited
zone In orde~ tQ have available the opti~n ~~f provlding e more complete array of shopping
and convr.n(ence services to the residenx~ of Anehatm Nllis. Ne indicated the demend for
office space has not mate~rialized as o~iylnally expected at the site across the straet;
that Anahelm HIlls~ Inc. plans to con!rol the usera by deed restrlcttons and they do not
intend to aim far tf~e development of a~y type bu~inesses thr~t would directiy cause
competitton with the existing retail sC~res~ In Anahcim Nllls Plaia ar the Al~ta Beta
cenker. He stated the free market system wuuld d(ccate n trAVe) agency would n~t
partlcularly want to go tn thcre sincc tliere Is one across clie strcet.
Ann Kershaw. y41G Wi l lowtck Ctrcle~ Anal~eim HI S Is~ indlca!ed she (s oppose~ .. th•
redesignatlan for this area; that by admiasian Gf Anahei,~-1(lls~ Inc.~ the entl~. . s
only 50$ devcloped and thet as tc stands ~~oa, they are '~~vfnQ diff( ;utt~ leasing ot,
bulldings; that they have shopping centers in the area~ one uf w!~Ich has ~ne out ~f
business. Sh~ statsu :ih~n Che shop owners had lcasei prop~rtles i• che ~°,lpha Bete
shoFping center which is across thr street from tt~G prop~ •d site~ Anaheim Nllls, Inc. had
explained there would bc no other Cammerctal develapment in thc area~ that lt would be
off~r. b~lldings and the~r business would be abl~ to draw f~ro~~~ the cntire arca. She
p~~fnted out th_s e shops are having a difftcult t~mc anu belleved at chls timc another
c:omn~errlol dev~loprt~nt would not be neaded and would causc b blighted shopping area since
the~o is not sUffTcien~ populat(on. She indicated somn ~eople have sta~ed the density fs
not as htgh es originatly proposed and stated this is true because many of the areas
designated to be apartments or condominiums have been ch~~nyed to stngle-fan;ily homes~ and
the fact that the densities have been changed should not penalize the shop owners already
there and she stated the changes have cut their prospsctive clientele. She poir~!ed out
the stngle-family homes have been built because they are more salable and there i~. a
higher profit margfn in single-Family homes as opposed to the higher d~nsities~ :,he
stated the developer goes wfilchever wey the market is going; that in vlew of the fact Ch~~
Anaheim Hills is nat yet 50$ developad~ this land c:ould be left as it is and a
determination made at a later date when the population has Increased in the area~ or when
it is determined what kind of population there wlll be. She stated, aga(n~ since t!~e shop
c~wners in the area are I~avtng a difficulC tims and the original aroposal was for an off(ce
building~ she fGlt it wauld not hurt t~ leave this l~nd as it sits today since th~ re are
so msny shops going out of bust~ess in the area.
7/3/78
~
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3, 1978 78-503
Ela NEGATIVE DEGLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. - 8-6 (continued)
__.._
M~. Bohac questioned whether o~ not A~sheim Hills, Inc. had told anyone there would be no
competition to xhelr retall endesvors end felt that if this was ttated~ It was probably
mada by the devetoper~ Grant Corporation. Hu I~dicsted~ ageins that they do not aim to
h~ve any competing busineasas within the aroa. He Indlcet~d there is a list of contect•a
of peopin i~terested in this eree including 10 cont~cts fa~ church sttes~ co~tacts fo~ ~
racquetbal) conter~ swim club~ dental office~ rr~dical office~ roal e~tate office~ legal
office~ liquor store, branch YMCA~ a bank~ and a landscepe architect office. He Indic~ted
he felt (t would bo questtonable to ask the Planntng Commisslon to legtslate the Ilm(ting
of competitiun.
THE PUBLIC HCARING WAS CLOSEQ.
Conxn(ssioner 8arnes indicated she~ too~ ~yas concerned about the suffertng commerciei
develapment across thc str~et; that she questioned whether or not~ tn the interest aP good
planning~ like buslnesses shauld be put across ttie stteet. She osked M~. 8ohac tf ht
would be wtlling to stlpulate xo perhaps sticking to a certaln llst.
Mr. Bohac stated he thought they would be willing to stipulatc that they would not be
seek(n~ out e competing bustness and did not thlnk a person wtth a competing buslnnss
would want to put In a fac~lity across the street from another one~ that would be poor
business and he did not sea Ic happenlny.
Commissioner King pointed out the Planning Cammtsslon as land plonnrrs were gotting away
from thelr ,jurfsdictton when they talk about ~conomics.
Commissioner Barnes pcainted out that as e land planner she remembers th~ serv(ce statlons
approved many ycars ago and Che bltght tt~ey have caused in Anahetm~ and feit the Pienning
Cartimisslon should consider th~se kinds of things before they app~ove them beceuse they
could end up wlth cortanerctal centers Just like se~vice stations.
Canmissioner Tolar pointed out he was totally oppo~ed ta the concept of limitatlon of th~
free en,terprise system and competition and a list would only be valid as long as Anaheim
Hllls. Inc, owned the {.roperty. Ne stated that under the CL Zone there a~e certeln uses
which the owne~s could put on the prope~ty. Ne feli the real question is the land use and
the need for a commercial development ~t this tlme; that he felt one of the reasons we
have a difficult time getti~g good comme~cial cente~s is because smail commerctal shopping
centers have been allawed all over thC City Af Anaheim. He stated he could not support
the same type concept in what he co~sidered a beautiful rural~ hill and canyon area. He
stated he did not care whether there was a red dot on a map or not~ which was put therG
four or flve years ago by a task force or a Ganeral Plan resolution of intent~ he d(d ~ot
intend to suppart a comme~cial eenter in that area because he did r~t feel there is a need
fo~ tt and thought it wouid be poor planning.
M~. Bohac potnted out they are requesting this as an option and do no~ plan to make a
full-blown retail devel~pment.
CommLssioner 7olar pointed out that comnerctal is commercial, and this would still be ~
commerclal center which would put more traffic into an already hcavlly populated
resldential area~ and as far as he was concerned, iti is out of place and he would not
support it.
Mr. Rohac asked if he was agsinst commercial office development as wrll, and Commissioner
Tolar repiied that he was.
7/3/78
_~
NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS:ION~ JULY 3~ 1~7$ 78-504
E I fi NEWITI VE DECLAMTI ON ANQ RECLASS I F I CA f ION_ NQ ;__j7-Z8-6~ (cont I ~ued)
Chatrmen Narbst po{nted out A~eheim Hllls Road ~~!f Nahl Kanch RoAd iy n reslJentlal str:et
and there wtll be a lot of traffic at tl~at corner~ and this develapment would bo putting
all the treffic onto a resldcntlal street and asked Paul Stnger, Trafflc Enqtneer~ to
explai~ the traffic patterns.
Peul ~inger pointed out thelr rccommendation~ as in the past, 1~ that tf there are
commerclal driveways~ they should be locsted to colncide ecross the street fram each other
and this shows commerclal driveweys at offsat I~cati~ns whtch would provide awkward turns
at that locetion. He stotecf all commerc(al driveways are to be confined and separated
from single-femlly resi~entlal areas.
Chalrman Ilerbst questloned the ne~d for additlonal cam~erc(al property in thls area~ also;
that he had looked at the area ve ry tiioroughly end had looked at the high banks and the
shnpplnc~ cent~r would be com~pletely el~vated from Noh) Ranch Road; thet there is vacent
ground on the shopping center across the straet wfiich has not been daveloped and a medica)
center is being developed at Canyon Rim Road and Nohl Ranch Road, which would service some
of the u3es propased fo~ this center~ auch as a dental office or medlcal offlca. etc., and
that a bank could yo on the larye vacant property In the shopping center now~ which wauld
be d lot better plan. He indicated it appca,ed this particular reGlasstficatio~ at this
time is premature since tha shopping tenters already there are not surviving very wall~
and to create more comn~rclal area on a ~esidential street does not fit the plan. He
refe~red to the planned community development ai•d felt the red dot would t~dicate the
shopping center already extsting across the strae:. Ne felt the sites should be changGd
and did not feel this area could support additiona~ comnerclal development sin~e it ts
more apt to go resic:ential on that side of Nohl Ranch tLoad. Hr fclt it Is the wrong time
to designate It for any commercial zone and that maybe in a few years it could support
commercia) developmen~~ but he doubteJ it.
Mr. 6ohac asked what [he Plannlny Commtssion would rCCOrtmend for development at thls
intcrsection. and thalrman Herbst pointed out that would be up to the developer to ftnd
out what the ma~rket woul~~ indicate for th(s corner, and proposals could be submitted for
public hea~ing.
Commissioner 8arnes offered a motlon for approval of the Negative Declaratton, seconded by
Commissi~ner King.
Chairman Herbst pointed out he could not support a motian fo~ approval of a Negative
Declarat~on since he felt there wauld be ~n adverse impact on the a~ea.
Jeck White~ Depucy City Attorn~y; potnted out the Flanntng Commission should not app~ove a
Negattve Declaration if thev f~it the~e would be an adverse Impact on the area.
Gommissioner Barnes ~+(thdrew her motion for approval of the Negative Declaration and
Commissloner King wi thdr~rov his second.
ACTION: Commissionc, 8arnes offered a motion, seconded by Commtssioner Tolar and MOTION
~ED (Commissioners David and Johnson voting no). that the Anaheim City Planning
Commisslon has revi~wei the proposal to reclassify the zaniny from RS-A-43~000(SC)
(Residentfel/Agricultural-Scenic Corridor Overlay) to CL(SC) (Cam~erctal. Limited-Scenic
Cor~idor Ove~lay) on an irregularly-sheped parcGl of lanc! consisting of app~oximately 15.9
scres having a frontage of approxlmately 1640 ¢eet on the south side of Nohl Ra~ch Road.
and heving a maximum depth of approximately 6$0 feet and being iocated at the southerly
t~rmi~nus of Anaheim Hills Road; and does hereby disapprove the Negative Declaration f~om
7/3/78
~
~,
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, JU11- 3~ 1978 7~5~5
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78•63 (conttnuad)
the requirvmant la praparn an E~vlronrt~~tal Impact Report ~n the basts th~t thero would be
aignificant Individual or cumulative adverse envtronmental Impacts due to the app~ova) of
thts Negatlve Declaratton.
Gommissioner 9arnes offared Resolution No~ PG78-1;9 and moved for Its passage and
adoptlon~ that the Anehelm Ctty Plrnniny Commisston doos he~eby deny Petltton for
itecl~ssiffcetion No. 77-78-63 on the basis that in the InteresL oP good plannt~g this
requext la p~emature for thls resldential aree and that dn Envlronmental impett Report
would be required.
On roll call, tl~e foregoiny resolutlan was passed by the foltowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ~ARNES~ DAVID~ HERRST, JOHM50~1. Y.lNG, LINN. TOLAR
NOES: COMMISISONERS; NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOI~ERS: I~Ot~C
Jack Whlte~ Deputy City Attorney~ presented the petit(oncr with the Nrttten rigt~t to
appeal the Plannlny C~~^mission's declslon withtn 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0._} PUI3LIC NEARING. OEVELQPER: ANAHEIM NILLS~ INC..
~N NMEt~TAI IMPACT REPORT N0. 218 380 Anaheim N(lis Road~ A~nahetrn~ CA q2807.
~ . ENGINEER: J~NNI~IfS-HAI.QE~tNAH-HOOD, 540 North Gc~1dGn
EN IVE MAP OF RACT NOS. C(rcle Orive~ ~uite 111~ Sanxe Ana~ CA 927Q~.
1040 7 1040 8 1040 AND 1041~ Property described as a~ lrregutarly-shaped parcel
~ of land cansl~ting ~f approximataly 83.8 acres ht~ving
REMOVAL OF SPECIMEM TREES a frontage of ~ppro>.irn~t~ely 593 feet on the south
side of Willawick Drivc~ having a maximum depth of
approxlmacely 158U fee+c~ and being lc,cated approxt-
mateiy 865 feet south oF the ce~terline of Nohl Ranch Itoad. Praperty pres~ntly classified
RS-A-43~000(SC) (R~SIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENIG CORaIDOR OV~RLAY) 20NE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOt~; RS•HS-10,000(SC) (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGIE-FAMILY ?11LLSIOE-SCENtC
CORRI DOR OVERLAY) ZOt1E.
TENTATIVE TRIICT REQUESTS: TRACT N0. 10407 - ~1 RS•NS~1c~~r100(SCj LOTS + 1 COhWON LOT.
TRAGT N0. 10408 - ~r 1 RS-NS-10 ~000 ( SC) LOTS * 2 COlIMON ~LOTS.
TRACT N0. 10409 - S~ aS•HS-10~000(SC~ LOTS + 4 COMMON LQTS.
TRACT N0. 1d410 - 32 aS-HS-1d,Q00(SC) LOTS ~ 1 LQM~ION LOT.
There wr.re approximetely 19 persons indtcating their presence In oppositlon ta sub,jett
request~ and althou9h the staff report to the Planning Comm+sslon dat~d July 3, 19 78 waS
not presented et the publtc hearing. it is ~eferred to and made a part of tl~e minutes.
It was noted the Hill a~d Canyon Munictpal Advisory Cammittee (11ACMAC) revtewed su5ject
proposal o~ June 20~ t978~ and express~d ca~cerns relative to t-~e proposed tracts not
conforming to the ~esidentla! hiliside site de~velopment sta~nda.~ds recently studied;
vehiculA~ accesa being pravided onto Willowlck Drive and the resulting increased traffic
leveis placed ,~n existing tracts to the nnrth; proposed densities and clrculation patterns
and ha+ the p~oJect Gould be improved with less density and improved ctrculation Lhrough
additional access onto the southerly extension of impe~lal Nighway; and the amount of cut
and itll necessary and amount of manufactured slope~ Nhich would need to be main~ained.
7/3/78
~.
~ `T
` ~
MINUTES. ANANEIM C11Y P~ANNtNG COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ ~97~ 78~5Q~
EIR N0. 218~ fiECLASSIFICATION N0. 7a-79•5 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT I~OS. 10407~ 1040a~
1Q44g___At~D 10410 (continued)
HACMIIC rec~mnende,d thst EIR N~. 218 not b~ ~ccepteJ as belnq complete; thet
Recl~salft u tlon No. 78-79~5 be epproved; and that the t~acts (Nos. 10407~ 1040~, 10409
and 10410) and requesi for apec(mbn trec rernova~l be dnnied.
John Bohac~ representing Anaheim Hills~ Inc.. 380 Anehelm Hill~ Road~ Anshelm~ refer~ed to
the topographlc~) model and aerial phocograplis and maps depicting the trect. Ne stated
the locatlnn of the property (s south of the Westrtdy~ development on the northwest side
of proposed Imperia) Htghway and consists of 84 scres div(dad (nto four trocts~ with 1G4
restdentta) lots and a density of 1.72 lots per acre a~d the General Plsn allo-s 5 lots
per scre. Na (ndicated the praposed ~ezoning ts in confo rtnance wlth the adopted Canyon
Area Genera) Plan of March 8~ 1977, and they felt It was a loglcal str.p I~ the right
direction for ultimetc development of thc Anahelm Hllis Plann~d Communtty. tle referrcd to
the ordlnanccss recently c~ns(dered by the Planntny Commisston end Indicated this proJe~t
cemplles wlth all standards es set forth in those o~dinances; that they are not r~questing
any varlances. He inciicated he reallzed ti-ere is sorm_ oppositlon and he wauld iike to
haar from th~ oppos(tton at this timc.
Clifton Garrett, 5374 W111owlck Drtve~ Anaheim~ pointed out thls heartng was set up by
Anshefm Hills~ Inc. for a date which was a hollday and there are nvnerous peaple in the
Wast~idge area who are directly affected by this proposel who hbve requested to be abl~ ta
attend the meeting a~d express tl~cir vicws. Ile presented a petition on behalf of
approxlmataly 80 persons who could not attend because of thc hollday schedule requesting a
coh!Inuance to anather time and for the conveniencr of ehe homeowners who are dlrectly
affected requesting an eventng meetiny.
Chai~men Herbst pointed out the petit(on was for a request for a continuance for an
evenin3 meeting so that the people In the 4lastridgc area could att~nd~ and pointed out
there are quite a few people present in oppos(tlon.
Mr. Gar~ott indtcated thts was correct. but hc want~d the Comnisston to be aaa~e of the
requtst of the homeowners; that eve ryone is opposed ta this end would like tn be able to
present thelr reasons and they are perttne~t ta the proposed tracts and the way thay ar~
designed~ and also the traffic hazards.
Wmmiasioner Tolar indicated he was strongly in favor of a continuance on this matter~ but
would llke to hear from the opposielon present and then discuss the continuance later;
that there are several items in his mind which would requlre some time before he could
make a dectsion.
Commtsstone~•s Oavid and Barnes indlcated they agr~e with Gommissioner 7olar in hear(ng
from those persons present in opposition.
Chairmsn Herbst Indicated he thought the Planning Commission was prepared to proceed unCil
3uch time they felt IL necessary to consider a continuance~ but that he would Iike to hear
from the 19 persons present in opposition which would probably glve the applicent an
opportunlty to be better prepare~d and to knaw what he has to fate.
Mr. Garrott indicated that he recelved a copy of the Dames and Moore environmental impact
report and indtcated that on page 3 of that report it states there wtil be a defintte
negattve impact and he would like the Planning Commisslon to at teast consider this and
sympathize with those owners in the Westridge developnwent. Ne referred to the map as
shavn and indicated thet it does not show where Wagon Wheel Road and the extension of Los
Coyotes will go. He pointed out those Ma streets would axit into the Me~tridge Tract and
7/3/78
MINUTE5~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNINfi COMMISSIpN, JULY 3~ ~978 78~507
EIR N0, 218~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7$~19~5 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10407~ 10408~
10~s09 ANO 10410 (continued) !_ _,_ .Y~_ ---.
polnted out th• t~sffic ctrculatlo~ patto~~s on the mop; that obvtously ther~ are problems
with inqress and agros~ and with addltional traffic; and that the report indlcates
additional traffic of 1}0 veh(cles per day. He potnted out wtth thc trafftc p~ttern
lndicetod there would be a lot more trips per d~y; that people wauld be gping to and f~cxn
work~ toking thc chlldren to and from scho~l~ and trips to the rn~rkets~ drug atores~ etc.,
and that this would be conslderAbly more tr(~s than 130 as raferred to tn the EIR and felt
tt~e addlttonal traff(c wauld be very crltical and have an effect o~ the safety af the
children; that they walk. to tlia schoal and the bus stop i~ that area. He stated thc
concept that ~35'6 of the traffic would exit through Imparlal Flighway wAS not vAlid ss (t
would be going uphlll enJ uut of their dtrectian, and if they were going to the Orange
Mall they would take the qutckest route wlilch is Nohl Ranch Roed~ ovcr the hlll~ whtcl~
means going through thelr tract. 11e stated the report refers to a trafftc study of San
Luls Oblsp~ anci indl~;ated this Is not thc seme situation, that it is ~~~t a bCnch clty or a
recreetiona) community~ and they would argue tFiat the stuJy had no r~r•tt or valuc to th(s
res(dential area. fle refer~~d t~ four homes In Tract No. a04~i~~ l.ot Nos. 1~ 2~ 3 and 4~
and indlcated~ according to the plan~ these homes woulci face tne Wcstridge Trect; that
they take prfde in thelr planned, contrnl;ed cortmunity with hath architectural end slope
controls and that they would have no abllity tA maintai~ ar,~ control over whatever those
four homeciwn~rs mlght wish to do conc~rntng thelr slopr.s, front lawns~ etc.
He referred to thr, canyon fill pr~posed by thc dev~lnGar an~ ~tated thls Is one huge
amount of dtrt to be moved. Ne stated he had danc a Itttt~: researct~ and refe~red to the
letter sent to the Robert Grant Corporation which dcvefc,~cd 1Jestridgc Estates by the
Divlsion of Mines and Geology relatlvc to the ypnla~tiica! hazards of the entire orea. He
Indicated th(s parttcular report (n lts e~tirety is missing from the Department of Rea)
Estate tn Los Anyeles and refGrred to a ~Ara~~ra~h wl~ich might exptatn the reason why. Ne
indicated this letter was dated October 24, 1972, adc!ressed to Robert H. G~ant
Corporattan~ receiveJ Qctober 30~ 1g72 by t4~e Dcpartment of Real Estate.
"The informatian furnished by th~ Mines and G~ologica) Dlvislan will be placed in
the public report unless ti~e Diviston is furnished e~idence in form of yeoing(sts
report er any other informatiun that the soil ard carthquake informatlon is not
es s t+ated."
Ha indlc:ated that this (ndicatea to him further study should be done by an tndividual,
gruup o~ a State agency~ or at least find the original report so th~t tt can be evaluated.
He stated Grant Corporetion had submttted a report by Pacific Soils Engtneering~ and an
interesting thing about this report was that at thc end of it they had a disclaimer
stating basically they or,ly guaranteed Chose ~iol~es or t~enches they had dug and the
adJacent soil or soil beneath may be totally unstable. He stated the buildtnqs obviously
have been butit anci that he menttoned this because it pruves thts area 1s alread~ u~stable
wlth slope failures~ etc, He staced in relation Co slope failures there have been cracks
in the foundattons and the walis which clearly indicate obvious soil problems and that to
~lla+ this developer to develop this area wlthout accurate, unbiased reports from a
geologlst wouid be creattng +~ potentlal disastcr area.
Ne stated he was not opposed to Anaheim Hills. Inc. builcStng homes, but not tn a ha~,hazard
manner; that there should be more open space and referred to advertlsements by Anaheim
Hills~ Inc. showinq a.ouple welki~g hand•in-hand with oaks trees tn the distance and
indicating the bafc,re-end-efter condit6ono with the seme picture being sfta~ lt is
developed. He stated that with this haphazard development~ it wiil not be this way
anymore. F~~ felt this development would have a datr~mental effect on the cortmuntty. Ne
indicated he w4uld like to request the Commission to consider an EIR that is not done by
7/3/78
.~
x, ~
MINUTfS~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIY 3~ 1978 78-508
EIR Nd. 218, aECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-5 AND TENTATIVE MAF OF TRACT N05. 1Q4Q7~ 10408~
1040~, AND 10410 (cont i nued) .__.
the devalopcr or ~onx~on~ tied In with the develop~~~ but an independent agency. He
indicated the StatG could provtde the or(gfnal roport referred to eariter and urged the
Commisslon to deny the request as It presencly exists.
Jan Hall, S45 Tumbleweed Road~ Anshe(m, indicated she Ilves In the Westrldge developmant~
but ls representing th~ Nill and Canyon Munic(pal Advisory Comm(ttee (HACMAC). She
presnnted a msp to the Commisslon showing where thc traffic will drop out onto Westrtdge.
She stated HACMAC had rev(ewed the proposel end had heerd from a lot af the ho~-au~.+~crs and
they concurred on the traffic and on the lack of informatlon in the EIR rec~ard~ng trafflc.
She statecl~ l iviny In the area, she could assure the Commisslon there would bc rt,ore than
130 trlps per day; that Wcstridgc has 4.6 autcrnobiiPS per household now. She stated
HACMAC was concerned about the design nf L~ts 1 through 9 of Tract No. 10409 which wouid
be edJolning Westrldge. She referred to the proposed cul-~le-sac and (ndlcatad there would
be only 15 feet Jiffe~ence between the Mlestridge Tract and tt~e cul-de-sac behind them.
She felt the amount of e~rth to be moved is incredible. She referred to on~ of the
ca~yons to be filled and indicated It used to be a stream. She report~d HACMAC wes
unanimously opposed to this developrr~nt and thc Inadequecy of the EIR as presented.
Richard Price~ 540~ Wlllowtck Circle, M aheim~ (ndlcated he was one of the lucky owners
that the trafflc f~om the new tract would empty onto~ and the people ~~xt door who could
~ot be here today would also be directly affected. He indicated they already have
problems wlth the traffic on Willawick ond have called the police on severel occasions;
thaL people tesnd to ga faster up and dawn the hill; thet they have stopped people and
asked th~.m ta slow down and they reply it is a 45 mile per hour zone. but it is really a
25 mile per hour zone. He stated he has succeeded in c~tting the existing traffic to slow
dawn a~nd hes figured there will be an additional 180f} car trihs pe~ day and he does not
want to start over again.
Jack Reed~ 5442 Willowick Clrcle~ Anaheim~ pointed out that one of the new properties
would be odJacent to his property and tiat this area used to be in the County. He sCated
he f~und It incredlble to believe that anyone would consider increasing t~affic onto
Willowick Circle. He indicated he has a 19 year old daughter who Is a 3.8 GPA stude~t and
has been drivlny for over one and one-half years and had left his house and the car had
gotten out of control a~d she could not rnake ehe turn at the corner~ and asked if it would
be gaod pianning to allow nare traffic onto the street and asked what ls gotng to be the
result when the people who live there and know the street cannot make the tur~; that it is
a standa~d~ 60-foot wide resfdential street and he felt people wtio did not know the street
wouid not be able to make the turn and w(th 1800 more cArs per day~ would make it a
terrible traffic. situation.
He stated ane of his biggest obJectians would be the encraachment into his prtvacy. He
tndicated that when he sits on his patlo after a barbecue he could hear the caMrs moaing
and with this deveslopment there would not be any more of this type atmosphere, and he
~ecommended that the traffic situation be figured out so that the traffic can be handled~
and the enroachment of his p~ivacy is a serious consideration and the lots should not be
kept 167 feet apart. H~ indicated he would not like to look up and see someone looking
out the(r windaws into his back yard.
He rEfer~ed to the berms and the destruction of the berms and the risk with a property
awner regrading his lot and draining the ~ater downhill instead of towards the street.
Mirlam Passum, 5432 41i11o-rick C(rcle~ stated thzir home wouid be seeing all the traffic
that would be coming down the st~eet. She indicated she would attest to 2he fact that 130
7/3/78
.r
~
+~;
.,~
MINUTES~ AHAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 78-509
EIR N0. 218~ RECLASSIFICATIO~~ N0. 78-79-y ANQ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10407~ 10408~
10409 AND 10410 (cnntinued) ~_._`~____
cars from a tract af thot aizc is a ~idlculous figurc; that thcrc must bc 130 cars at 9:00
a.m. Just teking chtldren to schaol. She stated she was speaking as e mother and she did
not allow her children to walk to school unless she could go to the corner wlth them; that
the traffic is bad and tho children shoulcl ba walking down 41111owick and not Impert~l
Highwsy. Shes staced she was not apposed to the development~ buc was opposed to the fact
thet there are two exits onto thetr street and they arc exiting one way right by her
house, and that there are countless chtldren tn the ne(ghborhood; that tha chtldren are
kept off the streets but there have bee~ two acctdents recently; and that the children
heve been hlt on the way to school and in front ~f a crossing guard with pe3ple obeying
the traffic stop sign.
She referred to the EIR and Indtcated not one word (s mentloned about the tntersectian of
Willowick and Nohl Ranch Road. She staCed It discusses tf~e 12 specimen uak trees~ but
nothing (s sald about the hundreds of chlldren and people. She (ndicated they should be
allowed to ~ievtlop~ but ll-ey shc,ul~J find another way to exi! the traffic; [hat they
alraady have a~ ent~ance from tlie ~00 Polnt Quisset Nomes which will come down Wtllowick.
She felt if thfs dcvelopment fs allowed~ it will ~ndanger a lot of llves; that she loves
oak trees and open land and did not believe when she hed bought her h~use hcr sewer hook-
Up would be the last one up there. She fett the Clty hes a responsibiltty to thc
residents up there and to the children tn the netghborhood. She indlcated she has almost
been hlt leaving her own d~ivcway; that people com~e down the hlll very fast and there is
no way to see them and It is a v~ry d~ngerous situation. Sl~e indicated the developer had
not sent them a leCter and they wlll be Impacted by this developmr:nt; and that a lot of
people do ~ot know about the heartng. Shc indtcated she felt she could safely say thelr
house Is gatng to be the o~e to be~~r all the traffic~ together wlth the neighbors ~cross
the straet, and they had asked the developer at the HACMAC mcet(ng if they would conslder
movtng the ex(t and we~e told they could not tiold up the developer becAUSC of the whim of
some people. She fel[ the qu~+lity of their lives would be affected; that she was not
opposed to their building houses~ but was opposed to dumping the treffic onto Willowick.
George BoyadJieff~ ;3$6 Rural Ridge Clrcle, Anaheim~ indicated he has lived here four and
one-half year: and stated he was a registered engine~r in the State uf California and has
hiked in the area of the proposed tract. He stated he had se~n the a~ea with unusual
amounts of rainfall and years with no raintall; tha[ lt is an ui~stabie area with lots of
shale and tha; the natural hills are constantty sliding. He stated Anahelm Hilis, Inc. Is
very proud of the fact that they did not have any slope slippage during the recent ra(ns
except in Westridge, which (s where he lives~ ar,d the slopes have slipped tn 1lestridge~
whtch would furthe indicate this is~ an unstable a••ea~ and he felt te was unsafe to bulld
homes there. Ne polnted out a lot of his neighbors had had slippage problems and the City
who is responstble far these developments has said they can~ot help these people, that it
is thet~ own bed luck~ and asked about the people who would be b~ying these proposed homes
and whose problern that would be; that if the slopes slide, w(11 the City care~ end he
pointed out the City should become responsible right now; that this area has proven to be
unstable end that the Plar~ning Commfssion could take tl~at ste~ to not allow any more
development.
Ronald Pepin~ 5k56 W111owick Clrcle~ Anaheim~ stated there are Ch ree homes reorth of the
proposed p roJcct which would be very much affected by this whole proJect; that the project
itself involves the fiiling of two canyons and at the present time one of the canyons is
tn back of their hame and is apprnximately 1$0 fcet wide at the base and slopes out to 300
feet at the top~ for ~baut 12~0 feet into the hills. He indicated he had been one of the
first buyers in his tract and had his chotce of sites and had selected this particular
location because of the canyon and the privacy~ peace and qutet that Is offered in a
1/3I78
,.
,~
~
.~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3, 1978 78-510
EIR N0. 218~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 18•79-5 AND TENTATIVE MAP Of TRACT NOS. 10407~ 10408~
040 AND__10410 (continued)
country-llke atmosphere. but this pro)ect~ If approved~ will heve lots that extend into
the bsse of the canyon. He indicated he has a slope (n his back yard that goes 20 teet
down to the cenyon floor and Into tha canyon 40 feet; Chst the proposed proJect backa up
to wfthin 15 f~et of the lot llne snd (f th~sy put in flll, tt would make a hlll
approximately l0Q feet htgh where there is naw an ope~ canyon~ and po(nted out that flll
i~ the canyon would be takiny away the vtew and prlvacy af ttiese four lnts. Ile referred
to Lots 38 through 41 and indlcated they show frontages of 73~ 7fi~ 10b feet, etc.~ and
that It does not shaw thc depth of tliese lots whith would be 20 to 25 feet on leve) ground
snd the rest of the lot would go down the slopzs. which means the only type homes thatcould
bs bullt wonld be wtth ca~tilever bases nr slepped-down foundetla~s which would gtve a
tall well Co look at~ and that would that would not 1~c acccp.ablc from his vlewpoint. Ha
polnted out that (n 1972 the EIR was prepared and st~ted the maJor canyons would remain
intact and that this Is not ru~intaintng the major canyons (ntbct. He stated the current
EIR atso states "the pPO,ject would have d maJor ncgattvc impact on arens lmnedlately
adJatent to the stte." I~e potnted out there ts no one more imrnedtately adJacent to the
site than the homes reFerrad to. Ile (ndlcaked tl~ey would also be obJecting to the trafflc
and requestad that. the Planntng Comm(sslon disepprovc the plans as presently proposed.
Cllfton Gerrott. 53~4 1;illawick pr(ve, Anaheim~ tnd(cated he has en additional petition
signed again by those peoplc unable to attend~ which pertains to the onc fACet, that being
the trafflc as it will offect Willowick Lircle~ And that he personally had w(tnessed all
the stgnatures.
Ann Kershaw, 5416 Willowick Circle~ Anahcim~ po(nted out Westridge was the f(rst area of
Anahcim tlills to be developed and she did not feel that had bepn suffic(ently brought out;
that experiments were car~icd out on the Westrldge Tract and that the Planning Commisston
has seen fit to cliange the grading pians and speciflcattons for htllside constructton;
that they were experiments And were paying f~r it and understaod this happening in a new
area wlth the slope slippay~~ etc.. but now they are facing another experiment since this
is tha first tlme a tract has been proposed up behind another existing tract tn the hills.
She pointed out they could not afford to be another experiment and the Planning Commtssion
should be cxtraordinarily cautious.
Chairman Nerbst pointed out he felt the Planning Cortmisston had heard a go~d cross section
of the opposition.
M~. Bohac indicated Anaheim Htlls~ Inc. had realized there weuld be some opposttion from
the West~ldge devclopment; that on May 19th they had mailed 31 lettery to tl~e immedlately
adJacent homeowners in the area and had malled a copy of the letter to th~ homevwners
assoctation wanting them to come over tha discuss the problems~ and 11 people had shawn
up; that they had tried to work with the neishbars; that Anaheim Hills, I~c. has a
credibility with the City and he thought with 4lestridge~ and they d~ want to work the
prob lert~s out.
He pointed out NACMAC had had sane questlons regarding the EiR; that they had responded to
those questlons with an addendum which covered the questlons concerning t~affic and
safety. He tndicated the~e have been comnents regardtng thc: EIR stating it contatned
everything regarding flora and fauna and nuthing about human beings, end potnted out there
are 80 pages dealing with humen beings and 12 pages concerning otF~er mattors. He asked to
review the trafftc map as submitted by Jan Hall. (He qulckly looked ut the map while Jan
Hatl explained it.)
1~3/78
~x,
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 78-511
EIR N0. 218~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~$-79-5 ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10407~ 10408~
10409 ANp 10410 (co~tinued)
Mr. 6ohac indicated Mr. G~rrott lied referrsd to the EIR and questtaned the professlona)
integrlty of tho Dames b Moore people~ and Indtcated they were an internAttonal agency for
this partlcular type study. He ind(ceted Ansl~elm Hllls~ Inc, obtalns the best posstble
professlonal consultants to make their recommendAtions. He referred to the homes fronting
cn Willawlck and the opposltion's concern they will be factng the Wesirtdge pr~Ject rnd
they will have no architectural and slape cantrol. He polnted out Westridge onlv hes a
hameowners associetion, whereas the ,~ew devalopment would have e homeowners associetlon
along with a ma~te~ assocl~tion which wlll kcep closcr architectural, slope planting and
malntena~ce control than the homec~wners essoclatlan In Westridge.
Ne raferred to the questlon of density as alluded to by one of the persons speaking in
opposition and potnted out everyone would like to Iiv~ on the edge of the world wlth
nothing being devaloped behlnd them. Ila polnted out the dens(ty of the Westrld,qe
commu~lty Is 2.5 units per ecre and they are proposing 1.72 unlts per acre. He stated the
Westridge homeowners had bought into thia denslty willingly and thou!~ht the denstty was
great so lony as It dld nat interrupt thefr feeling of grand opcn space~ and the density
propased would be less than the density now in their communtty.
He indlcated he reallzed as fer as ~raffir, on Willawtck is concerned~ that would c!rtalnly
be a concern a~d pointeJ out informaCion is Included in an addendum to the EIR. Ne stated
Wes Pr(ngle, Traffic Engineer. had cnacie up the reports of traffic studies and
a~ccumulatlons and the increascd trips per day and that he is a reputable. professional
trafflc engineer. Fie stated the addendum had been tncluded and the questions asked by
HACMAC had been added to the addendum. I~e stated he realized this matter r.ould not bc
resolved today snd they would certalnly be happy to comply wlth Lhe continuance if the
P1Anning Commtsslon so desires.
Cheirman Herbst indicated he was ~oing to close the public hear(ng for Comnission
questions and would probably reope~~ it later.
Commissionnr Tolar indicated the~e were a number of questions he had in additlon to the
density and trafftc which he felt wauld be crttical and would have to be resolved; Chat he
felt the developer hos the respo~sibility to answer questions concerni~g the cost~ that
(s~ the cost to the cittzens of Aneheim t~ put thls in. Ne stated a lot of peaple live
undor the illusion that developments of this type would bring taxes into the City. ~ie
refer~ed to the passage of Propasitio~ 13~ indiceting the amaunt of taxes Nould be lower
and~ with that in mind~ statcd he would like a cost analysts of what services are going to
cost and what the City is going to have to pay to get the servlces out to thts area~ and
indicated an electr(cal substation is one consideration. He statEd the existino
substatlon wouid be over-impacted even wlth a develapme~t of this size. He indicated he
also had a question about the continuation of Imperta) Nighway on to the south; that as it
stands now~ there is a proposa) to the County to leaving that as open space and a question
as to whether ~r not the County will take it. He pointed out the City does not
n~cessarily want it as they would have to finish it, and citiaens of Anaheim would have to
flnancc that road and if tt go~s to apen space o~ park land, the City would have to
maintein it ~nd due to Che budget with the passage of PropositEon 13~ they wouid not be
able to do It. He indicated thst approximately 50$ of this tract, ar 3~~ acres of the 30
acres~ is st(11 in the County and there is a question as to whether or not it should be
annexed into the City at this time. He pointed out there is nothing on thc maps showing
equestrian tra(ls and how they will tie into the existi~g tralls. He stated probably
foremost in his mfnd would be the fatt that sinc~ thls is unique property~ why the
proposed denaity is so high and why it would be necessary to move 2.6 million yards of
earth to develop the tract. He indlcated this would be taking the hilisidcs and making
7/3/78
~
~,~
MINUTE5~ ANANEIM CIT1r PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3, 1978 7g-512
EIR NQ. 218~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78'79'S ANO TCNTATIVE MAP OF TMC7 NOS. 10407~ 1040R~
1040g ANO 10410 (conti~ued)
fl~t land snd he kncrws what cen be dane witl~ the 3reding. He tndicated a lot of studles
heve been done In reletianship to dirt rrwving ~nd whet c:on be accompllshed~ snd thst s lo~
of houses csn be squeered lnto an aree. He Indlceted another study he wnuld Ilke to see
developed Is alternatlve plens other tha~ RS-10~000; thet he reallzed thls ~roperty Is
going to be dovoloped and folt eve ryo~a racogntz~s that f~ct~ but thet tt o,.,es not hsve to
be done wlth the Jenslty propo~ed.
Mr. Bohac polntcd out thet with a more ruyged te~r~in and ttie r-eture of the land. the more
d(rt would li~ve tn be moved~ end Commisstoner Tolar polnted out thls ts one mc~re reason
why it shouid bo left In Its netural state.
Mr. aohac pointed out there are green and open spaces provid~d; thet thare is en rq~eement
with the County end they are fulfilling the requlrements as fer es opcn spaces are
concernod.
Chal rman Ilerbst i ndi cat~d he was prabab ly the on ly Commlss loner Ict t who had sa[ In on the
ortgtnal plens and it had been b~ought aut stronqly that a lot of ch~ ,;anyons would be
left in thei r natura) stat~, but that the grading pl~n I~ere Indicate~ they ar~s f 11 i I~y In
a naturel canyon to its ultimate and moviny hlllq around, making other hllls, and are
trking sway from the p~ople who had purchssed with the concrpt ln m(nd that the cenyons
would be left in their natura) sCetc. 11e felt they werc getttng Away from the or(glnal
(ntent for developme:nt vf the canyon and there arc other ways to deval~p the property
other then movlnc~ the hllls around and makiny flat la~d nut af them~ snd thls Is one
concept he is yoing to bc really hard-nosed ~bout; that we are gctting into rougher
torrain all the time and what h~ppens I~arc will `:sve a tremendous (mpact on the ~est of
the canyon end hc felt this Is one placr. Anaheim Hilis~ Inc. should look at very closely
because they are going to wme up agatnst some opposition.
Commissioner Tolar p~(nted out proha~bly ropresentatives from the Bauer Ranch and Wallwce
Ra~ch were present te see what is yotng to happen to this proJect and that there are a lot
of people looking to see what happens her~.
Comnissioncr Linn potnted out this situatlon rcminds hlm of a friend who ltves ln Torrance
and upon visiting him after four ycars~ he was really surprised to see the San Diega
Free;way had been buflt adjacent to his property and now all he looks at is a bank~ and he
is thinking of the men who has a full viaw of the canyon at the present time, And he could
not support any k(nd of develapmcnt out there.
Chelrman He~bst tndicated the Commtsston had heard a cross section of the opposition and
the peticianer's presentation, and he thought a continuance would be ln order so that
Anahelm Hills, Inc. could analyze wi~at has been sald and what approach they wishcd to
take.
Mr. Bohac Indfcated two weeks would be sufflcient.
Commisslo~er Tolar suggested the~r request a little longer period of time to give
themselves plenty of time to answe~ the yue~stions posed and to reconsider posslble
alternatives es to Lhe density for th(s area.
Mr. Bohac ask~d if he wanted a study donn on astate size lats.
Commisstoner Tolar indiceted it would be up to him~ efter receiving input from the
Commisslon~ to present plans; chat he understood he is up ageinst in this situatlon; that
7/3/78
~
~~
.s
MINUTES~ ANAH EIM CITY PIANNING COMNISSION~ JULY ~~ 1978 7g~5~3
EIR N0. 218~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-7g-5 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10407~ 1040$.
10409 ANd 10410 (contlnued)
tha Commisstcx~ could qive a vote on th~ese plens if he would like thet~ but he wa~ted to
giva them artp le opportunity to posstbly brtng In some other type of plens~ ~+~d sskad if
two weeks would be aufficlent.
Chal ~man Ne ~b st s tated he recogn t zed Anahet m ~Il I i s~ I nc. has done a lot of work a~d have
met elt the ordtn~nce requlraments~ but to de so~ they are yoing to have to move 2.6
million yerds of earth, and he dtd not think that was tha Intent; thet the Commisslon h as
tried to minimite grading In tha canyon~ and this Is grading to its ultimate, and tf we
ar~ gotng to have a hlll and cany~~ area, some~ canyo~s have to be left na~ural as thst is
pa~t of the amenltles of the ~erea.
Commfssloner Barne~ (ndlcated she was on the Cenyon Task Force thet had drefted the
gradtng ordl nance and that one of the maJor problems left out waa how much dl rt was to be
nwved. She polnted out that develope~s~ including An~helm Nlils~ Inc.~ had t~groad tha t
was goinc~ to be a p~imary fact~r; thAt they wanted a lot less soi 1 movr.d a~id the
preservation of the natural canyons. She suggested tnat Mr, Bohac check wlth thosa
people who had been tn attendancev+ho ~had be~n In agreement at thet time.
Commissioner Tolar stated he recognized Anaheim Hills~ Inc. has probebly done more tha n
any other si ~g!e developer to cry and maet the people of the area half way~ and a lot of
other developers want to do th ( ngs and do not want to coaperate w! th the res 1 dents; t;~at
he apprecl at~d the topo moda 1 s 1( ke thc one presented and the typ~ of i nput Anahe 1 m H(: ls ~
Inc. h as giv~en to the Pla~ning Cammisslan and thelr asslstanca in correcting some of tt~e
m(stakc+s the Comnission and Council hsve m~de~ such as Westri~gc, and mayba that Is Nhy
some of the d~velopments are improviny in the area~ but ha felt in thts parclcular cas ~
thi;~ was imp acting the area entirely ton much; thdt they aro asking tao much and changing
evorythiny d~astlcal ly from what is intend~d~ and asksd if he sti I1 would l ike a two-vr~ak
continuance.
Jack Mlh i te ~ Oeputy C i ty At to rney, po 1 n ted ot : the pub 1 t c hear i ng s hou 1 d be reo~ened be fore
the motlon i s offered.
CHAIRMAN HEFiHST REOPENED Tf1E PUULIC HEARItaG.
Commissfone r Tolar offered a motion that subJect pet(ttons be continued to the meeting of
July 17~ 1~78, at 7:00 p.m.
Chairm~n Ne rbst asked staff when the plans would have to be submttted~ and Annika
Santalahti~ Assistant Director for Zc~ntng. potnted out the revised plans would have to be
submitted in one week.
Mr. Bohac in dleated hn would like to ~equest a conttnuance for four weeks rather than two
weeks .
ACTION: Comm(ssioncer Tolar reoffered his rt~tion~ seconded 'oy Camnlssioner 8arnes end
~t~ CARRI ED UNANiMOUSLY~ that consideration of Environmental Impact Report Na. 218,
Recla~sificatlon No. 7$-7g~5 and Tentative Map of 7ract Nos. 10407~ 1A408~ i040g a~d 10~+10
be continued to Juiy 31~ 1978, at 7:00 p.m.~ at the request of the petitioner.
Chatrman He rbst noted the EIR indicated the sewar was at Its capactty right now and there
are plans to enlarge these facitities~ and he would like tu have more informatlon
regard 1 ng th at .
7/3/78
~.
MINUTES~ /4NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 78-514
EIR N0. 2 18~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-5 ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAGT NOS. 10407~ 10408~
1Q40 ANO 10410 (cont inued)
Commisslo~er Tolar pointcd out his ca~t analysts rAquest wes relating t~ all servlces that
would be provided.
Chairman Harbst polnted out there would bs no further nottces sent out concorning the
co~tinued meeting of July 31st.
RECESS There was a tan-minute recess et 3:1y p.m.
RECONVEN E The mneting reconvened at ;s:25 p.m.. all Canmissioners bring prc~cni.
ITEM N0. 6 PUBLIC fIEARING. OWNERS: IIARRY S. RINKER~ TRUSTEE.
~TR ZrI~RICAI. EXEMPTION-CLASS l AND WALTER A. FROME, JR. ~ ET AL~ P. 0. Box 7250~
COND IONAL USE PER~11T N0. 1 y Newport Be~ch~ CA y2663. AGENT: COLDWELL l3ANKER
PRAPERTY MANAGEN,€NT COMPANY~ 4040 MacArthur Bouleva~d,
Sult~ 20(1~ Newport Beach~ CA 92660. Patitl~ner
requests permiss(on to ESTABLISti COMMERCIAL OFFICES iN TWE ML ZONC on property desc~ibed as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.8 acres having a f~ontage
of appro ximetely 51h feet on the south side af Le Pelma Avenue~ heving a msximum depth uf
epproxima tely 782 feet~ being located approx(mately 563 feet west of the centerltnQ of
Imperia) H(ghway~ and Further de~crlbed as SSZO-y620 East La Palma Avenu~. Praperty presently
classifi~d MI,(SC) (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED-SCENIC COaRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE.
'There was no ene indicatiny their presencc in opposttton to subJect r~quest~ and Alth4uyh
the staf f report to thc Plann(ng Commission dated July 3~ 1918 was not r~sad at the public
hearlny~ it (s rnferred to and mede a part ot the minutes.
It was noted tho HI1) and f,any~n Municl~ I Advis~ry Comnlttee (HACMAC) rrviewed subJect
propos al on June 20~ 197$ and voted unan mouYly to ~ecommend approval of Condltla~a) Use
Pe~mit No. 1851~ provtding the proposed office uscs were Itmtted to those typ~s of
buslnesses which would serve industry.
John D. J anssen~ Coldvell ~anker~ egent, stated the existing tndustrial b~+ilding is on La
Palma Av ~nue and Impertal Nighway and building Nc. 1 which faces La Palma has a second
story whi ch has ten offices with slzes from 180 square feet to 400 yquare feet~ and they
wauld itke to lease these offtces for ~ff(ce space; that the original intent of tha
p~evlous vwner was to use the offlces in conJunctfon with the industriai p roJetts on tt~e
first f1QOr of the bu(Iding, but that they have had ample officc space and do nat need the
outside s dditlonal offices so thR space is u' ~io value to the ether users of the park~ and
they ~~ould llke to lease these offices to smaller, indivtdual type businesses wtth one man
and a see~etary who need i ~~expens i ve of f 1 ce space.
Tt1E Pl1DL 1 C NEARING WP,S CIQSED.
Commissioner Tolar indicated he is concerned as to what the Canmission is going to do
about adopting sane poliry in reiationship to commerciel uses in the industrial zone; thmt
he (s coc~sta~tly in awe of haw much (s being allowed and felt some guldelfnes must be
es tab 11 s hed.
Mr. Janssen roplied there would be office uses and some are reteted, such as a
manufact urer's reRresentative, small insurance agency. accounting firm. etc.
7/3/78
ry ,
MINU7ES, ANA~~tIM c.ITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 78-5~5
E 1 R CATkG0R1 CAL EXEMPT ION•CLASS i ANO i.ONDI TI ONAL USE PERMI T N0. 1857 (cont Inued)
Comrnlssloner Toler ssked why they would not want to operate (n a commerclal zone and why
wo:. id they want tu go int~ an i ndustrla) park, and Mr. Janssen rapl ied it w~s because It
w~s less expen~lve.
Comenissfone~ Toler indicated this w~s one of the reesons gutdelines must be establixhed;
that s lot of cc~mmercial busl~ess~s would Ilke to locate in an lndustrial psrk fo.- the
reason given~ and the Planning Commissio~ has to come to grips wich this questton of how
mueh commarclal they are going to allav in an tndustrial park.
Comrnlsslonar Herne:s polnted out there Is a car+~rnerclAl office b~~rldt~~ about one end ~ne-
hal f miles ewey fr~m this area whlch Is suffertna and the cort~rclal development ts losing
teRants~ and alsA referred to the Imperiel-Yorbe Shopping Ce~ter~ and she did not see how
the planning Commisslon could justify going Into the only industr(ai a~ea on which they
ptn thelr hopes for the futurc ~f Anaheim regerd(ng a tax base~ etc. ~~nd allaw more
eo~ne~c ( a 1~ and shc was ready tv rrave for den i a l.
Commissioner Juhnson asked what k(nd of off(ces coulci go tnto the commercial complex~ ona
Jay Tashiro~ Associate Pl~~nner. polnted out ti~st arch(trctural ftrms. engineertng firms~
ete.~ wauld be perr~~Ittod (n the industrlal zone.
Ccx~nlssioner Johnson suggCSteci that th(s use be left as tt ts enci the petitlane~ could
s t i 1) rent t t out to a 1 Iml tcd number of uses ~ but i f the request ( s granted, i t woul d
ap~n i[ up to many users,
Comrnlssloner Tolar asked Mr. Janssen If he was aware of thc llst of tndustrlaliy-related
uses which would bc al lawed in an industrial complex end tf a copy had baen gtven ta him~
and he re~plied that it r~aJ. Cornmissic~ner Tnl;,r ask.e~i if the proposed uses were over and
abvve those on 'he 1 i s t.
Mr _ Janssen rcp 1( ed the rcason for the reques t i s the s i ze af the of f i ces ; tha t they are
smal) and it Is not a n~nJar offic~ builcling that would be (n dtrect competitlon with other
af f Ice bu) l dings; that the of f ices are 1 f~0 square feet to a maximum of 400 square feet,
and there is Just about enou~h room fnr one man and a secretary; and that there are
buslness p~ople who r.eed a place to work and they have good access to the freeways.
Cossmissioner Tolar asked what percentage of this entire developrn~nt currently is on the
i~dustriaYty-relatcd list~ and Mr, Janssen replied the only tenant not on the itst ts an
automotive dealer an~ he has a condltionai usi~ permit; that everyone else is an the list.
Cornmf ss loner Llnn pot nted out one of the prob lems is there ts nothi ng to prevent the
davalop~r or a new developer from knocking out the wal ls and mektng the officas larger.
Chali'man Herbst pointed out the Pla~ning Comnisston has to draw the 1 ine on corm~ercial
~asas and that one of the prob 1 en~s i s that the P1 ann 1 ng Commi ss lon does not have any
co~trol when a devel~per somes 1~ and builds an indust~tal building to code and the
Cosnmissio~~ never sees the plans; that it is obvious when this building was built the
intantfon was to have cortmercial office spaces, and he felt this puts the Pianning
Co*mii ss t on t n a spot and they do not know how to react s i nce the bu i 1 d t ng has a 1 ready been
built with offtce spaces of 1F0 squnre feet~ v+hich ere of no use tn an industrial area
which p~imarily servic.es the industr(a) cortmunlty. He indicated he woutd be oppoaed to
any use that cannot service the tnduscrlal communlty.
7/3/18
w•
~
MINUTES~ AN AIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978
%8-51G
EIR CATEGORICAI. EXEF~'TION-CLASS 1 ANO ~ONDITIONIIL USE PERMIT N0. 18~7 (continued)
Mr. Jansse n(ndicetad I~C ~or.s not have a llst prepared; that hn would imogine a Ilat could
be comptlo d whfch could be (nterpreted as e direct asset to the (ndustrla) users. such aa
a~ lnsur~nce •gent who speclalizes {~ tnsuring industrlel users or a bu~iness reeltor who
deals In ln dustrial property, but they would not fsll (nto the category provlded by code
and would constitute a condltion8l use parmlt. and that the stz~ of the offices and the
length of time it would taka to get e permlt for e 1$0-squa~e foot offlce would be
detrlmentel co leasing the spsc~s.
Chalrman lin rbst pAinted out Coldwell Banker haJ been one of thP companles that hes glven
Anehelm their opinion of what is wrong with our industrlal area by stating we are allowing
too many commerctal buslnasaes in the industrlal areas~ and now the same company is asklny
f or commerctal ottices In an indust~iai zone. Na puii~lnJ uut wr do have dwlndling
industrtal acreaya and khat industrial companles like t~ ~ee tndustrlal areas remain
totally (ndustrlal~ Chey do not 1(ke the (nve~se craffic pattern. etc. He felt thts would
be Jusk a foot in the Jaor to allow ll~is development~ and whocvcr bullt down th~ str~~t
would poln t out it has be~n allowed In this location and it would make it difflcult to
deny a righC that had been granted to Colc1re11 Banker. Ne felt the Planning Comnlsslon
has to draw the gui de 1 in~s ~end s t 1 cl. to tliem.
Comnissioner Tolar pointed out he felt the only handle the Planning Commission h~s is to
leave ~he sttuetlon ss It Is~ looking at each (ndivldual caso instead of e blank~t
reclessifteatton of a particular area~ and pointed out the petttloner could uxne in wtth a
particular user and request a conditional use pennit which could be looked et at thdt
tlme. He ind(csted he was n~t opposed to this on an isolated basis~ but dtd not want to
rezone the entire complex. Ne stated evrn thougl~ precedents were noc supposed to be set,
they are invarlably set and he belleved there would be a lot of comnercla) users askfng
for the same privi lcges.
C~alrman Herbst stated if the petittoner has a specific user which Is tndustrlally
o riented, then the Planning Commiss(on will be happy to hear ir.
Mr. Jansse ~ stated thls request only refers to the second floor of the bu(Iding.
Comm(ssio~er Bar~~es Indicated she wanted to make i; very clear that she w~.~uld be op~o3ed
to almost a~y kind of commercial use in an indust~ial area because it w111 have an impact
on Anaheim in the years to cort.a~ and pointed out if the use is not very deftnlt~ly related
to Industry~ then she would be opposed to it.
it was noted that the Planning Director or h(s autharizcd representative has dctermined
that the p ~oposed proJect fails within the definttion of Categor(cal Exemptlons~ Class 1,
as Jefined in paragraph 2 of the C!ty of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Guidelines
and (;c~ therefore. categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
AC710N: Commissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC78•140 and moved for tts passage and
a~optfon. that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby deny Petltlon for
Canditional Use Permit No. 18K7 on the basis that it would have an adverse impact on
adJolning land uses and the growth and dcvelo~,ment of this a~ea.
On rol) call~ the fore~oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMNISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID~ HERBST~ JONNSON, KIP~G~ LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: C OMMISSIONERS: NOWE
ABSENT: C ONMISSIONERS: NONE
Jack White, Deputy City Attorn~sy~ presented the petitioner with the written right to
appe~l the Planning Cortmission's deciston withln 22 days to the City Council.
7/3/78
..-
~
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 3~ 1978 18•517
ITE_~7 PUdLIC NEARIN6. OWNEaS: JAMES E. AND 9ERTIE L.
EIR NCGATIVE DEGLARATION NAZELL~ 620 Sauth Narbor Houleverd~ Ansheim~ CA 928A5.
~ ~~-I Pettttoner requents ~eclaastftcation of property
descrlbed ss a rectan,yulerly-shape~d percet of land
conalsting of approximately 4b03 square feet hav(ng
a f~ontage of approximatcly 47 feet on the east siJes of Hsrbor Bouleverd~ having a maximum
deptli of approximately 107.. feet~ being locatcd aprroxirr~tely 253 feet south of the center-
linn of Nater 5trest, and furthor described as 620 South Nerbor 9ouicvard~ from the RS-720~
(RESIDEt~TIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE to the CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITEU) ZONC.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppositton to subJcct ~equest~ and although
the staff report to the Planning Commisslon dated July }, ly7o was not read at the public
heeriny~ it iy r'tfar~a~l lu tl~~~ ~i~a.fe a part of thc mi~utcs.
Bertie Hazell~ owner~ was presc~t to answer any questlons.
Tf~E Puu~ic f~~Aa~NG wns c~os~o.
Lommissioner King pointed out the veh(cular access riyhts to Harbor 8oul4vard shal! b~
dedicated to Lh~ City of Anal~eim~ and Mrs. Hazell indicaced she undcrstood that.
ACTIUN: Commfss(oner Talar offered a motion~ second~J ay Commissloner K(n~ and MOTION
A IED, that the Anahelm City Planning Commisslun has r•eviewed the proposal to reclasslfy
the zoniny from RS-7Z00 (Residentirl~ Single-Fam(ly) to CL (Commercial~ Limited) on a
ractangularly-shaped parcel of land consistiny of approximateiy ~-603 square feet having a
fro~tage of approximxtely 47 feet on the east slde of Narbor Boulevard~ heving a maximum
depth of approxim+~tely iQ2 feet~ being located approximately 253 feet south of the
ce~teritne of IJater Street; and does hcreby approve thc Neqative Declaratlon from the
requlrement to prepare an anvlronmental impact report on the bastR that there would be no
signif(tant individual or cumulative adverse envtronn~ental impact due to the approval of
this Negative Oecleration s(nce the Anaheim General Plen designates the subJect property
for commerclal professional land uses commensurate with the p~nposal; that na sensitive
environmental impacts are tnvolved in the proposal~ thbt the Initial Study subm(tted by
the petitloner i~dicates no significant indtvtdual or cumulative adverse e~vironmantal
impacts; and that the Negative Declarati~n substantiatin4 the foreyoing ftndings ls on
f(le fn the ~ity of Anaheim Pla~ning Departmc~t.
Commissioner Tolar offercd Resolution No. PC7II4141 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission cfoes hereby grant Petition for Reclassificatton
No. )$-79-i~ subJect to Inte~departmental Committec recomnendatlons.
On rc~ll call~ the foregoing resolution was pessad by the folla-King vote;
AYES: COMMISStONERS: BAaNES~ DAVIU, HERBST~ JONNSON~ KING~ LIIJN~ TOLAR
NOES: CQMMiSS10NER~: NONE
ABSEDIT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
7/3/78
..
~ •x
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM GiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 78•518
ITEM N0. 8 PUOLIC ~IEARING. OWNERS: BRITISII MOTOR CAR DISTaIBUTORS~
~~i~~lE DECI.ARATION 1T0. ~ c/o St~ven G. Sussman. Tuckman 6 Ilarwi ch, Bank of
~ -79-2 Ama~ice Center, 555 California Street~ Suita 3~~~ San
0 OUE U EMENTS Francisco~ CA 94104. AGENTt ROIIAID MA~OUF/RAYMONO
~'j' M . 18u~ KIhWEY~ 2192 Marti~ Street~ Sulte tSS~ Irvine~ CA g2715.
~ Praperty descrtbed as a~n irragularly-shsped parcel of
land cnnststinp of epproxlmetely 12.3 ~c~es having s
fro~tage of epproxlmately 1081 feet o~ the west side of
Anahetm Doulevard~ having a maximum depth of epproximotely 1149 feet~ and bcing lotated app~oxi-
mstAly 676 feet aouth of the centcrlln~ of Midwsy Ortvc. Property presenkly classified ML
(INUUSTRIAL~ LIMITEU) ZONE.
KEOJESTED CLA551FICA710N: CL (CUMMERCIAL. LIMITED) ZON~.
REQuESTED CaNU1TIONAL USE: TU PEaNIT Ir~DUSTRIAI USES Ar10 AN OFF-SITE SIGN WIT1~ WAIVER OF
(A) MINIMUM SETOACI: FROM INTERSECTION ANU (B) M11~IMUM GROUND
CLtARANCk.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM SITE SCREEN~"G TO COI~STRUCT A COMMERCIAL/INDU5TRIAL
COMPLE:X.
The:r~ was one person indicettng Itils presence In opposlYlon to subJect request~ and
although ths staff report ta thc Planning Commission dated July 3~ 1978 was not read at
the public hearing~ lt is referred to and mAdc a part of the minutes.
Kc~nald Malouf ancl Raymcmd hirtKnry. agents and cywners, w~re present to answer any questtons
and pointed out they were proposing to devalop a mlxtd use business psrk wlth 26~600
squa~e feet of single•story, recail space~ 60~OOQ square feet of office space~ and 7)~500
squa~e feet of single-scory~ lndustr(al/service space. and that thesy propase to co~struct
Cerritos Ave~ue into the proJect as a public street and constr~ct a n~wv p~ivate accessway
to the t3MW car dealership and the extsttng r~ccess wlll be r~moved~ and [he new ac.cess has
been approved. They asked far c:larifitation regarding Interdepartmental Comnittee
recommendation No. 16 concerning the need f~r ~ngine~ring requiremenCs along Aneheim
Boulevard. including cu rf~~ gutter, sidewalks and street gradlna and paving baing completed
prlor to introduction nf an ordlnance rezoning subJcct property.
Annika San:alahti, Assistant Direct~r for Zoning~ explalned a bond ma~~r be postad prlo~ to
canmencement for the ful! improvement and that it would be released upon completion of
constructlon.
Don Kirk~ 200 Midway nrive~ Space 2Q, Anaheim~ tndtcated he tlves in a mobtlehome park
next to the proposed proJect anu referred to the chalnlink fence proposad and the requtred
E~-foot hlgh block wall~ and indicated he felt witt~ an industrial pro,ject next door, an 8-
foot high wall would be more adequate. F'.~ indicated there are senior citizens tn the A~ea
and he lives on the far slJe of the park, but they feel there will be a lot of noise from
an industriai compiex.
Mr. Kirk poinYed out there is a proposal from an organizatlon he belungs to wixh the
Redevelopment Ag~ncy for an operaitonal streetcar muse un and they plan to ope~ate a
tou~ist run to Dlsneyland. end Che only vtable way would be to go undrr the Santa Ana
Freeway. He pointed out if the proJect is approved by the Redevelopment Ayency for a
museum at the Union Pacific Depot in Anaheim~ they w~uld begin their operation next year.
He indfcatad that in order to get to the other side of the freeway to the Disneyland area~
7/3/7~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3, 1978 ]8-5~g
ElR NEGATIVC DfCLARATI(1N~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79•2, CONDITIuNAL USE PCRMiT N0. 18k9
ANO VARIANCE N0. 3025 (cantinued)
they would have to go underneath the free~way and r.hey ~eed s yard outside the museum to
store streetcars, and this Is the only are,a they could afford to purchbsn.
Chairman Harbat po(nted out thet due to the free e~terprisE systam~ this proJect could not
be held up on a prob abilftv.
Mr. Klrk potnted out If thelr proJect is approved~ they would be sble to acqulre the
prope~ty under eminent domain.
Mr. Kimmey indicated he did not knaw hc~w t~ reply ta the secund pert of the ~oppos{tlon's
statcment~ hayevcr~ conccrning the wal I~ tl~ey da propose t~ (~- foot hlr~h mnsnnry wnl l tn
seperate the proJect from the mobilel~ome pa~k And In all cases the butldings ad~ace~t ta
the mobilehome park w(11 be set back 4y fect from the wall and wil) be na higher than 20
feet from the yround to the top of thR tilt-up c~ncrete parepet.
Chalrman Herbsr. polnted out there woulJ be parking adJacent to the wall and asked the
petttlonar if he wouid be oppc~sed to putttny (n an 8-fcx>t wall; that the code does not
enswer the problem of mobllehome parks, and ff thts development wa~s adJacenc to a
restdential area~ a landscaped buffer would be required~ and he felt these people deservn
the same p rotectlon. Ne polntad out the or(ginal thought regardtng mobtlehome use was
that it was e temporary use~ but it h~s not turned out to bc temporary~ And felt every
effort should be mede to protect these people frcxn th~ sou~d and no(ses coming from en
industrla) complex,and a 6-fcx~t hl~h wall would not adequately attenuatr. the sound.
Mr. Kimmey replled they would be wtlling to put In an t3-foot hlgh wall.
Gommissioner King indic~ted he d(d not feel it would be necessary to ~equire a 6-foot high
wall alony the freeway. He pointed out the applicant had stated the fr~eway is about the
same c,levatton as subJect property.
Comnissior~e~ Barnes felt a major problem ts ~~lth the duai use on the property wlth
commercial and industrial~ and in the past (t has been the Planr~ing Comm(ssion's pollcy to
not approve a dua) use. She pointed out this is the industrial area and feit it would be
hurttng the industrial area.
Commissio~~er Linn ~aw an additional problem in that the pcttttoner hes anly 25 fect from
the back of the building to the block wall and if a 20-fooc landscaped buffer were
required adJacen: to the mobilehome park~ there would be no parking and the who'e ptan
would bc useless.
M nika Santalahtt potnted out In the past the question of the landscaped buffer has been
when (ndustrial is adJacent to single-family residential. and In this case the resolution
of intent is to RM-~200~ multlple-family, therefore, staff did not feel the Camitssion
would be that concerned.
Commissio~ier linn pointed aut mobilehome parks are not turninc~ out to be tenporary as
originelly ptanned~ and Chairman Herbst felt they would be consldered more multiple-family
than single-family.
Mr. Ktmmey polnted out there ts 45 feet brtween the northerly property line and the
buildings; there wouid be a 25-foot drivaway~ 17 feet for parking area and 3 feet of
landscaping, for a total of 45 feet.
7/3/78
~
MINUTES~ AWIHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 3, 1g78
7a-52o
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 78-79-2~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1A49
AN.O,VARIANGE N0. 302s (continu~d) ,
Chelrmsn Herbst Indicated he was more concerrie~i about the noise from thc Indust~lal
buildinga to the resldents and asked which directton the bullcitngs wouid be facing.
Mr. Kimney Indiceteci the backs of the buildt~gs would be toward the resldr.nce; thet the
buildings are cleslgned to be multiplo-tenant bulldtngs to appeal to the smalier Sndustrial
service users; and that they would be proliibited agatnst any industrial activiti~s out in
the parking area. H~ stated they woulci yanerally be for warohouse distrlbutors or very
light manufacturtng end the units would be In increments frcxn 1200 to 1b00 square feet p~r
untt and w~uld not ba the large~ manufacturing-type plent.
Chairman ~lerbst dlacussed tha dual use~ indicating he felt tl~is is probably an isolated
a~Ge and there is already a mix of cc~~rwnerclal a~d industriai uses in thc areA enJ I~a wuulJ
have n~ quarrel with this particular projnct bcc~use ic is (soleted and it Is
stratghten(ng out the problems wlth Cerrltos Avenue and dumping the treff;c into the
proper ~rea and appPars to be a good plHn.
Comm(ssionar 9arnes asked tt~e petitioner about the ~roposed landscapfny and what the plans
were for the Dritish Motors area.
Mr. Kfrtxney replied they were purchasing the property to the south and that there is a
proposed private streset from the extenslon of Ccrritos to th~ prope~ty~ and they (ntend to
construct some gates and some Bomanite paving snd landscaping to Identlfy th~ e~trance of
Brltish Motors~ and It wlil be an attractive entryway. He stated the existing entrance on
Anahelm doulevard will be torn up and landsc~piny will be pr~vided along Anaheim Boulevard
and th~ building will face on Anaheim Boulevard. Ne indicated the chalnlink fence snd
asphalt will also be removed; that they had c~nvinced British Motors that this access
would be ~ood for their business and would make a better proJect.
TFIE PUI~LIC HEARING WAS ~LOSED.
Comm(ssioner King ~sked Mr. Kirk~ the person who spoke in oppositlon~ if hc was the owner
of the mobliehome park or their legal rep~•esentat3ve~ and Mr. Kirk replted he only lived
therc.
ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered a motion~ seconded by Carrmtssioncr King and MOTION
CAR ED, that the Anaheim City Planning Lcxnmission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify
the zoning from ML (industrial~ limited) to CL (Commercial~ Limited) to permit industrial
uses and off-site signiny with waivers of minimum setback fror~ an intersectton and minlmum
ground clearance to construct a comn~ercial-indus[riA1 complex with waiver of minimum stte
screening on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 12.3 acres
havtng a frontage of appr~ximately 1081 feet on the west slde of Anahetm Bo~~'svard~ having
a maximum depth of appr~ximately 114g feet, and being located 676 feet south of the
centarline of Midway Drlve; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratlon from the
~equi~ement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that thr.re would be no
siyn(ficant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to che approval of
this Negative Declaration slnce the Anahelm General Plan designates the subject property
for commerctal professidnal land uses conmensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by
the petitioner indicates no signfficant individual or cumulative adverse environmanta)
impacts; and thet the Negative Declaration substa~tiattng the foregoing findings ts an
file (n the City of M ahrim Planning Dnpartment.
7/3/78
~
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ JULY 3~ 1978
~
~
78-521
Ela NEGATIVE DECLARA71dN~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. y8•79-2~ CONDIT~ONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1849
AND VARIANCC N0. 3025 (continued) _
~
Commlssloner Johnson offcrcd Resolution No, PC78-142 And maved for Ita possege and
adoptlon, that the Anshetm Ctty Plsnning Commisslon does hereby g~snt Petit(o~~ for
Reclasstfic~tion Nu. 7$-79~2• ~ubJect to the petitlor~er's stipulatlon to pravtde en 8•foot
high wall along the nartherly property lint adJacent to the mobilehome park~ and subJect
to Interdepartrt~ntal Committee re~c~-xnendatio~s.
On roll call~ the foregaing r~solutton was passed by the following vote:
AY~S: COhWI5510NER5: DAVIU~
NOES: COMM15514NERS: NOI~E
ABSENT: COMMISSIOt~tRS: NONE
AB57AI N: GOMMi1551 ONERS : DAR~JCS
HERBST~ KING~ JOFiNSON~ ~INN, TOLAR
Commissloner Johnson off~red a motion~ seconded by Commisatoner Ltnn and MOTI~N CARRIED~
that the Anaheim City Plannlny Commissinn daes hereby grent request far wa(ver of minlmum
setback from an intersection and minfmum ground clea~~~ce on tl~e basis that th~ existing
entranc~ wlll be closed off and moved to the corner of Cerrttos Avenue and the proposed
street and will make a better intersection for• the City.
Commissionnr Johnson offcred Rcsolutlon No. PC78-143 ~nd r~ioved for its passage end
adoptlon~ that the Ansheim City Planning Conmisgion dc~es hereby qrant Petitlon for
Conditlonal Use Permit Nn. 1849, sub)ect to Interdepartmental Comnlttee recommendations.
On roll ~:all~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawinq vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAVID,
NOES: CONMISSIb~~ERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMM~SSIONERS: BARNES
HERIiST~ JOHNSON, KING, LINN~ TOLAR
Commissioner Johnson offered Resolution NA. PC7~-144 and moved for its passage and
adoption, that thie Anaheim Ctty Planning Cammisslon does hereby grant Petttion for
Variance No. 3025 on the basis that a 6-foot fiigh mas~nry Nal) along the freeway side of
the property would ~ot be necessary since the grade levels are approximately the sAme and
a masonry wall woula not provide the ~equired sr.reening~ and subJact to Interdepart!nental
Conmittee recommendatians.
On roll :a~l~ the foreyoing resAlution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: OAVID~ HERBST~ JOHNSON~ KING, LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COhWISS10NCRS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIpNERS: BARNES
7/3/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY~PIANNING COMMISSION, ~u~r 3~ 1978 78'SZ2
ITEM Nd~ PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: EUCII~ SNOPPI-IG CENTER~
E t ~~GOa1CAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 2293 West Dall Road~ Anahelm~ CA 92804. AGENT:
R CE N0. 02 FCDEML SIGN COMPANY~ 1100 North Main Street, Los
Angelea~ CA 90012. Petitlonc~ r~quests WAIVER OF
(A) M1IXIMUM NUMDER QF FREE-STAND~NG SIGNS AND (B)
MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-:TAi~01NG SIGNS~ TO CONSTRUCT A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property
described ~s an trreyularly-sha,~ed parcel of land consistl~g of spproximately 6.~~ acres
having a frontage ~f approx(mately 603 fect on the south slde of Katella Avenue~ having a
maxtmum depth of approxlmately Sy7 feet~ being located appr~ximaccly 295 ~eet east of the
centerline of Euclld Street~ and furtl~er described as 1fib0 West Katella Avonue. P~operty
presantly cla~sified CL (COMMLR~IAL~ LIMI7ED) ZONE.
There was no one (ndicattny thelr presence in oppositlon tu subJect ~equest~ and although
the staff repart to the Pianniny Cunr~~iss{un dated July 3~ ~J7~ rlas not read ~+t thP puhllc
hearin~g, lt is referred to and rnHde a part of Che minutes.
Don Gibson, ayent~ indicated Sav-On Dru,a Stores has purrli~sed 18 locatlons recently and
they wish to remove the one existing sig~ end build one to match the sign east of the
existing sign, whicti would bc the same helght and square footage.
T11E PUHLIC HEARI'JG 41AS CLOSED.
Cheirman ~ierbst ~sked (f tha properties are owned by the same owner~ and M~. Gibsan
replled they were.
Chalrman Herbst pointed ~ut he felt this was one problem we have with the cade since there
are two large businesses on the same parcei and the signs must be 6b0 feet apart.
Commissloner Tolar indicated he could see no problem wlth the request.
It was noted that the Planning Director or hls authoriaed representative has determined
that the proposed proJect falls withtn the definition of Catsgarical Exempt(ons~ Class 11,
as deflned in paragraph 2 of Che City of Anahelm Environmental Impact Repo~t Gutdellnes
and is. therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC7~-i4~, and moved for its passage and
a~opt~~on~ that che Anohelm Ctty Pla~ntng Con~nission does hereby grant Petitlan for
Va~iance No. 3023 due to the unusua) slzc, shape and topog~aphy of subject properxy. and
subject to Interdepartmental Committee ~ecooxnendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vate:
AYES: COMMISSION~RSi BARNESe DAVID~ HERBST~ JOl~NSO-I, KING~ LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COMt~SI SS I ONERS : NOtiE
AEiSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 110il~
7/3/78
~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY ;~ 1978 7g-5Z3
ITEM NU. 10 P~BLIL HEARING. QWNERSs MARILYN E. DOMINO AND MYUNG
~~E DECLARI~TION SHIK ANp KUM OK YUN~ 735~D South 8each aouleva~d~
~~~'~ •NTS Anaheim, CA 9280k. AGENT: U. E. BAUER~ 17390 McAllister
~'~f ~"~, M1''~"f13: 18~~ Riverside~ CA 92503. Petittoner requests p~srmisslon to
EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL WITN WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM
STKUCTURAL HEIGHT AI~D (8) MINIMUM SIOE YARO SETBACK on
proparCy dnscrlbad as a recte~gularly-shaped parce) of lend wnsisting uf ap~roxtmately 1.3
acras having r~ fronta,e of approximately 195 feet on the west sida of Beech Boulevard~ having
a maxtmun dcpth of approxfmately 295 feet~ be(ng located appraximately 1106 feet north of the
cenrerllne of ~all Road~ and further described as 733 and 735 South Beach Boulevard. Property
presently classlfled CL (COMMERCIAL~ IIMITEO) ZONE.
There was one pers~n Indicating thair presence fn oppos(tion to subJect request~ and
although the staff report to the Planning Commisslon dated July j~ f978 was not read at
the pub 1 i c hear i ny. i t i s referred tu anei macJn a Nar t uf tI~G ini nutFs .
Ulysses Bauer~ agent~ was present to answer any questions.
Bruce Irewman~ attorney for the awner of the property adJacent ta the sauth~ stated he
unde~stood this applicatton for conditional use perml~ is to seek a walver of tht
applicable 10-foot slde yard setback requlrement and the addlt(on is proposed to be
consLructed 1 foot from the praperty line. He (ndicated tt~at from a visual Inspectton of
the neighborhoad~ he thought thls would be creattng a first in the netghborhood. tie
indlceted he had been thinkiny of reasons and purposes for the side yard setback
requlrement and wished to determine whether the reasons woulci apply in this situatlon.
Jay Tashtro, Assoclate Planner~ expla(ned the reason for the walv~r ts that when a
cam~erctal zone abuts a sin le-farnil residentia h ne there is a 10-foot setback
requirement; th~t thts ts an unusualYsituat(on i~~~~erA is a motel lo~ated to the south;
that the ~,roperty is resldentially zoned and the mc~tel is allowed !y conditional use
permi t.
Chairman Herbst clarified that if the motel was in che proper zone, it could be butlt to
the p~operty Itnes.
Mr. Newman fclt the side yard setbaGk should be required when applied to a motel usc
rather than a stare-type use. Me pointed out hls client is not opposed to development of
this property for additional motel units~ but he was opposed to the waiver af the side
yard setback because it would be a first in the neighborhood and would eliminat.~ an
emnrgency access. He felt if this arere permitted~ then there was an escalating situatton,
which probably would result in hls client wanttng to builcl additional units which he cauld
do because he has adequate parking, then two m4tels would be located 2 feet away from each
other, which would cause probleins for ert~rgency s~ccess, serious Iight end air problems,
and privacy problems~ and even though these tenants are not permanent. transients deserve
privacy and should not have to look out the window of one matel into another motel unit.
Chalrman Herbst pointed out if two motels were allowed this close together~ no openings
would be ~livwed.
F1r. Newman indicated the m~st impo~tant matter would be that if this were permitted as a
first in Che neighborhood and it were escalated, there would be a cong~stion and crowding
problem wh(ch daes not now extst and it would be better for the neighborhood to maintaln
the open space.
7/3/78
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, JULY 3, 1978 78-524
EIR NEG/-TIV~ pECLAR/1TI0N ANQ CONDITIONAI U5E PERMIT N0, 1843 (continued)
Mr. Bauer polnted out the existing zoning on the property to the southerly side Is R-1 and
ts a function of the Clty of 1lnaheim some 15 yaars ~igo and wvuld no langer be In existence
tf they attempted to put • motal on tl~at siCe; that they would have to get e conditlonal
use permit or chenye the rone. No stated the petitioner is a victim of that particula~
ctrcumstanc~ and the accupancy of their prnperty at the presant tlme is a commerclel use;
that iC was their feeling they would be eble to take edvantage of thel~ property end
mai~teln thalr traff(c wlthin an tnterlo~ co~rt and tl~ey would be better able to malntein
the prlvacy for l•he Indtviduals using thelr facil(ty e~d be able to keep control by be(ng
able to s@e it from the maneger's unit~ and that ingress ~nd egress would be protected
thet way. t1e stat~d a block wall to the sauth would be done as att~a~tively as posstble.
I~e tndicated the elevation of their property was a little lawer than the existtng parking
lut to the south because of the terra(n~ wate~ drainage~ etc.~ and the proJect would be 15
feet above the ~xisting parkiny erea.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
Chai~man Herbst asked what kind of architecture is planned on the south stde~ and Mr.
Baue~r replicd that basically the co~struction would be a soitd mesonry wall wtth no
winda+s. Ile polnted out the property to the south encroaches on the property to the west.
Commissloner King pointed out the property Immediately adJacent to the south ls a parking
lot; that their units are to thelr sauth property line.
Mr. Baue~ replied thia was correct; that they a~e about 45 feet away from the property and
he did not bellPVe they would be able to add a structure to abut thts property line.
Chairman HGfist ir~dlcated he was concerned about s~eeing a 275-fc~ot~ plal~ biock w~ell
adJoin(ng a motel and asked if the~e was some way of putting an erchitectural design on
the wall.
Mr. Bauer Indicated the future owner~ Mr. Yun, was present and he belleved he would
consent to some kind of treatrr~ent on that wall~ pointing out they could follow the theme
of the name of the motel whith Is "The Mediterranean"; that he believed they could use
some sort of less expensive block on the exterior and put some xype of stucco panels or a
different colored block wall to ralieve the 275 feet of block wall~ indlcating he was
referring to 6 or $-inch thick pilasters every 16 or 16 feet.
Nr. Bauer tndicated li~ undcrstood the situation and felt they would be cle~ning uR the
area. Ne indicated the view from the second story of the motel adjacent ncyw is looking
into a weeded area and this would be a~ improvemcnt. He indicated he believed if the
adjacent land owner would allow them co go onto their property and stucco from the
exterior, they could make an attractive wall~ but they wo~ld have to be able to go onto
the property for a few days.
Mr. Newman pointed out he felt the questton of escatating is an important issue; that his
cllent's motel Is set back about 40 feet and the parktng lot is within 10 feet of the
setback; that it would be difficult to tell him no for a aimilar request if this request
ts granted. He indlcated his cli~nt has enough parking and could ~nstruct a motel within
code. He felt approval of this request would have an adverse aesthetical effect on the
neighborhood.
7/3/78
~
~
MINUTES~ ANAHkiM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 7a-525
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONDITIOHAL USE PERMIT N0. 1843 (cvntinued)
Chalrmen tlerbst asked Mr. Newman if hls client would bn wllling to allow the petitlone~ to
come onto his property ~o stucco the exterior of the bulldiny so that It would be more
aesthetically pleastng.
Mr. Newmen stated he would sugyest this to his cl(ent~ as long as there was a stipulatio~
thet his cllant would be sllowed to approve the plnns and sub)cct to the tlming of the
request.
Commisaioner Tolar (ndicated he would not want to "put a monkey on th~ petttioner's back"
in hdv(ny to present the~ ~IHns to the adJacent property owner; that commercial property
abucting commarc{al ~~rc.~pPrty is al iowed to be bullt to the p:•operty Ilne. Ne tndicated he
wanted the adjacent propertY owner's lnput In the sltuation, bur ~ii~1 nnt f~.Pl the
petitioner should hAVe to gnt the adjacent property awner's epprova) of the architectural
design. 11e tnclicated h~ felt therc was an underscanding between the two pa~tl~es and that
the petltioner Is trying to do somethiny aesthettcally nicer for the property.
Mr. Newrnan pointed out Che adJacent proparty vwner genuinely wants the development ncxt
door as long as it is an orderly and pruper development; that it is currently a weed
patch.
Cornmissionc:r Tolar asked the petitioner if he was aware of the RM-1200 Zone (n the Clty of
Anahetm and pointed out he felt there was another maJor problem with this dcvelopme~t;
that in che RM-1200 Zone~ whtcti is a multiple-fam(ly zone~ wlth this property abutt(ng a
residentlal zone they would need 1~0 feet before he could butld a cwo-story unit~ but In
his plan he has a two-sto ry motel unit 11•1/2 fee: from a RS-7200 Zone. He indicated hc
could not support a reclassiflcation for a motel unless that unit is reduced to one story.
He asked if windc~ws were propose~i for that sidc af the motel~ and Mr. Bauer replied that
they we~e, and Commissioner Tolar indicated that even if ttie windows were eliminated, he
felt this would stilt be an invasion of privacy to the adJacent restd~n+ttal area.
Mr. Dauer polnted out there has been a precedent set in the area with the motel adJacent
to this property. Ne indicated the petitioner has fndicated he docs not need all the
family unlts proposed in the westerly buiiding; that they coulcf take the windows away and
adopt a minin-um number o~ family units and reduce the depth of the buildings to 21 feet.
thereby setting the two-story buliding 18-1/2 feet from the prop.:rty 11ne; and that they
tntend to put in landscaping which would have a defin(te effect on the neighbors to the
west.
Commissioner Ktng asked whether or not the property owners to the west had been notffied,
and Jay Tashiro~ Assnciace Planner~ pointed out there wer,- approximataly eight to ten
property awners who were not notified due to an oversight i.~y staff~ but that the property
had been posted and the advertisement had been publlshed in the n~wspaper.
Commissloner Talar pointed out that even if the prop~erty owners were natifiecl~ ft does not
neyate the Planning Commission's responsibility to protect the residentlal zone; Chai the
present owners would not be living in these houses forever.
Chairman Nerbst asked Che effect of the prop~sed changes according to the code~ and Jay
Tashiro pointed out there stil) would be the problem with the maximum structural height
because they are proposing a building 17 feec high~ which would require a setback of 34
feet and a weivcr still would be necessary.
7/3/18
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ JULY 3~ 197g 78•526
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA710N AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 1843 (continued)
Mr. Bauer sta~ted the motel next door is there beceuse af e"grandfAther cleuse~" A~d that
ia onn of the reasons thay a~a having probicros with the southerly property lino. Ne
pointed out thny are only ext~+nding acro~s the back of the property approxlmately 55~;
that the rest of the e~ea is opon to greenbelt.
Commissloner Barnes i~dicated she stlll has e probloni with the two-story units and the
p~operty awnars inust be protected~ and if they wnre present~ khe Planning Commtsslon would
probably be heartny a dlfferent viGw. She ind(cated she is all for camnercial
development~ but Is still concerned about encroachi~g Into the residenttal neighbarhood
whera tho Plannlny Cammission i~as not b~sen doing that In the pest.
Chatrman Nerbst point~d out the pro)ect wlll not have any accessibility to the rear yard
and there will be no parking, Just lon~scepinq~ and will fn ess~nce be ~ block wall that
wil) prnbebly give more security than they hove rig' now~ and that it wlll attenuate
sound from Beach Boulevard.
Mr. Baue~ pot~ted out the property immedlately to ths nortli is camnerctal property and
extends alony the; slde of the house on the corner~ and this lot is a larqe cul-de-sac lot
and its rear line coincides v~ith the subJect property almost all the wey across the back~
and thay d(d not fee) they would be encroaching thot much (nto their prtvate area.
Commisstuner Oavid asked Jack Wh(te~ Qeputy City Attorncy~ if legally the advertising had
been suffic(ent.
Jack Nhite pointed out the adverttsement probably compltes wiCh the letter of the law,
however~ the Planning Qepartment in the past has combined all three elerx~nts of
adverttsing~ 1) post(ng the properCy~ 2) publish(ng in thE newspaper~ and 3) matling
notices to the propGrty awn~ers withln 300 feet~ bnd in this case the property vwners
irm~dlately abutting thc proposed dcvelopment un t:~e west, which ts Hayward Street. were
not notified and the property had been posted on Beach Boulevard~ whlch probably would
meet r.he letter af the law~ but the Planning Commtssion should decide whethcr or not they
felt this would be sufficient or whether or not it shouid be readvertised.
Cortr•issioner Johnson ~sked the petitiQner if he had discuss~ed this matte:~ with [!~e
neighbors to the west, and he replied that he had --At.
ACTION: Commissloner King offereJ a motian~ s~conded by Commissioner Linn and MOTION
CARRIEO, thet the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewcd the pro~osal to expand an
existing r~otel with waiver of rnax(mum str~ctural helghc and minimum side yard setback on a
rectangulerly-shaped parc~l of Isnd consfstir~g of approximately 1.3 acres having a
frontage of approximately 195 feet on the west side of [ir.ach Baulevard, having a maximum
depth of approximately 295 feet~ being located approximately 1108 feet north of the
centarlinc of aal) Road; and does h~reby apprnve the Neyatlve Declaration f~csm the
requiremcnt to prepare an envtronmental impact report on the basis that there wnuld be no
significant fndivldual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to th~ approval of
this Nec~etlve Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for goneral cor.anercia~ land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental ir~acts are Involved in the proposal; that the Inltial Study submttted hy
the petitioner indicates no significant individual o~ cumulative adverse environmental
impects; end that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing find(ngs is on
file in the City of A~aheim Planning Department.
7/3/78
m~
~
`~'
.R
MINUTES~ ANANEIM GITY PLANNING COhWtSSION~ JULY 3~ 197g 78•527
f~11 NEGATI VE DECLARATIOM AND CONQITIONAI USE PEitNIT NO= 184g ( contt ~ued)
Jack White osked the Plsnning Gcxnmisslo~ to take Action on the weiver of code requlrements
befo~e taking sction an the conditionel use parmtt beGause the condltlan~l use pe~mit. If
approved, p~ovldes as a condition that the develope~ wtll bul l d ac~ ordfrt~g to plans as
submitted~ and if the wsivors were cieni~d~ this would not be eansistent.
Commisslone~ King offered a motlon~ seconded by Cortmissloner Oavld and MOTION FAlLEO TO
CARRY (Commisaloners ,Johnson~ e~rnes~ I.inn end Tala~ voting no), that the requested wsive~
(a) for maximum structural height be grantcd on the basls that tlie prapnrty adJacent to
the west i~ developed wl th e two-story motel and donial would be denying A prlvi lege
enJoyed by other propcrtles in tho area~ an~ grantln~ waiver (b) For minimum stde yard
setback on the basis that th~e prn~erty t~ tho south ~g zanGCi re~ldentlal ~ how~ver~ It ls
developed with a rrbtel~ and subject to the petitioner's stlpul atlons to relocate the
bui Idlny to approxlmately lA-1/?. feet from the propcrty 1 ine ~snd there wl l l be no wtndows
or opanings to thc wast.
Chairman Tolar Indf~ated he had not support~d the motion primarlly for the reason that the
Planntng Cc~mmissiun has always protected a resldential zone a~d lie felt a mobl lehome park
is na dlfferent than an RM-12~0 develapmcnt. Hc Indlcated he could support thls pr~posa)
If it were a sinylc-sCory unit on che westerly property Ilne i n conforma~nce wlth all
setbacks.
Comml~sloner Tolar nffered a motion~ seconded by Commissloner David and MOTI01~ CARRICD~
that waiver (a) be granted in part~ allawing a two-story bullding on the south propcrty
line, but denyfny the two-story butlding on the west property Ilne; 9ranting watver (b) on
the basis that the ad,jacent pronerty Co the South is zoned residenLial but is devcloped
cortrne rc i a 1 I y,
Comnisslone~ King ~ffered Resolution No. PC78-146 and ,~wved for ([s passage an~ adoption~
that the /~nai~eim City P~annin~ Commisslon does he~eby grant P~titlon for Conditional Use
Permlt No. 1a43~ subJect to revised plans to retocate the bui lding on the westerly
property line~ ar~d subJect to interdepartrr~cntal Gommittee rec:ommendattons.
Prior to votiny on the foregotng resolution~ the Cammissi~n discussed the architectural
p lans for the deco~at i ve wal 1, and i t was noted th~ Commi ss i ori wou 1 d 1 i Ice to see a capy of
thesc plans.
On roll Gall~ the foregoing resolution was p~ssed by the following vote:
AYE5: COMMISSIONERS; BaRNES~ DAVIO. HER~ST, JOHNSON~ KING ,LINN, TOLAR
NOES: COMh;SS IONERS; NOt~E
AEISENT: CONh115SI0NERS: NONE
Jack White~ Oeputy City Attorncy~ pointed out the petitiorter may appeal any part of the
~ecls~on made by the Planning Commisslon withir~ 22 days to the Clty Council and presented
him wi th the wri tten rlght to appPal .
7/3/78
~
MINUTES~ ANAfIE1M CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 7$-S2Q
ITCM N0. 11 PUIILIC IIEARING. OWNCRSs ROBERT W. ANp DO~INA HOSTETTER~
~~I CAL E XEMPT IOtI-CLA55 1 2129 V i ctor i e Avenue ~ Anahe i m~ CA ~2804. pet i t i o~e r
ONDI IONAL JSE RMIr 0. 1 requests permisa~lo~ to EXPAMD AN EXISTING COCKTAIL
LOUNG~ on property dcscrtbed ss u rectangulerly-shrped
percel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre
having a frontege of epproximately 6~ feet on the west side of 8~ookhurst Straet~ having a
maxlmum depCh of approximately 35~ foet. be(ng located opproxtmstety 795 feat north of the
canterline of Ora nge Avnnue~ and furtl~er described as 409~ 411 ~nd k13 South Brookhurst Street.
Property prescntly classlficd CL (COMMkRCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
The~e wes na one indlceting thoir presenca (n oppositton to subJect ~equest~ end although
the staff report to thrz Planniny Corrmission dated July 3~ 197a was hot read at the public
hear~ng~ it is referrod tc~ and made a pa~t of the ml~ut~s.
Robert Nostetter~ owner~ ind(cated he hed vwnod thc suhject property for 14 years and was
speakin9 on beh~l f of thc Jeck Notery ~ current operator of The Sherwoc~d~ and alsa
Diplno's~ and th at they are asking f~r a single use of the twa facllitiQS; that they have
upgradad the units conslderably and the building currently meets mintmum codes. H~
refer~ed to Conditlon No. 1 concerning street lighting faciliCies along Drookhurst Street
end (ndica*.ed t~~e current uttlity pc~les se~ve the standards on the east side of
Brookhu~st. Ile ~+uinted out a nu~nber of developrt~nts havc been approved south af them and
a wa I vor of that requi rane~t hes heen made .
Jack White~ De,puty City Attorney~ pointed out this Is n~t a ca~Je requ(rement and the
Planning Comrnlssion wou{d have the power to wa(ve chat cAndition.
THE PUBI.I C FIEARI t!G WAS CLOSED.
Camritss loncr Tol ar asked i f this I s a normal requcst and hev~ uther people been el Ic~wed to
develop without p ayment of the fee~ and Mr. Nostetter pointed out there are developments
under constructia ~ to a greater magnitude then hls; that he does ~ot mind spanding the
money, but (n his Judymant this has been a slight. He pointed out this is for an
ornamenta) City llyht standard and the rest of the fees have been pafd.
Jack White pointed out ihfs Is a standard conditton Imposed by the Ut(lities Department
a~d he Nas ~ot aware of i ts be i ng wa i ve d i n the ~as t.
The Commisston dtscussed the requlremCnt of this condition, with Annika Santalahti*
Assistant Director for Zoning~ pointir.g oue that after inspection if It ts determined the
standard exists. then che candltlan could be waEved~ or if the fees have been palo~ it
w4uld not be necessery to pay them again.
Commisste~er Ba rnes asked about the waiver of p~rking which was approved in Decsmber of
1976~ with Mr. Hostetter pointing out additional parking spaces have been provided io meet
cod~.
Comniss toner Ki ng clari f ied the address of subJect pr~perty ~ I ndi cat i~g that 409 South
Brookhurst shauld be deleted from the staff repart.
It wes noted that the Planning Di~ector or hls authorized representative has detern:ined
that the p ropos e d pro'ect falls wlthin the def~nitlon of Categorlcal ExemQtions, Class 1,
as defined in pa ragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impact RRport Guidellnes
and is, thersfo re~ categoric311y exempt from the requirement tn p~epare an ElR.
7!3/78
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 78-529
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 AND CONDITIOIIAL USE PERMIT N0. !8~i7 (continued)
ACTION: Commissloner Linn nffered Resolution No. PC78-147 and move d fnr its passage and
a~opl~on~ thst the Anah~im C) ty Planning Lommission does herahy gra~t Peti tlon for
Conditlona) Use Parmit No. 1f~47~ subJect to Interdepertmental Commi ttee recann~endetions,
with th~ excesptio~ of Condltlon No. 1 whlch is deleted.
On roll call~ the foregoing res~luti~n wss passed by the folloaring votet
AYES: COMMISSIOt1ERS: k3ARNES~ DAVID~ 11ERf3ST, JOIiNSON~ KING~ LINN . TOI.AIt
NOES: COMMISISONERS; NOf~l
AUSENT; COMMISSI~)NkRS; NONE
ITEM ;JO. 12 PUuLIC NEARING, OWNCRS; DOt~AI.D L. ANU FLORIENE
EIR NEGATIVE ~ECLARATIQN SAlI0CR5FELU~ 57.5 North G1 Ibert Street ~ Space 15~),
CON ON L ~ RMI N0. li~l+ii Anal~eim. CA 92~i01. AGEI~T: PETER GIOVANNONI ~ 1784
West Alomar Avenue, Anahelm~ CA 928~4. Pet(tloner
reque~ts permisslun to ESTABLISH A MOTEL on prope~ty
described as a rectangulerly-sl~~ped parGel of land conslsting of ap~roxlmately ~.~ acre
having a frontegc ~f approximatciy 1~10 feet on the west sl~fc of 8roc~khurst Strret~ having a
maxlmum depth of approximatcly 10U fe~t~ being located appr~ximatcl y 660 feet snuth of the
center) ine of Orangc Avenue. and furthc~ described as 675 S uth Brookhurst Street. Pruperty
presently classified CL (COMNE~CIAL~ LIMITEU) ZONE.
Thcre was no one ind(cating their pr~senc~ in opposltlon to subJec t renu^st~ and althoug h
the staff report to the Planning Commisslon dated July '~, 1973 was notrcad at the publi e
f~earing~ it is referred tc~ and made a parc of the m(nut~s.
John Swint~ 707 West North Street~ Anahcim, representing the agent, petor Glovannonl~
i,~dicated the petittoner agrees witl~ all conditlons of the staff r~port and referred to
Item No. 13 regarding the parktng space for the residential dwelli ng other tnan the
manager's unit and indtcated th~ ~roperty is beiny purchased from Mrs. Sandersfel~±~ a
widaw, and that the buyer has glven her an irrevocable llfe estat ~ on the site witnout
any cost to her~ which is an apartmenc on the extrem~: southwest po~t(on ~f the motel
property~ and that she cioes nat drive and does not need the parkin g space.
THE PUBLiC HEARIWG uAS CIOSED.
Commissioner King asked the petitioner if tl~e propos~d trash locattonhad been relocated
to p~ovido adequate turn-around for the trash trucks~ and Mr. Swin t rnplted that he had
not worked this out, but thero would not be any problem and he would comply with City
requ i rernen ts .
ACTIOt~: Commissioner Tolar offered a motlqn, seconded by CommissionArLinn and MO710N
CARRlED~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commiss(on has r~eviewed th ~ proposal to establis h
a motel on ~ rectangularly-sha~.ed parcel of lanci conslstiny of app roxlmately 0.5 acre
having a frontage of approximately 100 feec on the west slde of B~ookhurst Street~ i~aving
a maximum depth of approximatcly 2A0 feet~ and being located appro ximetely 660 feet sou th
of the tenterlins of Orange Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration f~om
the requirement to prepare an envlronmental impatt report on the b asis that there would be
no s(gnificant indlvidual or cumulative adve~se e~svironmental impaet due to the approvsl
of this Negative DeclP~a±ion since the Anaheim General Plan dtsignates the subJect
property far general comn~erclal land uses commensurate wi th the p~oposal ; that no
sensittv~e environmental impacts are irvolved in the proposal; that the {nitial Study
7/3/18
~ ~
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIY 3~ 19y$ 78-5;0
EIR NCGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1846 (contlnu~d)
s ubmitte d by the petitl~ner i~dic~tes no aiqnifict~nt tndlvidual ar cumulettve edversa
e~vlronmental impacts; and that the Nayative Declaration substanti~ting thc form going
flndinga is on ftl~ In the City of Anahelm Plenning Gepertment.
Commtssioner Tolar offared Resolution No. F'G78-14~ snd movsd for its pessaqa and sdaption~
that th e Aneheim Clty Planning Commlsston cl~ea horeby grant Petltlo~ for Condltlonal Use
Permit No. 1848~ subject to Interdepartmental Committe e racommendstlons.
On roll call~ the forego(ng resolut(on was passed by tl~e following vote:
AYI:S : COMM I S5 I UNCKS ~ BARI~IrS ~ DAV I U, IiEa05T ~ K{ NG ~ JOHNSON ~ L I NN ~ TOLAR
hO~St COMMISSION~RS: NGNE
ABS~NT : COMM I SS I ONE RS ; N01~~
Cummissioner Tolar pc~int~ d out thc applicant had been mAd~ nw.~r~ nf the roquirement to
provide adeyuate turn-ar~~und area for the trasF~ trucks and tl~e reeson for granting the
~ondltional use parmlt with the pnc parking st~11 wes thot even if thl~ was a resi~ientla)
housa~ you could not force somaone to place Che c~r In the g~r~~s; that there Is e one-car
garage provl ded.
Commisslonsr Llnn asked if upon the death ~f thQ llfetime est~tc occupant~ would thc
property revert to the owner of tlie ~notel, and Mr. Swint replied that (t would.
ITEM N0. 13 PUIiLIC NEARiNG. OWNEIZS: VINCENT P. AND PATRlCIA L.
~tZ~ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 PIETROK~ 100~ Easr couth Street~ Anahelm~ CA 928~5.
R 0 ODE ~QU REMEN S Petitio~er request. perrnission to ESTII6LISH A GYMNASTIC
C NU ION L__ SE ERMIT N0. 1854 TRAINING CENT~R WI'fH WAiVER OF (A) MINIMUM NUMDER AF
PARKING SPACES~ (6) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK~ AND (C)
MINIMUM LANOSCAPED SETDACK on properxy descrlbed as a
rectan yuiarly-shaped parcel of land consisttng af approximately 0.4 ac~e having a frontage of
approximately 60 feet on the sou[h side of South Street. hsving a maximum depth af approxt-
mately 296 feet, being located approximar,ely ;15 feet west of t~he centerllne of East Street,
and fu~ther described as 1000 East Souch Streee. Prope~ty presently classlfled ML (INDUSTRIAL,
LiMl1"ED) ZONE.
There was no one indicating thelr presence in opposition to subject request, and although
the staff report to the Planning Commission d~ted July 3, 1~7$ was not read at the public
h~arin g~ it is referred t~ and made a pert ot the minutes.
Vincent Pietrok~ awner~ pointed out he has oper•ated a gysx~astic cente~ on Anahelm
doulevard for four and one-half years and Mo ycars before that at i33 South Anaheim
9oulevard, and because of r~development, he is befng forced to ~elocate and the Relocation
Depertment ha~s been looking for a stte stnce Decer+~ber 1977 and has only cane up with a
2000- square foot butldl~g which Is not satisfactory~. He indicated he presently owns the
subJeet property and proposes to use it for a gyrtma~tic training center.
He prese~ted ~ copy of a petition approving of this use signed by 10 oth_r ad3acent
business managers or awners wi thin 300 faet, including Dixie Cup, Amer(can Can, Santana
Motor Homes , e tc .
YHE P UBLIC HEARING uA5 CLOSED.
7!3/7a
. ~ _. ,,..~.~
~
MINUTES. ANANEIM CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3. 1978 7a•53~
EIa CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-GLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL US~ PEfU11T N0. 1850 (continued)
Commlasloner Johnson ~sked the petit~oner if he hed plans to r~locete (~to the
redevelopment area at a~ later date~ an~1 i~e replled this was probably not posslble beceuse
of the helght of the bullding required for his use. He steted he is board member of the
Southorn Celifornia Women's Gynnestic Associatlon that has 80 clubs In Southern
Californle~ a~d the meJority of privatc clubs are opera~ing in induatrial buildings and he
felt this would be the praper locetion.
He (ndlcated he had some questtons concernlny the Interdepartmenta) Commlt.tee
recommendations~ one being the underground utilittcs~ and pointed out thAt withln 120 feet
the~e are~ 10 uti I I ty ~nles snd he dici not ferel anoth~r..r pole w~uld cio anythin~ for the
area. 11e stated that even thounh this may be a ncw aroject. the builJinv has been in
existence slnce 1955. Ne indicated hts second concern was regarding the trash sto~age
area; that his business is mostly carrieJ in his briefcase and tt~e trash generated is
str(ctly paper towels from the wasl~ rooms, ~nd he felt a trash sto~aqe area would take up
spece he needs for parking and would ~ot do anything for t1~e proJect. He po(ntQd out the
City owns tl~e property to the west of his~ wliich (s 60 feet away~ and trash (s p~esently
dumped at that locetion and therP would bc mor~ trash generated frcxn th~t property than hc
would generate himself. He presented photographs of the trash g~nerated by the Gtty-ownecf
property. Ne indfcated concern fqr the requirer-ent for turb and ,yutter and potnted out
that on his side of the str'ect th~re arG no curbs and yutters.
Cha(rman Nerbst p~olnted out he could submit a letter to thG City Engineer asking for
relief from that conditlon and in the future wtien the area is improved~ he would be
requi~ed to pay the fee at that tlme.
Mr. Pietrok ind(cated he had no objections to provldinq curb and gutker, but the City-
own~d property adjacert~t co his does not nave curb and gutter and there are about 40 trucks
that drlve In and aut of that property and create quite a cfust storm. He pointed out he
did not feel it wauld be fair to have to pave and provide cu~b and qutter unless the
ad,jolntng property owncrs were also required to do the same.
Annika Santalahti, Assistent pirector for Zoning~ explat~ed that the petitloner's question
rege~ding the trash storage area is subJect to approval of t~ie Public Wo~ks Dir~..tor; that
that department analyzes the use and deterrnines what type of trash storage area is
reyulred and it may come. down to only requirin~ one trash can.
Mr. Pietrok indicdted he did n~,. object ta that~ but he did not f~eel he should have to
provtde a special trash collection area because It would take away from I~is parking and he
is alrcady short on parking.
Anntka San~alahti explafned this cauld be worked out at staff level~ and concerning the
condition requiriny underground utilities. where utilittes are needed and there is a pole
within the arca that can be utilized~ there is no additional charge; however~ if there is
not a pole, the utiiities must yo underground.
She also explelned that relativ~: to the street frontage engineering requirements~ the
zoning code requires that enqineering impruvements be made prior to any zoning action~ and
deletton of this condition would require a variance and would have to be advertised fo~ a
pubiic hearing. She indicated she felt the petitioner was not obJecting to the dedication
of the f~ontage. but to the extra cost of improvement.
Mr. Pietrok indicated the extra 2 feet is not going to do him any good and he did not feel
it would do the City anv good, but he would not object to dedicating Z feet of hls
property but did not u~derstand the reasoning.
7/3/78
",y
E~
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLl1NNING GOMMISSION~ JUI.Y 3~ 1978
78•532
~IR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1850 (cont(nued)
Chelrmen I~tlrbst pointad out he felt thia was p~obebly to brr~c~ thr, st~eek ur to Its
ultirnatn width in the future and that a condit(onal dedicatlon sf~ould bn sufflclent.
Mr. Pletrok tndicated~ regardiny the curb and yutter situatlan~ he did not fesl hts 60
feet ol' propGrty should be required to have such improvements slnce the e~dJacent
prapertlAS~ ~lus the City's 2J0 feet of property~ have no curb and outter.
Chalrman Herbst pol~ted out he cauld Jiscuss this with the Clty Enylneer and if the~e are
no curbs ond gutters in the area. tney would probably walve thAt condltion until such time
as It ~s nP~ded.
It was note~l the Planning Di~ector or his authorized re~resentative has determined that
the prup~secl pro,je~t falls wlth(n the deflnition of Catcgoricol Exemptlons~ Class I, as
definad in perac~raph 2 of tl~e City ~f Anat~etm Envtr~nmentel Impact Repo~t Guidelines and
is~ therefore~ catoyorically exempt from the requirement l~ prepare an CIR.
ACTIOW: Cammission~•r King offered e motlon~ scconded by Commissi~ner Uavid +~nd MOTION
~U~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does here:by grant woiver (e) for
parking on ttiQ basis chat it appears when tha building wes erccted years ago it was
intended that any parking be done lnside~ as necessa~y. as a large garage door exists on
SouXh Street end t1~at is the only largc open(ng, and that the buflding and p~rking
feclllties were establtshed prior to the pres~nt code and would create a hardsh(p to bring
the premises up to the current Cade, and tl~at the herdship Is due to the locatfon of the
building on the land and no added parking congestlon will result from this proJect as the
parking of cars on S~uth Str~et is not permlt[ed according to City codes; qranttng waiver
(b) on the basis that no douht the setback was with(n code when the building wes erected,
and forcing the applicant to meet tF~e current codes creates e hardship; and granting
waivar (C) on the basis that a blacktop area is existtng in fro~c nf Ch~ building and care
park In front of the buildlny and there are no curbs and sfdewalks in che aroa.
Comm(ssfoner Kiny offered Resolution No. PC76-149 and moved for its passac~~ and adoption~
that the Anahelm City Planniny Comnission does hereby grant Petition f~r f,onditional Use
Permit No. 1850~ subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recorvnendatians.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the folic~ln~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARt1E5~ DAVIp~ HERDST~ JOHNSON~ KItdC~ L.INta, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONF:RS: NOtdE
ABSENT: COMMiSSIQNERS: NONE
Jack 4~hi te~ Deputy Ci ty Attorney ~ potnted out there seems to be a rni5un~ierstandi ng of the
P)a~ntng Commission concerning the power of the Clty Englneer to waiv~ the Gode
requlrement for construction of curbs and gutters; that the City Engine~r does nat h~ve
the power to waive that construction~ and if th~ applicent is dissatisfiaQ with th~
condition, he has to file for a varlance whlch will require a~ubllc hesring.
Commissioner Oavid asked if Council Policy 214 was deemed not to be necessc+ry tn this
case, and Annika Santalahtl replied the traffic signal assessment fee~ which Is often
requlred when a use goes into an Industrial area, was not required in this cese because
the Tra¢ftc Engineer had determined o~ the basis of the amount of traffic which w~uld be
brought Into the area that the use would be more slmilar to industrial than c~ammerciel
and, therefore~ no fee adJustment was ~~quired.
Mr. Pietrok explained he had request~d a walver of the curb ~nd gutter in his oriyinal
appllcation, and if the Plannfng Department knew~ they should have told htm he nended
1/ 3/ 78
~
MINIlTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 197~
1g-533
€IR CATEGORiCAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIO~lAL USE PERMIT N0. 1_8§0 (continued)
another waiver or wh~tever is ~ecessery to request that ve~lance~ but that he was not
Informed or It could have AII boen done st tho san~ tlme.
Jack White explalned that Conditlon No. 2 provides that rather than constructing the curb~
gutter and s(dewalk~ a bond tan bc posted to yuera~tee the Inst~llatlon of the
~equiremants prior to occupancy.
Chalrman Nerbst pointed ouc the oniy way~ even if staff hias madc an e~ror~ to correct the
struatlan would be to hold another publlc hearing if he still desl~es a waiver of this
~~.yuiroment. Na explained thc wey thQ canditlon now reeds~ tFie ~etitioner may post a bond
ror thc curb and gutter and at the tir+~e the property ts (m(+r~v~d~ hr. would p~y for the
improvernents, an~i Nr. Pletrok tndicoted I~e haJ no object(on to that.
(TEM N0. 14 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNCRS: LEk,NMAN H. ANU JEANEI'TE A.
EI{t NEGATIVE DECLARATION V.AUGHAN. East Lakc Shore~ 8i~~ Fork~ Montana, 59911.
CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 1d~1 AGENTS: JACK ANQ DORiS ~. MURPt1Y~ 1223 South Brookhurst
Street~ Anahelm~ CA 92804. Petitlone~ requests
permission to CQNVERT AN EXISTING RESTAURANT TO A
COCKTAfL 10U1JGE wIT11 PUI3LIC OANGING on property desc~ibed as a rectanqutarly-shaped parcel of
t~~id consistlny of approximately 0.3 acre having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the
west side of Brookhurst Str~et, hav(ng a maximum depth of approxlmately 115 feet~ being
located approxtmately 500 feet ~outh of the centerltn~ of Dall Road~ and further descrfbnd as
1233 South Brookhurst Street. Property presently clASSified CL (COMMERC~AL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
There was no one ind(catiny the~r presence In opposttion to subJect request~ and althuugh
thc staff rep~rt co the Plannin9 Comnission dated July 3~ 197b was not read at the public
hearing, (t Is referred to and made a par~ of the minutes.
Odra Chandler, repressenting Mr. and M~s. M~rphy~ indicated the cocktall lounge has been in
nxistence since 1961 ~nd has always o~,erated in the samc way except for an addttlon to the
building stx or s~ven years ago; t~~at ~+~ey wish to change the operation from live music to
pre-recorded or disco-Cype music and N~ar,t to dlspense with the servlce of food; Chat the
formar serve-yourself type operation has become extremely uneconomical since the infiux of
the larger restaurants, as well as th~ htgh cost of hiring a banJ, anci that (s the basis
for their appllca[ion; and that tt~ey agreed with the interdeportmental Committee
recnmmendations.
THE PUBIIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Chairman Nerbst pointed out that in some af these disco-type facilities there have been
noise problems and asked wiiat would b~ done Co keep the noise level down slnce th(s would
be abutting a restdential area.
Mr. Chandler potr~ted out that in the Gou~ty area Just west of the subJect site there arc
about four houses and the band is already in exlstence and there have never been any
obJectians to the band operation i:self. He indEcated that from his experience the pre-
recorded music does rot present the san~e problems as a live Dand; that he had bee~ in
management at the G~and Hotel a~d lived in a fifth-ftoor suite and the live band presented
more problems with the percuss(on instrum,~nts than pre-recorded music. He 1ndlcated when
the band had taken a 15-minute break and h3d played the Jukebox, you could not hear it~
but you could feel the vtb~ations from the iive percus~ion instruments.
7/3/78
.. . ,
~, ,
MINUTES~ A~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ ~978 78~534
E.IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONA~ US~ ~':kMIT N0. 1851 (continucd)
Chalrmsn Nerbst potnted out disc~ d+~nciny ~eems to bc tha coming fad and that whe~ ynu
heer it on the televlsion~ it appoe~s to be qulte loud.
Mr. Chandler pointed Aut It (s qultc loud In your living ~oom, but you still do not get
the reverberatlon from the percusslon instruments. which Is the ob)ectlon to the ltva band
wl th the drums ~ etc.
Commlssloner Johnson polnted out he differed with the petttioner and was ncutral In the
subJect of discos~ but that any time ho has becn plagued with ~ loud danca band, it has
always bee~ dlsco-typn~ ~ecorded muslc and nat a live band; chat disco muslc is brutal
with ~olse.
Commissioner Tolar a~5ked the locatl~n of tl~e dist~ music ope~ation tnslde the building~
and Mr. ChancJler palnted out it would nat n-atter~ that it is the locatlon of the speekers
which creates chc problem. Ne stat~d th~re is insulation to keep thc nolsc inslde.
Camnissioner Tolar asked (f there would be any accesses or optnings on the wa~t side af
the property~ and Mr. Chandler replied there ar~ no accessos to the west.
After a brief discuaslon regaraing tl~e location ~f tha spePkers anJ th._ disca operation~
Cammissioner Johns~n potnted out the Plenn1ng Commission would have the ablilty to revlew
tha op~ratlon if there are any neyat(ve effects on the nelghborhood.
Jack Wh(te~ Deputy City Attorney. confirmed the.-e is a provision in the cadr. to revoke the
condittonal use permit if it becanes detrtmental to the public health ~nd safety~ or that
conditions could br. added or modlficcl.
ACTION: Commissioncr David offered a motion, seconded by Commiss(oner King and MOTION
~D~ that the Anahetm City Planniny Commission has rev(awed the propasal to convert an
existing rastaurant to a cocktall lounge with pub11G ~ncing on a ~ectangularly-shaped
parce) of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre having a frontage of appraximately
100 feet on the west side of arookhurst Street~ having a maximum depth of approximately
115 feet~ and beiny located approximately `>00 feet south of the centerline of eall Road;
and dces hereby approve thc Negative Occ!aration from th~ requ(r~ment to prtpare an
environmental impact report on the basts that the~e would be no slgniflcant individual o~
cwnulative adverse envfronmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration
since the Anahetin General Plan designates the subject property for general comnercial land
uses commensurate with the prop~sal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involvad
in the proposal; that the Initlal Study submitted by che petitioner tndicates no
siynlficant individual or cumulative adverse envlronmental impaGts; and that the kegative
Declaration substantiat(ng the f'oregoing findings is o~ file in the City of Anahelm
?lanning Department.
Commissloner David offereJ Resolution No. PC7B-150 and moved for its passage and adoption~
that the Anatieim Ctty Planning Commissfon does hereby grant Petitien for Condittonal Use
Permlt No. 18;1~ subJect tn Interdepartmental Commltte~ recommendattons.
On rnll call~ the foregoing resolution wes passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DARNES~ DAVID~ HERaST~ JONNSON, KING, I,INN~ TOIAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: t~~,lE
ABSENT: COhWI5510NER5: NONE
7/3/78
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ JULY 3~ 1978 78-535
ITEM N0. 1' PU~IIC HEARING. OWNER: RICHARD C. HUI~SAKER~ P. 0.
EI CA E 0 ICAL EXEMPTtON-CLASS 1 Box 24Z3, Santa Ane. CA 97.707. AGENTS: GAIL C.
u . 2 MIORKMNN ANU ANGELINE HURNEP, 114 43rd Street~ Newport
Bo~ch. CA 9Z663. Petittaner requests permiss(on to
ESTABI.ISN A SANDWI C1~ SHOP WI TH ON-SALE OF BEER ANO
WIf~E on property described as e r~ctangularly-shaped parce) oF land consfsting of approxt-
metely 2.2 acras located at the southwast cnrnor of Miralome Avenue snd Blue Gum Street~
havtng approximete frontages of G30 feet on thc south slde uf Miralana Avenue and 165 feet
on thn west side of Blue Cum Street~ and furcher described as 274~ East Miralomt+ Avenue.
P~operty presently classlficd ML (INDUSTR~AI.~ LIMITED) ZONE.
There was no one tndicating tlie(r presence In o~pos(tion to subJect request, and although
the staff repart to the Planniny Commfsston dated July 3~ 1975 was not ~ead at the pubiic
hearin5r It (s referred to and maJc r parc oF ti~e minutes.
Gall Warkman, agent~ indlcetecl she and her partncr, Angellne Horner. are ~equesttny e
candltiona) use permit ta aperate a san:iwich shop at 27r~u East Mlralorna Avenue in an
inJustrlal complex to servir_e the existing established businesses in the area.
TNk PUOLIC IiE.ARING WAS CLOSED.
Comm(ssloner Tolar aslced why slie felt it w~s necessary to serve beer and wine in an
industrlal area.
Ms. Wo~kman replied th~t they wouid prsfer to be able to offer beer and wi~e because it
would make their operatiun unique in the area at the present time. Cormiissioner Davld
asked if they ayreed with all of th~s conditions (n th~ ~taff report, and Ms, Warkman
rcpl(ed that they did.
Chairman Herbst i~dicated he haJ no objections to the sandwir_h shop as it is needed In the
(ndustrlal area~ but felt haviny beer and wine available for employe~es in an industrlal
Gomplex during tiieir iunch haur could create problems.
Ms. Warkman pointed out they are proposing a sandwicl~ shop witfi a very nice atmosphe~e and
it would not be a beer bar or saloon.
Chairman Nerbst asked the hours of operation, Htth Commissioner Tolar polnting out the
staff report ir ~cates the I~ours woulc! be f~om li:00 a,m. to 3:00 p,m,
Chairman Nerbst pointcd out w(th tl:e hnurs of operation~ rrqst of thetr business would be
done during the lunch hour and asked why i: would be unique to have beer and wine at noon
in ihe i~dustrfal complex.
Ms. Workman replied that other sandwich shops in the area do not offer beer and wine to
their customers since they ar~ not bu(lt to code ta b~ able to serve beer and wine. She
indicAted she personally did not feel beer and wine Is detrimenial to the area; that st~e
has a high value of beer and wlne and had worked for Reuben's Restaurant as a manage~~
dealing wtth alcoholic beverages for stx years.
It ~as noted that the Planning Director or his authorized represrntative has determined
that the proposed p~oJect falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions~ Class 1,
as deflned 3n paragraph 2 of tha Clty of Anaheim E~vironmental Impact Report Guidelines
and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to p~epare en EIR.
7/ 3/ 78
,,,~ '~
~ ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 7a-536
EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONUITIONAL USE pERMIT' N0. 1852 (contlnued)
ACTION: Commts~loner Tolsr offcred Resolutlon No. PG7a-151 and rr~ved for its passage and
a~op Ton~ that the Anahelm City Pla~nlnq Curtmisslon does hereby ++nt Petitt~~~~ for
Co~ditional Use Permit No. 1852~ subJect to the haurs of operrtion of B:Ob a.m. to 3:00
p.m. as stipulated ta by the petitloner~ and subJect t~ Interdepartmentel Gcxrmitteo
~~+commenda t t nns .
On rol) cell~ the foregc~ing resolutton was passed by tlie following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARNCS, DAVID~ JUHNSO~~, KING~ LINN~ TOLAft
NQES: COMMISSIUNERS: NER~ST
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOtJE
Jay Teshiro~ Assoclatc Planner~ pnlnted out restaurants In the industrial zone would be
permitted to sell beer and wlne as e matter of rfght.
Chalrman Nerbst potnted out he felt the difference here (s the convenience for the
employees to be able to walk over and have a sanclwich and a few beers for iunch and did
not feel tt is good bustness In this kind ~f an arca.
Commissioner David lndtcated he dtd not feel the Planning Commission shoulci encroach In
this type of limitation. Ne asked why the Council policy should not be applicable hera
slnu thls la a commerciat use in an indu~trlal area.
C~mmiss~4ner 9arnes po~nted out this Is a dlffere~t situatlon in tfiat thls use is going to
service the Industrlal people In tl~e area.
(TEM NQ. 16 PUSLlC HEARlNG. OWNER: GROVE STREET ASSOCIATES~
~,I~NEGATIVE DECLARA.TION 1212 North Broadway~ Santa Ana. CA 92701. AGENT:
AIVER OF COUE RE ~UI~REMENT JQHN HENNES, 603 Reinier Avenue, Orange. CA 92G65.
~'bl~'~j~"~["~l~S'~"~E`AM~f'T N0. 18~3 Petttione~ requests permission to ESTA~I.ISN AN
-- AUTOMOBILE fiESTORATION FACILITY WITN 41AIVER OF
MINIMUM NUM4ER OF PARKING SPACES on pr~perty described
as an lrregularly-sltiaped parcel pf land consisting of approximately 0.6 acre located at the
cul-de-sac terminus of Grove Street~ having a frantage of approximately 42 feet on the
southpast side of Grovc Street~ having a maximum depth of approximately 189 feet~ being
loc~ted approximately 1Q05 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further
described as 1194 North Grove Street. Property presently classtfied ML (INOUSTRIAL, LIMITED)
ZONE.
Th~•re was one person present in opposition to sub.)ect request. end
altho~~gh the staff report to the Planniny Commisston dated July 3. 1978 Wes not read at
the p~blic hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the mtnutes.
Earl hbody, 185y2 MacArthur Boulevard, Irvi~ie~ rep~ese~ting Joh~ Henncs. egent, (ndlcated
he tiad e questlon concerning Conditlon No. ~ of the Interdepartmental Committne
recommendetions regarding the signal assessment fee; Chat he understends the City
destgnates the halder o~ a resale license as a cam~erciel user; that better than 9S~ of
the petitioner's business is the restoratton of cars and not resale; and that he has the
rasale license because if s~xneone wants to get a windshleld for a 1951 Corvette, he would
sell them th:~t pert if he has it, but he does not adve~tise. He indicated he would have a
maximum of five employces and the daily busi~ess would be two to three cars a day on an
average; that the number of restorations a month averages three and they ere expensive, up
to S20,000 per car; that he is now (~ an industrial property in a~dtfferent city and hE
7/3/7a
~u. •
~, ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINO COMNISSION, JULY ;~ 1978 7A-537
~IR NEGATIVE DECLAaATiON AND CONOlTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 18y3 (continuad)
..... ,~ ,_._.. ._.,___.,..~
needs the slie bocause many of the cars may require up to a year before they can obtaln
parts and that it is en (ndustrtel us~; tl~et f~e felt the r~umber of cars com(rtg to the
prope~ty ls rather negllglblc ancl he would like to see a welver of Conditlon No. 2; that
he lisd spokan with tl~e Traffic Uepartment And they had satd the fe~ Is S30 for industrlal
and S363 for commerctal. Ne polnted aut Condlttonal Use Permlt No. 1781~ whlcf~ was
sppraved for the property dtractly to the west of subJeck property. was granted wlth a
weivo~ and the fee was nat ~aid,
Robert Smlth~ 24S Verba~a Lane~ ~rea~ polnted ~ut they are the next door neighbors to Mr.
Hennas' astablishmant and the(r business is an industrtat suppll~r and many people are
coming in and out of thelr plece of operatton ond they have seven s~lesmen of thelr own~
and this is e new~ well-landscapr.d complex; [hat three weeks ago two flAtbed trucks pulled
tnto the parklny lot ad)acent to their parking lot and hove b~cn sicting there for threo
weeks with parts of Corvettas nr Corvettes un them~ snd they c~re concerned if he is gotng
to take up park(ny spaces with vehicles to be restor~d. Ne suc~gested if they want to be
parkiny the vahicles outside~ ~ ~halnl(nl. fence he provided wlth slats,
Nr. Moody polntcd out thc flatbed trucks are on the slte; that thc petitioner has becn (n
the proeess of movfn,y and these will be stored on Lhe insi~fe.
Commissioner Tolar asked why they had not been put insldc alr~ady~ and John Hennes pointed
out the maln reasan is b~cause of noe having electrlc(ty and he could only be available to
store them at ~tght.
Chairman Herbst clarified that all work and storage would be done Inside the building, and
Mr. tlennes repl(ed that was correct.
THE PUBLIC NEARINr, uA5 CLUSED.
Commissloner Barncs indicated she is familiar with this type operation and is worrled
about the retail portion of Che business. She felt ~nce the word yets out that this
dealer has Carvette parts, tl~e people w(!1 be con,ing in to huy them. She was also
concerned that the doors wr~uld be left open while the wo~k is being done and felt the
decision of the Planning Commission is whether or not thts uss fits and whethe~ or not it
would be detrimental to the area.
Chairman Herbst iridicated he felt the restoratfon of automobiles would appear to belong in
an i~dustrl~l area~ just lfke the c~nstruction of recreational vehtcles~ as long as the
retail portion does not exceed 15`~ of the buslness; that any company wuuld be allowed to
have a certain number of people cominy into their business ~o long as it is not the full
intent of the(~ business. tie felt that with the res~oration of this type qf car, there
would not be that much traffic anci it would be a light use as long as it is conducted
entirely insidE the facility.
Commissioner Linn painted out parking would be :~dequate for this use.
Cortxntssioner Tolar asked hnw rr~any employecs would be on the site, and Mr. Hennes replied
the maximum wauld be five employees.
Commissioner 1'olar indicated he agreed this use belongs in the ML Zone, but he was
concerned about the n~ighbc~rs. He noted the rebuilding of this type of car and antique
cars is becoming popular and fie was not concerned about whether or not there was going to
be an excess of retail business; that with five tmployees working on the cars there would
not be that problem. He indicated he ts familiar with this type operation and there ts
quite a limitation put on them because they cannot turn out that mtrny vehicles and it
7/ 3/ 78
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOk~ JULY 3~ 1978
78•53a
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AfID CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1853 (ccmtinued)
takes qulte e whlle tc rRStoro one. He stated he would Ilke ta seG a tlme 1(mlt imposed,
If It ts epproved,in order to revlesw (t.
Ccxnmissioner Harnes Indicated shc woulcf like to sne It reviewed at thG end af one yQar to
make sure It is not goiny to harm tho other man's business; that she ts In favor of th~
business. but did not want It to affect the bustness next dnor.
Annika Santalahtl~ Assistant Director for toning~ expl~+ined that as far as storlny
dismantled vehicles outdoors~ it Is prohiblted under the code~ end if the nelghbor sees
this happen(ng he can contact thP Zoning Divlsi~n and the Zoning Enf~rcement Officer wil)
clte the voh(cles. She Indic~ted that reletiva to the traffic stgnal assessment fee as
questioned by ti~e petiti~n~r~ the Ctty Council is lookl~~ ar A~ijust(nq that fee at the
present tlmo and the condttian could be modifled to read that there Is a pending chan~e,
und she expected the chenqe would be lower~ not higher.
Chairmen Herbst Indtcated he felt chis ~hould be an industrtal use rather than comnerclal;
that the restoreticx~ of cara will fit Ir~to the in~i~~strl~ai integrlry of the rrea.
ACTIAN: Commtssioner DAVId offerea a mott~~n, seconded by Cam-iscioner Tolar and MOTION
~~D. tliat the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission has revlewed the proposal to esiablish
an automobilC restorati~n facili~y wlth walver of m(nimum number of parking spaces on an
Irroyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.6 ecre located at the cul-
de-sac terminus of Grov~ Street, having a frontage of apprc~xln~ately ~~2 feet ~n the
southeast slde of Grove Street, having a maximum dcpth nf approximately lA9 feet~ and
being located approximately 1005 feet north of th~e centerline of La Palma Avenue; and does
hereby apnrove the Negative De~laration from the ~equtrement to prepare an envtronmenta)
impact report on the bas(s that there would be na significa~t tndivlduai or cumulat(v~
adverse environmental impact Jue to the appr~val of this Negative Declaration since the
Anaheim G~neral Plan designates the subJeet properCy for genpral industrial land uses
ct~rtrrtensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive envlranmertal impacts are involved ln
ttie proposal; that the Initial 5tudy submiited by the petitloner Indlcates no $ignificant
indivtdual or cumulative adverse environmentat impacts; and that the Negative Declaratlon
substantlating Che foreyoing findinys Is on file in the City of Anehelm Planning
DepartmenZ.
Commissloner David offered a motion, seconded by Commfssioner Ltnn and MOT{ON CARRIED,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commtssion does hernby grant waiver of the code requirement
on the basis that it has bcen their experience [his type of use does not generate the
trAffic and the need for parking.
Cortmissioner David ofFered Resolution No. PC78-152 and moved for• its passage and edoptton~
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Condttional Use
Permit Nc~. 1$53 for a period of one year~ sub,ject co revie.w+ by the Planning Commission to
determine whether or not the use has had a detrimental effect on the surrounding area; and
subJect to Interderpartmental Committee reconmendattons. wtth thG exception of Condition
No. 2~ which shall be modified pending the ehange by thG Clty Council.
On roll call, the foregoing ~esolution was passed by the following vote:
AYE~: COMMISSIONER5: BARNES. DAVID, HERI3ST~ JOHNSOt~~ KING~ LINN, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~IONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEfiS: NONE
~i3i~a
~
~w fi
'. .
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY ~~ 197f3 78-539
(TCH NU. 1 PUULlG HEARING. OMINF.RS; GILBERT V. KRA~MER~ ET AL,
~~1~~E DECLARATION P. 0. Dox 275~ Plecentia~ CA 92670. AGENT: MILLET~
DE E MENT K~NG 6 ASSOCIATES~ INC., 1F~7 West Orangcthorpe Avenue~
~~NUI~T~ONI~._~15~ITA0. 18y5 Suito 101~ P~ACOt1[IA~ CA 92fi7U, Petitioner requests
~ermtsslon to ESTAOLISH A CAR LEASiNf., FACII.ITY WITFI
WAIVER OF RE(~~IRED ENGIOSURE OF OUTDUOR US[. on prop~rty
described as an irrogulerly-shaped percel of la~d cAnsistiny of approximately 1.4 acres
tocated at the southwest corner of L~ Palme Avenuc and Slue Gum Street~ having approxlmatc
frontayes of ~72 faet on the south slJe ~f la Palma Avenue ~nd 333 feet on the west slde of
t~lue Gum Streot~ and ~urther describad as 1071 North Hlue Gum Street. Property pres~ntly
Classlfied RS-A-43~OOQ (RE51UE11T111L/AGftICULTUitAL) ZONE with a resolutlon of tntcnt to the
hSL (INUUSTRIAL, IIMITEU) 20NC.
There was i~u one tndic:+ting thelr presence in opposltlon t~ subject request, and although
tlie statt i•9port to the Planning Gornmtssion d.~tcd July 3~ 1~~J~ was not read at the public
heariny, {t ts referred to anJ made a~~art of thc minutes.
Jeff Mlliet~ representing Millet~ King b Assoc(ates, ayent~ incliceted Rey Smitt~~ Cl~airman
of the fioard of Valencla Bank was present and he had presentecf a lettcr outllning the
request. Ne pointed out there are twa questions, one regerding the storm drain which
could be worked out wltf~ staff, and also asked if tlie t~afffcslgna) assessment fee would
t~pply in this case. He asked if th~ir business was considered c4mmerciAl~ and it was
pointed out it wauld be considered cortmerctal. He asked where the stgnal would be
located, and Annika Santalahtl~ Assistant Dlrector f'or Zoning~ explained it would bc
someplace ln the City of An~heim, and he indicaced they had no problem witt~ t~at either.
TNE PUE~LIC NEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Chairman Herbst asked if~ fn dividing this property, would the lot on ~he corner hAVe
access to Blue Gum.
Mr. Millet repl(ed they had gotten tl~e loc splits approved on thc east and west sides of
Blue Gum and they would t~ave access on the northeriy property and they planned an
tndustrial buildtng on the north side. Ne tndicated leasing is na~v being conducted dawn
the strn_et at the bank building an~ they plan to expand~ which Is the reason for the
request.
Chairman Nerbst asked if the leasing fac(lity h~d been approved on the Velencta Bank at
tf~e present time for the storage of automobil~•~.
Annika Santalahtt indicated she was not sure how tliis was handled~ but the~e had been no
complaints.
Ray Smith pointed out che banking regulations ere under the Superintendent of Banks rather
than the Corporation Commissioner, therefore, because they are a bank operatlon, they pay
taxes on the bottom line rather than the other sou~ces~ so they operate the leasing and
escrow through the bank faciltty under on~ operatton.
Chairman Herbst pc~tnted out there Is one problem with the portable structure they plan to
put on the property and indtcated the Commission does not have the pewer to approve the
moving of the b~itdtng anto the property, a~d Jay Teshiro~ Associate Planner~ pointed out
one of the condltions of approval is that they must get permission fr•om the City Counctl
to move a building onto the p~operty.
7/3/76
MINUTES~ ANAN EIM CITY PLANNlNG COMMISSION~ JULY 1~ 19 7~
E!R NEGATIVE DECLAaATION AND CONOITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 1855
Commissioncr Barnes esked hc~w thia will differ from any other
~~ganlzotlon.
Ray Smlth axplatned thet he assun~ d most of
carporatinns end come under the Co rporation
operate ~ut of a banking fati I Ity.
(contlnued)
reyuler 1cASln,y
~a-54o
-:he othe-• i~as~ng operetions are s~parate
Cortxnlssloner, while they hnvr, permisslon to
Crmmissloner Bernes ~sk~~i lf they would lna~r, a car to anyon~ wl~o comns In wl~o quAllfles~
anJ he repiled thet was correct. Ne explalned that the representat(ves make phone calls
and there are other typcs of advcrtisiny~ sucl~ as rodlo~ and thet (s where they .yest most
of their businesa. Ne presented pictu~es of the uffice recently apen-:d In Lake Foregt
whlch hes a slmi lar type le~sing faci l ity od,~acent to the bank and thrt rn~st of thei r
businn~~ is fror~~ r~prosentat(vcs or rcfcr~•31s in [he fl~~~+•
Chalrman Herh~t esked about the resalce of lezsr.d automoblles. nnd Mr. Smith replied the~~
do net re•• s~a I 1. they have t~~ WIN'~ I P.CA ~ L' the a~itomoh I I es and they c1b not heve a t i cen~e to
sell them,
Commissioner TolAr ~sked lf tt~erc would be any sl~lns idvertlsinc~ vehlcles for sele~ and
Mr. Smlth rcplleJ the siyns wou1J be aclvcrt(siny GArS for leASC.
C~mmissloner Harnes p~inted ou~ the Planning Conmiss(on dld ~ot want to see thls locatlan
lookin~ tike a uscd car lot.
Nr. Smith presented pictures of the Anaheim office, indiGatinq there are no si~ns evident
in the pictu~•es.
Chalrma~ Nerust indicated he has no ~~Jections •o lea:~ing cars in en in~ustrtal areA If it
would be strvtcing the Industrlal area, but he was ~oncerned abnut Ic lookiny like a u~ed
car lot and this mlqht be settl-+9 a precedent. -~e ~ef~rred t~ the vtew look~ng from Route
91 into thc parcel and pointod out it ducs h~ve a dras*.fc exposure to the frceway and he
does not sec any landsc.~ping n)ong thc fraeway side and f~iC it would look ve~y stark. He
stated that along wi t'~ th~ exEsting chatnl lnk fen~.e, whici~ is probably a freeway fance,
some sort of landsc~piny would improve the area.
Jeff Millet re~lied they wuuld be willing to do whotever i~ nec~ssar~~; thet n~ne was
~equi ~e:f so they had not shown i t, but there is 4 feet h~ ccu~ ; lendscap~.
C~rtmisst~ner Linn lndicete~f there ~yas no ir~dic~tion of s+gns i~ che plans, and hlr. Millet
repl ied the si gns woul d: a on the bul ldiny and they would ccmply ~+i th code requl rements.
Ray Smith pointcd out thcy wer~ not asking for anything outs!~i~ of cade~ but they have not
made flna) plans for the signs.
Commissioner Davia potnted out they cou1J not have knawn abaut the landscaping stnce it is
not req ulred~ end Chairman Herbst replied tl-ey are a~king far a conditional use pe rmft and
it is the p~erogative of the Planning Comn(ssion to insure tF~ings are donr properly.
Jeff Mi l le:t pointed out there wi l 1 bc landscaping along slue Gum an~i the fro~t of the
building~ and tlsey wishPd to take advantage o~ ttre visual cxposure along thp freeway~
Mr. Smlth indicated he did now knaw what the entire program is to ba for the Kraert~r
property and oolnted out the Valcncia Bank takes pride in their buildings and would like
to compliment the area rat~er than detract from it. Ele indicated he had gtarted acros~s
the str~et at the Bank of Americ.a j7-1/2 yaars ago today end is interested in thc arca and
7/3/78
~
*. ^
~~
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMi5SI0F1~ JULY 3~ 19~8 78-54)
~IR N:GATIVE OECLAfiATI~N AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1855 (contlnu~~i)
doing wh~t fs ~lyht and wishes to make tt as attroctive as possible~ bue does not want it
to be too a~tractivo ar it woul~ creat~ more tr~~fflc problems.
Chelrman Ilerbst pointed out that wl th the freewa~r exposura and the discont(nu(nc~ of Lo
Mesa~ I~e felt sume sori of landscap(ny would he en asset to the proJect.
Mr. Mlllet rop11~-' thry would be wllling to landscap~ the extro 4 fe~t along the fence.
Com~~lssioner aarnes indlc~~ted she would ilke sc~~~~eon~ to convinre her this ls not a
commercial establ{shment~ nnd she woul~f Itl.e to knc~w hcrw it Is diffcrent,
Chafrtnan H9rbsL. p~ln~ed out they I~ave ~~ conditional use permit and are doln~t the same
buslness dawn the street and are r~moviny it awoy frr,m ch~ bank.
Commissioner UarnPs ~~st.c~i if thcy :~r~ st~rlny cars at the bank, and Mr. Smith renlicd thcy
may have an ii~vsntory uf new c~~rs si,,ce tt is lmnossible to yet them In the first fciw
months; th..r they ~fte.n y~~t the cars ahead of time and kee~ tlieri for anticipated leases~
but they are difftcult tn get~ especially Items sucl~ as vans and certaln ,ports cars.
Commissioner Darnes indicated she woulci Ilke to sup~~rt this~ ~ut would have to oppose it
since shc could not sec ar7v reason since it has oll the earmarks of a c~mmerclal
establlshme~it and the Plar~~~i~g Commission fs tr~ing to protect the industrtal are~i and she
simply could not lustify suppc~rting it in her own mind.
Comrnissionor Tolar poir;tad out this propcrtv locatian ti~~s good freeway access~ and vrhile
it is zoned HL~ che u~s~ is Industriaily relate~ an~i probably a loc o~ industrial users
would be leasing these vel~icies~ and he felt he could support it because of the locatlon.
Mr. Srriith refcrred tu tl~~ letter uresented to the Plannin~j Cartmiss(~~n~ Item C, indlcating
that industrial bustness and professional cl!ents rrpresent 90~ af their leasing business.
ACTION: Commis~toner Tolar offered a nqtion~ seconded by Commissior~er David and MOTIQN
t~t 0~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission lias reviewed the proposa) to establtsh
a car Icasi ng Facl 1 i ty wi th +~al ver of requi red enclosure of an outdoor use o~ an
irregularly-shaped parcel ~f land consisting of app~ox'.atPly 1.~~ ac~es located at the
southwest corner of ~a Palm~ Avenue and 91ue Gum Strrc.~ having ap{~roximate frontages of
72 feet on the south side of La Paliiia Aven a and 333 feet on the west slde af Blue Gum
Street; and does hereby approve the yegative De:.laration from the requirement to prepare
an rnvi~onmental impact report an the basis that there would be no signiflcant l~dividual
or cumulative adverse environmental impact ~+ue to the approval of this Negat(ve
Declaration since the Anahcim General Plan designates the sub,je~t p~operty for general
industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive ~nvlranmental
impacts are involved (n the proposal; that the Inltiai Study subm(tted by :he petiti~ner
indicates no significant (ndividua) or cumulative adverse environmental fmpacts; and that
the Negative Decla~atfon substantiating the forcyoing findings is on f(le tn the City of
Anahelm Pla~ntng Department.
Commissioner Toler offer~:d a motion, seconded by f.amm(ssioner Linn a~d M0710N CARRIeD,
that the A~~aheim City Pl~nning Commission does hereby grant the request for waiver of
requl~ed enclosure of an outdo~r ~ise on the bnsts that the property is !ocated below grade
and the petitioner has indtcated a 6-foot htgh fence would not screen the storage from
passing traffic~ and that t~~e 4-foot area adJacent to the fenct will ba landscaped.
Comm(ssioner Tolar offered ReFO!ution Fio. PC78-153 and rrov~d for its passagc and adontion,
that the Anahelm City Plarning Cammission daes hereby gtan~ Petltlon for Condttional Use
7/3!7'.
~
MIMUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978
18-,42
EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION AND CONOlTIONAL USE PERMIT N0._1855 (continued)
Permlt No. 1455~ subJoct to tho stipulati~n that landscsp(ny wll) be p~ovlded In the 4-
foot erea alony the fre~.wvay fence, and s~b,~ect to I~t~rd4rertm~+nt~1 Commlttee
recommendatins.
On rol) coll~ the foregoinq resolution wes posscd by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; DAVID~ HERBST, JONNSON~ KING~ LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: DARNES
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
Ccxnmissio~er David referrcd to the letter from the Redevelopmen; Agency recommendfng
den(al of the candttional use pern~{t ~nd asked that staff polnt out to them the reasons
for reques~ing ~1AnfA1 w~~ld bc appr~cl~tcd by the f lar-niny Cam~~i~sion.
Jay Tashlro~ Assoclate Planner~ pointed out he had bcen et the Redevelopment Commiss(on
meeting and one of thr. suyqesttons was thAt they w~uld Iike to mcet wl~h the 1'lanning
Commiss(on at a Monday morning sessfon tu d(scuss tlils industrial area wt~enevcr it would
be convenient for tt~e Planniny Cortmission.
ITEP1 N0. 10
EIR C EG~RICl1L EXEMPTIO~~-CLASS 1 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS~ WILLIAM P. DRIIGANZA AND
DOUGLAS E. JOMES
2629 Harbor Boulevard
C
M
IV 0 OUE
E
UIREMEt: ~
~
osta
esa,
_
Q
CQNDi'fif~N CA 92626. AGENT: BOYCE BELT~ 1440-A Cab~ilio Park
L U E RMI 0. 1$60 Dr1ve~ Santa Ana, CA ~2701. Pe[ittonar r~quests
permission to ESTABLISH A MASSAGF. 9USINESS WITii
~escrlbed as an irregularly-shaped p WAIVER QF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARK-NG ~PACES on property
arcel of land consisiing of approximately 1
8 acres havin
a frontage of approx(mately 26 feet .
g
on the west side of Narbor ~oulevard~ hav~ng a meximum
Jepth of ~~pproximately 600 feet~ and
ll
f O being located opproxir„tely 455 fept north of the center-
ne o
ranyewood Avenue. Property prasently clas~if~cd CL (COMMERCIA..
LIMITED) ZONE
~
.
Thera was no one Indlcating thelr presence tn opposition to subJect request~ and although
thc staff r@port to the Planntng Carmission dated July 3, i978 was nat read at the publlc
hearing~ it is r~ferred to and maCc a part oti the minutcs.
Michae) Fulmer, represent(ng Boyce Belt, agent~ inciicated Mr. Belt wtshes to purchase an
extsting masse5e busiress located at Harbar Boul~vard and Orangewood Avenue~ a~d due to
recent code requ( reme~ts ~ a con~~i tional use permi t i~ requf red simply to trartsfer ihe
business to Mr. Belt. He ind:~~~ed the bustness has been apera[ed as a massage business
for the last one and one-half year5 without any incidents. Ne indicated Mr. Belt is a
ltcensed massage tnstructor rnd c~ncurrent with the ecquisition of thls property, wishes
to acqulre the Los Ary~les Collegc of Massage. He referred tc the Interdepartmental
Cortxnittee recommendattons, indicati;~g he did not understand them since the buildtng is
aireacfy construct~.d and tt~ey cio not plan to make any rnodific:atlons.
Chc!rm~an Her.,s*. pointed out many of the canditions apply t~ the p!-operty (tself and if
they have b~en taken carc: of~ they wlll nat be required.
THE PUBLIC IIEARItlG NAS ClO~EU.
~ommissfo~isr L1nr aske~l if there Nere a~~y communi..~tfcns from the Pol ice Department~ with
Tashiro~ Assoclate Plenner, replying n~o communications have been received.
7/3/78
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PL.ANNING COMMISSION~ JULY ;, 1978 7$-y4;
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEM?TtON-CLA55 1 AND CONQ1710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 1660 (continued~
Commisst~ner ' nson asked if the fact that the minimum parking walver had been ckleted
means the park.ny meets coda~ ~nd F~r. Fulme~ polnted out they had submitted a reciprocal
perki:~y ag~eement with thc epplicecion.
It was not~d thAt th~ Plann(ng Dtrcct~r or hls authorized representative hes ~iettrmined
that the p~oposed proJect falls within tf~e dcfinit~on of Cat~gortcal Exemptlons, Class 1~
~s deflnod In pa~agraph 2 of the Clty of A~ahelm Envi mnmental Impact Report 6utdelines
and Is~ therefore~ categorically exempt f~om tho requirement ta prepare an EIR.
ACTIUWs Commissioner Taler offered Rasolucton No. PC78-15~~ nnd moved for Its passage and
a~optfon, thet thc Anahcim Ctty Planning Commission docs hcre:by grant Petittan for
C~ndltlon~+l UsP PArmic No. 1Hh11, In pnrt~ sub)PCt tc, Interdepertmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call~ the forayolnq resolution was pbssed by the followin~~ vote:
AY::S: COh4M1.,510NERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ HERB57~ KING~ LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIO~~ERS: JOHNSON
~.aSENT: COMMI SS t QNERS : NON :
I TEM N0. 1
RE AI~O RE.COMMENDATIOr~5
A. COI~DITIQNAL USE PERMIT NQ. 1499 - Rcquest for terminat(on.
The staff report to Lhe P1~nnEng Coircnisstc~n deted July 3, 1978 noted subJect property Is
an irregularly•shaped parcel of land ~:ons(sting of approxim~+tcly 241+ fee~ on the nort',
side of Orange Avenuc~ having a maxi~um depth of approximately 634 feet. bein~ located
approximately 10t15 feet west of tha centerline of Brookhu~st Street. and that the
applicant (Thomaa Noon~ Shea tiomes) requests termination of Co~dltion~l U~e Perm(t Na.
1W99: that Canditlonal Us~ Permit No. 1499 was epproved by the Planning Lommission on
October 3~, 1914 to permit the cont(nued use and exAansion of a private school; and that
Variance No. jO1S to permit waiver of maximum fence height to con~iruct a combinatlon
block wall/wrought iron fence was granted by the Planning Commtsston on June 5~ 1978. and
one of the conditions of appraval of Variance No. 301$ included the requirement that the
developer submit a ictter requesting termination of Condittanal Use Permlt No, t499, and
subJect ietter has been submitted.
ACTION: Commissianer David offered Resolution No. PC1~'1S5 and moved for its passage and
'~~opt~on~ that the Anaheim City Flanning Commission does her~by g~ant the request far
terminati~~~ of Petitton for Conditional Use Permit Na. 1499.
On roll call~ the faregc~~n~ resolucion was pessed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSION:RS; BARi~ES~ DAVID~ -IERBSS, JONNSON~ KIIJG, LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
~~3i7a
«~
~
MINU1kS~ IINAHEIM ClTY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ JULY ~~ 1978 78-y44
B. CONDITIOt~AI USE PEaMIT N0. 1362 - Rcqua!ct for termination.
The staff repo~t to the Pisnntng Commission detad Ju~y 3~ 1~7a w~s ra~~d~ notinq aubinct
property is a ~actengularly-shspeci p8rcol of land consisting of approxlmately 1.5 scres
having a frontage of approximately 105 fe~t on the wast stde of State Col iege Bouleverd
and a meximum dopth of approximately 400 feet~ the southeriy property I ine being
approximately 390 feet north of the centerl inn of Center Street; that the appllcant (Pete
Stanyor) reques;_ t~rminatlon of Conditlona) Use Permtt Na. 1362; that Condittona) Use
Permit No. 1822~ to pennit a drive-throuqh restaurant on subJect property, wos approved by
the Planning Gommission on Apri) 2-+~ 1978~ and one of tha condlklons of appraval tncluded
the requlreme~t that the praperty owner submlt a lcttcr requestin~ te~rminetion of
Co~~lltlonal Use Permlt No. 1362~ And the letter requestlny sald terminr~tion has been
s~_ r~t i t ted .
AC,~,TION: Commi~s~oner Tolar offer~d Resolutlon Na, PC78-156 and ~~aved for its passege and
adoptlon, that the Anah~~m Clty Pla~niny Cornn(ssion does her-,by grant the request for
t~rminfltl~n ~f P~titlnn f~r C~nclltl~na) Us~ P~rmif Nc~, 13(,?.
0~ rr~ll call. the foregoiny resolutlon was passed by the Followtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: E~ARN~S, Dl1V10, il.~'.RfiST', JOIINSON, KING, LINN, TOLAR
NQES: COMM I SS I ONERS : WONE
A~3SENT; CQI1111 SS IANERS: PJO~~E
G. CONDITIOIIAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1012/1~)9 - Request for clarification of permitted
uses .
Jay T~shf roy Associate Planner~ presented the staff repart to the Planning Commtsslon
dated July 3~ t978, nottny the subJect property Is a rectangularly-sh~ped parcel of land
conslsiing of approximately 1.75 acr~s haviny a frontage of approximately 335 feet on the
north side of Ball Road~ having a~naximum depth of approximately 22~~ fec~t~ belnr~ located
approxlmately 9~7 fPet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue; that the pctitloner
(Patricla A~n Weiser) rec~uests clarification of the permitted uses at subject property to
dete~mine whether a nursery school ts allowable. He explained th~~ backyround of the
eondlClonal use pcrmits to establtsh the cliurch school and related school facillty and
indicated the pet(tio;~er would 1lke clartfication whether or not a nursery schao{ would be
permitted in accorda~ce witli t-~e approved conditianal ~se perr~its.
Commissloner E3arnes referr+:d to Condit!onal Use Permit No. 1539 a~proved on June 9~ 1975,
to retaln a sehoo) for excepttonal chlldren ages 1~;-1~ and noted the difference here wnuld
b~ In the ages of the chi ldren.
Comm(ssloner King pointed out there had been complaints fron the neighb~rs.
Patrlc(a Ann 1.leiser was present and pol,~ted out the complaints were about the older
chlldren; that they were smoking~ etc.. ~~d tht~re wa~ ~ control over Chem~ but that this
would be a completely dtfferent age grouF. Sh~ point~. aut the State has approved the
site and it meets ail tl~e regulations as far as the State is concerned.
Chairman He~bst indicated he felt this use would be i~ compl iance with the previous
eondltions af the conditional use permit and if there are a~~y further complafnts, the
Commission cou~;l take a look at it then.
i/3/18
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANt~ING COMHISSION~ JULY 3~ 1978 jg-,45
ITEM C (cnntlnuad)
ACTIOFI: Commissione~ Johnson offered a rrc~t(on, scconded by Commisslaner Dav(d and MOTION
~`~D UPIANIMQUSLY~ thnt thc estc~bl~shment of s nurse:ry sc.hcx~l at subJoct property is In
compllance with the prev(ously apprc~ved co~dttiona) ~~se permlts.
D. TLPITATIVC MAP UF TRACT P10. 1016J ~ Request for walver of Ntllsicie Grading
Ord nencc tn Tract No. 1~1~7.
The staff report to the i'lar~n(ny Commisslon dated July 3, lj7i~ was ~resented~ noting
Sl~amrock Contrectors~ Inc. reque~stz tl~at they be yranted a watvr.r of the re~utremrnt of
the City ur ~n~heim Htllside Gradln~~ Ordinance as it relates t~ the locattng of lot itnes
at the top of slapes within Tract N~ 101(~7; that subject tract is located on the east
side of Country Nill Roaci and south f Santa Ana Canyon Road.
P.CT10~~: Cuimnissiuner Kiny offered a in~~tion, secondc~l by Commis~foner David anu MOTION
C~RTtI~ED UNANIMOUSLY~ that chc Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission docs heret~y recommend to
the Gtty Counci) that the request fc~r kalver f the Htliside Gr,d(nn Ordin•~nce be granted
as It relates to the i4catiny of l~~t Ilnes at the top of slopes wlthin Trect No. 10167.
E. ADANUONr~EI~T N0. 77-24A - Reyucst to abandon an existing public utllity easement
ocate 50 ect~ morc or iess~ west of State Colle9e Boulevard from Romnesya
Drive south 300 feet~ rnore or less.
The staff report to the Planniny Cornmissi~n dated Ju1y 3~ i~7~ wes pre~ented, not(ng the
request to abandon a public uttl(ty easemcnt located 150 feet~ morc or less, west of State
College Boulevard from Ronneya Drive south 300 feet~ ~~~re or lcss; that the request has
been reviewed by all deportments of the City and affected outsicie agencles and approval is
recommended; that the applicant is developtny a shop~ing center~ a port~a~ of which is
located at tt~e sauthwest corner ~f Rrmneya Drive and St~te College Boulevard and the
existing easements tn their present location restri~t the Jcvelopment; that subJect
easements are forrner Edison Company's easements acqutrRd by the Ctty at the timc of
acquisttlon of Cdison Company's facilities In ct~is area.
It was noted that the Rlanning Directar or hIs authorized repre~entative has determtned
that th~ proposed proJect fall~ wlthin the definitfor~ of Categarical Exemptlons, Class 5,
as defined In paragraph 2 of th~ C(ty of Anahef~n Environm~ntal Impact Report Guicleltne•s
and is~ th~~-efore, categor(cally ~xerr-~t from the requirement ro prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a ~notton, seconded by Commission~r David and M~TION
CATtRIEa, that the Anaheim City Plenning Cortmission does herehy recortxnend to the City
Councll that the request for Abandonment No. 7%•24A be grantpd.
7/3/78
~4
MI NUTES ~ ANAHE. I H C I TY PLANN I NG COMMI SS I Ot~ ~ Jt1lY 3~ 197g 78~546
F. ADANUOI~MEI~T N~. 22p - itequest t~~ ebandan Fidyc Gate Road~ a~iedic~ted street~
pu c ut ty easements~ 5 feet w(de~ anc exi¢tirg 15-foot wlde dralnagc
easem~nt located north of Nohl Ranch Road, lying a~iJacent to and witli(n lots 64
and Gy 1 n Tract No. t3418.
The steff report to the Pl~nntng Commisslon dated July 3~ 1~t7£~ w~s presented~ notlnq the
request is to ab~endon R(dye Gate Road~ a dedtcated street~ public utility easements. 5
feet wide~ ~ind existin~~ 1>-fo~t wlda draln~ge easement located north of Nohl Ranch Road~
lying adJacent to ond wi thtn Lots 6t+ an~i G5 tn Tract No. H~-18~ an~l th~t the request has
beon revfewed by al~ ~:epartments of the City of Anaheim and ~ffectcd agencles~ and
approval Is recommendad ss~bJect to complfance with the condtttons as rccommended by th~
Publlc Works Department.
It we~ notecl that the Planning D(r~r.tnr ~r h(a ~uthnritP~i rn~,r~cP~ ~tlv~ hes ~letermined
ttiat the proposed proJect falls within the Jefinition of Categorical Exempkions~ Class 5~
es deflned (n paragraph 2 of the Clty of Anaheim Environmental impact Report Guidelines
and ls~ therefare~ categur{cally exempt from the requirement to preparr. an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offered a mution~ seconded by Commissioner Llnn and MOTIOP~
CARR~E'J, that thc Anaheim Ctty Plannfny Commtssion dacs hereby recommend to the City
Counci) that Abandonment P~o. 77-22A be approved~ subJect ta the foilow(ng conditlons:
1. Appilcant sliall subrnit a parcel map to tlie City Engineer for approval sF~owing
lots to be crcate:l.
2. Reserving unto the City tl~e westerly 5 feet for public u[Ility purposes.
3. Applicant shall dedicate all vehicular access rlyhts along Nohl Ranch Road to the
City. Said access rlyhts can be dedl~:ated via above mentinned ,~rcei map upon
recordation,
4. Applicent shall construct full streec improvements at na cost to the Ctty along
the east s~de of Old Bucket Lanc~ along th. westerly edge of Ridge Gate Road~ as
requl red by the C) ty Engi neer.
y. Apullcant shall pay all estimated costs of S600.00 to abandon, remove, rFlocato
or rcroute the existing 3-inch water line located 5 feet south uf th~~ centerline
of Rtdge Gate Road~ a~ requir~d by the City Water Uivision.
REQUEST BY MIIYOR SEYMOU~ REGARDI~JG NOTIFICATIOtI LISTS FOR PUBLIC NEARItlGS.
Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Director ~or Ioning~ indicated to the Planning Commission
that a request had been made by Mayor John Seynour that nocification lists be made up by
the petitioner when a cc~ndom(nium or Apartmtnt complex is affected by the request so that
they will be notified of the public hea~ings.
The Planning Commission cUncurre~ w(th the recommenda!.ion.
AC_ TION: Coinmissi~ner Qavid offered a motion, seconded by Commissianer Ltnn and MQTION
CARRIEG UIJANIMOUSI.Y, that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission concurs wtth the suggGStion
that a notification list be made up b•~ the petltioner wf~en a condominium or apartment
complex is affected by a request.
1/3/78
l.
MINUTES~ ANAlIEIM CITY PI~NNiNG COMMISSION, JULY 3~ 1978 78-547
AOJOURNMENT Tharn being no further busi~~ess, Cortmissioner Devid offered o motlon~
seconded by Commissioner Berr~s a~d MOTION CARRIED, that the moP~ing be
ad)ourned.
The maeting was ad,~ourrad at 6:25 p.m.
Rsapactfuily submltted~
~~ ~.° ~~~"`~°~
Ed(th L. Harr(s~ Secretary
AnRO~eim City Planntng Cornmissic~n
ELN:hrn
7/3/78