Minutes-PC 1978/10/09C i Ly f+A I I
Anahelm~ Celltornla
Octobr.r 9, 1978
REGULIIR MEETING OF THC ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNiNf COMM1S5tON
REfULAR - The regular meLting of tf,e Anahetm Clty Plenninc~ Commissio~ was called tc~
MEETING order by Chairman Herbst at t~3n ~+.m.~ October 9~ 1978. i~ the Counct)
Chamher~ A quorum being present.
PRESENT - CIIAIRIUIN: Nerbst
- GOMMIS5I~~NERS: Bari~es~ -tush~.ra~ David~ John~~n~ M.ing~ Tolar
AL50 PRkSEtIT - Jack Wh) tc
Jay Titus
James i:awamur+n
Ann'~:a Santalehtl
Jay fashlro
E~+1 t~ ;i,erri s
Oeputy City Attorncy
Otflce F.n~in~~r
Traffic Engineerin~ Assistant
Assfstant Dlrector for Zoning
Assoclate Plnnnrr
Planninc~ Commission Secretary
PIEQGE OF - Thc Piedge of Allegience to tt~•_ Fleci ~~as led by Cort~nlssioner Barnns.
AI.LEGI ANCE
INTRODUCTION OF - Chairman Nerbst int~oduced tlie new Commissioner~ Gerald W. Bush~re~
NEW COMMISSIONER appoinced by the City Councfl to replecr, Commissioner Robert Linn.
APPROVAL OF - Corxnissioner King oFfered a mc~t(en~ 3econded by Commisstanr.r Tolar a~nd
THE MIt~UTES MOTIOt~ ~ARRIEU (Commissloner Johnson abstaining on thc mtnutes ~f the
meetin~, oP Septernber 11~ 1978), that the minutes ot the mectings of
September 11 2nd 25~ 197~ be approvrd as submitted.
ITEM NO 1 CGNTI~"JED PUBLIC NCARiNf. 0~!"VERSt YOl'VG F. AND
EIR~VE DEC!..MATION_ LUCI~~DA J. NAMMATT, 154~i West Ore~ngevrood Avenue~
RECL,1S51FICATI~t~ N0._ _78-i~-?0_ Anaheim, CA 92~~~• AGENT; J~HN F, SWfNT~ 707 West
VARIANCE N0. 3~ ~- Norch Stireet~ An~heim~ CA ~28!1~, property descrlbed
W VER~OF~I'~Y~`bi1HLIL ~s an irragulorly-shaped parcel ot land consisttng
POLICY N0. 538 of epproximately 1.6 ecres having a frontaga of
approxirnateiy 224 feet on the south side of Orange-
v+ood Ave~~i+e~ havlnq a meximum dcpth of ap~roxin+~telr
303 feet, being lACated apQ~oximately 529 feet west of che centerline of Hinth Street~ and
further described as 1548 West Orangaaoo:i Avenue. Properiy presently cltYSified
RS•A-43~000 (RE5I~ENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZOI~E.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOK. RS-72Q0 ~RESIDENTiAL, S~;~GLE-FAiiILY) ZONE.
REQUESTED VAR 1'.NCE : IdA i V~R OF (A) REQI;1 ^EMENT TNAT ALL LOTS ABUT A PUBL I C STREET ~
(E3) MI N~ MUH LOT 1. ~T ANO FRONTAGE ~ AND (C) REQU I RE~~IENT TNAT
SINGLE-FAMiLY RESiDE1dCES REAR-ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS~ TO CONSTRUCT
A 7-IOT~ RS-72f)0 SUBDIVISION.
SubJett petition wa~ continued fr~m the meet~r~g of Aug«st 28~ 1978 at the ~equest of the
petitioner and fran the meetlnq of Septen~ber 25~ 1978 to adverttse an addttiona) waivar.
78-815 10/9/78
..,:~,.,~>....~±...i~.K....._..~..~.«.:w.P....~~:.~,~.~.:.. ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNINC COMMISSIQN~ OCTOBER 9. 1978
78-816
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTION. RECIASSIFICATION N0. 78~79-z~ ANO VAaIANCE N0. 3044 (conttnued)
Thar- e was no one indlcating thelr presenca In oppasltton to subJect rsquast~ snd etthouqh
the staff report to the Pl~nntng Con+mtsslon dated Octobe~ 9~ 147~ ~as not read at the
publlc hearing~ tt Is referred ta and med~ e part ot the minutes.
John F. Swint~ agent~ wss pr~sent tc+ e~swer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING NA5 CLO~ED.
CoMmissioner Johnson asked staff to e.eplaln the Council rolicy co~ cerntnq ~t~~et frontage,
and Jay Tashiro. Associate Planner~ explalned Council Poltcy No. 53 ~ states that when e
lot is adJ~+cent to a publ(c street It must hrve a depth ~f 120 fee t or b~ set back 40
teet.
Chairmein Nerbst askPd Mr. Swint to explain thc sound-attenuetion rt~ rsures for nolse from
Oranyewood Avenue.
Mr. Swint nxpletned a report had benn submitted Indicating that th e doors and windc~ws must
bo weatherstrlpped; that any outside walls wllt be tnsulated with Ril batts; that any
ventllation t~ the attic has to be on the sl~e oppost'e the street; and that the t+ir~
co~dltloniny ducts~ vents Par bath~oomso ~tc.. should have two 9~~ ~9ree bends in order to
prevant nuise comtng throuc~h.
~halrman Herbst asked hrn+ the corner at Orengewood wc~uld be treated Por visibtl,ty from
both di~ecttons wtth a 6•foot high wall, and Mr. Swtnt explained t h e wal) will stop short
of the corner end Ni;: not interCere in eny way with the vlew.
Commissioner Barnes referrad to the property o~ the other side of thc: w~ll on the south
side of Qrsngewood and eske~i who owned that property~ and Mr. Swin t repl!ed that prope~ty
is awned by Mr. Nemmatc.
r,halrn-an Herbst referred to the City-awnet: siJewal{:s end the parkway aree and esked if
the~e would be a homcowncrs assoclation to ma(ntain that par{:wey.
Francis Nammatt~ the p~operty owner. stated they intend to form a hom~o~+mers association
aith a fee to cover those costs, He potnted out the City has widened Orangewood three
difterent tir.-es, and this time he had c;iven the City 25 feet~ approximately 2~+0 feet lonq,
for curbs and sidewalks et a cost of app roximately S35.~~~ to him.
Cheinnbn Herbst stated khe plans do not show sidewalks tn the pa~ kway along Orangewood
end, normally~ *hat area wnuld be maintained by the proprrty owne rs ahutting the street,
polnting out there wauld be approximetely 7 fcet of some type of planting.
Jay Tltus~ Offica EngSneer, stated the stdewelks will be back at the property line and
thet the City has an (mprovement pr~Ject to widen Orangewood and eonstruct curb and gutte~
and sid~wvalks~ and the maintene~ce would be th~ rosFonsibtlity o t the property ownars. +~e
steted there will bc app~oxirrwtcly 7•1/2 feet of p~rlcway betwecn the stdewslk and the
curb.
Cannissioner .~ohnson stated he had view~d thts property and o~though it looks pretty bad
an paper with three variances anci A w~iver of the Gounctl policy. he did not see any
better plan for this ~+roparty.
ACTION: Canmissio er J~h~son offered a motfon~ secanded by Commisstoner Totar and MOTION
~D~ that the A~aheim City Planntng Commission has revieaed t he proposa) to reclassify
the zoning from the RS~A-43.00~ (Residential/Agricultural) Zo~e to !he RS-7200
10/9l78
MINUTES~ ANAHEiM CiTY PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ OCTOBER ~~ 1~ 74 7~-817
EIR NEGATIVE ~ECLA~ATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-20_ ANO VARIANCE N0. 3044 (continu9d)
(Realdentlal~ Single-Family) Zone to establiah e seven-lot~ RS-77~~ subdiviston wlth
waivers of requlrement that ell lots abut e public street, minimum lot width enclfrontage~
and raquirement that single-family residences rear-on s r tert~l htghways~ on an
Irreguls~ly-shaped parcel of land conslsting of approximately 1.G acres having A frontage
of approxtmetely 22~~ fect on the south sicic of Orengewood Avenue~ heving a maxlmum depth
of approximately 303 fect, belny locatod appr~xinMtely S 29 feet west of the centerline Gf
Ninth Street; a~i daes hereby approve th~ Negativ~ D~sclsretl~n from the requirement to
prepare an envtronmental irnpact repnrt on the basis tha t there would be no si~niflcant
indlviduel or cumulaktve aJvcrse environme~~tnl im~ACt due to the approval af this Neqarive
Declar~tion si,~ce the Anahei~~ General Plan deslgnates tho sub)PCt pr~perty for lew denstty
residen~t~l land uses comn-ensu~ate with the prop~sel; th at n~ sensitlve enviranmGntal
impacts are involved in the proposal; tl~at ciia lnitial StuJy Sul,~nillcJ Ly llia pCtltloner
tndlcates na si~~nific~nt inclivicfual or cumulat(ve edve!~ss ~nvironmentAl Impatts; and thet
the Negative Declaration sub tantlating the foregoing findings ts on file tn the City of
A~aheim Plennlnq Department.
Commissioner Johnso~ offered Resolutlon No. PC73-23~~ an d moved fc~r its passage and
adoption, that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission doe s hereby grant Petttion Por
Reclassiflcatlan N~. 7~3-'J9~20, subJr.ct to Interdepartmental Commlttee recommendatlons.
On rol) call~ the foreyotnq resolution was passed by th e following vote:
AYES: COMN 155 I ONERS : BARN~s ~ BUSIIORE ~ pA'J I U~ NCRBST ~ JOFIN5 JN ~ KI N~ ~ TOLAR
V~ES: COMt~115S IONERS : NpNE
ABSENT: i.CHMISSI0NER5: NONE
Commisstoner Johnson offered Resoiution Na. PC7fi-231 a~ d mo~~d for its passage end
adoption~ that tl~e Anaheim City Planning f.omr~lsston does hereby grant Petitton for
Vartance No. 3044 on the basls that the widening of Ora nge~vood Avenue created a narrower
loC, requiring the intertor ctrculation io be provided wtth e private street; thet Lots 1~
2. 3. 5 and 6 would front-on said priv~te str~et~ Lots 2~ 3. 6 and 'J have a proposed 65-
foot mtnlmum width on the prtvate street~ and Lots 4 an d 7 will side o~to Orangewood
Avenue; and subject to lnterdepartmental Committee recortrnendations.
CortntsslAner King polnted out thc property on the nort~west corner of O~angewood and
Waverly also has a side-on lot~ and felt this should b e mrade a part of the rGSOlutton.
Commissioner Barnes was concerned that w(*.h the•,e smal ! lots~ propPrty owners would not be
able to add a swimmirig pool or expand their structure: and fe{t t~~is should be conveyed ta
the buyers of these lots. She felt a hardship was bein g built into these lots.
M~. Swint polnted out these structures will be very la ~ge~ appr~ximately 200Q square feet~
and d i d not fe 31 anyane wou 1 d be aant i ng to add on to th~m. but agree~i there wou) d not be
suffic(ent room for a swimming p~ol.
ConMniss{orier Barnes asked the property avmer lf he wouid be willtng to stipulate to notify
the buyers ot these lots that they cannot build onto t his praperty. (Mr. Hammatt replied
thet could be a conditton of t~~e Sale and it would be up to the sa ^sman to r °y the
buye rs .
Commtssioner Johnson suggested the appltcant give the s alesman a letter indicating the lot
sizes could not be expanded~ but felt it would be ve ry hard to sell the properties with
these restrlctlons. Ne felt it would be obviaus to tt~~ buyer.
t0/9/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAHNING CQMMISSION~ OCTO~fR 9~ 1978
7a-818
EIR_4TIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. 78•79'20 AND VARIANCE N0. ~044 (contfnued)
Commiaaloner Tolar palnted out the~e a~e a lot of housss in the City of Ansh~i~~ whlch
cannot add a sovimminq pooi or expa~d their propertlRS~ and felt buyers seeiny ~e
propertle~ would ~ecagntze they did not have any room to expand.
On rol) call, the for~going resnlutio~ was passed by the folla+ing voteo
AYESt COMMISSIONEFS: BARN''S~ BUSHORE~ DAYID~ HERBST~ JOFINSON~ KING. TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERSt NONE
ABSFNT= GOMMISSIANERSt NONE
Comnisstoner Johnson offered a mation~ secanded by Commtssto~er Davtd and MQTION CARRIEO,
that the M ahetm City Planning Commisslon does here6y recomrxnd to the Clty Counctl that
~ouncil Paltcy No. 53~~ which pertelns to the requ(red l,uild(ng setb~ck on lots adJ~cent
co artert~l hiyhways~ be watved for ~ots 4,~nd 7 which are adJacent to Ora~gewood Avenue
and have a depth of approximstely 80 feet.
I TEM NOs 2 PUBLI C HEI1R1 NG. OWNER: S 1 EWERT LAND COMPANY ~ i£~3
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION South Ninth Street, Anaheim, CA ~^302, AGCNT:
I~,ECUISSIF C TION N0. 7-79-11i TUMANJAN 6 TUMANJAN, INC.~ 21515 Nawthorne Boulevard~
VA, RIANCE N0. 305~ Suite 980~ Torrance~ CA 90503. Property described
as a rectangularly •shaped parcel ot land consisttng of
approximately 2.8 acres loc~ted at the southwe-;t
corner of Katella AYenue and Ntnxh Strget~ having approximate frontages ot S72 feet on thc
south ide of Katella Avanue and 22F fnet on the wegt side of Ninth Street~ and further
dasc~ibed as 1803 South Ninch S~reet. Property presently classtfied RS-A-~~3,000 (RESIDENTIAL/
ACRICUITUfWI) ZONE.
RE~,::::STEO CLASSIFICATIONt RM•1200 (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIP~E-FAMILY} ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) PEaMITTEQ ENCaOACNMENT INTO REQUORED YARD
ANU (B) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT, TO CONSTRUCT AN
85-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX.
There were nine persons indtcating thel~• presence in oppdsition to s~bJect rec~uest~ and
although the staff repnrt to the Planntng Commission dnted October 9~ 1978 was not read at
tha public hearing, tt is referred to and made e part of the minutes.
Heten SMCCC~ representing Tatc 6 Assuciates, 90t) Orangefatr~ Lane, M aheim~ stated they had
not asknd for any encroachment of building setbacks a~d the only s~tb~cks ~could be the
stat~+ells and balconles~ which they ..ould not constdtr actuel setbecks, but archttectural
features, She referred to tfie watvr.r for the proposed mezzanines, indic~ting they would
consider them single-story structures rather than two-story, and what the Planning
Coam~lsston co~siders three stori~s they would constder tw-o storles, pointing out they hed
gone by the Unifa ~m Building Code which Indizates that when there is one-thTrd or l~ss of
the area above tlie floor area apen~ it does not constitute a second story. She stated
staff had sugge~ted the waiv~r Lecause they Iikec: the architectural style of the proJect
end they liked the little mezzanin~s ar~as and felt they would be attractive and Nith the
skylights and ~o windows~ they would naL give the appearance of a Mo-story buiiding. She
stated the plans da not exceed the height limitdtion. She felt the staff report is
misleading with ~eference to the nlne Mo-sto ry units ~ncroaching into the 150-foot
setback and pointed out those are the unlts they considsr sinqle-story units~ indicating
this was an tnterpretatton o~ their architect. She ;ointed our they do meet Code
~equirements for parking spaces and h~ve reduced the nun~ber of untts frum 100 to 85, with
~o/9/7a
MI~IUTk~, <<NAN~IM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSInN~ n~Ta[jER 9, 1478 18~819
EIR 11EGATIVE DFCLARATION. REGLAS5IFICATION N0. 78-79•14 AND VARIANCE N0. 3A54 (continued)
41~ site covera,ye rethcr th~n 55$ as allc~wed~ wlth subterrane~n perking end more
landscap~d areas.
Chelrma- Hr.rbst polnted out tl~e proJect cells for 36 units per acre which ts t~c m~xtmum
•llawed.
EltzAbech Barkcr~ attorney representtng Mr. dnd Mrs. Joseph Vigna, 1~56 West Katell,e
Avenue~ Aneheim~ stated they and scxnc of thelr friends had GirGUldted petltions and hr~d
collectod 87. slynatures c~f persons in ~~+pusltlen to this request. She Indicated th~
Vlyne's property Is between Nlnth and Euclld~ right across the strAei S'rom the subJect
proporty. an-1 the(r main ob]cction to this pro~~r~t is the hl~h densll•y and the bulldin~~
helght; th~~ r.h~ f;e!nPrn) Plan calls for mediurn density and that is exactly what they would
like~ with perhaps some ltght corrmerclal ~lono Kstella and medium de~,sity residentiel or
agricultura) for the remalnder. She incilcat~d she hAJ not seen any plans which tndicate
where the 6•foot fence will be located.
Jay Tashtro, Associate P1Anner~ reviewed tf~~ plt~ns with Ms. E3arker pointiny aut the fence,
and she indicated tl~e fence will be only on the snuthern perimetcr and there would be no
p~otectlon for the residents to the cast and west. She stateJ thts greet de~sity of
persons would brln~.~ edditinnal vehicular traffic end in the cvenin~ the headlic~hts would
shine into the hc~mes and creatc problems. She st++te~l [hey would propose at least a buffer
zone wlth perha~s an 8-foo~ fence anci sort~e trees elong the fence to deacJen the noise end
light5 from the cars fn the proposed parking are~. She stAted~ accordtng to the plans~
there is a two-sto ry unit proposed c~trectly across from her client's home and Code
indicates that ed~acent Lo a public site or RS-A->>3~on~ zoned properCy which has been
developCd or approve~l for de~~elopment~ the 1;0-f~ot setback is not requtred. Shc stated~
unfortunately, her cliert's property~ priar to his ~cquirtny it~ was approved Por e
conditlona) use~ but he has never used lt for a+nythin~ ocher than A privaCe residenc~ and
does not intencl to use lt for anything else. She indicated her client d'(d not feel a two-
story building would be commensurate with his privacy. She pointed out h~ has a two-sto ry
resiJence. She stated s?afP has inc!tcated he wau!d ne*~~ to v~rite a letter rec ~estinc~ that
the use be terminated and thfs would ta~e two week,s~ and requested thar no action be teken
for at least the langth of time tt would take hcr cltent to get this use tcrmtnated so
that he would qualify for at least the 1;0-foot s~tback. She did not feel her cllent
should b~ penallzed by having someone looking into his bAdroom be~ause of something he was
~ot aware of,
She steted the City of An~heim guidelines say they wa~t to enhante the commu~ity
appeara~ce and have adequate levels of light, air and open space, but the opp~stttcn feels
this density of 85 units will accommadate a lot af people and (ndicated th~ plan doPS not
specify whether these units wiil house familtes or adults anly, but whichever it is~ it
wifl increase the population by a great deal and will affect the trash collect4on, water~
gas~ electrica) service, etc.~ and pointed out brown-outs are not uncammon where there Is
d high-de~sity population with a 1ot of electrical use.
She referred to the publtc achools and pointed out if these units aliow children~ Tt could
put qulte a strain on the public school system in the inx--ediate area. She referred to
other high-density epartment ereas in Anaheim which tend to supress surrounding property
velues and also with a greater population >.he crime rate seems io take an increasf. and
felt all of these things must be considered. She indicsted most of ;hese peaple ha~re
moved to this erea because of the private agricultural uses and It is a slow-paced
communlty and thetr prtvacy and tranqu~lity will be eliminated with thts high-dansity
populatlon and the numbe~ of people who will be caming and going at all hours of the day
and night. St~e s*.ated if a variance is grented~ they should be given some high walls and
a buffer to eliminate some of the noise and poll~.~tion.
10/9/78
yINUTES~ ANANEtM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOM~ UGTOBER 9, 1978 78-R2n
EIR NECJITIVE DEC'ARATION, RECLASSIfICATION N0. 7a-79~14 AND VARIANCE N0. 3054 (cont~nue~'~
-.ynn M~dlln~ 1771 South Nlnth Street~ Anahelm~ acro~s thG st~e~t fran subJect property~
s~.ated ha was renrosonting the Anaheim FrtAnds Church and potnted out th~e inte~sectto~ et
Ninth a~d Katella is e ve ry ds-~gerous intersectlon since It is not a straight
intarsectlon~ but has two lenes crosaing four lanes, ~nd suggest'~ " the varience is
approved~ this situetlon be caken care of.
He stated they s~e aia~ concerned about th~ seme problems prevlously dlscussed. but their
main concern is the conc~estion of tt~e area and pointed out south of Carrltos there is
anothar large proJect being developed and there will be eddtcional femi{tes w(th children
tn the erea~ and that Ninth Street is a ve ry f~cavily travelcd street.
Helen Sw'wt ~~tnted out it ~hls proJect is a~~proved~ the lntersection wlll be Imp~oved dnd
the C1ty wtll c~btaln all the raquired dedication, etc.; that the strnel wil! be widened
and s(dawalks constructed end wiil be a much better intersoctton for pedestria~s a~d
a~utomobile traffic. She stated the GOf1CPri1 regerding the util(ty situetion wc~uld occur In
any erea of M aheim~ an<~ regardtnc~ the a tionol c!~ildren tn thc area~ she indtcated this
is plann~d to be an ed~~it complax. She ated studies wcre i~+:fe tn the pest for
commercisl d@velopment ~in this property end the crime rate end probl8ms with cf:: tdren would
be greater with commerciol development than wtth a complex thnt will be m~intainesd end
wallecl on both sides. She pointed out thc Plenning L~~hartment staff had lndtcated the
150~foot requtreme~t would not havc to be rnat in th~s cornplex s(nce th~:re w~s a
condltional use permlt yranted on the ad)acent prop^rty. She sta*_ed the sidewalks will be
an addttion and that the walls on both stdes could be constructr.d wfth no problem.
THE PUBLIC HEl1RINC kAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Tolar stated he was inclined to agree atth the oppositton regarding the
density, but also agreed with the applicont that an apertment con~lex would be better then
comrnercial becausc he thought the ~raffic would impact ths[ ir.!ersection worse v+tth a
cummerctal development. He stated the reason thts proJect has less lot caverage ts
because of the hetght and while 3E~ untts per acre are normally allowed~ this brea Is
compiate!y sUrrounded with residential clcvelopment~ and he did not agree with the 100
~~ntts the first t(me the proJect was presented and he does not agree with the 85 unlts
naw. Ne stated he does agree ~vith the conc~pt, but not with the density; that the
intersection at Ninth and Katella is bad and aanething should be done about that
tmrr~diately~ that those arP rnuch more heavily traveled strects than they v+ere when the
intersection was dcsigned. He referre~ to the underground parking and indicated this (s
o~e of the reasons the density ts up sa high~ and stated he has no problsm with
subterranean parkina~ but he had spent time during the previous hearings dlscussing the
traffic gotng out on N1nth Street~ polnting out the traffic would be coming up out af a
~amp onto Ninth Street anci~ gaing north, it is only 250 feet from one of the busiest
streets in Anbheim and he ts concerned about that ingress a~d egress. Ne stated he agrees
with the rcclassiffcation for the pro.ject~ but felt the pro}ect needed some work in
reduclny Che density and showing him how it is gaing to be ~Afe going out on Ninth Street.
He stat~sd 36 units per acre usually cannot be develaped in m~st developments~ while they
are aliowed, and pointe<! out this is one af the worst spots in the City to try and get
maxlmum density.
Ms. 5weet poinCed out the circulation plan had been discussed with the Traffic Department
and the developer had taken their guidance from them.
Chatrman Herbst asked staff fro~~n the Traftic Departmesnt to explein why they have allawed
an outlet less than 110 feet fr~om the corner and anothe~ one 60 feet from the corn~r~ and
felt this would compound the trafflc at that intersectton.
10/9/18
.....~~..._,_
MItJUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMri15S10N~ OCTOOER 9~ 1978
78- 8?.1
E I R NEGATI ~lE OECLARAT ION. RECLAS51 F I GATI ON N0. 78-79-14 AND VARIAt~CE N0. 305W ~cont 0 nued)
Jim Kawemu~a~ Trsffic Eny,n~ering Asslstant, indic~ted he thought acceas onto Ninth Street
is unavotduble; thac tt would be mare desir~~~le to have the drtvewsy furthcr from the
Intersectton~ but thc~e (s a need for a drlveway onto Ninth Street b~cause th~ proJect is
llmited to Mo drlveways on Katella. He indicaced the dr(veway furtherest west Is nor
appraved and it was suggested tn thr. developsr that I~ be moved and alig~ed with Bayless
St~eet.
Ms. Sweet (ndtcated they had nat r~,sceived that recommendation until thts morning~ but they
could move that drivewey. She stated in talking with the developor~ it would be possibls
to clase the Nlnth Street drtvewsy.
Comnissloner Tol~ar felt bec..~se of the density~ on-site clrculetion is not provided and
the pro)ect needs to be reduced, and he co~iid even iive wilh tlii autlet on Nlnth Street if
it were a right-turn-only. Ne felt the Intertor circulatlan of che p~oJect h~s mede ehe
ingress and egress siCuation bad and the whole thing ls compounded by the denslty. and if
the denstty were not thai high, better circulation on-site could be providcd and that is
what is normelly requlred.
Ms. Sweet tndicated they could go wlth the right-turn-only onto Nlnth Street. She felt
the amount of dedic.atton which Is be(ng required is the big aroblem and the t+mount of
setback ~equirecl reduces the bulldable area, making a ve ry expenslve proJect.
Commissloner Tolar po!ntcd out the dedicati~n w~uld be requfred no motter whac is
developed on that property; that it is obvlous both Katella and Nfnth Street w(11 have to
be w t dened.
Ms. Swect steted she would likc to request a continu~nce and would like to hear comments
from the rest of the Commission~ especially regarding thetr Interpretation of "sto~y".
Chairman Nerbst stated he did not favor the architectural intruston into the setback
because i[ is part of the structure, and he dtd not think it is necessary end is another
reason for the high density and felt the proJect ls overbulit. Ha stated the petlttoner
hed sttpulated ta consider an b-foot high wali adJacent to the canal and pc~inted out if
the plans are i-odifted. there may not be any pt+rking in that area.
Commissloner bushore asked what type of fencing would be abutting the school, indtcating
his concern that the children wo+~ld be tempted with the swirtrning paoi ad)accnt to the
fe~ce~ and felt a higher fence should be required. (Ms. Sweet potnted ouc the fence
proN:~Pd would be a 6-foc~t high~ solid masonry wall and asked if a variance would be
requi~ed for a higher fence.)
Jay Tashiro explatned the minimum requlrem~ is 6 feet. but the daveloper could go to 8
feet.
Conmtssionar Johnson ~~tated this property is surrou~ded by RS-'20~ deveiopment and felt
even though 36 units per a~re are allowed~ this would be a heavy use for thts prr~perty.
He lndicated h(s oniy concern would be that the 150-foot setback should be compited with.
He stated he would not co~sider the structura as two stories s(nce the structura could be
built as on~ story ~nd tiie loft could be added later.
Commissloner Tolar indicated he as not concerned about the interpretation of the "story~~~
but felt t4~e circulatia~ and the density should be revised.
Commisstoner 8ernes stated she would not consider the mezzanine as a thtrd stary~ but
asked staff for an explanation af thelr interpretation of the story.
10/9/78
~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNlNG COMMISSION~ OCTOBFR 9~ 1978 78-822
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79'~4_ANU VARIANGE N0. 3p54 f,contt~uer;
Jay Tsshiro expleined the Code defin(tlon of a xtory Is the arer from the floor to the
celling and th~t the proposed mezza~ine would hdve a floor end a celling. He stated in
this za~e you ce~ have e meximum he(yht of two storles.
Cheirm~n Nerbst Indicate:d he did not see any problem with this as long ~s the ~oof helght
did not exceed the two-story height. He auggested moving the underground pa~king to the
rear of the prop~rty and moving the other butlding forward~ and Ms. Sweet ~eplled that
they could reduce the (ntertor areas~ but had trled to get as much Ilveble~ usable erna as
possible.
Chalrman Nerbst (ndiceked he would heve the sAm~ co~cerns regarding the tre~fic with the
ramp coming out ontn Ninth Strect~ as expressed by Commission~r Tolar.
Cotnmtssloner Tatar asked the average trip count per day~ and Jim K~wamur~ st~+ted it is
ahaut 350 trips per day, with the peak-hour trefftc et 8S to 90 trips both morning and
evening~ and the dansicy is on~ of the reason tor -he e+dditional drtvcway beceuse thQre
-~uld be a possibillty of beGking up as many as !:~ v~hlcles trying to exlt the proJect tn
tho mo~ning and back in in the evening.
Commissloner Talar pointed out~ again~ that hls rtmin concern is the density with the
additional trafflc in the area and dump(ng all the trsffic out onto Nlnth and Katella~
polnting out there is a schoal in the vicintty and a lot of t~affic beceuse of the school~
and felt al) of the probler.~s are related ta density.
Cormissloner Kiny refc;~red to an earlier reference that the cnmpl~~x will be limited to
ddults only~ and Conxnissioner Nerbst polnied out the Commissinn cannot consider that sfnce
the avne~s could change that policy later on.
Ms. Sweet indl~ated the developer would like to have a Mo-week cantinuance.
ACTION: Commissfaner Tolar offered a m~tion~ seconded by Comm(ssione~ Johnsan and MOTION
C~RfEU UNAt~IM0U5LY~ that consideratton of Reclassif(cation No. 7E~-79•~4 end Varlance No.
3054 be continuGd to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Anahetm City Plenntng
Commission of October 23, 1978, at tiie request of the petitlo~er to submit revlsed plans.
Car~nlssioner Uavid asE:e~J the procr_dure if the property awner to che west terminates the
axisting Condit(ona) L~se Permit and suggestc~d the dev~loper meet with the pro~:;rty owners
in the area who are a~i~osed to the ~ro}ect and work out ~n agreement before the hearing.
Jack uhite~ Deputy City Attorney, pointEd out there will be no further notfces sent on
this matter end the item will be heard on Qctober 23~ 1`~7~•
Commissioner 8arnes suggested those pe-sons interested in th=s item sl~ould call the
Planning Dep~rtment before the meeting to determine whethc~ or not the petitioner will be
requesting another continuancP.
1o/y/78
~~~
MINU?ES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ OCT08Ef~ 9~ i97n 78•823
~I TCM ,t~~0.,, ~' P~'pL 1 C HEAR I Nf;. OWNE:F!S ; TAORM I NA I NDUSTP ~ c5 ~ i NC. ,
€IR N_ EGATIVE DECLARATION COSMO V. ANp ARLENE TAORMINA~ 16~27 Bolsa Chica St~eet~
RECLASSIFICATION N0~ 7y-16 Nuntington Beach, CA 92G49. AGENT: FRANK WOOLSEY,
VARIANCE N0. '~~5'~ 16~27 Bolsa Chica Street~ Nuntingto~ Beach~ CA 92G4g.
P~operty described as an irreqularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting ot epproxlmatcly 1.1 acres havi~g A
frontaga of opproxlmately 1~i8 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue~ havtng d maxlmum
dapth of epproxlmatel~ ~+09 feet~ bei~g located ~E~proxtmatety ~42 fe~t west af the centerltne
of Narbor 6oulevard~ and R~~rther descrtbed as ~~26 and 528~} V~rmont Avenue. Prop~rty prescntly
~lesatfiQd RS-A-43,0~)0 (RE5IDENTIAL/AGRICU~TUP~1L) ZONE.
REQuESTED CLASSIFICATtON: RM-120n (RESIOEN71>>.L~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZnNE.
ttEQUESTEU VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MAXI:iUM STRUCTURAL 11EIGlIT AtJD (B) MINIMUM
t~UMBFR OF PARKING SPACES, TO CONSTRUCT A?.f+-UNIT APARTMENT
COMPI.EX.
Thare wes no orie indicating their pres~~,,.-: In opposltion to subje~.R reyuest, and although
the staff ~~port to the Plannin, Commission dated Octobe.r ~~ 1978 was not read at the
public hearing. it (s referred to and mad~ a part of the minutes.
Frank Woolsey~ agent~ (ndicated the surrou~ding develupment h~s a history of Ma-sto ry
structures and pointed out the property to the north is develcped wlth apartments which
are approximately 15 yer-rs vld en~ are two-scory s[~uctures; to the west there is a
single-famll~~ residence and a motel which is approximatrly five to seven years old whiGh
has two-sto ry structures; tl~e property to the east has a union hatl and is separated by a
160-foot parking 1ot; and a two-story metel is wichin 10 feet of the southern boundary.
He stated they ha~s read the recommendations and wtlt comply.
THE PUBIIC NEAR~NG WAS CLOSf:U.
ACTION: Canmissioner Ktng ~ffcred a motlon~ seconded by Cam-issioner David and MATION
~D UNANIMOUSLY, that the Anaheim Clty PlAnning Commisslon has reviewed the proposal
to reclasslfy the zontng from the RS-A-43~OQ0 (Reaidential/Ayricultu~al) Zone to the RM-
".00 (P.eside~t(ai~ Multiple~Family) Zone Lo ~onstruct a 24-unlt apartment complex with
waivers of maximum structura) heigi:t and minimum number of parking s~ es on an
irregula~ly-sheped parcel of land cc~nsisting of approximately 1.1 a es hav(ng a frontage
of approximately 148 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue~ havi~,y a m~xlmum depth of
app roxtmate~f 409 feet~ and being located a~.proximately 342 feet west af the centerllne of
Harbor Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Dccl~ratton frnm the ;equiremc:~t to
prepare an cnvi~onmental impact report oR the basis that th•~e wo~ld be ~o signtfica-it
indtvldual or cumulatlve adverse environmenta! impact due to the ap,^.roval of this Negatlve
Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect property for commerctal-
recreation land use~ camnensurate with the proposal; that no sensitiv~ environmenta)
impacts are involve 'n the proposal; that the Initlal Study submltted by the petlt~oner
indlcates no significant Individual or cumutative adverse enviro~n+encal tmpects; and that
the Negative Declaratlon substantiating the fG~egoing findtngs is on ftle in tha City of
Anaheim Planning Oepartment.
Commissloner King offered Resoluti~n No. PC78-232 and mc~ved for Its passage and adopt(on~
that the Anaheim City P'~nning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Reclassification
No. 78-79-16~ subJect to Interdepartrt~ental Cor~~n(ttee recom~ndaitons.
On roll :.all, thc foregoing resolutton was passed by L!;e rollowing vote.
~o/9/7a
1
~ '
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMNISSION~ OCTOBER 9~ 19'~ 8 82
EIR NCGATIVE QECLARAI'ION RECLASSIFICATION M0. 8- 9-16 ANQ VARIANCE NQ. 0~ (continued)
AYES; COMMISSIONEi~St BARNES~ BUSIIORE~ DAV10, HERBST~ JONNSON~ KING~ ?OLAR
NUFS; C4MMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS; NONE
Co~,.missloner King ~ffered Resolu:lon No. PC7a-233 and moved for Its passbge end adopt~3053
tNat thr. Anahelm f,tty Plannt~g C~mnlsslon does hereby grent P~titl~n ~or Varta~nce No.
on the basts that denlal would Jcprlve subJect property of a privilege enJoyed by other
propertles in the sun~ vlcinlty~ end subJect to Interdepertmental Ccmmittee
recommendations.
On roll call~ the forc~~otn~ resolur.ton was passed by the following vote:
AVES: COMt11SSI0NERS: BARNES~ °USHORE~ DAVID~ NERHST~ JONNSOl1. KING~ TOIAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISS1f1NEaS: NONE
(TE~M N, 0; 4 PUBLIC HEAR~NG. OWNERS; REED D. AND FLORENCE M.
EIR CATEGORICAL EXCMPTION-ClASS 5 CONKLC~ 402 Florette Strect, And~eim~ CA 92804.
YARIANCE N0._ 3052 Petitioner requsst! iIAiVER OF MINIYIUM S7RUCTU~ZAL
SETt~ACK ~ CONSTRUCT A FAMILY ROON AODIt10N on
property described as an trrec~ularly-shaped parcel
cf land consisttng of approxlmb,,ely 8500 squara feet located at the so~~ther~~t Gorner of
West Elm Avenue and Florette 5[reet, having app~oximece frontages of 100 feec on the south
sider~b~d°as 402 FlorettenStreeteetPoopCrtyepresei~tly Glassifled RSr72Q0 (RESIDENTiAI.,
desc i
SlNGLE-FAMII_Y) ZONE.
There wds no one tndlcatin~ their p.esence ~n oppos(tion to s;b'J WeSenoLsreadnat~theQU9h
the steff r~port t~ thc Planning Commisslon~ d~ted October 9~ 9~
public hearing, it ls referred to and mt~de a pbrt of the minutes.
Reed Conkle~ petit:oner, tn~icated hls desire to c~nstruct a famfly room addition on the
bacL: of his home whi~h would be ~n the rninim~~n st~uctural setback. He presented a plan
shvwiny the additton with~ut the requested weiver and indicated he has letters from his
n~ighbors indicet'.nq th~ir approval of thc requeai. Ne also pointe~ out the ~roperty is
odd-shapPd ~r,d is a corner ~at of a cul-de-sac.
THE PUBtIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~omr~lsslone~eJ~~ t~an ~iaveerl0dfeettfromtthe stmeetssontf~at~fttdoes r-otiir~~erfereS but'hts
showing the
request is still as submttted io khe Cammi~slo~.
Commissioner darnes askecl'-ow many feet would the addition be at its closest polr„ to the
existing fence~ and Sir. Ccnkle replied it woutd :: about 1 foot fram the existing fence.
The Gortmisslon discu~sed the location of the fence~ with Mr. Conkle pointing out the fence
is 13 fEet fran the curb and explained he wo~~ld be taking dawn the exls!ing fence and
butldin~ another fence.
Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ explained that the ir.side line is the actual bulldtng wall
whlch w111 be 5 feet from the property line. He indicated he was not sure where the
existing fence is located~ but was assuming it is an the prop~rty Iine.
to/9/78
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 9~ 1978
78-825
EIR CATEGORICAL CXEMPTION~CLASS 5 AND VARIANC~ 1~0.!_~continucd)
Commissloner Bernes explalned that the existing fence Is 13 feet f~om the curb anJ the
proposec additton would be within 1 foot af that fencc~ and she dld not thlnk chat would
be a good plan~ but thc petitioner F,ss indicated he wlll romave the extsttng fence.
Jay Tttu~~ Office Engineer~ explatnod the property line is 9 feet from the curb and if the
fence is 13 feet. then that would be 4 feet from the propPrty ltne~ so he would ~till hevc
5 fnet to the p~aperty line if he movod the fence.
Ghalrman Herbst tndicatcd he did not think It wauld be ~ gaod plan to have the w~ll 1 foot
from the fen~ ' ~~e of firs. etc.
Edward Oe Lun. ilder~ expiained that the buildli.~ will sttl' ~e a feet from the
property line and they would be able to buiid a snu~ll fence of somc type an the p~nperty
line.
Commissioner Johnson asked who lived in the i~ausc tc, the rtyht~ facing the cul-de-sac nr
to the east~ ..~~.: Mr. Conklc repl ied Cha; Miss Ruth awnerl that house and she is present.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out to Miss Ruth that there is H posstbility that this
eddltion could block her view~ and Misg Ruth responded from the audlence th~t the way the
house is situated~ her vtew would noc te blocked and she has no obJectlons.
Mr. De Luna explained that about 7 or 8 feet from the curb ehere are four or five trees
and they would not disturb the trees. Hc sttpulatcd that they would be willinc~ to m~ve
the far~ce out to the property line.
It was noted that thc Planning Dlrector ~r his authorized representat(ve has deterrr ned
thet the proposed p~oJect fall~ within the definition af C~tegorical Exemptions~ Class 5~
as defi-~ed in paragraph 2 of the Cfty of Anaheim Envlromm~~~tal Impact Report Guidelines
and is, therefare~ categorically exen~t from the requirement to prepare en EIR.
ACTION: Conxnissioner Tolar off~red Resolution No. PC7~-234 ~nd moved for its passage end
aaoptron~ that the A~aheirn City Ptanning Commission daes hereby grant PeCitian Por
Variance No. 3052 n~ the basis that the property ts irregularly shaped and is a corner lot
on a cul-de-src with frantage o~ two streets;YsubJect to the petie'~nejinestandlsub)ecihto
the ex(sting fence will be moved approximat~l 4 feet to the p rop y ~
Intcrdepartmental CommttteE recammendgtions.
i roll call, the fareyoing resolution was passed by the fa~lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSlONERS: BARNES, BUSHORE, DAVID~ HERBST, JOHNSON, KING~ TOLAR
NOES : CONY~I I SS I ONERS ; NONE
A~SENT: CQMMlSSIONERS: NOyE
to/9/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM C-TY Pt'NNI~G COMMISS~Oh~ OCTOBER 9~ 1978 78-826
ITEM N0. 5 PURI.IC HEARIMf. ONNERS: PRADIP G. AND TARULATA P.
IR CA ~ ICAL EXEMPTI0~1-CLASS 1 NAII:~ MANUBHAI N. NAII:~ 11ND DQLATItAI R. NAIY.~ 300
CONDITIONAL USE PERNI :~ No~th Manchester Avenue, Anrh:im~ CA ~2801. Petitlaner
~equc~ts prrmisslan to 5110W A7ULT MOVIES I~~ AN EXISTING
MOTE:L an prflFerty described as en Irreqularly•shaped
pa~cal of lend consisting of approxtmately 0.5 acre iocated at the northwe.3t corne~ oP
Manchester Avenue and Loara Street, having approximete frontac~~s of 391 feet on the north side
of Ma~chester Avenue r~nd :;1 feet on the r r.st stde of loar~ Street~ t~nd furthe~ descrlbed as
300 North ManGhester Avenue. P~operty prescntly classtfied CG (C~OMMERCIAL~ GENERAI) ZONE.
There was ane person indicattng their presence in oppostcion to subJect reauest, and
although the staff rpport te the Planning Commission cfated Octobar 9~ 1y70 was not read at
the ~+ublic hcaring, it is referred to end made a part of the minuCes.
Pradlp Naik~ the petltioner~ indicated his desire to show n~lult u~v(es ir his existEng
motel for economic reasons. Ne point~d out his motet does not do as wel) as other motels
near Dtsneyland during the sumrncr; that when those motels are f~ll, it is no; unusual that
his motel is three-quart.ers empty and hr. is ftnJir~~ it diffir.ult !o meet ~xpenses. F~e
pointed out his motel is In a commercial zone with th~e S~nta Ar,A Freewoy Co the n~rth and
west~ a mote) to the east, and some i~dustrial uses and a ueer b:+r ta thc south~ and there
are ~o residences withln 1n00 yards oF `~is motel. He felt shawir~~~ hdult rnovIes in the
privacy of motel rooms would not have an adverse effe~t and felt slnce the people of
Anahelm hrve freedc+m ~f cho(ee to watch adult movies in crowded theaters, It would be more
approprlate bnd discreet fo~ them to watch them in the privacy of the motel roonrs~ and
there would be i~ guests under 1~1 years of age and they wouid be very selecttve and have
strict control of the operatlon~
Lynn Thomsen~ 434 ~:t~th Euclid~ Anaheim~ Indicdted he was requested by Bishap Ge~ald Lee
Stoddard of the A~aneim Flrst Ward of the Church Qf Jesus Christ of Latte~ Day Salnts to
indicate their opposition to this particular use and statPd the ~' result of this klnd
of usc is evident ln other ar~as~ and presented a letter from the Blshop indlcating his
oppc+sition and the opposition of the cangre~ation Involy~d.
Chairman Herbst pres~nted Mr. Naik with a copy of the letter f~~xn the Bishop and asked him
if he would like to rebut, and Mr. Naik painted out Yhere fs another mote) in Anahetm an4
motels in other ar~as which shaw adult movies ancl~ in hts opinion, there have b~en no
advcrse effects in those areas.
THE PUk3LIC Nt.11RING bIAS CL~SED.
Commissio~er Bushore asked what oth~r motel in Anahetm is shawing adult movies~ and Mr.
Naik re~lied the Kona hbte) on Brookhurst is showing these movies.
Commtssioner Tolar polnted out that motel was in the County area and thc rtyht to show
these movies was "grandfathered" in when that a~ea was annexed.
Cortmissioner Bushorc askeu haw long Mr. Naik fiad been operating this motel~ and he r~plied
he has been in business one and one•half years.
Commissloner Bushore asked how people would know these movies are available~ and Mr. Naik
replied it would be by word of rnouth; that he would not have any signs.
Commissioner pavid asked Mr. Naik if he did not know the fir~ancial condition and occupancy
~ate, etc., of the rtx~tel when he purchased it~ and Mr. Naik ~eplied h~ had just com~ here
,o~9/a8
~
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 9~ 197~ 7~-~z7
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPT~ON-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIUNAL USL PERMIT f~0. 1893 (cnntln~ed)
from England in 1977. He fclt the bull~ltng of big motels dnd hotels in A.naheim is hurting
the sniell motel awners.
Commissianer Uavid asked the address of ihe church~ ~nd Mr. Thomsen repliesd that the
address was 440 North L~ara. (Mr. Naik polntecl out th~ church is on tha north stde ~f the
fre~Pway and h(s motel is an thc~ south side of the ~recway.)
Commissloner Tolbr stated tf-e Planning Commission cannot consicier economic re+~SOns behind
this request. 11e statcd he ayrees every edult should f~ave tlie right to make his awn
decislons~ but t1i~ problem thP Comr~~isston will be feced witi~ Is~ if this does not work
~ut~ what would the petitioner wont lo Jo next to mak,e hls business economically sound.
He stated tt~at all•houyh ;~is Is basicalll an industrial area, the off-ramp at Loare leads
Into thc City of An~hctr~ and ar,~ of the r-ost ~~~~~~~+~ r~r.rp,+ti~n~-1 nr~AS In South~rn
Californl~. wliich is Oisneylend. He fcit If this use is allowed~ the door (s open and
avery m~tel in the ctty will rer~urst thc same privllerye and f; wlll reduce tlie quality of
entertainment and reduce the qua!(ty of the family recreation area. He state~i precedents
are set regardless of wliat the Planning Commission says, f~e stated that by the
petitloner's own Admission. other areas such as long aeach an~ surrounding towns have
allawed adult movies in motcls and asked~ in this case, what ~iould make his motel any more
unlque znd how wuuld it help his business economicelly. Ne indiceted he dld not see har
the Commisslon could support this use with the tyPe of impact it ts gosng t~ ha~ve on the
city and economics do not dictate to hin that it is c~oing tn ~ielp the b~siness. Ne
indicated he recognizes this is an unusual site, but he could not support the showing of
adult r-avies.
Mr. Nalk po(nted out that peuple are permitted to watch adult movics in tt~caters and ask~d
why they could not watcli them in m~teis.
Commissioner Dushore asked why people would want to p~y to see a movie In a motel at a
higher rate than at a theater. He stated he did not see how this would benefit the
community nor haw it would benefi~ the petttioner since he is not qoing to adverttse it~
and felt every mote) in the city would be want(ny t~ show adult movies.
Hr. Naik indicated there would not be any advertiseme~+t on the sign that adult movies are
avallable, but there w~uld be advertisement! in certain types af papers. Ne stated he is
requestinq this because the motel is located adJacent to the freeway on one sid~ and
railroad tracks on the other side, with industrial offices in the front of the motel~ and
there are no residences i~ the area.
Commissioner David asked if there had been any cortments f~ori [he Pol3ce Department
concerning thls request, and Jay Tashiro~ Ass~ctate Planner, replied no comments were
recelved from the Police Department.
Commissioner Johnson stated he persont~lly has empathy with the petitioner; that he has
come l~xo the communlty and purchased a business and tried to make it orofitaEle and has
found it to br not economically sound, pointing aut every business owner is faced with
:hat possibillty eve ry month a~d !~e q~estioned this tdea af c•iring the problam. He fett
this would bring bn element into the city which {s not competib{e with the general tene of
the city, which is a family~•oriented town with many children who will be using that
particular off-ramp. He did ndt feel Lhis use at this lacation should be allowed.
It was noted that the Planning Director or his authorized rppresenZa:ive has determined
that the proposed pro;ect falls within the definition of Cateyorical Exemptions~ Class 1,
as defined in paragraph 2 of ths City of Anah~im Environmetital Impact P,eport ~uidelines
and ts, therefore, categ~rically exempt from ~he requiremer,t to pre~are an EIR.
10/9/78
r~
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, OCTQBER 9~ 1978 ~g.82g
EIR CATE~ORICAL EXEMP710N-CLASS 1 AND CO_ NDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1893 (continued)
ACTION: Commlasloner Johnson off~rnd Resolution No. PG78-23i A~d moved for tts peasaqe
sn~adoption~ tr~at the Aneheim City Pianninc~ Conmisslon does hereby deny Petition for
Condttlonal Usd Permit No. lttq3 an th~ basls that tho use weuld not be c~mpattble with the
surroundtng community~ unde~stending that it Is in an rrea surrounded by freeway. but the
tphare af Influence. is qulte large oround thAt inte~sectlon And tnclu~+es a church.
Commissioner 8arn~s atate~f she d(d not fecl the show(n,y aF adult movles necessarily
attra~cts a bud element; that she knows there arc inany peaple who show these movles tn
thelr awn homes, bu-. stated st~e w.oul~f not vote far th(s typc of use that cloae to
OlsneylAnd. She questionccf whether or not tf~ls ~ff-rarM, sliould be consiciered a gatewey
into M aheim and rninted ouc the surr~unding area is ~n~ustrini~ and that the Aneheim
Plaae Is locztod ncross the freeway.
Commlsslonc:r Harhst ind(cated the thing th~t bothers htm ts thc unknown prGCedent that
would be set~ pofnting out the petitiAner had used the Kona Motel as an example, and he
felt it would be a Jeparture from the ccxnr~rciol-recreetionel area uses And feit this use
woulcl have a bad effect anywl~ere (n Anaheirn and thAt this Nauld be Just a fdot tn the door
for further requests.
Comnissloner Barnes felt thcre should be a Commission pollcy indiceting opposition to the
showlny of adult movies since st» hears at least two Cammissfone~s indicate they would Rot
favor this use any placc in An-~haim,
Commiss(oner Tolar falt cve ryone should heve the right to re:quest such a use and stated he
would hate to preclude anyone from that right~ pointiny out tl~e Commisslon wtl) change and
ather members may ~ot Feel the sartK way. He lndicated he would not support this use et
this location~ but things dn change a~d he would not want to see a poltcy or an ordinance
to tliat ~ffect.
Commissianer Johnson restat~d his resolucion (s for denial on thc basis that the use would
not br_ compatible with the surraundinr~ area.
On roll call, the foreyoin~ resolutton was passed by the following vote:
AYFS: COMMIS51f?NERS: BARNES, BUSHORE~ DAVID, f1ERBST~ JOHNSON~ KING, TOLAR
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NQNE
ABSEN, ; COMMISSIONERS: NOhlE
Conrnlssioner David complimented Commissioner Bernes fo~ voicing her opinicx~, but indicated
he felt this area is an tmp~rtant gateway to Anahelm and felt the use would be
detrlmental.
Jack White, Deputy Git~ Attorney~ presented the petitioner with the N~•itten right to
appeal the Rla~niny Commi~slon's decision wi:hin 22 days.
1 ~/9! 78
..-
d -
`A.
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNII~G COMMISSI~N~ OCTOBER q~ 197a ~8'A29
~EM~WO..~„6, PUbLIC IItARING. AWNCRS: DEtIt11S W. ~ DAVE R. ~ AND
FIRiNEGAT111,~ DEGLARATION SANUM AASE~ 7~~1 East Adele Street~ Anaheim~ CA 92805.
WAIVER OF G00~ RE UIREMENTS Pet(tloner reqwosts permissian to ESTABLISH AN AUT~-
CONDITIONAL USE ERM 0. 1~t94 MOBILE DISMAt~TLII~G AMU PARTS SALES FACILITY NI1~N
WAIVCR OF (A) MINI HUM LANDSCAPEQ SETIiACK I1t~D (9)
HAXIMUM FE!~~E NEI~HT on property descrlbed es e
rectangularly•shaped parcel of land conslstl~a of appraxir~et~ly 1.1 dcres having approxfmate
frontages of 152 fect on thr narth slde nf Cy Mess Street an~1 157. feet on the south side of
Adele 5trect. havin~ d maxlmum depih af appro~~mately 3.~~! feet~ be(ng locateJ approximetely
213 feet e~st af the cantorltnP of Paullne Street~ and furth~r described as 101 Cast Cy~+ress
Strecst. Property presently classi fled ML (IIIDUST{tIAL. LINITEO) ZONE.
Ti~rre wa~ one person Indicattng hts prescnce In op~+~sitlen te sub)r.ct request, and
although the staff rep~rt t~ th~ Pirnning Commission datecl October 9~ 197a was not read at
the publ i c he~aring~ it is referrcd ta and made a~art of the m(nutes.
Jay Tashtro. Assoclate Planner, p~inted out e correction to the steff repa~t in thnt
waiver (b) should read "0 feet proposeJ" retf~er than ~ feet.
Dennis Aase~ the petitiuner. stated he has owned and o~eratcd his business at 70A East
Adele St~eet for eighi ye~rs end he alsn ~wn~ subJect prop~rty across th~ street at 741
East Cyp ~ess Street and would llke to move the business across thr street to that
propG rty. He pointed out he has a variance to permit aut~mobile storage on subject
prope rty and Ctiey are gol~g back and forth across the. street t~ fnctlitate their buslness
at the p ~esenC tirne.
Louts Ora~Icevich, 91+6; Lemon Avenue, Alta Loma~ indicatod hc owns the pr~perty at 700
East Sycamore~ which is about one block north of sub)ect praperty, and he has felt for a
long time that this use is detrimental to the value of the p~opcrty in that arca. lie felt
if the Commission sees fit to permlt thi5 use, thc petitlaner should be requtred to put in
the necessary landscaping and the maxim~im wal) height to hide the function.
Chairman Herbst pointed out tlie petit(oner plans to screere the area with an fi-foot high,
ehainllnk wood-slatted fence.~ and Nr. Dragic~vich ind(cated he dld not feel a chainlink
fence would be appropriate; that it does not take much to knock dc~wn that type of fence
and felt with this use a masonry wall should be rcquired.
Chairma~ Herbst polnteJ out the property has bcen zoned Ml (Industrial, Limlted) fo~ many
years.
Mr. Oragicevich indtcated he feit this type of use wou0d be detrlmental; that he hes s~een
wrecking yards in other areas and tias seen what has happened to one in Ontario; tht~t they
go in with great ideas and later on the piace looks terrible, wtt1~ parts in the street~
grease and oil~ qarbage~ etc., and ruins the entire arca.
Mr. Aase stated they have ~een cioing bus(ness at thair location at East Adele Street since
1970 an d they have attempted to keep the area green. He pointed out they have outgrown
these p ~emises and want to make the new loct+tion a nice looking place. He indicated they
have discussed this proJect with the closest neighbors and they have indicated they would
like to see th~ use in this area~ and pointed out there are portions of the exis~ing
chainlink fence which are migsing and they will replace those portions af the fence and
put in the reclwood slats. He pointed out thay would like to make their place of business
a monuanent and they are to a point where they feel they can afford to do it.
TNE PUBLIC HEARIMG WAS CLOSED,
10/9/78
~
t
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNINf, COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 9~ ~974 78-830
EIR NEGA'fIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIOI~AL USE PERMIT N0. 1894 (continued)
~^^~missioner ~arnes asked tf the pct(ttoner would ba willing to put In thr landscaping end
e blu~k wall,
Mr. Aas~ (nJlcateJ they dtd not wisl~ Co put (n a block well on the rrilroad stde of the
p~oporty~ but would not be opposecl to ~uttin,y in the chatnlink fence wtth redwc>od slats.
C~ximissloner Barnes clarift~d they would be wt:ling to construct a block w~lt along Adele
and Cypress Streets and a chAinllnk fenc~ wtth redwood slats along the railro~d property.
Mr. Aase clorlfted that tl~e front of the buildtn~ would be alon~ Cypress 5t~eet, so thet
frontaqe would b~~ taken un mostly by tfie butldin~ and the rost would be a block wall witl~
landscaping~ not only tn the >-foot setbeck but also they rre requirad to have a 54-fcwt
pa~ktng area in frant of the buildiny, and there wtll be soma landscapin~ in that area.
Gommissioner Kiny com~li+nr.nted Mr. Aase on hts exist(ng busfness r~nd alsa on the fact that
he will not be stackin~ cars above the fence at the new loceti~n, He as4•ed tf he could do
something about replacin~~ the slats in the fence.
Mr. Aasc explatnecl that ttiosP partlcular slr~ts are no lonc~er avatlable ond he w~ould be
wtliing to ~ut in redwood slats, fie pointed out they have a ve ry ~ood securtty system
whlch kee~~s most c~f the clilldren out of the area. ile poii~te<1 out thc n~w location wll)
t~ave an 3-foot t•igh, sig'~c barrier block wall which should solve the securlty problem.
Commissl<~ner Johnson p~inted out tlie petitioner had stipulated ta ~ut blocic walls on Adele
and Cypress Stree[s, and indicatcd he has no objectlons ta the slatteci chainllnk fence on
the railr~ad side of the ~rooerty.
Commissioner David asked if tliis me~ns both waivers aould be withdrawn~ and Mr. Aase
explained the one waiver was a result of the fact that there are no curbs and gutters or
sidev~alks provided in that area~ and fcl[ there is no ~eason to put in a sidewalk between
the railroad rights-of-way, He explained that when they had ap~lied for the condltio~a)
use permit at 709 East P~ele~ certain aencralizations we~e made ebout improving the slte
at that tlme anJ they were just start'ng in buainess an~i any expenditure was difficuit for
them. Ne pointed out the Plannin~7 Commission had required a modified cul-de -sac and at
that tlme the property across the street Nas owned by scxneone else. He patnted out that
right naw there is a fence set back 5 feet from the edge of the roadway and oleanders had
been planted tliere, but did not survive. He explained they wanted to put in a wall with
the proper landscaping~ but thr fence could only be 30 tnches high and the landscaping
would disappear aga(n.
Mr. Aase explalned the type of clientele they have generally are in some high-perfa~mencc
type sports car~ such as Porsche~ which travels at high rates of spezd. He indicated he
has the feeling these people are driviny fast on qdele Street and they had made up a sign
asking tt~em to kindly watch their speed on the residenttal atreets and any problems th~ey
have had have been from psople outstde the a~ea.
Cornntssioner Bushore as6,ed if that area directly south near the railroad tracks is sl~ted
t4 be a greenbcit area on the General Plan in the redeveiopment area.
Bob Lyons, Redevelopn~ent Manager~ explatned that the redevelopment plan ~:elis fer open
space or greenbelt area south of Cypress.
Comnissio~er 6ush~re stated~ based on the information concerning the redevelopment area
and the fact that he Nould like to see continuity, he cQUld not suppo~t either watver. He
10/9/7~
~~ ,
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSIQN~ OCT~DEa 9~ 1978 ~P'~3)
EIR NEGATIVE DCGLARATION ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1891~ (contlnued)
~tated he would w~nt tu see tlie landscape:<i setbACk and a mas~nry wal) rattier than a
chalnllnk fence.
Comnissioner b.:rne:s asked about thc plans fo~ the yreenbelt area sauth of Cypress. and t3ob
Lyons expl~ined ~r. is concep:ual at this p~int and the rodeve.lopment end physical
Irr~rovert~ents have not becn ir~iplemented; tht~t the land use on the edoptecl r~development
plan would b~ for apen 4~f8CA or c~reenbelt are~ and one spot I~~s been deslynated for
Heritage Square. f~e stated It appears to be going in the direct(on of a mlxed uses or
preservatinn of some liistoric,~l bui idin~~s to be relocated in that arra~ rnd the balence
would be open spACe ~r greecib~elt erea~ c~r perhaps o strip of park spACe to buffer the
res(den[lal areas on eith~r sidc oF tl~c railroad track. Ne scnted it Is the (ntent to
acqutrc thc exlstin~ businessps +~n~1 (n~nr(~nrAte them into an ~~en qreenbelt area tn the
arca south oF Cy~+ress an~f lt c~~uld be r~ny ~ime in the nNxt ten years.
Gommissioner Johnson pointeci out the qrecnbelt AI'^_e is desiynated for the south side of
Cypress a~d this proJect fs on tf~e nortti slde of Cypress.
Chairman Herbst pointed out this is a nice-looking huilJing with landscaping~ etc., and he
would agree a chainlfn~; fence w~th reclwood slats ~lon~ th~ railroad right-of-way would be
adequate.
Commissioner Barnes referred to the btock wnll proposcd along the Adele Street side and
ask~d if sc~me type of landscapir~~ could be providr.d~ such as vines on the fence~ etc.
Mr. Aase replieci that they could dn thae; that to movc another 5 feet back did not seem in
keeping with what ts goin~~ on on Adele Street~ but th~~t he would put any type of
landscaptng in that area and kee~~ it up.
Chairman Flerbst stated ths fandscapin~ would require psrpctual watering.
ACTION; Commissioner aarnes offered a motton~ seconde d by Commissioner King and MOTION
~~0 UNANIMOUSLY~ thiat the Anaheim Cit.y Planning Commission has review~d the proposal
to permit an automobile dismantli~~y and retail parts sales facility with walvers ~af
m(nimum landscaped setback anci ~na;cimum fence helght on a rtctangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately '~1.2 acres having approximate fronta_yes of 152 feet o~ the
north sidc of Cypress Street and 1,2 feet on the south side of Adzle Street, having a
maximum depth of approximately 35~~ feet~ being loceted apprnximately 213 feet east of the
ze~terlin~ of Pauline Street; and does hereby approve the Ne~ative Declaratlon f~an the
requlrement to prepare an environn~ental impac~ report an the basis that there would be no
signiflcant individual or cumulative adverse env(ronmental impact due to the approval of
thia Negative Declaration since thc Anahes(m General Plan designates the sub}ect prope rty
for qenerai industrtal land uses conxnensurate with Chc propasal; that no sensitivc
environmentel impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by
the petiti~ner indicates no significant individu~l or cum~latlve adverse envlronmental
impacts; and that the Negative Dnclaration substantiating che foregain~ findtngs is on
flle in the City of Anahefm Planning Oapartment.
Commi ss io~er Barnes affered a mot i on ~ secondad by Wmm! ss toner Ki ng, that the reques t for
waiver of Code requi~ements for minimum landscaped setEack ~~nd maximum fence hetght be
granted o~ the basis that he does have some a~ea outside i'ie fence and has stipulated to
provide landscaping in that area.
Comnlssioner Ktng polnted out he has 10 feet betwcen the edge of the blacktop and the
fence for planttng.
t0/9/78
~~ ~
~,
MI NUTES ~ ANAFIE I M C( TY PLANN I NG COMNI SS I ON ~ OCTOBCR 9~ 137a 78- 83z
EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATION AND CQNDiTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1894_(continued)
Chairman Herbst indicated he would lika to ~ee waiver (a) denled so thet the proJect Is
braught wl th I~ the Code.
Jay Tashiro, Associete Plenne~~ clariflod that the Planntng Conmissien wishes the 5 feet
bo provided~ however. the petitlane~ would have to construct a block well on the. property
Ilne.
Commissloner Johnson indicated lie und~rsCood the peti~lo~~r Is willtng to lAndscape the 10
feet of Clty prope~ty~ whtch would give 50 fee.t et landscaping, but he could move the
fenca back ~ feet and landscape that rrea and leave the 10 feet without any landscaping.
Mr. Aase indicate~d he is t~ylnq to evoid havin~ to move thr. wall back 5 feet.
Cheirman tlerbst asked the Traffic Enqinsc~inq Assistant wt~~t the lonq-ranq~ plans werQ for
Adesle Street~ pointing out there are na curhS there now, and asked how much spece thers
wouid be (f curbs wcre put tn.
Jay Titus, Office Eng(neer, pointed out thet one of the recormiended concfitions is that
curb end gutter be provtded on botti Adele end Cypress Streets.
Chatrman 1lerbst polnted out the petitioner would probebly be rble to qct a temporary
sidewalk watver by submttting a lettcr to the E~ginecring Qepartment~ ~nd asked if the
parkway from the wall ta tt~e property Itnc would be landscepcd if the waiver is grsnted.
Jay Titus pointed uut the~e wouid be about S feet from the curb to the property Ilne along
Adele Street which should be landscaped~ and Comnisstc-ner Barnes pointed out the
petitioner has offered to landsc~pe outside Khe fence.
Mr. Aase esked if tliere ~as any Further desire fu~ the m~dified cul-de-sac which makes
parking Inp ractical~ and Jay Titus pointed out that has not bee~ a recortrr~ndation at this
ttme; that the recommenclation is to put i~ straight curb and gutter.
Commtssioner Barnes re-offered her mat(on, seconcfed by Commtssioner Oavtd a~d MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY~ that the Anaheim Ctty Pla~ning Commisston does hereby grant the
request for waiver of Code requirements~ suh,ject to the pettttoner's stipult~tion that hc
wtll provlde landscaping ~utsid~ the fence and p rovide the propP~ (rrlgatian system and
will pr~perly maintaln the lendscaping.
Commtssioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC78-236 and moved fo r its passage and
adoption, that the Anaheim Ctty Pla~~ing Commission does hereby qrant Petitton for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1b9~~, subJect to the petitioner's stipulation tn prov(de an 8-
foot high, chainllnf: fence interwoven with redwood slets along the ratlroad rights-of-way
and to provide an a-foot high~ conc~ete bluck wall ~+long the Adele St~eet and Cypress
Street frontages~ and subJect to Intcrdepartmental Committee recommendations.
Comnissloner Talar indicated he would like to see this use tied to tt~e speciftc use of
dismantling Porsche automobiles because if this business were sold to someone else~ it
could be made into another wrecking yard, and M~. Aase replied they disr!~antle Audt
automobiles which a~e manufactured by the Porsche company.
Canmissioner Kin~ polnted out tlie Traffic Engineer has recorm~:nded that the driv~way on
Cypresg Street be widened to 24 feet~ and Mr. Aase replied tl~at it would be cbne.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
10/9/78
M1~IUTES~ ANA~IEIM CITY PLANNl~IG COMMISSION, OCTOBER 9~ 197~ 19-833
EIR NEGATIVE OECIARATION AND CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT_N0. 1$~N (contlnu~d)
AYES: GONMIS~IONEP,S; OARI•IES~ flUSIIORE~ D~~'~ID~ HERdST~ JOI~~~SO~~, KIPIf~, TOLNR
NOES: C011M1 SS IONERS; NONE
ABSEN7: COMMISSIANCRS; NO~IE
Jeck Whlte~ Deputy City Attorney~ prescnted t:hc petttioner with the wrttten right to
eppea) thc Planntng Commissi~n's declslon w{thin 22 Jeys.
RECCSS 'There was A five-minuce rtc.ess at 3:4U p.m.
._.__
RECO~~VENE Th~ rneetin~ re~onvened at 3:45 p.m•~ wlth Commissl~n~r l~arnes icaving the
~"- inee t i n ~ .
(TEM N0. 1 PUDLIC NEARING. O~~NER; PROPGRTIES LIMITED~ 1315
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION East St. Andrews Place, Santa Ana, CA 92705. AGENT;
WAIVER OF COUE RE ~U_I_RE~~ME~~~~T NENRY SMITtI~ 904 Rldgecrest Clrcle~ Anaheim~ CA
~p'~'~'pj'~''ja}TJ(["U~~'"RE~AT'1'~f; I~i~)y 92,i~7. Petitioner reyuests perm{ssion to ESTAIILISH
AN AUT~MQdIIC aOUY RCPAIR 11!!D RESTJRATION FACILITY
W17H WAIVE:R OF MINIMUM NUMU~R OF PARKitlG SPACES on
p~operty ~escribed as a rectangularly-sh~~ped parcel of lend conslsting of approximbcely
0.6 acre haviny a frontagc of appr~ximately 1;0 feet on the south stde of Mi~aloma Ave~~ue,
having a maxtmum depth ot approximately 170 fect~ being toc~~.ed approximately 32S feet e~st
of the centerline of Red Gum Street~ and further described a~ 29ti0 East Miralom~ Avenue.
Property presently ctassified Ml (IN~USTRIAL. LIMITED) tONC.
There was no one indicatinc~ their presence in opposlt(~~ t~ subJcct request~ an~ alChough
the staff teport ko the P~anning Commission dated Octobe~ 9~ 1978 was not read at Lhe
publlc hearing, tt is referr~~d tn and made e pArt of tha minutes.
Henry Smith, agent~ stated he is proposing an autonx~bile body repalr and restoration
facility; that he has checked with the Air Quality Control Bor~rd and w(11 comply with all
their requirements; that he is requesting a condltional use permit; that 2? parking spaces
wi 11 ~r provided and en ~i-foot wal led area which vri I1 be used for tempc~rary parking~ pl~es
thers will be pa~king inside the facillty and, if necassa ry~ parking spaces can be
obtained elsewhere.
Me poi~ted out Lhat in the immediate area there is the Anaheim Regional Occupatlonal
Program which trains youths for automobtle repaiP ar.d they plan to be of assistance to
that program,
Ne potnted out there are similar uses in the nearby area.
He explained their business wtll ba a low- volume~ high~quality opcra~t{or,~ mafnly dealing
with sports cars and expenaive autc,mobil~s end the restoration of antiques; that they have
been operating their businrss In the City of Stenton for nlne years and are a very
reputable firm~ and presented references from that business. Ne stated ~te hes bee~ ~~~ the
automobile bc.ly repair industry for 30 years and is vice presldent of the O~ange County
Chapter of Calif~ rnia Auto Body Assaciation and is ve ry aware oP the trr~ortance of a
ciea~, sharp operatton.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEG.
10/9/78
{
MINUTES, ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ OCTOBER 9~ 197~ ~g"A34
EIR NEGATIVE QECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERh11T N0. 1~39~ (c~ntinued)
CanmisslonAr Da~•id asked hvw nwny studnnts }rom the Reg(onal Occupetlonal Prog~am wtil be
participating at his factltty~ polnting out those students will need parking.
Mr. Smtth stated those students will perk at their otfice whlch is located in sn
indus;riel building next cloor; that they have a body shnp enA paint spray booth at that
location~ and he has discussed the program with the director and they ere very interested
ln teking the stuc:ents on tours of his factlity and allaw(ng one or two of the students to
work In his facilit~.
Commtssioner Flerbst ciarified that the operation wili meet atl the Air Quolity Control
Requlremants, end Mr. S~nith raplied thnt it woulJ.
Commissianer Tolar referrrd to paragraph (5) ot the staff rep~rt and the skatement "...a1~
wark and maJarity of vehiclr storacie wtll be done insirl~ the buildinq." and tndicated he
was concerned about that statement and would nat wtent any vehicles left outdoors since
there have been some rea) problems w(th outdoor storage in that area. He polnted out
outdoor storage is not nurmally allowed~ and he saw the po$slb~llty here that cars would
be left outdoors overnight.
M~. Smith po(nted out the types of vehicles they are working on are very expensive (antique
cars~ Jeguars~ Mercedes, etc.) an~~ they would not be lrft o~~td~ors.
Commissioner Tolar ~elated that thc Planning Commission has had many petitloncrs prosent
this seme wonderful story, but their usea have not turned out to bc the way the Commission
expected them. He stated he wan:s somc type of stipulation from the petittoner that there
will be no vehicles stcred outdoors.
Mr. Smith replied thet was agrecable to him.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out the petitione~ has an 8-foot high walled arca adJacent to
the buildfng for outdoor storage dnd tt~ts storage r~ould not be visihle from the street.
Mr. Smtth stated 1~~ had selectecf a building lerger Lhan he needs and eve rythi~g ~ill be
stored inside the fACility since some of the vehicles are worth apprnximately S5~,~0~~ and
this wtll be a first-class buildiny.
Commissioner Bushore asked Mr. Smith if he speculates wlth expensive cers himself, and Mr.
Smtth replied that his hobby is antique cars.
Mr. Bushore polnt~d out the petitioner had described his aperation as low volume and high
quelity, and referred to the mention of servicing vehlcles for Britisfi Motor Cars a~d
other dealerships and pointed out the petitioner has a built-in clientele and felt there
might be more cars at the site than indicated.
Mr. Smlth stated he has mostly been involved with British Motor Cars on war~anty work~
such as a little scratch from ship~ing~ but that he ca11s th~s nuisance work which he does
In orde~ to get referral business, and he deals mostly with the avners of the .leguars.
Mase~atls~ Mercedes. etc.~ who expect thetr cars to be taken care oP properly.
AGTtON: Cortmissioner David offer~d a motion, seconded by Corm~issioner King and MOTIOt~
~7~1~D (Commissioner Barnes being absent)~ thet the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~n has
reviewed the proposal to permit an automobile body respair and restaration facility with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rccta~gula~ly-shaped parGel af land
consisting of app roximately 0.6 acre having a frontage of approximately ty0 feet on the
south side nf Miraloma Avenue, having a maximum ~epth of approximately 170 feet, bcing
~o/9/7a
,- '~
~
MIWUTES, ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER ~J~ 1918 7A-8~5
EIR !~~EGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONUITIONAL USE PERM17 N0. 189~ (continued)
lociRted epproximeitely 3z5 foet east of the canterline ~f Rad Gum Stre~t; and does heraby
approve the Negetlve Oeclar~tion from thR -•equirerr~nt te preparo an env~ronmenta) impact
~epo~t on the besis th~t there would be n~ signlPtcant indlvidual a~ cumul~ttve adverse
en~iironn~entrl impact due to the approval r~f this Nega:ive Declaratlon slnce the Anaheim
Gnnera) Plan designates the subJect prope.rty for gener~el Industria) lr~nd uses commensurate
with thc proposal; that no sensitlve environr~iental imp~cts are Invoived tn the proposal;
t~iat the Initlal Study submitted hy thn petitloner indicetes n~ si~ntficant 3ndividual Ar
cumulative aclvers~ environrr~nfi~e~~a~he~Clty ofAAnahelmePlanningeDepertmertsubstantlati~q
+;he foregaing ffndings fs on
Cammissionr.r Dev(~.~ effered a motion. ~,econdcd by Commissioner Ktng and MOTION CARRIFD
(C~mnissioner Barnes belnc~ absent) ~ rhac the Anaticii~~ Ctty Planning Commisslo~ do~~s hereby
grant the rcquest for waivcr of Gode requirement of m(nimum number af parking spaces on
the basis C1~~tftlPe arking canebewpr~videdgeifraecess~ry~ for the re~ulred ~ar~ing spaces~
and that off•s t p
Commissi~ner David offer~d Resolution No. PC7II-137 a~nd movcd for its passage and adoptian,
that the Anaheim Cfty Planning Cornmission does hereby grant Petition for Conditional Use
Parmit No. 189~~ subjec[ to the petit(oner's sttpulation that there would be no outdoor
stn~ege of vehicles, and subJect t~ ~nt~rde~~artmental Committee recamx ndations.
On roll cell~ the faregoiny resalution was passed by the folla~+ing vote:
AYES: COHMISSIQNERS; BUSHCRE,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOIIE
ABSE~~T; COMMISSi0NER5: aAR~~ES
DAVID~ NERBST~ JONNSOII~ KINr,~ TOLAR
PL'BIiC H'E.4RING. ALAN AND LILA E. SEGAL AND ROgERT L.
0 Box 19~ La Mirada CA
ITEM N0. a
EIR ATE 0 ICAL EXEMPTION-'.,LASS 1 ANU GLOR~GENT:AUIITIWADE'STElZER~ 139 South Anaheim
CQNDITIO~IAL USL PERMIT N0; id~9~ 90537.
'- Boulevard~ A~aheirr,, CA 92~s05. Petltione~ requests
permission to ESTADLISt~ A PAIJNSNOP on property described
as a rectangularly-shap~~J parcel of lend consisting of ~pproximately t.l acres having a front-
age of app roximate~y 15' feet on the south side of Orange Avenue~ having ~ maxlmum depth cf
app~oximately 29y feet, beieqGribedras82222XwestcOren~e Avenue.StPropertycpresently ciassified
hurst Street~ and furtr~er d s
CI. (COMNERCIAL~ LtMITI,.D) ZONE.
There was no one indt.cating their presence in oppositio~ co sub)ect request, and elthough
the staff report to the Planniny Comr-ission dated October 9, 1978 wgg not read at the
public hearing~ it is referred t~ and rnade a pa~t of the minutes.
Wade Stetzer~ agen+~~ was present to a~sr+er any questions and incficated his desire to
rclocate because of redevelnpment.
Ti~E PUBLIC HEARIN~ WA5 ClOSED.
It wss noted that the Planr,ing ~irector or his authQrized representative hes dete assdl.
thet the proposed proJact falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions~
as defined in paragraph 2 of the City of M aheim Envirai~mental tmpact Report Gulde~lnes
snd is~ th~refore, categorlcatly exempt from the require~ment to p~epare a~ EIR.
to/9/78
ti,
MINUTES. AtiAIlE1M CI1'Y PIANNIt1G COMMISSION~ OCTQDER 9~ 1~7Q 78-036
EIR CATECA RICAL EXEHPTION-CI.A5S 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 189b (c~,nti~ued)
._._.__~_ ._
ACTIONs Commissloner King otfered Rasolut(on No. PC7A-238 and maved for its pass~ga and
a~opiTon~ that th~e Anaheim Ctty Planning Commtsston does hereby grant -'otitton for
Condi tlonol Use Permi t No. 1u9C~~ subJect to I ~terdepartn~ental Comml tt~:e recomrnenci~tion;.
On rotl call~ thn foregoing resalution was pessed by the follawing ~~ote:
AYES: COt~111 SS I ONERS : BUSNOaE ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A9SEPJT: COMMiSS10NERS; BARNES
I TEM N~ `,9
E I R_,rNEGA'~ VE„DE_Gl_ARAT I~1N
REMOV~AL UF 11 SPECIMEK~REES
._...~._
DAV I U~ t1ER8ST ~ JOI~NSON ~ K! NG ~ TO~AR
Request for approval oz II spPCimen trees (5 e:uc.alyptus
and 6 pepper trees) i~- ord~er to construct a~hopping
cQnter an property ddescrib~d as approxlmately 8.1 acres
at the southwest corner of Sa~ta Ana Canyon Road and
Fairmont Boulevard.
There was na one (ndiceting thcir presence (n apposftl~n to subJect request, and elthough
the staff ~eport tc~ the Planning Commission dated Octuber 9~ 1~78 wes nat read at th~
pub11G het,ring~ (t ts referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Bill Asawa~ Vice President af Ric Development Compeny~ stated thP r•equest concerns the
slte ..` ttie prop~sed shopping center located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Fairmont ~oulevard and along the no~th side of Rio G~ande Drive ~nd the remova)
of specime~ trees. He presented an exhibit shaving the subJect trees and indicated there
are several aak trees whicfi w(1) remein; that the request involves several pepper and
eucalyptus trees whtch are (solated in one spot. Ne presPnted photographs of the trees in
questton and stated they sit rlght in the mtddle of the development~ etther in th~ roadway
o~ in the parking area; that the pepper trees thot woul~l remain would probably be tn a
well 3 feet deep because of the grading; and that all of the trees to be removed would be
wlthln the development its±if. Ne pointed out they a~e pr~serving three of the biggest
trees.
TI~E PUBLIC NCARING WAS CLnSED.
Chairman Herbst asked what the landscaping plans were after removal of the trees~ and M~.
Asawe replled the Ctty requires that the trees be replaced wlth other trees and there v~ill
be 20 feet of landscaping along Santa Ana Canyon ~ioed and landscaping along Falnnont
Boulevard and Rio Grande Drive.
Chat rnian Herbst asked what type of landscaping Is planned for the interior of the praJect,
and cla~if(ed witl~ Mr. Asawa that he will be putting in more trees tha~ will be taken out.
Chairman Herbst (ndicated there had bean som~ discussion that this proJect could be butlt
without rtmoving the trees.
Mr. Asawa repiled that one of tt~e trees the oppasiti~n wants to save is leaning and if one
of the b~anches is cut off~ the whole tree will come down and will be hazard tn the
proJect~ and the other trees Kould be in wells abo~t 3 to ~~ feet deep because of the
g~ading and could c~use probyems~ and pointed out the trees in question in the
photographs.
Chairman Herbst indiceted he did -~t want to see the preservation of eucalyptus trees stop
the proJect because tt is in the scenic corridor zone and felt eucatyptus t~ees could be
replaced with a more beautifiul tree.
t0/9/78
x*
~~.
MINUTES~ ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER q~ l~i7a 7A-837
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REMOVAL OF 11 SP~CIMEN TREES (continuedl
AC710N: Commissioner ~avid offered a mot(on~ saconded by Commisslc~n~r King end MOTI0~1
~D (C~mmissianer Uernes bcing abse~t). that the Anehelm Clty FlAnn~nc~ Commis~lon has
revteweci the proposel to remove 11 spectmen trecs (n order th~t grading of the proposed
comm~~clel devcsl~pment sitr. can conxne~ce on an ir~egulr~rly-sh~ped porcel of lond
constst(ng of ~3pp roxt~wtely ).2 acres located ec the southwest corner oP Sant~ ~na Canyon
Road and Falrmont Boulevard and along the north stde of Rio Grande Urtve; and does hereby
approve the I~egattve Uecl~rAtlon from the requirement to pre~are an ~:nvtronments+l Impact
report an the basis that there would ba no signlficent Indtvidur~l ar cumulatlve adverse
environmcsntal ir+~ act ~uc tc~ the approval ~f thls Negative Declare[lon since the Anahe(m
General Plan designates the sub~nCt p~oprrty for comrr~ercial, ltr~ited land usea
commensurate with Che proposal; that no sensittve environrr~~tal ImpacCs ore involved in
the proposal; that the Initial 5tudy submitt~J I~y [I~e netltlone~ lndict~tes no significant
Individual or cu~~~ulalive advcr:.c cnvlronr-ental tm~,~cts; ~nd that the Ne~7ative Oeclaration
substantlating the forec~oiny findinys is on fllc fn the C(ty af Anahelm Planniny
Department.
Conmissinner Dav(d offered a motion~ secundeJ by Commissloner Tolar and MOTIOt~ CARRICU
(Commissio~er ~arnes being absenC.)~ that the Anah~etrn Cfty Plannfnc~ Comnisston does hareby
recommend to the CiCy Council tnat the request for approval f~r removal ~f spectrnen trees
be approved on ttie basis that strict appllcat(an of the Zoniny Code deprives the property
of prlvlleges snJoyed by the properties under (dentical zoning classificattons in the
vic(nlty~ and said trees wlll br_ replaced on a 1:1 ratio.
ITEM N0. 10 DEVELONER: BEAR BR11ND RIINCN CO.~ 250 Newport Center
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Drtvc-, Newport Beach~ cn g26~o. EI~fINEFR: lIUNSAKER
EPITATIVE M P F s ASSOGIATES~ 3001 Red Nill, Costa Mesa~ CA 92626.
TRACT NQ. 1015~ Pr•operty descrlbed as en frregularly-shaped parcel uf
land consisting of appraximately 5.2 acres located
west and southwesi of the southwest corne~ of Santa
Ana Canyo~ Road ana Avenlda Margarita, having approximate f~onteges of 231 feet on the suuth
side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 52~: t'eet on the north side of Avenida Marga~tta, being
located approximately 478 feet west of the centerline of Avenida Margarita and 50~+ feet
southwest of the ce~terline af Santa Ana Canyon Road. Pet(tioner requests AMENDMENT OF
CONDITIONS OF APpRQVAL.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition co subJect request, and although
the staff report to the Plannlnq Commissinn dated October 9~ 1978 was not read at the
pubiic hcaring~ it is referred to and made a pa~t of the minutes.
Bob Nill~ Bear Brand Ranch Company~ developer~ refe~red to a map of the tract and pc~inted
out the lot which has bePn reserved for the possibility of extending the street to the
tract; that they have talked wtth the p mperty owners nexc door and have asked thc Traffic
Enginaer to see if this reservation is practical since it wt~s done on a spur of the moment
basis; that sernarda Yorba is the ~~roperty owner involved and is opposed to recelving
access to his develapment through Chls dtvelopn~ent; and that he does not currently have
any development praposed for tl~e proparty and says th~at it wlll be many years before he
is inkerested in selling it. He prasented a map indicating that a 250-foot offset can be
p~ovide~d between thts pr~perty and Mr. Yorba's property which~ according to thetr traffic
enginec;r~ is more than adequate. He pointed out houses with frontages onto Avenida
Margarlta ar~d stet~d they thought it wes a shartie to keep a lot which will be an eyeso~e in
the mic~dle of the developme~t, plus the improvement costs are high and they do not wish to
have that property sitting there with weeds growi~g on it, cspeclally since there is more
than adequate room for an offset.
10/9l78
MINUTFS~ ANANFIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Of.TOBER 9~ 1~78 J8~H38
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TkNTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10155 ~conttnued)
..,. ~.~ _._._..__
Mr. 11t11 presented an exhlbft ahaving the diPferencea in elevatlan between what the lots
on 6arn~~do YorQa's property would be qruded at and the lot reserved~ which is almost 3~
feet~ and f~it it would be a~ undesirable road.
Herman Kimmel~ Nerman Ktmmel b Assoctatus~ 42N2 Campus D~tve~ Newpart Heech~ stated the
original request wss f~r app~oval of a"T" intersectto~ because it was the Traffic
Engincer's deslre to have a cross straer~ which he did not fcel was the s~~fcst thtng to
do; that Che new pla~s show three "T' intersectlons and stated the Advant++ge of a"T"
(ntersesctlon nver the traffic coming through the devel~pmant ts thet it wculd be running
traffic which has ~o husiness belnq l~ r.he residentlal area over to e collector street~
and polnted out tt~e street whlch does not gu to aRy specif(c locatfon or d~:siynatlon, but
has hames on the lower side to the nortl~ wtth ~ctual drivr.ways at eACh loc.~tton. He
slated thc plan~ ~s propased~ prnvi~lpR p~rfect vls(bllity all rhe wny ttiro~igh end that th~t
anly prablem they could come up with would be if someone did plant(ng, but the traffic
to the inside would not achieve ve ry much and woulcl roughiy double the number of vehlcles
us(ny that onc street rather thnn spreading it out, and he d'~f not think tt would be an
advantage to the C i ty or to the t roct. 11~: fel t the on IY rcnson th~ Trdf f 1 c Fngi neer or
anyone would have wanteJ a faur-way stop inCersectton would be to some day put In four-wey
stop signs to slow the traffic down~ but felt that situation would be true with this "T"
Intersectton.
TIIE PUBLI C HCAftI N~ WAS CLOSEU.
Jim Kawamura~ Traffic Engineerlny Assistant~ st~ted Paul Singer had expressed to him his
desire to see th~ subJect intersection directly aligned wlth Avenlde Fellpe for tht
purpose of reductng the conflicting left turns at that intersection, as c~ posed to having
an offset "T" intersect(an. Ile stated he~ personally~ would ac~ree with Mr. Kirtrnel that
for the purpose of stopping trafFic at thAt intersection~ the offset "T" intersection
would work as well aa a four-way intersection; however~ o~e ~f the considerattons is that
Avenid~ Margarlte~ aithough s~p~~osedly a local street, does cc~nnect Santa Ana Canyon Road
with Royal Oak Road and is attractive for those people to use As a short-cut to the
shapping center~ and it ts antlcipated by the Clty Traffic DlvisEon that trafffc on
Aven(da Margarlta will grow substantially as undevelope~ parcels are developnd~ and people
as far up as Nohl Ranch Road will beco~ne familiar with the fact chat the street can be
utilized ta gex down to the shoppiny center and ~mperial Nighway.
Chalrman fierbst indicated concern regarding the t~dJacent property and because of the
grad(ng co~cept felt it would be ve ry difFicult to get a street in there and Tt would wlnd
up being practically one lot deep~ ~From ~ne streNt to the other. He st~ted (t was the
Pianning Commission's suggestion to corrbine the entrances to both arees. Ne stated he has
driven that street and it is a hioh•speed street w~th quitr. an incline which leads to
another incline. He felt even though the adjacent property owner says he does not want
the access now~ it does not me~n the Planning Commission should not have lonc~-range
pianning since they knvw the ~ccesstbtlity is limtted, and felt somethinc~ should be ciane
about it naw for the safety of the pe~ple who are going to live there. He stated once the
street is there~ it is there to stay and both areas should be serviced.
Jim K~rv+arnurA stated georr-etric cansiderations were snmetf-~ng he had nct gone into and these
concerns were ve ry valid; that ~ue ta the grading proble~ in the area and the vertical
and horizonCal alt~nm~nts~ ~egardless of what type of sireet is ultimately Uuilt~ very
strong consideration will have to be given to the geometric destgn and sufficient siyht
distances far stopping and intersection visibility. He stated there have b~en prablems in
M aheim Hills b~~~re a~d we are stuck with them~ pointing o~~t the T~afftc Dtvisicm was
not experienced in hillside development~ but felt a tot has been learned and now we are
experienced and can make recommendations on the geometric design. He stated the idea of
l0/9/78
~
~_ ,
MINUTGS~ ANW~kIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 9~ 1978 78-839
E 1 k NlGATI VE DCCLARA~710~~ ANO TENTIITI VE MAP OF TRACT N0, 101 ~,r, (cont I nued)
having two streets wPthin one lot of eech ~ther on an in~ide horizant~l cu~ve is very
undesirable, particularly if the~e are nrades involvnd.
C•hairman Herbst stated he has no problem with thn "T" intersection presented because hr.
1'elt tt would bc sef~r than the wey !t was pro~osed by Mr. Singer~ end Mr. Kaw~mura
repti~ed that, (t (s sefer as proposed.
(:helrman Herbst sttil felt sonethlnc~ should be considered for the adJacent property so
L•hat when that property comes In for developrt~~t, maybe ten years davn th~ road~ It can b~
handlsd.
~~ammtsslaner Talar stt~ted Che Plenning Conmiss(on ha~i spent a lat of time discussing tying
t.~~is property with th~ Yorba p~~pcrty ~nd it was inte~esting Mr. Yorba says he i~ nat
c,oing to do anytt~ing wich Che p~operty; that it ts a lerge parcel of land and only hes one
:~ccess polnt antn Avcnida Margarita.
Chairman 4lerbst stated he had n~t changed hts mtnd regt+rding long-ran~e plr+nntng of thls
parcel.
Commissiuner Johnson statr~d he has been oi~ the Commtssion for a I~ng time and there I~nve
been cilfficultles with ciumrtng one p~o)ect into another one and f~lt Chairman Herdst and
Comrnisstoner Tolar were rer.~Rmending }ust the ~ppostte of whet they have always stood for
with dun~ptng traffic from onP proJect into another proJect, anJ pointed out the property
awners ~~lways ob,ject to that fype situatEon. Fla also pointed vut there is ~50 feet
between the two streets, which (s ccrtainly more than one lot.
Commfssioner Tolar potnted out this ts a development of only 2Q lots and th~ Commisslon is
talkinq about putCtn~ another access wtth ~+ much larger potential 200 feet o~ an axtreme
grade. which will c~eate three "T" intersections.
Commissioner Johnson felt that wuuld be better than dumping the traffic (ntu this 20-lot
development.
Commissioner Tolar stated the Pl~nning Commtssion had tried to get the developers to dump
these 20 lots lnt~ the other development and have the "T" intersection htgher~ with the
one "1'" on the property ltne between this development and the Yorba's develnpment, and
they hav~ not cione that. f~e felt this proposa~ would be alm~sC landiocking the Yorba
prope~ty with the exceptfon uf one small~ ;y0-foot easement to Avenida Margarita.
Chairman We~bst fclt the Yarba property sh~utd be serviced and this N~uld be A very
undesirable intersec:tion. Commissioner Johnscan felt tt~e traff3c from th~ development
belongs out to a callector street~ not through another lot.
Commiss(oner Bushore as~ed~fron~ ;he developcr's point of view, wh~t was wronq with putting
the street an the property Oine?
Mr. Hill stated it would not be physically poss~ble sirtce, u~nfortunately~ there is a huge
canyon and it would require thousa~ds of yards of fill, w{iich they do not have on-slte~
and, also~ Mr. Yorba does noC want It there and seys he does not want to de~velop his
property. steting when he ts ready to develop hts property~ he has adequate room to put
the ~o~d in.
Chatrman Nerbst stated it is Mr. Yorba's opinion that he has sufficient room for a road.
but that is not the aplnion of the Traffic Oepartment.
10/9/78
~
~.. .
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTO~ER 9~ 191~ 78-840
EIR NE~ATIVE DECLARATION AND TEN7ATIVE MAP OF TRACT NU. 10155 (continued)
Mr. Hill indiceted they hed discusscd this with Mr. ~in~er encl their trnffic enqlneer h~d
studted It and tndicates thcre is room for a road since ft ts ve~~ flat et that locetion~
and they felt they had Mr. Singer's concurr~snce on thts proposel and wore surprised tho~e
seems to be a~ roblem, He etated they would like r,he opportunity to show the Plenning
Gummisslon cross-sectlon~ since they firmly believe tt Is more desireble sinca the street
comes clown an d steep yrade with the house ~~ ehe olher side.
He pointed out the f1At area And the steep slope banks and Indlcated their property is
going down~ and suggested continuing the matter so that he could prnsent cross•sections
fo~ the Planni~c~ Commission'r, review in order for them to understand what he (s praposing.
Mr. 1111) ind{cated he believe~.d the last time the Traffic DepartmenC had wanted e"T"
intersne:tl~n and they had propos«d sn~thing different which Lhe Hill r~nd Canyon Municipal
Advisory Committe~ (1IACMAC) had Pcit strongly to be the better Flan and, therefore~ when
the Planntng Commisslon adopt~~d the othcr plr~n w~th one lot resr.rved for e s~res~[~ thay
had not had a chance to look i~t it.
Chatrman t~e~bst Indicated he would agree to a continuance ancli~e would like to have Mr.
Singer's input.
Jim Kawamura sta~ed he [hought the aqreement was that the "T" intersectinn would not
necessarlly be a detriment as f'a~ as thi~ pro,ject goes and if thts was the only
development that was going to occur and there was an offset "T" intersection. that It
would not pose a particular problem; howeve~, if thcre is further development and the
necessity for another street in a ioc~tlon that is undesirable, that woutd be a questlon.
Chalrman Ilerbst statEd that was the Planniny Commission's only questioni that lf the
ad,jofning property woul~f have to be se~viced from this street~ he felt it would be an
undesirable~ unsafe lntersecr.lon and thls has been discussed by the Planning ~ommission
and dl~ectfu~ has been ~~iven to this applicant in the past.
Corcm(ssioner• Talar stated this would be aiving Mr. Yor~a a hardst~i~ ciown the road and he
woutci be able to Gome tn anc3 s~y f~c has only one acccss point.
Commissioner Johns~n stated it had been indicated to ~iim that thc d~i~antesaes it is oin
approximately 125 feet between thnsc two Intersections~ but the app Y 9 9
to be 250 feet~ and 2.;~ feet is not side-by-side.
Chairman Nerbst felt by the ttme the ~rading is done to get the h~use on the lot~ the
street will be much c~oser than :!~0 feet.
Mr. Hill stated Mr. Yorba has tv+o ways of obtaining access: one from Su~crest Road and
one off Avenida Margarita.
Chairm~n Herbst state~+ he would like to have a full report from Paul Singe~, tndiGatirsg
his concern for tha long-~ange plans and Che other access point because whr~tever is done
here will set the pace for future develapment~ anJ asked the applicant f~aw much t3me he
would need, and Mr. N(11 stat~d two weeks would be sufficient.
ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered a rnotian~ seconded oy Commissloner David and MOTION
~U (Commissionef Barnes being absent), tnat constd~.ration of r~~e aforementloned item
be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Conanission of October 23,
1978~ as requested by the petitioner.
to/9/7Q
~ ~ .
t~~ ~,,~,,, ~}
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIUN~ OCTO~ER 9, 1978 78-84)
ITLM NQ. 11
R~O~~T.~ANI7 RECOMMENDATIGIiS
A. ABAN~ONMENT 7H-3ti - Rr,quest to r~hando~ the CI ty's wxi sttna rn~~1 e~c1 publ ic
.._..._
ut ty r ghts ovc~ a portion of a fro~tage road locetad on the east s~de of
Tustln Avenue, north of the f,iversicle Freew~y.
Jay 1'rshiro. Assnciate Planner~ indlcated stt~ff woulc lik~ to request that this itcm be
cantinued for two weeks since the proJect had not been dtscus~ed At tMe I+~terdepertmenta)
Cnmmittee meeting.
ACTION; Commtssioncr King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissi~ne~ Davld and MOTION
~0 (Cammissioner Ba rnes being absent)~ that constderation of the eforementloned (tem
be contfnued to the regularly scheduled meettng c,f the Plann(ng Conmtsslon of Qctohber 23,
191~.
COMMISSIONER OAV17 l,[:FT TNE COUNCIL CNAMBER
B. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 1OQ32 - Resquest for extens(on of time.
The statf rep~rt to the Planniny Comnission dated Oct4ber !i~ 1~73 wds presented~ noting
the appllcant~ Taylor Grar-t of Grant-uarmington Bullders~ is requestinc~ a one-year
extcnsion af kirne for Tentatlvc Tr~ct Na. 10032 ~to establish a 39-1ot~ 36-unit~ RS-
y000(SC) subdivislon). SubJcct tract consists ot approximately 12.5 acres located
approximately 300 feet sauth ~f the intersection of Nohl Ra~ch Road and Hi;lcrest prive~
approxlmately 500 feet southwesterly of M aheim Hills Road, and was epproved by the
Planning Cortn~ission on DecPmber ~~ 1977.
ACTION; Commissioner King offered e motion~ seconded by Commissior-er Tolar and MOTIQt~
~D (Commissioners 8,irnes and David being absent)~ that thc Anaheim Clty Planninq
Commlssion does hereby qrant a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 10032.
to expire June 5. 19~'Q.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1742 - Requrst for extension of time,
The staff report to the Pla~ning Cort~mission dated Octobe~ 9. 1978 was presznted~ ~oting
subJect property Is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lai~~ cortsisting of approximately U.5
acre located at the southeast corner of Orange Avanue and Brookhurst Street, having
approxtmate frontages of 140 feet on the south side of Orange Avcnue and 148 feet on the
east 51de of Eirookhurst Street; that the applir.ant (James T. Abe) requests a one-year
extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 1742 in order to complste the
requirements set furth in tha resolution; and th~t Conditional Use Permit No. 1742 (to
permtt e drive-through restau~ant w(th waiver of mintmum number of parking spaces) wes
approved by the Pianning Conxnission on Uctober 10~ 1977~ subJect to certain condi~:ions
which must be compli~d with within a period of one year from th~° datP of epproval~ or such
further tlme as the Planning Commission may grant.
ACTION; Commissioner King offered a rr~tion~ seconded by C~omnissioner Tolar and MOTION
~7~Tc~ (Commissio~ers t3arnes and Dmvid bei~g absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commtssion does hereby grant ~ one-year extenston of ttme far ~onditional Use Permit No.
1;42~ to expl re October 10~ 197y,
to/9/78
~,
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTpBER g~ 1978 78-842
COMNISSIONER DAYID aCTURNEI~ TQ THE COUNCII f.HAMHE:a,
0. CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N4. 13y8 - aequeat for approv~l of revised pla~s.
The steff report to thc Planniny Commission dated October 9~ ly7t; was presented ~ noting
subJect propertv Is e r~ctAngularly•shsped percel of land consistinq of eppr~xlm~tely 0.3
acre loceted at the southwest corner of Savoy Avenus ~+nd Stete Colleqe Bouleve~rd~ heving
approximake tranteges of 10~ feet on the south sl de of Sevc~y Avenue a~d 14~ fee~ a~ the
west side of State Call~gp doulevard~ and th+~t the ~ppltc~nt (John Stein~ Jt'.) ~equeste
approval of revised p1Ans to establish a~ offic.e co~~+lex !n en extsting reside~tial
structure.
Jay Tas!-iro~ Assoc{~te Plonncr~ explolned thare ts a ~o~~ilt~~~+~t u~e permit which
p~rmltte~f a cpn~r~erti~l ~ff i~P rnm~l~x in thr. two sinale-fami ly structures and ~ nvolved tr+o
owners ~ but the pro~erty has chengcd hands and tFie property c~wner t~ the north aauld Ilke
to convert his restdence to office u~e at thls time. He stated thc revised ;~lw~ indic~tes
only the northerly ~ortion is gotng to ~e developed as ccxm-ercial office ~t thi s time, and
both praperttes ht+ve res~lutions of intcnt t~ CQ.
ACTION: Comrnlssioner Tolar offerod a moti~,n~ secondcd by Commissloner Johnson and MOTION
RR EU (Commis~sfoner Il~rnes bein~ absent)~ that the 11nehGim City Plann{ng Commtsston hrs
revir.wed tlie revised plans (Reviston t~o. 2) of Exl~(blts 1 anJ ?. ancl finds them
substanttally in accordance wlth th~ originally approved plans and recomr+~nds ~ o the Clty
Council t0~at the revlsed plons be approved,
E. CONUITIONAI. USE PER~11T N0. 13~+2 - Request for extenston of time.
The st~ff report to the Plan~ ing Commis5ia~ datec! Octobe~~ ~~ ~97~ was presented~ not(ng
sub,)ect property is a rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f aFrroximetely 0,41
ac~e haviny a frontage of approximatr.ly 112 feet on the Routh side ~f South 5 t ~eet~ and
being located approxim~teiy 27~ fee[ ~rest Qf Lhe centerline of State College B oulevard;
that the applicant ~Paul 43andy) reyuests appraval of an extcnsion of time for Conditlon~l
Use Permit Mo. 13~+2 (tu establish a chlld nursery witl~ waiver of minimum front yerd depth
and minirnum number of parking sp~~ces) in order to compiete tt~e conditfons ot approval.
It was pointed out this conditional us~ permit has becn yranted five extensian s of tfmc
and tt~at the peti tioner I~as paid the tree planting fee~ but nan~ of the ott~e~ conditl~ns
have been met.
Jack White~ Dspu;y City Attorney~ explai~ed that the petitloner could re-apply for a
condittona) ~se permit If thls extersslon is denied.
ACTION; Commissione~ Johnson ~fered A rnotion~ secanded by Cormmissir~er Tola ~ and MOTION
t ED (Commisstoner Barnes being absent)~ ~~at the reqUest for extension of ttme be
denled on Condit=onal Use Permit No. 13~+z.
to/9/18
~, - ~~
~ ~
A
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ QCT08ER 9~ 1978 78•843
F. CQNDITIONAL USE PERMITS F OR FAMILY GRQUP HOMES
_._. - ~
The st~ff report to th~ Planning Gommisslon detad Octcbar 9, 197t3 was preaented~ noting
the City Attorney's OfPice recentty inforn~d the Planntng Department thst on September 9~
19ya~ Governor B~vwn signed into i ~w+ Seneta BIII 20'~; which emends Sections 5115 and 511G
oP the Wnlfe~e a~d Institutions Co do and adds new Sectlon 156(~.3 to the Nealth and Safety
Code to exp~essly forbld any city fron+ requlring s"conditla~al use pormit, zoniny
varidnce~ or other zoning clearan ca" fo~ eny c~roup home whlch aerves stx a~ fewer persons.
This bill was edopted as ~n urgen ey measura and tekes effect Tmne diately; consequent ly~ we
can no longer requlre condttlonal use perm(ts for gr~up homes serving six or fewer
penons.
This 1~ •n informetional Item onl y and no actlon was t~ken.
UP-COMING MEETINGS INVOLVING TIIE PLANNING CONMISSIOW
_.._._~
A. City Council Llaison Commttt~ e Involving Ch~trman and Chalrman Pro Tempa~e - October
12, 1978 at 7:3A a.m.
B. Meeting with Redevelopn~ent Cor*rniss~on - October 23~ 197~ at 9~3U a.m.
C. Meetln~ concerning the yolf course at the AnahPim Convention C~nter - October 24~ 1978
at 7:30 p.m.
D. Work session on industrial ar~a - November 1;, 1'17K at 7:0f1 p.m.
E. Tentetive meeti~g wi th the P1 anning Conxniss ion ~ Housinq Comnission~ Ci ty Counc(1 ~
Red~velopment Age~cy - Novembcr 2'S~ 1~76 at 7:3Q p.m.
ADJOURNMENT There being no fur t her business, Canm(ssioner Oavid offered a motian~
scconded by Commiss loner King end MOTION CARRIEO (Camrnissiuner Barnes being
absent), that the nseeting be adjournPd.
The meeting was adj ourned at 4:45 p.m.
Respectfully submltted~
~~ ~.° ~~
Edith L. Narris. Secretary
Anaheim City Plenning Conmtssion
ELH:hm
i.