Minutes-PC 1979/05/21~ w
;~ ; ;;
ti,
City Nali
Meheim, California
May z~, ~g79
fiEGULAR MEETING OF TtiE AN NIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR - 7hP rRguler rr~cting of the Anaheim City Plonninc~ ~~~ns~he Councl~1~d to
NEETING order uy Chalrrt-an Herbst at 1:30 p.m.~ Msy 21~ 1979~
Chember~ a quorum betng present.
PRESENT - Chal rmi+n: Nerbst
Cortmtssioners: Barnes~ Bushore~ Jol~nson~ Y.ir~q, Tolar
GommissioneP David arriv~ed r~t 1:35 p.m.
AH5ENT - Comr~t~sloners: None
ALSU PRES~NT - Jack Whit~
Jay Ti tus
James Kawamura
Anniko Sancalahti
J ay Tas h i ro
Rt~bert H~nninger
Edith Ha~ris
Ueputy Ci ty !-ttorney
Offlcc Enylneer
'irsffic Enc~ineering Assistnnt
Assistant DireGtor for Zoniny
Assoclate Planner
Assistant Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
PLEDGE OF - The Pledge of Alleqiance ta tt~e Flag was lad by Ccxnmissioner King.
ALLEGI AI~CE
APPROVAL OF - Comrnlssiuner Kln~~ offcred a mc~tian~ seconded by Cnmmissloner Tolar
T{~E: MINUTC5 and MOTION CARR{ED (Corrxnissioner Davtd being absent~ ~~hat the m(nutes
of the meetii~y of Nay 7~ 1979 be approved~ 5 ~~b)ect to a correction
on page »5~ to r.c~rrect the expiratlon date
N
i for an ex[enslun
1325 to June 6 of
198U
o,
t
time approved for Co~ditlonal Use Perm .
rather than J~ne G~ 1~79•
ITEM N0. 2 CONTINUEU PUE3LIC 11EARlNG. DEVELOPER: BURNETT
~(~~~VE DECLARATION OEVtLOPM~NT CU.~ 18492 Hilltrest At~snue~ Villa
TENTA IVE MAP OF TRACT Park~ CA 92E~67. EMGINEER: NORRIS ENCINEERIN~~
N0. 959~~ ~REVISIQN N0. 1) 17291 Irvine B~ulevard, Suite 312. Tustin, CA
~26$tl, SubJect property, described as an
irregularly-shnped parcel of land consistinc~ of
approximately 11.9 acres naving a frc-ntage ~f app roximately 590 fect on the east side of
Henning uay~ havtng a rnaximum depth af approximately 1170 feet. and being located approxi-
m~tely 350 feet south of the centerline of Arboretum R~oad~ is pr~posed as a 10-LOT, RS-HS-
22.000(SC) ~RESiDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY HILLSIDE-SCENIG CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE SUBDIVISION.
Sub,ject trect v+as continued from ttie meettngs of March 2fi a~d Apri l 23~ ~979 et the
request of the petitioner.
it was noted the petltioner had requested a four-week continua~ce to June i$, 1979•
AC710N: Commissia~er King c~ffered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner E~a~nes an~ MOTION
C~D (Commissloner David being absent), that consideration of T~ntative Ilap of Tract
No. 9594~ Revislon No. 1~ be continued to the regulsrly-scheduled ~.~eetfny of the Planning
Can~nlssion on June 18. 1q79. at the request of the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER DAVID ARRIV~D AT 1:3y P.M.
19-358 5121/79
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ MAY 21, 1~y9 79•359
ITEM N0. 1 CUNTINUEp PU~LIC HEARIN~. 0~1NER5: JAMCS R. ANO
E NEGA YE UECIARATION JACKLYN MARTIN~ 12 See Cov~ Drive~ Palos Verdes~
OND NAL U E RM1~10. 1974 CA 902%~+. AGkNTt WILLINi IILLAS~ Toolco
Industrles. 1240 North Grr~v~ Street, Anahrim, f.A
92807. Petitioner requests permis~ ion to ESTABLISH
AN AUTOMOBII.E ANU TRUCY. SALCS ANU LfA51~~G FACILITY IN THE ML ZONE on ~ropesrty dcserlbr.d as
vn Irregulerly-sli~red par~el of lend consistlnq ~f approximately ~.7 ++crc havinq a
frontage of approxfmately SA fr,et at the casterly cul-de•sac t~erminus ~f Grove Street,
having a mextmum Jepth of approximately 26~ fect~ bcing (ocated epnroxtmetely 250 feet
south of tl~e centerl(ne uf M{raloma Avenue, and further ~~sc~it,ed as 128U North G~~-ve
Strect. P~op~rty pr~s~ntly classifled ML (INDUSTRIIIL~ LIt11TEU) ZOME.
Sub,ject petltlon wns cuntinucd from thc n~etin~ of May 7~ 1`~7`~ to allc~w the pctiti~ncr to
remove vehicles cu~rently storec! on the r roperty.
7h~r~ was no onc InJlcatin<~ their ~resence in onC-~sition to subJect requ~st~ ~nd although
the staff re-~~rt to the Plannin~ Cornmissi~n ~ated f/aY 7.1, 1'l7`1 W~s nat r~ad nt the public
heArlnyr I[ is referrcd to and m~idc a~art of the riln~tcs.
Robcrt Ilenninycr, Assistnnt F'lanner~ pointeJ out onr_ I~~tt~r had bPen rece(ved fram the
adJacent property owner, indtcatin~ Toolco h~s been a~~oc~d nei~~hbor nnd they have no
ob)ections to the rec~uesl fc~r a one-ye~ir rrtension.
Nick f;ares, Vfce Pr~sident and Uirector of TO~1~CA Industri~s~ st~ited within 24 hours after
the previuus he~rinq, they h~d an ayrePr~ent siqn~d fnr st<~r~i~~r af thctr vehiclcs, and
within )2 hours the vehicles werc all rcr!~ved fr~xn thc s~,n.i~>~c pro~erty. Nc~ expl~tned
they were not aware tli~y wcrr viol.iting tt~c 7oning Cad~ unci i the notlcc wAS rr.ccivcd and
tliat [hey cio wish ta cc~~per~~t~ wlth the Gity in~ to be qord nei~hhors. Ne stated through
7o~lco sales to dat~ and (ncludiny the year exten5lon requeSted~ the City of Anaheim wlll
have recelve~J in excess of S1~)0~~~0 from sales cax revenue and are recjuesttng a one-year
extenslon of this condtt(~nal u,e perr~it. Hc stata~~ they woula ayrec to conduct thei~
business within the City of Anat,eim quidelines.
THt PU(iLIC ~1EARIP~G WAS CLOSEU.
Conrnissioner aushur•_ referred to the previaus rcyuest that thc traffic signal assessment
fee be delPtea, anci indicated -ie personally would not sup~ort eliminatinq that fee because
hc viewed [his nperatiun es a commercial use for selling and leasing vehicles~ but that lie
di~i ~ot have any objectlons to granting this one-year extension.
Jack White~ Deputy City Atturney~ poin[ed out the requireme:nt for the traffic signal
asses~ment fee is a standard condition placed on all cam~ercl~l busi~esses and that the
Plan~~in,y Conmission could recommend to [ti~e Clty Cauncll that it be walved !f they felt
Chts us~ could be considered industrtal.
Mr. Karas indicated they had requested that tl~is fee be woived, but Chat they would be
willing to comply if the Planniny Lonmission felt it Is necessa ry. He Indicated they
wouid see that the property is kept clean and the bus(ness is conducted tn the mann~r as
stipulated~ anu that they would ccx-iply with ali Gity of Anaheim re~uirements.
ACTIOH : Commfsaioner Bushore offered a rnotion~ secondcd by Comrnissioner 7olar and MQTIAN
CARRIEp~ that the Aneheim Ctty Planni~g Commissian hrs reviewed the proposel to retain an
automc~bile and truck saies a~d leastnq facility Irz the ML (Industrial~ limited) Zone on an
irregularly-shapeJ parcel of land conststiny oF approximetely U.7 ~cre having a frontage
of approximately 50 feet at the easterly cul-de-sac terminus of Grove Straet, having s
5/21/79
w
,a+` ~
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 21~ ~979 79•360
EIR NEGATIYE ~ECLARATION ANO CONOtTIOiIAL USE PERMiT NO. 1~74 (continued)
maximum d~pth af app~oximately 265 fQet~ being loceted approximatety 2~d feet south of the
centerllne of Miraloma Avenue; end does hereby approv~ the Negative Oeclaratlon from the
requlremant to prepare sn envtronmentel impect report on th~e bssls thet there would be no
signific.ant indivtciual or cumulativa adverse environmentel inpact e~ue to the appraval of
this flegative Ueclaration stnce the Rnahr.im General i'lan destgnates the subJeGt proCerty
for ganerel (nduscrial land uses comnensuratc with ttie proposel; thet no sensitiva
enviranments) tmpacts a~re i~v~lved In thc proposal; that the Inlt(al Study submitted by
the pc^titioner indicates no stgn(ftcant individuai or cumula'tve advcrse envfronmental
(mpacts; and thae the Neqattve ~eclarat(on substentiat(ng the foreqotnq findtngs (s ~n
file (n the G(ty of Aneheim Plannlny Uepertment.
Ccxmiissioner dushare affered R~salution No. PC79-92 and moved for (ts passage and
adoptlon~ thdt the Anaheim Clty ~'lannfng Cortmission does hereby grant Petlt(on for
Conditiona) Use Permit No. 1~)71+ for a period of one year~ ta expire May 20, 19b0~ subJect
ta Lhe followin_y stipulations by the petitlonr,r at tlie previous publit liearing: there
shall be no vehicles Jlspl~yc,d in thc pa~king !ot or nutside tl~e build(ng; there sha{I be
nU retail sal~s a~clvitles of any kind conduct~d outs(de the buildlnq; thxre shell be no
vchic{es of eny fype pcrmanentlY stored nn the parking lat; th~~~ shall he n~
lnstellattan~ as,embly or oth,er mechanically-related actlvities conductsd outside the
building; that the sale or lease of veF~Icle~ shal) be 1lmited to only specialty-type
autort~obi les such os dlesel-pQ,rered automobi les and exotlc sports cars; and there shal 1 be
no varlattons in the current si~ninr~ on tl~e building except as may be requi~ed by the
Flaniilny Gommission or staff~ and subJcct to (nterdepertmental ConmiCtee recommendations.
Prior to voting on the aforementi~neC resotution~ Mr. Karas as~:ed if he would be allowed
to wash one car or one truck r~utside at an•~ one time, pointina out no rr~echantcal work
would be ~one outstde~ and Commissiuner Eiushore indicated that would be perm(ssible.
On roii call~ the fo~eq~~iny res~lution was pessed by thp followinq votp
AYES: COMNIS;IONtRS: F3ARIJES~ BUSHORE~ DAVIU~ HERDST~ J011NSON, KiN6~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONE:RS: NONE
AfiSkN7: COMNISSIONERS: NONE
Mr. Karas asked how thc fee for the traffic s(~nal assessme~t would be peid, and Mr.
Henninger replled ;t Is a single nayment and they would be bil~ed.
Ghairman Hernst pointed out the pet~[l~ner may appcal any portion of the decision of the
Plannin~ Commission to the Clty Council withtn 2?. days,
5121/79
I~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~
~ ~
MAY 21 ~ 19 79 79- 361
ITLfi N0~ PUHLIC HEARING. OWNERS; ALFRED D. AND JOSEPNINE
~ N~G VE UECLARATION PAINO~ 711 South Beach Boul~vard~ Anahelm~ CA 928~4.
ECLASS C ON N. -79-43 AGENT: C. D. GARDNER~ G. D. Gerdner b Assoclatns~
CONUITIONAL USE PERMI N0. 1972 Z404-B Glassell Street~ Suite D~ Oranc~e~ CA 92665.
ARIANCE N.~~0'~2 Property ckscribed as Portlan A- a r~ctangularly-
~
shaped parcel af lanci cc~nststing of approximately
0.3 acr~ hevinc~ a frontaye of apr~ox(m~tely 140
feet on the east side of 1lsyward Stree[, having a mextmum de~th of a~~+roximetely 100 feet~
and beiny locatrd approxtmately 119!1 fcet south of the centtrlin~ of OrAnge Avenue; and
Portton B- e rectanyularly-shaped parcel of lan~~ consisting of approximately 1.0 acre
hsving a front~qe of app~oximetcly 140 feet on th~ w~st side of Beach Bouleva~d~ hgving ~
maxtmum depth ~f approximatelv 302 feet~ c~ein~ located ap~raximately 1190 feet south of
the centeri Ine of Oran9e Avenue~ end further descrihed a5 ~~~] SOULII BCACh E3QUICVA~c~.
Property prescntly classifted CL (COMMtRCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: (PORTION A) RS-72~0 (RESIUENTIAL~ SINGLE-FNMILY) ZONE..
REQUEST~I) CONUITIpNAI USE; (PORTIAN B) TO PERMl7 A BATTING CAGE: ANU RECREATIONAL COMPLEX
WITN 11AIVt:R OF NAXIMUN STRUCTURAL NEIGHT.
R~~IUESTCD VARIANCL: (PORTION A) WAIVER UF (A) MAXIMUN WALL HEIGH7 AND (B) MINIMUM LOT
AREA Td ESTAULI511 TWO RE5IGENTIAL LOTS.
5ubje~t pet(t(ons were continued from thc meeting of May 7, 1~)7'? ~t thc request of thc
petit(oner.
There were faur persons indicatiny their presenc~ in opposition to subJect request~ and
althouyt~ the staff reporc to the Planninq Corm~isslori deted May 21~ 1~179 was not read at
the pubitc hearing, it is referre~ to and rwde a p.~rt of the ml~utes.
Alfred Paino~ pettti~ner~ statcd his present business is located at J11 South 9each
Boulevard and it is his desirc~ to relocatc Lhe b3ttinc~ cages to sub,ject locati~n; that the
maximur~ height of thc centar pole will be 30 fPet rrther than r~U feet as indicated in the
staff report and the necti~g will suspend from the center po{e to 1ti-faat high anchor
poles nt the bac~, of the batting cages, and thP battinq cages will br_ 9 feet high. He
explalnec! the Froposed siqn wtll be In ~ccordance with ~he signiny requirem~nts. He
stated light(nc~ for the night ~peration will be engineered by a liqhting compeny with four
poles~ 1; to 20 feet hi~~h, which will be directed dawn and eway from any restdences and
will be located in the four corners of the extertar of the batting cages; and that the
three exi~ting light standards will also be used.
Gary Gardner~ architec[, indiw ted the request Is for a~ $-foot hiRh wali to provide
separatlon for privacy and security between the restJences and the ~ecreational area;
hawever, they would be williny to provide a 6-foot high wall if ~ec(red. He explalned the
two residences proposed for the rear portion of the prop~rty wlll be for the famllies of
the awners only and wlil not be sold~ and ttiat they will be archicect~rally rompatible
w;th the other resid~nces in the area. He stated the access will be off Beach Boulevard;
that the facility !s designed to the minimum ~aw and tltie batting cages Nill be m~derntzed
sn~i ail safety features provided. He stated the prlvacy of th~ netghbo~s has been
consfdered an~ *_tip~ ck not feel there will be any problems with noise and that the offices
and restroams proposed will be for the battinn facility only.
Geo~ge Boreli, j035 Rome Avenue, Ansheim~ directly bahind suhJect property~ stated he has
lived at this iocation for about 13 years ~+nd has tolerated khe unbearable noise from the
existing batting cege which is almost one-hatf milo away; that in the summer~ from morning
5/21/79
! " ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ MAY 21~ 1979 19-362
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA710N~ RI:CLASSIFICATION N0, 78-79-43~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIt N0. 1972
AND VARI ANCE N0. 3Q92 cont i nued)
untll late at night, hc can hear the nolse of the bal Is hitting the bats end felt the
~et(tloner would be better ~~ff to Ieave the betting fsclllty where it is presently
l~ceted. lie felt if ft ts relocated to thelr neiqhborhoc~d~ they wI ll be exposed to m~~e
nolse and nuisence; an~ that he Jld ~~ot ser. how the guests In the mc~te~l located adJacent
to the p~npert~~r can tol~rat~e the nc~ise. ~~o wes also concerned sbout th~ p~oros~d
skateboard perk and amusement center and expla(ned when the miniature qolf caurse wes
located In thc erea. thcre was considerab lu no(sc from khe loudspcmkers blaring el) hours
of the night; and that racl;-and-rol l mus i c was playi nq loudly and the 1 tnhts were baaminq
Inta their windaws.
Jemes R055. 73~ Haywsrd Street~ Meha(m. StatGd hts property is loceted ~ext to subJect
prope~ty and indicated cancern regardtng the nolse fram the batting eages and also from
the prcposed ~kateboard facillty. Ne stated when th~ golf course was located there~ he
had had gc~lfbalis cam(ng into his back yard, f~'cting hls house constantly~ and stated he
thouyht it was timc: tu develop tt~c proptrty so that they coulcf at lcast Iivc in thetr back
yards .
Gary G~~~dner stated lt is Impossible to leava thr. battin~ c~~~es whrrt- they ore becaus~
tl~~y vri 11 bcca»e unsafe In t~ic future on -~+ (t would be less e~enslve tu move them to the
new locatlo~ than to remodel them~ ~~nd tt~e new taci i i tles wll 1 bc more modern and a much
bette~ and safer facillty. He explaine~ thc sG.ateboard facllity ~ropnsed was somethin~
tliey hed considered for tl~e front area because skatebnards are n~t leyal in sornG areas and
thts focllity would keep ~hem off the sidewalks. but If Ic Is nat desirable~ that area
tould be landscaped.
Mr. Paino explalned the present locatio~ Is epproxinwtely 200 fect away frorn the property
Che c~pposttion mr.nttoned~ and it has been there since 1)61 end he has never received any
complaints before about thcr noise from the batcinq ~ages and no cnmp laints were rer.eived
wtien the golf course was lncated chere. Ile stated th~re Is n4 way tc~ Judye how nolsy a
comrnercial operation wiil be and should be considered when property is purchased adJacent
to a commercial zone. He explained they are op~rat iny out of portab le bui Idings at the
present location which were instAlled when the property was st111 in the County; that lt
wou I d be more expens I ve to remode 1 them than [o re 1 oce te and use [he ex i s~ 1 ng S 12y ~OC~
bui lding, and if he does move to the new locatfon~ the present locat i~n wt I I probably be
leased to a restaurant chain and both propert(~:s wi 11 be lmproved. He stated he has ncvcr
heard a~yone compie(n befu~e about che nois~ of basebells hitting basebal l bats.
TI~E PuBLIG HEARING wA5 CLU5ED.
Ch~(rman Horbst askr.d the proposed hours of operation~ and Mr, Paino stated the hours
wouid be 10;00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. d~~ring the busy season.
Chairman Herbst indicated hi, concern re~ardfng the no(se for the r~51d•:nts because the
batting cages ar-. to be lacated close to tlieir property, polnting out that normaliy a 20-
foot landscaped buffer area is required when this type of operation is located edJacent to
residentiel prope~ty. He was aisa cunc~rned about th~ lightlncl since a light standard ia
proposed ~n the corncr and felt it would Illuminate the whole area.
Mr. Paino replted the lightinc~ Nould be dir~cted dawnwa~d and the poles would be a r-~ximum
height of 20 f~et~ and explained the electrical co~tractor has indicated the new liqhtinq
system wi 1 I b~ rrare subdued but wi I 1 give off mare 1 ight.
Commissioner King asked the petitfoner iF he had constdered an $-foot high wall on the
south property line~ and Mr. Paino exr+lained that the matcl had construtted a b-foot high
wal l on tfie south prope~ty 1 ine l~sx year. Ne fel t the owne~ of that property would have
5/2t/79
a "~' ~
MINUTES, ANNIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MI1Y 21~ 1')79 19'363
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ ~iECLASSIFICATI0f1 t~0. ~!a•79-43~ CONDITiONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1972
AND VARtANCt N0. 3092 ~continued) ~ -
more comrlalnts becausc the battlny ca9es ere f~ctng chet~ ~rope~ty. Ne skated h~
realtzed thot n~lse travels further at nlght~ but that lie Is planning to pl~nt cypress
trees on thd weAt s(~i~ which c~row to a helght of 20 tc~ 25 fcPt ++nd would oct rs ~ buffer ~
and that he would be wi 11Iny to (~lant cypress tr~es on the s~uth side.
Chelrm~n liarbst stated trees Ao not b~ffc~r nolsc~ but woulcl help the lightinc~ situ~tlon.
Mr. Gardnr.r s tated thcy ~rc f Icxib le and are wi 11 inc~ to work wl th th.- .,r~bler~s t~ resolve
tlicm and woul~ he w111iny ta pr~vidc any ~ther n~isc b~rricr.
Cha(rman Ilerb~t sCated thc ~r-foot h~ h wAll wou1~1 hel~~ con~i~~rahly. hut that a F~-fcx~t
hiyh wall w~ulrl not bc adeyuatc~ ar i Mr. Gardner statc~ ~heY w~~~d h~ wllltng t~ provide
the ~^fcx~t hi~h wall, ~~nd It was nutcd :+n '.~-foot high wal! is rroposed on the west
p~operty Iine, and Mr. Pelno state~l thc south ~,lde has a G-fo~t hi~ih wa11 which was
constructed by the mote) and hc wa~ c~ncer~ed whetl~er or not [hr.y would edd onto th~t wall
nr would havc ta bullrf a new wall.
Ghet rman Nerbst expl:+ined a wal I ovc~ 6 feat hi~~li hos t~ br. structu~ally ~ouna. Ile ask~d
the petltloner If he had any Infc~r~~a[lon r~.gardinc~ thc decibel readinys at tl~r, prope~tY
I lne~ explal ninn GI cy ordin~nces prolifbl t an operation froT becornin~ a nu(sance, and that
the maxir~um IA G; db~'s ai the property line.
Mr. Gardncr dId nat think tha ~oise would ba hear<i nvrr tfic nolsc from thc traffic on
Beach E~oulevard.
Chalnr~anlierbst st~ted thcrr bre timcs w~~en thc nolse on deach Boul~v~rdwould be ioude~~
but that noi se from this opcratf~~ at niqFit would be louder, an~.t Mr. f,ordner repl ied the
batting tflges would not bc that busy late a~ niyht.
Ghal rsnan Herbst suggeste~~ chan~ine~ thc hours of operation,
CommEsslone~ Bushore strteJ conceivabty there cauld be 24 people ba~tinq ba11s ac one tin~e
and the m~ch i ntls thraw a bo 1 1 eve ry f 1 ve or s I x seconds sa that when tf~e smal I ch i 1 dren i ~
thc netyhbu~hood a~e supposed [o be at lion~e slc~ping~ the alder chi ldren are out carousinq
an e Friday or Sat~~rday night~ and cven wlth 1'L p~pl~ batting bal is, it would be a
probiem f~r tFie neiqhbors' chi;dren try~ny to s1eeD•
Mr. Paino stated aft~r ~:~0 p.m. ~ tt~cy woulci havr. ~nly five or six Cd~CS operatinq an4
explained st th~ present feci I Ity onlY the front section wlth seven cages Is open after
9:00 p.rn, and che back sectio~ (s closed. and there is an average of between four or f ive
opera~ing after 9:00 p.m.
Cwranissiuner Bushore seated h~ did nc~t ttiink he could sup~~t the request to 11:d0 p.m.,
and Mr. Petno stated he could closc the batting arca at 1A:00 p.m, and Icave the game room
and refreshme~t stand opr.n unti 1 11 :AO p.m. ~ explaining the current operatlon is apnn from
10:00 a.m, to 10:0~ p.~+. and that he could aperate with those same hnu~s at the ncw
faci 1 1 ty.
Co~m+issione~ Ktng asked if ehe plans cnuld be rcvised to adhere to the code~ and Mr,
Gerdnsr oxplafned that would not be possible.
Mr. Palno stated he has 18 machines at th~ present locatio~. and the operatlon Is beeoering
obsolete.
5/2~/T9
~ ~` ~
MI NUTES ~ ANANE I M CI TY PLANN I NG CONMi SS I ON. MAY 21 . 1979 79-3G4
EIR NEGATIVE D~CLARIITIAN~ RECLASSIFICATION N0, 78-79-~~~~ CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N~. 1972
AHO VAR 1 ANCE NO ~~Oq2 (con t 1 nued) ._
Commisslo~er Johnson polnted aut to Mr. Ross tl~at the plans nropose a resldence adJecent
to his prop~rty and oxplalned th~c the battin~~ caqes would not be locnta~S nnxt to hls
residonce~ end Mr, Russ explained therc i~ nn 4-foot high wal ! adJecent to his prape~ty at
the prasent time whlch wes c~~n~tructed when Mr, Paino developod the golf course.
Commissioner J~hnso~ sLated the Lommlasion must protect tl~e property awn~rs~ but thls
prope~cy owner ~Iso I~as crrteln rightx snd polnted uut the c~roperty fronts on Beach
Bou 1 cverd.
Hr. Ross stated he has hrard the noise fror~ thc uperatlon at nigt~t, but has not said
anytliing about tt because he wanted to bc a gaod nei~~hG~r~ e~d explatned the nolse trAVels
tawards h 1 s h~~use.
Chalrman Nerbst xuc~gcsted the irfoot hlgh wel) o~ thc south ~ropc~ty line could be
extended and wrapped ~~ound the sc,uthwest corner for App~Uxl~nBtely 1y feet to provide a
bcttcr sound barrir.r~ and Mr. Gerdncr rep i led they would be Hi l 1 inq to do Lhat and
indicat~d he chou~~ht 75 t~ h~b nf the sound would trflvel Inward~ and Mr. Palno stated he
wvuld plant cypress trces elong the sr~ti ~e sc~uth "all and the 1 i~hts would be deslc~ned
wi~1i shlelds to the sidPS and rear rncl th~ Ilgi~ts wuuld be icawer then the tops of the
t~ees when thev ~rc mnture.
Cortr+~sslonsr ~ernes stateJ this use of tl~e pruperty nwy not t~e the best use and asked the
pctitloner if he had cans(dercJ c~ther uses, an~i Mr, Petno re~lied he has been 1~ this
business since 1g61 and at the present tirne It is qivinq him o successful liviny and he
enJt-ys it; that hawns t.he ort,•inal botti~g ceyEr operator in thts area and a lot of p~ple
havu trfr.d to copy hlm ~nd I e qone out of bustnass beceus~ t~~{5 (s a seasonal
e~terprise. Ne statect he w~ts to ylve hIs customers v+ho have been coming [A hfm ov~r the
yea~s a modern faci l i ty and he can~ot da I t whe~c hc (s pres~ently loc~tcd; thet there i s
vacant land behind h(s prasent faGi l itY a~d the~~ ig always a posstbl i ity th~t someone
wi I1 develop an a-1 loc ndiacc~~t to his current opPration; thnt if the noisc is the enly
co~cern of the nei~,~hbors ~ he fsl t someth i n~.~ coul ci be cbne w i th th. wel I end the trees to
cut ciown thc noisc, sta•1 -g he is not tt~at busy at night wi th thc botting cages; and that
the me)or busy scason is Ma~ch~ April and May e~d J5x of his Incnme is d~rived durl~g thdt
period~ and tt~e bal~nce of th~ year is j ust e steady gri-tic' so that the netghbors woutd noC
bc hearing the battiny op~rat(nn for 12 hours a day for the ent(re year because during the
slaw se~scm tt~~re Is herdly any battin~ galn~~ o~.
Gomnissloner Kinq clarified th~t the petitioner had sti~ulatr.d to closin~ the batting
faci 11 ty at 10:00 p.m. ~ and Mr. Peino r~plled that was corr~ck stnce thet ts his current
hc~u~s of operatian,
Garrniss(oner Johnscx- was cancerned thet the resF aents ~+00 `e~t ~nvay could hear noise from
the present facl iity wl th a 6-foot high block wa i I compFete ly around i t~ and ( t was
~lari fted thdt tlic p~esent faci l i ty does n~~t hav~ a fi-foot hlgh wal l~ but the new loc~+tion
vrill have a 6-foot hi~h wall corrpletely surrou~aing it.
Mr. Borell steted he haci spoken earlier regar~ting the nais~ and ~uisancc with the batting
sounds at nl~ht; that hc ! Ives ove~ 40n fcet ewsy from th« pr~s~ent facl l ity and there is
at least one very h(gh concrete wall on the proper~y which separates the minlature golf
course an~1 the blg n~rsery whlch is loacicd wlth trises and shrubs~ and the noisr stlll
~omes through. i1a statcd f~e would sugnest bcfo~e ~~ decislo~ is mede a stuciy be msd~ wlth
inst~uments ta datormine the 4ecl-,el levesl,
Chelnnan Nerbst p4lnted aut twa hanes wi II ~o b+,ilr, where the golf course was loceted,
whtch wt I 1 p~ovide sartie buffering.
S/2t/~9
~
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ MAY 21~ 1~7~ 79-3b5
EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION~ RECLASSI FICATION N0. 78-79-43~ COND1T101~l1L USE PERMIT N0. 1972
AND VARIANCE N0. ;092 (continued)
-- ..r ~.- ... _~_ .r~.
Mr~ Borell statQd he unda~stood~ but the noise is travel tn~ to hts hoi-x ~ow aRd always
hea. and he at) l l fe) t t t ahould Ge measured.
Chalrmen Herbst stated if thls request is approv~d~ he would want to see a conditlon added
tl-at tt would be revlewed in one year to see (f there arc any nolse problems~ and thrt it
would be up tc the peti tioner to see that thc nAlse 1evc1 is kept down and he may hove to
ad,)ust his opereting hours tn order to do th~t.
Commissioncr dushore esked what the hardship wou1J be for granttnc~ the substenderd lots
whe~~ tha property Is vac~~nt~ a~d Gommisstoner Ktny fett the differenct Is insiqnlftcant.
Cr.mmissloner kiarnes felt 24 balls balny hit every elqht seconds could be qulte a nolse
problem and stated she did not know what the noise level would b~e sinca lt has never boen
an tssu~ before~ and felt thc noise l~vtl should be ~aviewtd, ~nd Commissloner KI~g stated
there are CI ty ordi~anccs concern i n!~ th~ nois~ lcvcl .
Robert Ilennl~ger stateJ the naise level is colculat~d by taking backyround no(se readtngs
and if ove~ a certain time span th~ activity gar.g on and increascs the n~lse level five
desclbels, then (t would nat be allvwcd to continue.
Cortmissloner Bushore Indicated t.he naise level would be I~a~d to evAluate before the
facility is in aperation, but t~r~t sincc it f~s calculated on the frepuency of the noise~
he felt maybe some stucty would be ;~r.lpf~,l in tf~e dcliberatln~s and wou~d be beneflcial to
b~th perties.
Commtss(oner Johnson stated he !~a•9 scen K°~ citctr,~nSc dcctbel readPr r~ a st wrner in
anather city and it shvwed just thr nof~r 2rafflc „c (~? or 70 dha'~ a, t-, ,
Gha) rman Herbst asked Mr. Paino ~° he ~~.~a,ald yec ~r Acc~~rate .iectt 1 rr;adtnr~ u
operatlon~ enJ Mr, Paino st+~ted he woui.l be willino tu ~,c~ to the ~~ense of getting a
readfng because he knew It wouid be wtthtn th- alEr.~•Ahle le•.el, I~.[ he wauld not ga to sny
cxpense i f the use woul d be yra~ Ccs+ on ~ onr.-ycar s 1 S becAUse hr. woui d be spendi nq
520Q~OOQ to improve thts pr~perty. Ne statc~! hr. +rould aet the dec(bel reed(-zg and brln~
(-~ the report in Mo weeks.
C~fY11~SAI(.111~r darnes stated she would lik~ so kncr,+ t~uw many natr~~ns he has~ end Mr. Palno
state~~ trtet the number ~~aries duri~~ differcnt :imr.s of the year~ but he could c~ive a good
esttmate; that in Decenber th~y have vcry iiitle business, but dur?nq March~ Aprtl or fiay
th~y have a lat of L i tt lr Leagur Lear-s ca*~i ng i n,~nd ua i ny the faci 1 c ty. He s tr-Led the
decibc! read(ng wi th Li [tle League teams there wl l i n~ .~~sc frc-~ the ci~t 1drPn lAU~~hinc~~
talkir~g and scresmtny, and you would not be ablG to hear the baseballs~ b~t you would be
abic to hear the basebalis at n{ght wtth only four or ftve cages operattng.
Commissloner Tolar statcc9 he fel t a deci(~al read(ng would be an exercise in futi l i ty
becbuse the~e are ordinances and a pet(tioner is bound by law co live within those levels
and if the request is epproved, he would be butldfng thc faCiltty to meet those
requlrements; that [wn houses are proposed abutting the resident4;~l erta w(t~~ an 8-foot
hi,yh aal) (which the pecitioner has stipulated to provide) plus lanclscapinq and trees.
whlch wl i l mitigate the ~of se; ond that there are n~he~ uses whlch could be developed on
this property whlch would b~t more detrirt~nta) to the r~ort~eownars i~ contr~st to a se~sonal
opcratlon with controlled hou~s. ~d he felt this use Is probably one of the best uses for
th(s property and the n~ise facto~ wi I 1 be control led by Lhe ormer a~d the ordina~ces.
Commiscioner Berncs stated she wss conr.~rned that afte~ the operatlon ts developed It
cannoC camply w(th the o~dinances and ~tated she wou{d rath~~ kne~w now~ end Commfssiv~er
5/21/79
~
MINUtFS~ ANAHEIM CI1'Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 21~ 1979
~
79-36G
EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION~ RCCIASSIFICATI~N N0. 78-79-43, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1972
AND VARIANCE N0. 3Q92 (continued)
- , ~..~ ~..
Tnlsr stated the hours of operetlon Qould be conkr~lled and if it becomes a vlolatlan of
the health and safety of the reside~ts. thcn~ obvlously~ tt is up to the petitloner to
cant~o) the nolse w(th the mltigaling mussures. He stated he would rather have the noixe
from the Little L~aguers than from son+e of the other uses whtch could be developed on tht~c
property by right.
Comntssioner King pointed out there Is already a lot of nolse from the traffic on Beach
Boulevard.
Robert Henninga~ stated that bewling~ pool ar bllllar~i centR~s~ laundry or dry cleantng
a~tsbllshments~ privatc lodge. clubs ar meet(ng halis~ etc.~ would be atlowed by right and
cnuld be nolsler.
CheJrman Herbst steted he fclt lt wouid be sdvantageous to tha petittoner to h~ve the
declbel readings for his a+n pratectian as he would know that he is not qafnr~ to have to
close his operotion early.
ACTION; Cc~nmissianar aushore offer~d A motlon~ seconded by Commissloner Johns:~n And
~~ GARRIED (Commi~sinners Uavld~ Ktng and Tolar voting na)~ thet a~ two-week
continuance~ ta the mecting of Junc 4~ ~979~ be granted In o~der for the petitloncr to
furnisf~ a noise study rcporc.
Commissloner Bush~~r~ sug,yr,sted ttiat thr. petitlonor meet wtth staff and submit readinqs for
dlfferent tlmes of the day. He ststed he ~ealized the pet(ttoner p robably felt this was
very fut( le, but th~~ Cnmrnlssion has to Nr.igh both stdes.
1 TEM N0. 4
EIR NE~ATiVE UECLARATION
RE~S I F CAT I ON W0. '~7 -40
~EFI'~ E A l, ~T RRC T N0. 10 710
hav(ng approximate f~~ntagcs ~f 6~y
on the v+est sidc of Megnolla Avenue.
~RESIDENTIAL/AGRtCULTURAL) ZONE.
PUBLIC HEARING. OI~INERS: JAY J. WAIL~ ET AL,
134, I~orth Grand Avenue, Santa Ma~ CA ')27p1.
AGCNT: RANOALL W, BLANCFI/1R.p~ 16371 Beath Boutev+~rr,~
tluntington deach, cA 9z6r+7. Property described as
an (rrcgularly-shaped parcel of larsd consisting
of approximately 3.6 ~cres located at the sauthwesi
cc~rner of Grescent Avenue and Magnolta Avenue~
feei on ttu sauth s~de of Crescrnt Avenue and 1~30 feet
Property presently clessifled RS-A-43~~n0
aEQUESTEU CLASSIFICATIbtI; FiM-300~ (RESIDENTIAL. MULTIPLE-FqHiLY) ZONE.
REQUESTED VAKIAtiLE; WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUiLDIMG HEIGHT.
7ENTATI VE TRACT REQUEST: 44-Uld) T CONWMI NI UM SU801 VIS 10~1.
There was na ane indicating thei~ pres~s~ca in opposftton to subject request~ and althouqh
tl~e stsff report to th~ Planning Cammission dated kay 21. 1g79 was not read at the public
hasring~ it !s ref~rrad to and made a pa~[ ut the minates.
Randall Blmnc!-a~d~ petftio~er~ was present and lndlcated this ts a cluste~-typ~ p~oJect on
3.6t3 acr~s for k4 ~its and thet the pro)ect is JesiQned to n~et the zoning regulren+e~ts
far the RM-3000 aoninq.
THE PUaLIC I~EARING WAS CI.OSED.
S/2Z/79
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLMI~ING COMMISSION~ MAY 21~ 197~
~
19-3b7
EIR NEGATIVE DECL.ARATION~ RECLASSIFI~ATION N0. 78-79-40~ VARIAI~CE N0. 3098 AND TENTATIVC
MAP QF TRACT N0. 10~10 ~continued~
_._..~..__ .__.._._.. ~-
ACTION: Cummtssloner Barnea offcerod a motlon. seconded by Commlssloner King ~nd MOTION
~t ~D, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission hes revle~wed the proposal to recla~alfy
aub)ect p roperty from th~ RS-A-43~000 (Resicb ntial/Agrtcultural) Zo~e to the RN-300~
(Residantial, Multiple-Family) Zone to estahlish a one-lot~ ~4-u~lt condominlum
subdivision with v+aiver of mrximum bulldtnc~ helghc ~n an irregulariy-shaped parcel of land
consiatin~ of epproxlmrtely 3.~, acres lncated at the southwest corner of Crescent Av~nue
and Magnolia Avenue~ I~aving approxlr~ate tmntaqes af G0; feet on th~ south side of
Crescent Avenue and ib0 fect on the west side of Maynolia Avenue; and does hereby app~ava
tlie Negative Ueclaration from thc requirement to prepare an environn~cnta) Inipact rQport o~
the basis Lhot there would bn no siqniflcant Indtvldual or cumulative edvr.rse
environmental trnNact due to the app~ovel of thls Negotive Declaration since the Anahelm
Gnnerel Plan designatrs the SubJect propcsrty for medium dr:nsity residentirl land uses
comrr~nsurate wlth the proposal; chac na sensitive envtro~mental impacts s~o involved tn
the proposal; that thc Initial Stu~y submttted by thc peti[ioner indicates no slgnlficant
i~dividuol or cumulativc advrrse environmental impac[s; and that the Negative Uecleration
substentiatinc~ the fore<~oin~i findinys is on ftle in the City of Anah~tm Plonninq
De pa r trr~n t.
Corim(ssloner Barnes offrred Regolution No. PC79-93 ~nd mravcd for its passaye and adoptfon~
that thr. Anaheim City Planninq Commissio~ does hereby !~rant Petitto~ for Reclessiflcatton
Nd. ]iS-79-~~0~ subjr.ct to Interde~artrn~ntal CommlCtee recommendatlons.
On rol) c~ll, t~~e foreqoin%t resoluti~n was passed by thc folloainq vote:
AYE.S: C~NMISSIAt~ERS: qARNCS~ HUSNORE~ UAVIU~ HERB57~ JON11SOtf~ KING~ TOLAR
NOE:S : COMMI SS I UNE RS : ~iQr~E
At35~NT; COMM1551~NER5: MONE
Coarnissiancr l~arnes off~rrd Resolu:ic~n Ho. PC19-9~+ and r~iove~l for Its t~essage and adoptfon~
that the Anaheim City Plannir~y Cournissian does hereby c~rant Petition for V~rlance No. 3096
on the basis of thr unusual s-~ane of the prop~rty anc: cx- the basis that the a5-A-43~OOA
=oned property to the sautl,west is drsi~~nst~d for medium density re~icirntir~l and wtll
ultfmately bc znnF.d f~r multl~ic-family resfdcntial uses, and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recamrxndativns.
On roli call~ the foreyolny resolution wa~ passed by the follc~wing vote:
AYES : GOMl11551 ONF RS ; BAN-1l5, BUSH(1RE ~ DAVI U~ t1ERB5T ~ JOIINS~t~, Y,I NG ~ TOLAR
NQES : LOIIMi SS { Oi~E R~i : NUr~t
AUSEI~T: GOMMISSI(?NERS: N~tiL
Commissloner i~arnes off~reJ a mc~il~~n~ scumded by :omr~is5luner David ond I~OTi~r~ CARRIED~
that the An~~helm Clty Pienning Comr~ission dor.s hereby find that the pro~osed subclivisir~ ~
togeiher wi~h its desi~_~n and ir~rover~nt~ is consistent withi [he City of Anaheim General
Plon. purs~c-~ to f,r~vcrnm~nt Gode Settion 6G473,5 ~nd dc~es~ thcrefore~ ~pprovc Tentative
Nap of Trac, r~o. 10710 for a onr-lot~ 4b-unit~ RM-3000 subAtvision, subJrct to the
follawing conditions:
1, That tha approvel of 7~ntative Mep of T~act Na. 10710 is qra~ted subjec.t ta the
approvai of Recias:ification No. 7~-79-40.
2, That shou4d this subdivision be deyeloped as more than one subdiv(slon~ each
subdtvlsi~n thereof shall be subrnitttd in t~entative farm for apprnval.
~. That the covenants~ conditlnns~ ard restrlcti4ns shall be submitted to and
^.~aved by the City Attorney's Office end tA~e City Enqinecr's Office prior to City
.....,~ci I app~ovai of thc final tract ~nep and. further. that the eP~+roved coven:..~ts~
5/21/7~
.. ,..,.,.,,. ~:,....~:,~. F ,,,.... . . _. . _ . ._ .
w
~
MINUTL•5, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 21~ 1979 79-368
EIR NEGATIVE DECI,ARATION. RECI.ASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-40, YARIANCE N0. 3~98 ANO TENTATIVE
MAP OF TMCT N0. 10710 (cont I nued) _! ,~ ,_„_
_._. _.-.._._--- -------
conditions. and restrictions shal) bc recordcd prlor to the fin+~l tract rt-eQ approval.
Sa(d covenants. candttlons and restrfctlons shali Include provlston far the o~eration of
the p~lvatn sewer.
4. That the owner(s) af subJect property shall pay co tha City of Anahelm the
epprop~iate park and recrcatio~ ln-li~u fees as dctcrminec! to bc app roprlate by th~ Clty
Counctl~ seld f~es to be pald et the time the bulldinq permit Is iasuect.
5. Tt-st alti prtvate stre~ts shall be develUped in accordance with the Clty of
Anaheim standard for private streets~ includiny the Installation of street lights as
requi red by tt~e standard.
6. If permanent street name slyns have not ber.n lnstalled~ temporary street n~rnG
signs shall be installed prior ta any occupancY.
7. That the awner(s) of subJect p roperty ShaMl p~y thp traffic signal assessme~t iee
(O~dinance No. 3~3G) in an amount as determined bv the Cit~ Gouncl) fo~ e~ch new dw~lling
unlt prior to tl~e I ssuance of a bui ld(nc~ perml t.
8. That drainaye of subJect property st~all be ~isposed c~f In a manner satisfacto~y
to the Cl[y Enqinecr.
9. That a rrwdifled cul-de-sac shall br constructed ~at the terminus of Stocktun
Avenue sub'Ac[ to the ap~rova) of the Ci ty Enc~iitie~rr.
10. l,.at Condition N~s. 5 and 9~ abovr rnentinne~~ shall bc corn~olied Hith pri~r t<.
final bullciiny and zoning Insc~ections.
I TEM N0. 5 PUBL I L NkAN~ NC.. UWNER: JAV I u DLVELUPItEI~T CQkP. ,
EIR NEGATIYE UEClAMT10!i 9a5~ Wilshl~~~ ~doulcvard, E~~vcrly fiilis~ CA ~j~410.
R ANG N0. 3o9`~ AGLr~T; S7E1PE1~ C. THOIIAS, 'a85G 11i lshi re Baulpvard,
Ei~ I E M11f' TRACT i~0. 106'_14 k1sv~::r1y t~( ! Is, CA ')0110. Propcrty desic~ibed as an
irre:~ulariy-sh~pr<! parcel of land c~nsist.l;hg ~f
approx~rnair.ly 10.3 ~cres having a frontage ~f
approx{rtwtcly 4(;3 feet a~ the c~ast si c.fc uf Br~xsf•'hu~sc Stre~t, haviny a r~ximum depth~ of
approximataly 124?. feet, hciny locateJ app~t~xirn.~tr.ly ~~~~J fect sauth af the centerline of
Bal! Road~ anJ further descrlUeJ as 12;~ ::auth Brcx~N.hurst 5trcet. Froperty presently
classifled RN-1200 (RESIULIITIhL, MU~.TIP~LE•i'AMIIY) 7.~~~E.
VARIANGE REQUEST: WAIVER OF (A) MINIM~~1 GUIlU1NG SITL AREA PCR U'aE~LIt~G U~JIT. (Bj
MAXINUN BUllpltt~ NEtG~~T~ (C) H~4XIMUM S~TE COVERAGE. (D) ~~-i~MUM
~t~iT FLOOR AREh. dE) M1~1Ir~Un SE~~ACK A~uTTINr, ;It1GlE-FAMILY
RESiUENTIAL DENELOF'-~ENTS, (F) MIPIIMUM RE!'REI4TION~4L~'LEISt1f~f AK~AS,
(G) MINIMUN DISTANCE 9ET1+c.Et~ B~:ILDINGS. (H) 6UILDINf,S ~'ACING
ARTE:RIl1L HIGr~ul~KS, (I; MINIMUN tlllMt~ER A~10 7YpE OF P~ARY:I~IG
SPACES ~ ANU (J 1 NE rr I ri~~JM 015TA1~CE TO pAKK. ~er, SpACE.S .
TE~iTATiVE TRAIT R~~UE5T: TO CONVERT A~~ EXISTIraG APARTMEi+? GoMPlfx TO A 20~i-Ur~IT
COr~D(3MINIUM SU(iUlVISIU~~.
There were approximately six persuns in~llcating their prasence in oop«sitian to s~Dject
request~ and alchuu9h the st~ff repart to thz Planning i:ommissfo~ ctate~ t~ay 21~ 1979 wAs
not read ei the ~ul~lic heariny, lt l~ rcferred ta snd made ~ part ~` the mtnutcs.
Robert Nenninger~ Assistsnt Plannr.r, explained befcr~ tha meeting the petttioner hed
indic~tod the parking carparts noted on the plsn as covcrcd parkiny sre actualty enclosed
pa~icl~g geroges and esked that that wrrection be made t~ thc skrff re~rt in paragraph
(2), waive~ (I).
Steve~ Thomas. agent, st~ted the propasai Is fo~ conversicm of the 9~ookhurst V! I lage
Apertmtnts located at 125p South Broukhurst StreeC to condnmtniunrt; that the deveiopment
cu~rently has 223 ap~rt~+ie~fs and wi l i be reduced to 20$ condnrn(niun~ unit~; th~t the
5/2~/79
~ i
~~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES. ANA11EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 21~ 1979 79'3b~ ~
EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3099 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TiiACT N0. 106~ (continued) i
complex was constructed in 1971 and the units are two and three bedrooms with ~~93 to 1195
square fer.t of Iiving a~e+~; that the c~nversi~~n program as proposed will be dtvided into
two phasos to accomrto dace the present tenancs who wist~ to remaln In the praJect during the
selling period; that Phase I will include approximately ~0~ of the unlts; that the prima ryr
mot(vatton for the co~versl~m is to prov{de affordable hom~ ownership to low to low-medtum
Incort~ elemnnts tn Orange County whtch tias a substentlAl shortnqe today; that th~y
antfcipate a portion of thcse condaninlums wlll he ma~l;cted below S50~0~0~ wtth the bulk
being sold in the $5Q~000 to S~i~.4~Q ~ange; that the conversion Includcs ~eneral up~rading
of the property and tt~ey arc proposin~ to removc 20 units tn provid~ Additt~nal pArkinc~ to
a11c~w two-~:ar. enclosed garac~es with adclitional recreational areas~ fACilities~
landscaplnca and open areas; that prlvate, fenced back yards wlll be a feature of oll
ground-fioor units and m~~ny wlll have AdJolning gar~~es; th~~t e~~ch untt. N(I1 have its own
enclosad cwo-car ~ara~e; Lhat thc par~:ing is currentlY 1,7 Sl~aces ~er unl t for the pro,ject
and the pr•opc~sal i s to 1 ncrease that to ?.. ~~ parktn~ sp~ces Fer un) t; that an add( tl~na)
swlmming pool~ two s~as~ barbecue areas~ and othr.r a~en space recr~Ational areas will Ge
adde~i; that all recreation and o~en s1~~ce arr.as. as weil as comm~n drfve~~eys~ wi11 be
managcd throuc~h a humr~avners assoc i at i ~n to bc es tat~ 1 i st,cd hy the drve I~ners ; and that
(nterior (mproven~ents (nclude refurblshiny ~>f all interiors~ includin~t n~~intinn~ carpct(ne~
and drepes through<~ut.
Uan L. Rowland~ 1~0~ Nest la Palma Avenue~ Anah~irn~ archftect~ P-'esented photo~ra~~h~ ~.~f
thc existing project and architectur~l rcnder(n~3s of thr pn~pose~f oro.j~~ct. He st~tcrl th~
staff report reiers tu th~• {ack ~~f berms an~~ noig~ c~n[rol el~ments ~~nd prese~ntPd the
first photagrapl~ which was taken fron~ the ltirac~khurs[ front~~qe ancl tne ~~~chi[ectural
rendering~ an~ puinted out th~ berms, walis a~d I~~nds~c~~p1n~1 ~ro4~os~d which ~~il? provide
for the acoust1cal requlrer~nt of h!> :ihA's in ehe fr~nt units. tie stated according ta
their study the units alon~~ t~ruokhurst are currently subjectr.d to noise in excess of 7~
dbA's and the second roa- of units is in t~,~~ 65 dbA raiiyc. f~c ~xplained the study of
acoustical control was includc~f in thc pack~ts to chc Comi~is5ion.
The setond photo~;~~ph presented ~+a5 taE:cn ~f thc southwest entry from Brookh~:rst Strect
do~•m through the ~xisting drivew~y, an~1 the rendcrinq sFuiweu the plans for screcnin~~ the
enriched pavln~~~ and the yaraye doors which shaw ail the exis[inc~ carports will be
enclosed garages.
The thi rd pliotoc~raph nreserted shawed thc prescnt recrc:ational area and the rendering
showed o p~ol an~~ s~~~ wi l l t~e added to that area.
Tl~e fourth~ phc~tograpF~ showe~l che space betwee~~ thebul ldinqs Mhi~h is a lony, main s~ine
through the project wlth few amenities~ and the rend~rinq shawed there will be fountalns
and planters at several locations throuyh the srine. and thc waikways have been r~oved
outw ard closer to the buildiny~ to provide a larger and more usable s~ace through the
center af the project.
The fifth photoyraph shvwed the buildings backeJ up to eact~ other and the arGhitecturol
rendering shor+ed th~ uni[s will h~ve access to che open space artas with individual patios
wl~Ich will be usable open space; plus eael~ unlt wtll be ~emo~.lel~d with sliding glass doars
onto the open ~pace and tt~e ~nits on th~ flrst floor will h~vr access to the indtvidual
patio spocas; plus It alla+s for shading d~vices t~ be added by anyone who wants them; tu-d
that tho floor plans have bren madif(eA to prov(de laund ry f~ciiitles within each unit.
He poinied out the 22 units to ~e removed in nrder to provide garage arcas in ell areas;
direct access to the garages from tlie units; the e~riched paving which will provide
pedestrlan safety s6nce it appears as obstatles because oF the differe~ce in textures, and
steted that theme af enriched paving will be ca~rled thraughout the proJect. !te pointed
out a lot Uf the uni ts on the ground f lacar Ni 1 I have di rect eccess to thei r own garac~~as
S/21/79
~ ~F ~
MIMUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 21~ 1979 79'37~
EIR NEGATIVE DECLRRATIGN. V~RIANCE N0. 3A99 ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF 7RACT N0. 10694 (contlnued)
from thei~ p~tlos. Ne stated th~ present faciilty is a typical~ bette r than•av~rage~
multl-famlly complex which is nlce a~d well mali~tained. He explained the drivewaya have
be~n moved ovar from the corner at arookhurst, prov(din~ a loop for emergency and service
vehlcle access. Ile explained to furthar enforce Lhe maJor pedestrtan access polnes,
Lfe~IISQS will be spanning across the drtveway directly ahove the enrlched paving and tfiey
will be hl_ryh enouyh for service and emergency vehicles to pass through.
Mr. Rowlonci expial~ed that some of the variances are being requeated br.cause they er.lst on
the praJect naw~ and soma are be(ng requestesd bnceuse Uf the change tn tl~e new condominfum
conversion law; th.~t thc minimum buildiny s(te erea per clwelling u~lt ls existing; that
the maxlmum site coverane is betng (mproveJ; that the minimum setbacks are an existtng
s(tueClon; that the minimum recrr.atfon and lcisur+~ ~r~~a ls betng lmproved; that the
distance betw~en buildings exl.ts; that the bulldi~~s facing arterial highways condltion
~r.ists. and fclt that shoulcf be a conditlon ~r~d not ~s vartancc; regardtnq minimum number
and type af p~rking spACCS~ he indlcatecf their scud~ sh~~.~ws that Z-~/2 S~ACtS ~~er unlt (s
mare than adaquate and meets all the needs ~f cc~mc,~rable f~cllltfes and felt 3~112 spaces
per unlt mlc~ht be Import~~nt in tl~~e hill and c-~nyon are~~, but l~cally~ in tlie flat lands
with off-site s~~aces av~~tlablc~ did not fcrsl it wnuld bc siqnificant in this tyne
development; and th.~t the minimwn ~iistance tc~ ;~2e'kinn spaces Is an exlstin~ situatiun
wh i ch they have i mp roved cons i~~~ rab ly a~~d n~aa havn 130- foot maxi mum d i s tance to a~y of thc
spaces ~ and thP yreat ma}ori ty ar~ wl tF~ i n tt,c 100-foot dl st~ince. f~c stated a1 thouqh the
varlances shown I n thc submf ttal Icx~k 1+k,~ sor,K~cme's shopnln~ I ist ~ he fel t these
varlances really shoul~ be of a technic-al na[ure. He stated somf: of thp staff analysls
tndlcatRS methods by wl~ich this pro,je<:t cauld bc made to fly ~~nd chat they could remove 1~
untts and corrnly in or area, hut r.h:~y have not cnnsldcre~l that pos~-thillt.y. f~e felt the
var(ance relatin~a to thP mir~im~x~ buildiny slt~ area t~er ciwelling u~it wuuld make no great
difference~ and if they werc ahle r,~ devotc -~ rmre fcet in width to their drivcways~ they
woul d have 1 ess Jens 1 ty aR~~ less cc~vcra~c because the ci rcul at ion element nc~w i s
considcred as prlvatc rJriy:;~~ays and if t1,ey were t<~ st.~rt from scratch wltl~ a 28-foot
driveway~ they would be ~r~rsi~lc~~c~ as privAte driveways and would be allawed into the
project~ plus ~0~ of tht front•ig~~ blong Firookhurst. so he felt the den~ity croverage and
minimum site area per Jweliin~~ unit are ali p~rt of thc seme enalYsis.
Steve Tho~ws expl:+(n~~i t'r~at a sow~d-attenua[ion study has been done by lil lliard 6 8ricken
and the frontage on lirc>~k,t~urst and thc firsc and second floar Ir.vels are the ereas where
they wi l l i~ave to dc, some v~ork, but wi l l be able to com~~ly wi th the code requi remonts and
are williny to worEc o~~t the appr~prlate and most effectivc r+ays of solvino the problems.
Concerrring the tenant pro~~ram~ Mr. Thomas explained befdre they h~d undertaken the
project~ they had askea the propertv manaqer of tt~e pro.)e;ct to deveiop svnc studies on the
tenant occup~nty because tl~ere seemeci ta be a fairly hiqh turnov~r. The study ~eviewed
the ias~t six rt-anths and the v~cancy factor has been an averaqe of 1Q;~ which is quite
high; that ~lurfne~ the last six TnOfl~hS exac:tly 30 ten~nts i~ave moved aut o` the p~o]ect and
44 h~ve -~ved in, which is a~ avera~~e at about 1; per mo~th~ and on an annual basis a
turnover facto~ of abaut BnX. Ke state~~ 7~~:, of the existing tenants have been there since
1978 and approxirn~,tely on r third have be~n there more than ~ne yPAr; [hat each tenant was
natified by letter of thc ~055Ibt1{cY of consideration of cor~version of the proJect 1n
March~ and within thc last trro weeks they tiave becn notified of this hearinq ~nd all
int~rested tenants have been prov(dcd info r.nation rec~ardi~~ the tenrni progrem. He seatcd
the tenant proyram is designed t:~ be as favorable as possibic for the t~nants. wfiether
t-~y c~ose to buy their a+n w~it or a~other un(t in Ihe proJ~ect, or if they choose to
rent; tt~~t ~ as pvss ib le. as prospect ive purct,~sers ~ they wi ~ 1 be offcred very fsvorab le
tern~s r+nd any quAlifi~d tenant will be abie to receive 95Z financ(ng, or wlli have to
pruvide e~$ ~~wnp~yn,ent; that th~ ~rice to ihe tenan~s w(11 be discaunted from tiiat affer
ta the public by an auto~a[ic 52.000 discount, plus if he ci~ooses to purchase his o.+n
5/21/79
~
,..~_.. ..n. ~. .,.aa~~rxcr~
~~
MINUTES~ A~~AIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 21~ 1979 79-371
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCC N0. 3099 AND TENTATIVE MI1P OF TRACT N0. 1A694 (cantinued)
unlt~ as is~ releting to Interlor alt~ratlons such as painting~ cAr~cttng and drapes~ he
wtl) recelve an eddlktonal S1,~U~ dlscount; and that each tenent wil) be glven 120 days'
forma) notice prlor to commencemont of s,~l~ of the opportunity :o buy thetr own unit~ and
when sales tomnence~ they wlll be given a preamptive rtght f~r 90 days to purch~se thelr
own unit~ so there Is a forma) notice period of seven months durtng whlch tlme they will
be able to make a decision. fle explain~d for any tenant who choc~ses not to purchase a
unit e number of accomnodatlons will be made; that the converston wlll t~ke place in two
phases and during Phase I~ the secan~! phase wlll be retained for tenants who went to
romeln in the proJect; thet after a tenan; recelves fprmal ^~:~~e tl~nt the converslon Is
proceeding~ ht will be ylven at least one yeo~ to remain in th~ proJect end lf he happens
to be in th~ first phase for s~llin~, he can elect to ba -elocated Into a camparable unit
at the samc rent in tfie s~cvnd phase af the proJect at thc ~xpense of the owners of the
pro~ect; tfiat with the attrltion~ bocause of the ~urnover factor~ thcy propose to
accomrtadate eve ry ten~nt and permlt thcm to stay in the proJect for at least one year and
(f the vacancy factor or turnover drops~ they would delay the sales pra!~rem to make sure
eve ry tenant (s accommodnted; tl~at if the te~ant el~cts to relocate outs(da the unlts~
they wil) bc provided expert reloceti~n serv(ces r~t Lhe site Aur(ng the cntirp sales
program~ and the tenants will have access to that servlce to locate cnmparablG hous(ng (n
the ccxnmunlty at comparable rentay rates; and~ in addttion~ (f th~y relocate auts(de the
proJect~ they will be aiven a relocation allawance af 52Q0 to oFfset the costs af mav(ng.
Ne explalneJ they have talkeci with a n unber of the tenants In the prolect and intend to
talk with rnore tf thc Rroposal ~-rocceds~ and tl~e tenant program is flexible and is
deliberately accamrv~clatint~ and Lliey do solicit fnput from the tenan;s, from ~!~~ City and
from the Commission.
Howard Johnson~ Apartment 1U90, 1'~0 South Brc~okhurst Street~ Anahetm~ steted the two-w~ek
notice wos received last Wednesday. t1c stoted hc wlshe~i to re~d A statcr+ent from Joc
liemphill, another tenant who has ccrebral patsy. ~le stated they feel thcy are rtsking a
30-day notfce by bein~~ present~ stetiny he fia~ worked for In1anJ County Ltqal ScrvtGes in
San f3crnnrdino as a Vista voluntcer and has scen things likc [his I~appen~ where somcone ls
subpaanaed to appear witt~ the landlord on thc c~thcr slde end they have qotten a 30-day
riotice. He read the statement from Mr. Nenpftlll as fullows:
"I have cerebral palsy and I have itved at Brookhurst Village for about seven
years. Durfng thEs time, I have learnecf to cross the streets to thc~ shapptng
center whert I do most ofi my yt~apping ~nd banking. The people at the bank and
thc dtfferent stores havc lea rned to understand me eithcr by 1(steninq slowly to
ha,r I spenk or by reading my ietcerboard as I prrtnt out lecters. I can yo to
church at Ieasc once a weck, which is unly one block away, end t have ma~
frtends i,~ che neighborhoc~d who I can call an in an emer~er,cy, in short. i have
becc~rt~e a part of the com~unity even thou~h I am handicapped and have spent 14
yaars In ~~ospitsls liviny w(th retarded pcopla. Presently 1 am attending Lonq
Bcacn State wherc I am a creative writ(ng major. Since 1 have llved in these
apartmcnts~ my rent has g~ne up fran $209 to 5345. ( have baen able tr~ rt-anagc
the fncrease beceusr I require the person Who takes care of my physical needs to
pay one-f~olf the rent. How~ver, if tt~ese apartrr~nts are made into condcxniniuns,
I won't be able to buy rtry own a~artmcnt becausc anything i own over ;1;0 above my
incane wtll cause (t to be cut or I will lose it altogether; that is~ Social
Security~ AFDC and VA benefit~ whlch tota) 5337,60 per month. In light of this~
1 am agalnst turning 8~ookl~urst V111ege Into a condomtntum and if this ts done~ I
foel speciel consideratior,s shoulcS be taken in my case~ not necessartly because
of ny handicap~ but people )ihe nryself are qo~d rent~rs and chances af people
Ilke rayself not payln9 [he rent a~e ve~y slim. !t is good bus(ness to rent to
peopis ltke me because the rent is ~aid on tlme and it i~n't likely there will
be rnany turnovers."
S/21l79
~ ~ ~
...
MINUTES~ ANANEiM CITY PLANNIIIG COMMISSION, MAY 21~ 1979 73~37z
EIK N~GATIVE DECIARATION~ VARIANGE N0. 3~99 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10694 (contlnued)
Mr. Johnson steted one of tlie ladies who Is qoing to s~cak latcr commented one roeson
there is a 101 vacancy ~ate is because they have n~t r~nted to anyone as the apa~tments
have emptied and have not enc~uraged people ta m~ve tn becAUSe they havc tncreased the
re~it; that he lives therc and pays S3z~ e month for a two-be~lroom ~partment and Joe is
paying Sjko a month~ and new tenants pay S24 to $40 mor~ At th(s point. Nc stated he
wpuld Ilke t~ request thac the Commisslon sae tl~nt there will be no retalletary evicttons
or rent increas~S and thet the mrna~emcnt be prohibitcd fran bl~cklisttnct tenants who
appcar (the landlord g~ves the tenant's n~me co a landl~rd se rvicP and the tcnant c~snnot
rent anothr.r a~Artn~ent tn th~t ~~~ea~. fie st.~tr~i in thc weel: he has I~ad t~ prep~rc~ hc hnd
trled t~ fin~i out the mi~iirrx~m mon[hiy paymrnt on this pro.ject and thr. manngemc*nt could not
tell him becausr they Jo n~t knc~, when the pr~~lecl wi l l be convertr.d; that wlth the
tnprovertxints shcrvn and di~cusse~l~ the units will cost 575,(1~') to S1Q^~~~~1 ancl not 55~,~~~
as reportca; th.it he had tried to find out fru,n thr.. City or An.~l~elri the ceiisus tr~cts
which sh~xN the mini~~um rrxinthly inu~r~ in th~~ are~ and thc ininirnum rx~nthly rents In the
area~ but coulcl not fi~~d that inf<~r~~~•~ti~n; that he haJ founcl out fran ~nothr.r sourcc that
in Q~enqe Gounty thc minir~uin r~ontlily incn+~r is ahout 51~'30q~ Gut {~st pcople cic~ n~t earn
that much ~ anci .~nyone on we 1 f;~re dc>es not earn th~~t much and i s 1 uc~cy to get 5 j~0, ~nd the
people who .7re Ilving here ~~rc ~~oinq to bc ~~ut aut ~ne1 thrrr. (s n~ othcr place for them to
go because thr renta) rat~~ is ahaut ~1`~;; r.ither th ~~ '1~;; a~ mentioned; and that 1 f these
units brcorne conciom(nlums. thr. ~~e~~~l~ wh~~ move wll I Jriv~~ thc rental market up, Ne stated
he undersCood thr City of llnah~~~m is try(nq to creat~~ r~re rental space in this area and
this canversion wil) nn[ ~3ccor-,pllsii th~~t., and he felt t~~ere is B~SG a sc:cla) consider~~tion
here because it wlll separate th~> rich froi~~ the t~oor an~1 t-,e pawerful from the weak.
Nari lyn Park.cr, Apartment 1C2';~ statrd shr. haJ recclve~J the letter rec~a~cliny this proposal
wh i ch i nd! cate~l the [enan ts havr. been a51. i nc~ aLaut i t for Mo y~a r5 , but that Ghe present
owncrs havc only owned thc pr~pcrty for at~o~t onr. year; that she has lived thtre since
AuyuSt~ ly7(>, ~r ! her r~nt nas incre~scd [hree tir~e5; that shr h~is twa children and works;
that most of thc peopie th~:re havr. iwo ~r three children ancl work; that the mana~e:ment
says this will be a qood cieal~ but inclicateJ she cioes n~t have the money savtd for a
dawnpayrT,~nt; that sl~e u~ntacted one schnol in the arGa ~nd ~f this project is approved~ it
will have to cinse; that one of her children is asthrn~~tic and c~ets ~i~set -+hen she has to
change I~er schaol ; and that the r~~nt i ncr~ases +rere su;~posed to bs because of mai ~tenance ~
but the proJect fs not as well maint~incd as it was ir ~97G when the rent ~as only S2~+0
per month. She stat~d she i5 a4a(~st Chis rr.quest because she does not 4.now whe~e she can
rr-c~ve and does not icn~,w how she can afforcl to buy o~e of these units.
Patricia Clancy~ 303 ~lorth Eiush Street, Anaheim~ steted shG was not involved In this
s I tuat lon ~ but she does c;et upset when sht tiears thi r.gs I( I:c thi s be~ause she feels the
~~roperty ownr.r has a Gertaln ri~ht to do what hc w~nts with his proper[v; thaC these
Neople say they wi i 1 be p~~! au: '~ecause tl~erc is a housing shortec~e~ but chat cf~e p~oject
will provl~e ownersl~lp for some far~ilics and those families will be movinq out of their
apartn~ents to buy thPse units~ ~nd thosc apariments will ~e available.
Hrent f~azelto~~ Apartment 1~~;1~ prr5enteJ the letter he had receiven Nhich say5 the cost
wi (1 be frvm S44,0C!') to S79 ~0~0 for one ~f these u~i ts and s[~ted he d( d not see hc.w they
could be that cheap because he has a friend wich a Gondom(nium rlqht across the sxreet and
thsy are sclling for an average of S8~~00~ wich an initial purchase orice of 526~0~)0. He
5t~ted paople in th~ complex are ~~0-Fx~ur-a-wcek, t~ard-working, sinc,le•parent families and
hu dld not knvw wherc they could ~et the money tu buy ane of these w~its~ and stated thert
is na p1aGC in this area to move with children.
MarilyR Parker stated she lives in thc play area of th~ complex and~ in SepLCrtbe~, an
spartn+ent nex[ to her empticd and at least 15 apartn~nts tn that one orea we rc empty; that
she has becn in thc office and sern pcople tryinq to rent them; and that they ~oui~ not
5~21/19
. ... ~.
~ 79-373
MINU7~5~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 21~ 1979
ANO TEIJTATIVE MAP Of 1RACT N0. 10694 (conClnued)
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTION YARIANCE N0, 30~9
rent them ancl they havo l ust g ~~ak~n~~ha ~i ASkcdefl f` shehwas~to~~theY we~ret~Anslderl nq
talked wi ch a ncw ten~~nt upstr
turninc~ thig complex inti indlcaCad sh~ ca~~~t~nnt~sfford~tort~uy one~ LSh~ statodathey kept
them to si~~n a paper~ bu
those apartnbnts empty an~~ are Just naw~ starting tc rent tii~m and she dlcl n~t undcrstan
why .
R~bert Carc~ac, t~19 South Goventry Drive~ stated hc 1 tves ac~oss the street from tt~ls
proJect and wes not licre t~ spcak un thls project, but felt he must; t-~Ac therr.. is a
prcponae~ance of apar~mcnts covinrtin9thc nei~~hbo'rhoo~i for~saxrYea~st`and,this~isrthe onlY
a k1111ng; thai hc has bee.n ll 9
rental ~roperty left In tf~~ area; rhat onc l~idy hed saici pcoalc will bc moving out of
their apartments ln order to purch;e~W~'i1She~livln~b~n lhPhstreet,ianclbhendldcnot~knaw haw
units~ th at w111 mcan severA1 peop
pec~lc wi11 bc i+bie tu afford a h~uslny complrx~that was S~`~~ c Iousinqn/~to pri~,~er S~~iO
a mo~th. Ne felt ~t iS tcrriuly wr~ny to r.hr~g~. at~artment-tYp
hous~n~~ especially with up~~tairs unics whcr~ you would havc pcople Ilving overhaad.
resc:ntin~ Tayl~r-Dunn Manufacturing Compeny~ indicate:d th~tr pru~erty
Davls Taylor~ rep ) eArs a o the Plann(n~~
bc~rders approximatcly 5~x of this projr.ct and stetc~l mnny y ~1
Cammisslon had very wiscly r.ofc~1 "t1Ohetstinylecfami!ly~fromi tl c~~industrirl eQC~ndu'ierfeltarcaa
with Ft-3 Zones betNeen to buf c
ccmvertiny tt~ls apartn~cnt C~~ie~~iaL~ncf'fectuon thn,artea byecf etlnhlarydifferentetypetof
resldential and would f,avc an
clientele~ because people whop~^exristinyw(ndust~It,1I~~~t~~~(~~cial~,~pointing out there is
creatc a lot of friction betw.e
a restaurant an the corncr which is ot~cn unt i I 2:0~ a.m, ~nd thr.i r plant operatrs two
sl~ifts until 2:0~ a.n~.~ soish~4~verted~, ~nlotcofa~,roblems~wllihl>e'~created~with~frictlo~snt
and felt if this pro~crtY
1 n the n~ i~~hbonc~x~~1 wh i ch eSc~ nut ex i s t to~1~y .
Don Ginoza statc~l he is with th~• leq~l Aid Society of Qranye CountY~ 270O North Ma(n
Street~ Santa Ana~ and vnlunt~~~rs his serwiccs in thc area oi housing and is also an
activc memt,cr of ths Qran~P, ~auen~ (~~;~~~~c~A~CO~s~; thathh~5wasnnot4fiediof thisihearing
opnortunities for ttiose of
by one of the tenants; that boW~,,Gh~``tnn'~~~~ylum~catverr~sionsLare,[a~:~i~~9"Place throuqhout
awarc of the alarr~inn rat~ a~ that they
Los An9cles anJ Or~~ny~~ Gounty; fecl thc pl ight af renters must be addresse y~
Planning Gomm1ssir>n suc'~ ~~s this; [hat there is an extremc Inflation`iue touatshortage^~f
clue t~ constructic~r cu5t and risin~~ land c•ust, buc, most imp~rt~int~
h~:uslny on thc mari.ct. F~e rc~fcrred t~~ ar~ art~clc in thc Los Angeles Times real csGate
;•_;,;ion y~steraHy which states a survey shows tt,e average pricr. far an existing sinqle-
far~ily~ detachcJ cfwellfny t~~~Y ~~~ thef~~ ~~orlty ofutherpo~ulattonjoutr f the~~n~rship
S~p~~pp0, He statcti this prlccs a lar.~ ) Y
narket; that the lnfl~~tion rate for housi^9' w~~~f{tablcaanda`the de~~~~a~ot~~^t~s only
tour yw.ars, has helpcd make corvc~siuns ~~'Y ~
mc~derate; tf~at local gove~nment cennot i~no!e its r~le in conslderinq the impaLhaththe
~ co~verstons have on the social we1U~v~;~~~~ntiinithelr,su1t^tQab~,in91theVCounty's Housiny
Departnx~nt of Hous(n~~ L Gonmunl tY
Elemont lnto cor~lience~ with State law .teced in i~s brief that the rolt of lacal
government tn pro~~de ~"~«ucture~and~'ser~eiceufor9res~dentseAndflts controlpoverblsndY
for pr~,vldiny u~t:an intras
use~ housing codes~ and subdlvlsio~ actlvit(es Nhich deterniine the amount~ location an
character of hou~ing constructev inraC~ ~~P~r~~ges e~ issueav+hichareq~~r~sCthePCtommisston
today for approval af a tentati P t
5/21/79
~ ~... -w-~~~--+~~-...~~-....~~ww~w. .~w~m+e.~~~~.^ .--a . .'e'f'^~i~!."'".ilit~..... ~.. , .!IGT.°.11Y'l'•.. .
~' ~
I ~ ~
~
MII~UTES, ANAFIEIM CITY PLANt~1NG COMMISSION~ MAY 21~ 191~ 79-374
EIR t1EGATIVE DECIARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3099 AND tENTATIVE M11P OF TRACT I10. 10694 (contlnued)
to look bayond the physical aspects of I~nd use involved. On the owne~'s slde there ts
the privilege of dQVelopin~ privete property (n thc best b~~siness i~lerest~ but on tha
sicie of ihc prescnt tenants and renters thruuyhout the city~ is the adverse effect that
thls condominium conversion will have on the supply af housinc~ and on the rents of slm(la~
units in Anahelm. The condominlum u,~~verslcm p rocedure whtch is presently employed merrly
looks to seo if the appllcant't pr~perty conforms to RM-3c1~0 7onQ buildinq a~d safety
codes~ and scate5 the proce~lure must olso deterr~ine confurmity wtth the Gene~al Plan which
includes a Housing Element as wel) as a l.and Use Element~ and thc Ilousing Elemr:nt must
makc provlston for all scymer-ts of the population. 11e read from page 6 of the current
Anahe(m Housing Element as follows:
"Consistci~t w(th the exlsting A~aheim General Plan~ it can be stated th~t the
primary purpose of rr_sidentlal IanJ use planning ls to provide fnr And matntain
safc~ a[tractive and desirablc I(ving environmc~t for all residencs of the
carmiun 1 ty . Th i s can be Accomp 1 i slied th rou~~h the app 1 i cat ion of the fol 1 ow ( ng
goals an~ at~Jectives to providc opportunity for all seqments of thc ~aopulatlan
residing and er,sploye~l within the Cf cy of llnal~eim to ohkain decr_nt housin~ anci a
safe I 1 vi ng envi ronrnent."
He stated listed unJ~~rneatti are ~~~als and nbjeccives to an~.ouragc a va~•iety af h4using
cypes an~ tenure with(n thc community and to provi~ie ti~c opportunity to Lhe maximwn ext~nt
poss ib le for a~f housei~ol ds of thc cor,r,iun t ty to res I de i n the area of ihei r choi ce.
He state~ he had listened tc~ the applicanc outlining the tenant pro~ra~ which he clairr~ d
will makc the fiousin~ aff~rdable and fnJt~ate~l he would say the mal~ri[y of the tenants
would probably not be able to afford che ciownpayrr~nt on this house~ and although there are
advantayes to honx~ownership (n an inflationary tiousin~~ r,~arkct, he believed as the Nousinc~
Element states, tf~ey ~re concerneei wlth some: balance between ownersl,(p and rental un(ts and
thought [he C~nmiss(c~n ,hould consider the effect this convers~on wili have on a~
individual basis, indlcatiny fie bclicved this is thc larycst conversion to da[e. and the
effect it wiil have accumulativ~ly by setti,g a trend which wauld encourage more
converslons. I~e urged th` Cornnission to ma4:e findinc3s as to the prtces of the converted
units and felt the developcr sh~u~d come for~h nv~re cleariy w(th the types of packaqes
available. He state~i he understood tt~e tenant.s had tried to contnct fhe management and
were not given adequate information on tf~c prices, thr. availabil~ty to present tenants and
those in the imnediate area~ tt~e nuni~er of tenants exprcteJ [o be displaced~ the capacity
of existing housinq in the City of Anaheim Lo absorh them~ and the effect an the supply 4f
renta) units and l~vcl af r~nts In Anaheim. Ne stated he belicved it would be i~ roper
for the Comrnission to recom~nd ap~roval of thts t~ntatlve tratt m~p wi[hout first making
those inquiries,
Steve. Thqmas ~tated there is a re~1 problem in our society today~ pArticularly in Southern
C~lifornia, with th~ cost of Ifving and the cost of housing; that we are unable to create
new housing because of the cost of land and construction; that thelr prtmary motivatlon
was the creation of available loa to !ow-medi~.an income houstng~ parttcularly irs th~ case
of the tenants ~t e level that is achievable; that (t is eossible, given the fact relative
to the cost of housing~ that rents are fairly low. based on what would have to be charged
to bulid a new project; that ti is pvastble to convert ~ project and provide affordable
housing~ and we do need both; that pe~ple Nho cannot afford even to get on the ban dragon~
particularly evicient in Southern Califurnia~ to buy their first home, a~e possibly neve~
going to be able t~ purchase that first home; th~t the City pf Anaheim has 50$ rental
untts and ~0~ awne r occupied housiny which is a fairly high number c.ompared to mar~;
cortmunitles; a~d t.hat the speaker fram the Legai Afd Society indicated there shnulc3 :,c a
balance and he ayreed there shauld be~ but did not knaw of any other more logical s~~ution
to fill the housing needs than r.ondominium converslons.
5/21/19
~
MINU7[.S~ ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMI5SIOM~ MAY 21~ 1979 7g';7r,
EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION VAFIIAtiCE N0. 30 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0, lQfi94 (continued)
~_ . _...----.-~.
He referred tu Mr. Johnso~'s co~cern that they would recetvr_ a 3~•day nottce for speAking
ayainst tfic p roJecc and statcd the Gustness ~+e~ple who are involvcd 1~ thls p~o)ect arc
not apt to stoop t~ such rnF~suros. Regardless of whnt happans, thcrc wlll be absolutely
n~ repercuss{ons and they have cncouraged ancS solicttP~1 an~l ~iscuss~d with the tenantS the
posslk~lo pro~rann, Ne stated they ere prepared to madify their program nnd to soltclt
(nput froin the City. 11e stated Mr, Nem~,hlll's situatlon is very uniquo and ehat they wlll
accommadate thak situatl~~n; that he npeds to rern~in loc~~ted In the ~medii[~ ere~ A~d he
would say that hc could stay in thc projcct for ten years if they crnnot find a suitable
reloeatlun f~~c(Ilty~ ~nd onyone else in thAt same situati~n wlll t,e treate<i comp~rably;
tl~at therc are a lot c.-f units In thC project ancl th~~re is no ~~ish and mAny of the tennnts
coulJ stay for •at least one ye~ir ~~nd m~ny wuld stay much lonc~c•r~ nna thcy cir~ not went to
cro~te a disruptlun for the tr_nants; that the whole nurpc~se of the ~~ro~~rAm is :o ensure
that does r,ot. fiappen. Hr stated thcrc has nevrr brPn an attemnt not to r~nt thc units and
thcre was a rental Increase in Uece~rt~er 1'~Jo tc~ compensate for Increased costs, which
caus~d sor-e vacancies~ and at tt~at sarne tlme a tex ret~ate was put fn eff~:..c which returned
mo~e to the tcnonts (n refunds ihar the incre~sc actually cost. He stated as of June ist~
there wi 1 I be no vacancles in this project and thp vacancy f.icto~ hns ranned fram ~~'~ to
17~, dur(ng the last six months. He st~~ted he was not R~urc of th~ ~iiffcrrnte~ but wos told
by the property mannyement cor~~p~~ny that the r~arket was f~lrly ~,oft durin~ [he carly mvnths
of the year and~ obvlously~ ch~~re was sorrx; rcacticxi to thc rental increase. He siated
th~y had n~[ trled to recluc~ ~ppositinn by havinca an empty ~or~~~ex~ and the market h~is
be:en very gc~d in che last few months wi th a muvc-out ~~f 2; tu 3U tenancs ln A~ri 1 and M~y
and a move-in of about 4q tenants.
H~ discussed thc p~o~~osed sellinq pric~~ of Che converte~f units~ statinca ttie bulk of the
un(ts wauld sel) For SSn,~~1'~ to Sbo~~n~~ and explalried they h~ve vcry competent enq(neers.
architecCs and planners and i~ave csti~nates of the c~~ct ~~f m~dificatians and know they can
sell tl-e units at tliat pricc~ and that tt~ey would not sey to the Ccxrimission thcy will sell
for tliat price and t1~~sn c,nrne back later and say the units are ~oinc~ to be priced hlgher.
t;e ~xplainc;d the bulk of thc units arc two-t,e~irooi;i, one-bath units and wlll sell fur less
tl~an the larger units.
Mr. Thomas explalned 10~1'b of the tenants occupying the: units were nottffed by mai) of this
invesli•~ation ~~n Marct~ 2yth, and ~~uring the ~ast two-week period~ their company has been
at the project a lot ~f ti~e time in order to cantact the tenants and surrounding
neiyhbors. Ne ;,tated evcry tenant who indicated any interCSt~ cither in oppos(tion or In
favor of the project~ was contacted; that tFie not(ce was ma(led and a notice was posted on
a bulletin board and the manager had ihe t~:nant proy~am notification~ and aiso a n~t{ce
was mailed by the Gity. ~le stated ten ~eo~le aut of ~he 22U tenants occupyfng the proJect
had contacted zhem onct eight of [hem were interested in purchasing a unit and two were i~
opposition. He stated tfie Cjty has a aetitlon wtth a signature bloc~ at the bottcxn and
they had contactecl 3~ sur~ounding property awners and 1.`) of them had elected to sian the
petltion in support nf the converslon, and the r+ajority felt tf~is wo~ld gr~atly enhance
the ne'~hborhood and the Itving environment of the project and tlieir own property values
and provic.le a better neiqhborhood and offer the opportunity for haneownership in a ranye
that Is not avallable In that area.
THE NUBLIC E{EARING WAS GLOS~U.
Commissioner Tolar statrd iic thought che Gommisslon was in tata; agreement that a property
owr.e~ has the rlqht to develop his property as he stes fit as lonc~ as it does not have an
(ll cffect on the health and safety of tt~e people~ but he thought that decision was made
when this p~operty was built as an RM-12~Q developmcnt~ and there are a lat more units on
this property than would be atlowed acc~rding to today's standard. Fie stated the second
pui~t he wented to make was with regard to the pecitloner's primary motivaticx~ of c~eating
5/2tf79
MINtRES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONMISSION. MAY 21. 1q79 79•~76
~IR NEGATIVE i`ECLARATION. VARIANCE N0. ~~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. iQ694 (continuad)
a law to n~dium cost housi~g owne n hip in this area and felt that Is a ve ry noble
nativatton. but as he conparn~s th~ eco~omics to the variences i~volved~ at S50~000 s u~ilt
for ove~ 2Q0 u~its, the total would be In excess of S10 militon for these u~its on the
apen market~ compared to S3 m~~~ton or S4 militon if they were sold as apartmants. He
stated that while he finds th~ re~soning very noble~ he also finds discomfort tn compartnq
the tnevltabl' return It thls is co~verted. He stat~d he ls not questloninq the
petitfoner's nobiltty~ but the ~unbers seem to make a lot more sense to sc.ll them as
condominlums raCher than apartments ar a~ RM-1200 buliding. N~e referred to the varlances
~eq wsted and explained tha~ the RM-3000 ordtnancc for condomtnlum standards~ which was
just recently changed from RM-4000~ .+a~ not easlly declded and it w~s aAopted after a lot
of mtettngs and a lot of thought regerdinq what condominfum Ilvtng shauld be and aFout the
styles of conciominlum llving and what people are actually g~tting. Ne stated he ts trying
to keep ~n open mind end agrees that if co~dominlum converstons can be eccompllshed~ (t is
a popular thtny to do so that more people cen own property. but these varlance~ are far
beyond wha: he felt homeawnershlp should be and felt there (s no -~ay to get closer to the
stand~rds unless a numbc~ of the units are eliminated tn arcler to reduce the densitv. He
stated the plans a~~e beautiful with the g4rder~ areas~ but there are no sddit(onal
recreatlonal areas end the ~lans •re merely for beautiftcatlo~ of what Is •Irea~dy
existing~ and the elimination of 20 units is obvlously nat the answer beca~s~ r~othing has
been lncreased toward o~nership ltvin~. 11e stated unless the pro,ject cen b~ brought
cioser to the RM~3000 sta~dards witl~ the elimtnation of a lot ot these varia~ces~ he could
nat sup port the requast. He stated he dld nat conslder ~ny variances as tech~(ca'I.
Comml~sloner Tolar stated if thls convcrstcx~ is approved~ it wl ll mean the d(splacemant of
a lot of people and there arc n-any of thes~: people who would not he able to afford these
units~ no matter whac ftnancin~ ts proposed~ and tndicated he realixed that 1s not the
problem of thc petitluner~ but he fecls a responslbillty as a Conmtssioner charged wlth
land planning to see that the project Is b~ought closer to tf~e standards.
Commlssloner Jahnson sta~ed the archttectural drmrinqs sre beeuttful and compllmented N~.
Rawlsnd on his presentatton; however. he was concernsd about tht recre~tion-leisure areas
and it was clerlffed the recreational-leisure area p~-r unit is 487 sq uare feet and
includes al) the private and public areas~ and it was nated the requirement is 1200 squ~re
feet per unit for concbmtniwns. He asked the width of the recreational aree~ and Mr.
Ra+land polnted out It is approximat~ly 80 feet wld~ from building to building and
explatn~ed that is the location for che proposed sNimming pool. Commiss(oner Johnson felt
this would be a very d1fficult proJect for the Commission to approve, Ne stated he
disagreed wfth the goals as pres~nted by the gentlem~n from the Leqal Atd Society and felt
It ts the Planniny Comm(ssion~s obJectlve to get the land developed to its htghest and
best use for the Ctty of Ana'hcim, and sometimes th~t does not work out to be the best
thing for the tenants ar Fcsr the awner. Me statcd as we move into the arta of inflatl~n~
there ls a tremendous paradox, because fuSfilling the Commission's duty mnkes the land
more valuable and Lakes (t out of the range whare people can efford to buy ic. He stated
a lot of properties arc being uilltzed far bela+ thelr value and~ tn this case~ the
tena~ts have a goc~d deal~ and if the owne~ wants to convert to condominiums~ tt takes eaay
that good deal. He felt the decision Is whethar or not (t is ~re inportant t~ have
renters or owners in the city~ and the decision Is tha[ w~ must have both~ bu~ chat this
proJect maans taking housing aa+ey from o~c g roup and givtng it to another group. He
stated he would agr~~e that the proJect has to be b~ought closar te the gutdelines as set
forth for condomintum living (the RH-3000 ord(nance) and even though some ot the varlancns
are tnsignificant, some are very significant end h~ dld not thlnk he could support the
request as presented.
Comn-issior~er Barnes quest(oned whether or not these Indivtdual unlts cAUld be financed
through FNA o~ VA Kitfti the units above other untta si~ce the sewaqe disposal would be
5/21/79
~ ~
~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMI~ISSION~ NAY 21~ 1979 79~317
EiR NEGATIVE OECL_ A~RATION. VARIANCE N0. ;099 AND TBNTATIVE MA? OF TRACT N0. 10694 (continued)
,._..
affacted. snd Mr. Thom~s repl ied he was not posl tive end at the present ctn~ there ~r~
c~n~bl~ed sa~vices for the bulldings and some of the problem are~s wiil h~ve co bs
res ol ved.
Conrnlssloner Barnns polnted out there •re pmbleens financing condomintums because of the
sewega dtspos~l and relst~s to whether or not the u~its connect and v+hether sawege could
back up into another un(t, end Mr. avwland stAted there could be e biockaqe whtch would
creete an ov~rflew~ and Commisslonar B~rnes stated ateff should check into thls for future
reque~9ts becau~n It is a potentlal problem.
Commisslone~ B~r~es st~ted she Is very concerned about units being over other units end
th~t she does ~ot agree with the p~rking c~ncept end would 11ke to see more guest parking.
She suggast~d thet there be avallability to the tenants far sorr~ type of la~se-with-
optlon-to-bu~r program~ or ~omething similer~ so that they weuld be able to af}ord to
purch~se these unl ts wl thout the r~qu) red dc+wnpsyment.
M~. Thomas s t~ted thay are opt~ to suggestlons and would consider the possibllicy of le~se
optla~~ to rwake It more fea~ible for tenents to become arners~ snd the lease optlan ar a
raduced downpayaient could be ~ possiblltty~ and untll the proJact beca+~e ~conornlcally
Inf~asible. they would fe w1111n9 to disGUSS these pussibilitles.
Cha(rman Herbst refarred t~ tha recently chanyed RM-3000 ordinance a~d stated~ ss a new
proJect. thI s project would not even start to f1y and felt the plusea and minusES must be
looked at. a~d rlght now It has more minus~es than pluses. He asked staff if the eraa
between the bul;dings which has been made inta prive!e patlos was included In the overal)
general rec ~eat 1 ona i arees ~ and Mr. Henn i nger rep 1 1 ed that t t wes .
Chal ~rner~ He rt~st statcd that arca bencf t ts only the dcri+nstat rs unf ts and the upstal rs has
nothing.
Mr. Henningor explalned the code spec!1'les 120Ct ,qu~re feet per unit~ either prlvate areas
or cc~nrt+on a~eas, and does not specifically addrr~s the p~obiem of upst~+irs untts.
Mr. Thort-as stated that area is currently not being ~utilixed; that It originally cantalned
tha alr-conditioners, etr,.~ fuuc the~ had experienc~~~ secu~itY ~'obler-~.
Chalrman H~rbst stdtec'. this proJect is son~v+here betwee~ condorntnium requlrementY and
apartme~t requ! rements, (ndlcatinq It is an outstanding apartn+ent complex because lt does
have lrsrger uniis than nurmally requlred. R~~arding th~ parkl~g~ he exQlatned the study
for condami niums aas wel l thought out and tt has been detennined that 2-1/2 parking spaces
per untt s~e not enough, eithar in the htll ard can~on arGa or the flecland areas.
Cannission~r Tqla~ pointed out there have becn problems (n the past with chi!~ partlcular
~~ras and even wi th the 10$ vacsncy ~ therG r+as a parking problem and refe~red to a
situation v+(th Enpire Streec and Brookhurst Street being constantly backed up wlth
su;onabi les. Ne stated parking requ) ~ements have been wel l thought out and apply ta the
flatlands as wel l as h! l l a~d canyon aro~s~ and there Is a real need for guest pa~king a~d
v+l th less uni ts ~ a+orc parki ng coul d be provt ded.
M~. Tha+ias stated they wera a~a+are of the Incre~sad parking requi~en-ents a~d had hired
experts to sibn-It an unbiased report and the study wss co~duGCed vrhen the accupancy v+as at
90~; t~at he had observed the psrking sltuatio~ at 6:00 a.a~. on Sundsy m~rning and aga~n
at 6:Ofl a.a~, c~n Mednesday morning~ Nhish ere cflnsidered to be peek times, and there were a
tremandous nunber of parking spaces e~npty, and indicated he hss photographs of this
5/2t/79
,'~ . ~
MI NUTES ~ ANAHE I M C 1 TY PLANN 1 NG C~JMM 1 SS I ON ~ MAY 21 . 1979 79- 37a
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARAtION. VARIANCE N0. 3099 ~~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0, 10694 (co~tinued)
t~tuatlon. H• stated with 1.7 pa~kl~g spec~s per unlt~ there were ~pproximately 100
sp~ces vacant and that they are proposing to Increase the parkl~g by 5~t~
Chelrman Nerb~t stated peopie who avn condominlum units tend to own more automobll~s with
taensgers who ltve et home,, etc. Ile steted ha dtd not I1Ic,e the dtst~nce proposed bet~veer~
the parking stalls and the units in thts p~oJect end dtd not feel it would be ca~ducive to
honbowne rsh ( p an~i rnos t peop 1 e who avn the 1 r awn un I ts wt~nt the ( r ga rag~ wl th i n a ve ry
reesor-able dtstance~ a~d in this ~roJect sorr~ wi) I be sbout 13Q feet e+~vay. He feit this
would be s condomtntum use r+i th apartmnnt zoning and apa~tment house uses and does not
give the amenitics that horrr~uwnership deserves. Ne stated he could not egree unless It is
arought clos~r tn the RM-3000 sta~derds. He statr.d the Commtsslon is ch~rged with the
raspons ( bi l! ty of providl~g hous i ng for al l segments ~f the papulat lon and Anaheim t s one
of the first clt(es to ~d~pt a tandamfntum ordinance~ anc! the o~dinance Is to protect the
people from substandard converslons. lie steted lt le hls oplnian thts Is a gc~od apartment
cvmplex end ~ho~ld remain an apartment complex.
Commisstoner fiusho~e stoted the RM-3000 ordinance recently adopted provldes the developer
wi th a very workable guldcl i n~ and hc can make an affordab le, lawer priced home for the
market that Is thcre, and 1~e felc thts ~ew o~d(nanu has prACtlcAlly outdated the need far
condo~niniun converslons f~om epartrn~nts in the Clty of Anaheim. He stated he has reviewed
sirrilar proJects and the one approved for senlor cit(zcns Is worktng aut very well and
a~other proJect approved +~~c~roxlmately one year ago does not havc a perking problem~ but
looks ilke apartrnents that have becn repalnted a~d that the wells were not patched
prop~rly. Nc fel t the reaso~ there is no park(ng problem is that there Is a problem
sel l i ng the unI ts because they are Just repalnted epartments . He stated he recogni zes the
potltloner is trying to develop quolity Into these unlts, but felt apprava~l would be a
diss~rvice to the citizens snd t~ the dev~laper and did not think e potential purchaser
would ehooseone of thASO uni ts over one that Is develop~d ta the new standards, He atated
he deals fn real estate t~nd has Attended neetings whcrc real broktrs were tnstrutted to
encourage property awners to ca~vert thel r apartrr~nts t~~ cqndomtniums and that some cities
will allow these conversions, but~ fortunatcly~ Anahelm will not etlow them and he felt
thcre i~ no longer the need. He felt these untts would be prlc~d ~liove other units and
felt the City of Anehelm ts providing the developer w(th the tools to provtda loaer-cost
housing, but did not feel Lhis p~oJect would eccomplfsh those goals.
Mr. Thomas stated he had wwnted to hear cannents from as many ~t the tommis~ionerx as
possible because he obvlously would bcnefit from thetr observations. He ststed It appears
add(tional :onsideratlon shau~d be 91ven co bringing the ~r~JGCt more (nto eontormity with
the RM~- 3000 zon t ng rnqui rements and i ndt coted he woul ~i a 1 so 1( ke to have sn opport u~ i ty to
speak with a larger numbe~~ of the tenants who are involved, especially those In
opposltion~ f~ an ettempt to make the tcnant program more tnteresting and paletable for
Lhem. and ask~d for a four-vreek c~nt(nuance.
Commissicner B~rnes sCeted she would be wi l l inq to 9rant a four-wtek conti~uance. She
asked the representrtive from Che Legal Ald Society If he was cannected with the Orange
County Nousin~ Corr~,Ission, and Mr. Gin~oza stated he was ~rTth the Housing Coalition which
is a coaltcfo~ ~* ~tfferent citizens groups who are interested In lower-cost~ Affordable
housing (n a!1 of Orange County. Ne stated there are several ind(cations of what ts sn
affordsble untt; for Instance~ Federal Regulations~ Sect ton 8~ Sectton 235 use a
percentege of mo~thly (ncocae~ a~d Sectlon 8 says 25$ of th~ gross monthly income ts about
whet should be spent for housing, and scxne of the real estAte and fina,ncial people use A
multtpi ie~ of 2.0 or 2.5 of the +annual in~ ~me.
Commissioner Barnes •sked i f the Housing Coal itton has looked at the condnminlun
convers tons and ~ays of ga t t i ng the tenan ts 1) vt ng the re i n~o the un i ts.
5/21/%9
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 21~ 1979 79~319
EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION VARIANCE N0. 3049 AND TENTATIVE ISAP OF TRACT N0. 10594 (continued)
...~.~~ . .~ ..i...
Mr. Ginoza stated they havc been tryin~ to nwnitor thia situation sr~d he h~d attended a
maetinq at Huntington ~e~ch }or convarsion where the d4veloper had come forth r~tth e
program to provide sonb provislons Nhereby the te~ants could buy~ ~nd explatned a choler
might be • waive~ of the dawnpeyment by payl~9 a monthly re~t which would ~ccumulete for
tha da+npaYment~ and the Plsnnin9 Commlsslon he~d felt they we~ted to edopt an ordinence to
provtde some type of negot~atio~s bat~veen the developer ~nd the Pianning Comml~:to~.
tommissioner Barnas ~sked tf thern Is atd for people under certain Incomes~ end M~. Ginoz•
replted that ther~a ia no dl rect aid but ther~ sre conslderatlons which cen be pl~ced on
tha develope~s~ sueh as meking 25Z of che u~its more affordable.
Canmisstune~r Oavid steted In this Gese he is worrted sbout the social lmpltc~tlon of
selling l~~s than s tenda~~ units under the gulse of low and nQderate Income housing. He
felt Oow and mode~~te~ effordable hausiny can be provided along wf th the a~eenlties, such
as the leisure s~ess and site cuverage~ snd felt thes wlsdcam of the City 1'athers who
c~eated these ordf nances is being cont~adicted here~ end asked what klnd of llving
envl~onment is being dlacussed N1 th this many varisnces f~om the code requireme~nts. He
st~ted he did not thlnk the excepclons being req~esced here are fal~ end did not thlrik It
is falr and ~easo~able tn offer somebody hausing suc:h ~s chis~ end stated he is worried
about the soct~l tn+pl itatlan and referred to a St. l.ouls project where ~octal l lls
developed.
A~TION: Conrn(ssios~rr 8srnes offered a motion~ seconded by Lommissloner David end MOTIOH
~A R ED~ that cons ideretlon of Varlance ?b. 3p99 en~i Tentativc Map of T~act No. 10694 b~
continued to the regula~ly-scheduled meeting of the PlAnning Comml}slon on Jun~ 18, 1979,
at the request of the petltioner,
Chel rman Harbst po inted out to thos~e pcrsons present In oppos) tto~ that there wi l l be na
further notices re yardl~g the June i8th meeting.
RECESS The ~ne~ting recessed at 4:05 p.m.
_...__
RECONVENE Ti~e meetlr,y reconvensd at 4:20 p.m.
~.~...._-
1 TEM M0. G PUtsl I C HEARI NG. 0'rINERS ; TEXACO-ANIWE 1 M N! L1.5 ~
~~~IVE DECLARATION INL.~ 38n Anahelm N~'ls ttoad, Anahetm~ CA 92807 AND
CON~D TIONAL USE ERM~ NO~. 1_981 SANTA ANITI- DEVELOPMENT CORP., 3~3 San Mtguel Raad~
Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGCNTt ANANEIM NILlS~
iNC. ~ 3~ ~+he~~* M111s Road~ Anahelm, GA 92807.
Peiitioner requasts ise~mission to ESTANLISH SPECIFIC 51TE5 FOR 46 EXISTIWG ANO PROPOSED
SIG~iS on property desc~ibed as sn t rre9ularlyshaped parcel of land consisti~g of appraxi-
anately 4300 ecres gener~l iy bou~d~d by Senta Ma Cenyon Mad to the n~rth~ the Anshetm
c I ty 1 1 mt ts to th+C south and east ~ and Meats Avenue to ~he r~est ~~d fu~ther descri bed as
Maheim Hi l ls.
There was no c~ne inAtcat~ng their presence in oppositt~ to subJect request~ an~i altfiough
the staff raport to thn Planning Gomm(sslon date:d May 2i, 1979 was not rsad at the public
heartng~ lt is r~farred to ~nd rnada e part ot the minutes.
Dan 5alceda, rep~^~ese~ting Anahelm Hllis~ I~c.. ~tated this reque~st is to provlde Lhe
Commissian wlth a uamprehenstve ove~vlew of the s(gns end m~numental walls they wtsh co
incorporate wi th in the 4300-~cre pa~cel known as Anahei~n HI l ls; that when the Sign
Ordinance wea ad~pted in 19~~ it dtd not taks tnto consl~deratton a planned communlty llke
S/zi/79
~ +~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 21~ 1979 79-380
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANQ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 198) (contlnued)
Y ~~~ /~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~
An~hetm Hlils; thet actually a builder In llnaheim Htlls has tho svailebtltty of providtng
three tract aigns~ however~ wlth 59 t~act~ ~pproved wlthln the ~3!~0 ac~es~ only 29 signs
or monumantat walis have been oonstructed, He stateA a!though the request is for 46
signs~ o~ly 17 signs are being request~ed to be co~structed in the balance of Anahelm Hllis
in addttlon to the extsting 29 signs. Ne explalned there ere 1600 ecres of clcvelop~ble
praperty. He stated for tha balan~e of Anahelm Hllls thts would be one sign f~r 97 acres
•nd they feel it Is vc ry Impor!ant for M ahatm Hlils, Inc.~ sale deveslop~r of the
property~ to have a typ~ of uniform stendard of orchitectural theme and to p~ovide
msintenance for the duratton of the slgns. Ne stated when A~ahelm Hitls Is ulttmately
developed~ al) sfgns w111 bs renr~ved at Anahetm Nills~ inc. expense, except for the 10
monumental walls or directianal walls which will remain and become part of Anahelm Hilis,
Klth malntenance by the master assoclatlon.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS GLOSED.
Chelrmen Herbst (ndicatcd [he only qu~stlon he had wss r~gardtng varlous sig~s on Htdden
f,anyon itoed~ snd Mr. Salceda expleined they h~d wanted to meke thr plan a totetly
comprehenstve conditfonal use perrnlt and thP flldcl~en C~nyon Road mo~unental walls have bedn
improved and are unde~ const~ucc(on noa~ and thts plan includes those stgns which have
been approved previously. It was clariflcd that the addttiunal slgns wilt be further up
thn h( 11 as development occurs.
Commlssloner Tolar stated he could not support the conc~pt of approving all these signs
snd felt the only handle the Cammtssl~n has on the signs ln the canyon is the approva) of
the slgns Indlvidually as done (n the past becau~e Anenaim Nllls. Inc.~ even though they
are the sole owner~ are ~ot the sole d~veloper and proJects are sold to dtfferent
developers~ and he did not see any reason to give blanket approval of these dtrectlon~l
siyns. He stated there ere other developers in the canyo~ area who are not connected wtth
Anahc(m Nllls, Inc. end he felt epproval of [hls ~eq uest would be grenting e privilege to
one ma,jor develuper that other developert wi 11 n~t have.
Nr. Selceda stated ~11 the signs are located on Maheim Hills~ inc, prope~ty and w~ivers
have been granted or they have received consent from the owners of other properttes; that
the property deptcted Is totally wlthin the co~flnes of Anaheim Htlis and felt this w~s
the best way to depict what all the signs ~w~il I~ok like~ rather than doing It on e
patchwork b~sts.
Commlsstoner Tolar asked about a private developer not connected wiih A~aheim Hills. Inc.
rvha wsnts signs~ and Kr, Salceda replled M aheim Hllls~ Inc. a+ns all the property.
Commlssloner Tolar stated there ere areas in the cenyon that mre not controlled by Anahetm
HI l ls, Inc. ~ and steted al i those people wi 11 want s lgns ~ as wel 1. plus the Cemmisslon
will not know when some of the signs ba3ng approved w011 be canstructed~ and aiso they
wi11 have no way of knowing if the slgns were being remaved~ and Mr. Sslceda replied a
bond will be posted to insure their renaval~ end Commissloner Toler indlcatcd he dld not
see the ove~all obJecttve.
Mr. Selceda stated the obJective was to show the Planntng Commisslon the overall pfcture
and what the signs will lo~k ltke rather than piece-by-pie~•
Commissinner Tolar felt this approvAl w(II give Anahetm F' ~+t. approval tn put nigns
up all ovdr the area~ and Mr. Salceda Indt~ated the code a{ the builder to have signs~
snd Commissloner Tolar pointed out those slgns must be on-site end ca~not be placed in
publl~ paria+ays. etc., and Anniks Santalahti~ Assistant Otrcctor for Zcning~ explained the
5/21/79
~
MINUTES, ANIWEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION. MAY 21. 1979 79'381
EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1981 (conti~usd)
coda allvws o~e on-site t~ect sign and Mo aff-site tract slgn~ whtch cannot be on publlc
parkways and n~ust ba on private property.
Mr. Salceda stated they h~ve telkad with ali their bulld~rs and they all toncur w(th thelr
central theme fo~ dsvelopment~ and suygested thet this is dtfferent because AnaheSm Hlils~
Inc. ~nd Aneheim Shores are the only wo planned cornmunitles In the Clty of Anahelm to
~+~te.
Cha) rnian Nerbst compllrtwnted Anahelm Ntlls, Inc. on thelr slgns and stated he felt they
a~e well done and i~ gaod tasto. Ne polnted out there a~e son+e very serlous vlolatfons of
the Sign Ordtnance by th~ real estate people with signs up and down the parkways And on
the tolephane poles. Ne also questloned the stgn on the p roposcd school stte s~d asked if
that site hus bea~ approved by the Qrange Unifted Schonl Dlstrtct.
Mr. Salceda replied thst that slte has not been epp roved end the reason far thc sign is to
let prospective b uye~s knaw that that site vctll probably be a school site. Ne stated the
City of Orange hes said thts is probsbly wherr. the school wt11 be located.
Robe~t Nanninger~ Assistant Planner~ stated staff had contscted the Orange Unlfied Schaol
Dist~lct a~d they have Indicate~i that stte Is tentatively " atrd as ~ school sftn.
Mr. SalGada steted that If e builder werc to comc in and say hc winted to have three
signs. there could cpnceivably De 177 dtfferent scyle signs~ from Danlsh moda rn to
Spanish, and this ls what they are tryfng to contro) and that is the reason for the
hearln9 today.
Gommlssioner King fel t this would be a times+~ver ar+d would e) trninata 17 pub) Ic hearings.
Gommissloner Tolar stated he (s concer~ed because there are other developers in the
canyon~ other Cha~ Anaheim Hills~ Inc.. a~d the anly handle the Camnt~si~rt has o~ th~
signing tn the area Is iredivldual approval; that he agreas M aMelm Hills~ Inc. signs are
we11 do~e~ but dld not think tlme should be sacrfffced for the q~iality tn the past. whlch
c~uld happen by blanket approval nf 17 more ~Igns.
Chetrm~n Herbst asked v+hen t1~e o[her signs raoutd be constructed~ and M~. Sa~lcede replled
between ~vw a~nd 1983.
Commisstancr Johnscx~ askad (f future developers wanting specisl stgns for development of
Anaheim Nills~ Inc, propa~ty -+ould be comir~g before th~ Commisslon for approvel~ or
whether Anahelm Hills~ Inc. will tcll them the location Is alr~~dy decided.
Mr. Salceda stated when Anahetm Hills~ Inc. enters into a contract w(th a buiidar, they
have a sales agr~ement whlch indicates the types of stgns he can put up and where he can
put them and~ with this cundltional use permit, they a~e requesting 17 signs, but he could
not say this is going to last untti 19$5 and this ts ali the si9ns that will be requested~
but if~ in fact~ there are amen~nents~ ch~nges or dele,ttons, they w!11 be submitting those
to the Plsnning Cormiisslon for their APPfGVBI~ but this is their be~t guess for the tlme
being.
Commisstoner Johnson osked if Mahetm Hills, Inc. proposes to hotd the signing in the a~ea
to those ltste d here~ and Mr. Saolceda stated that as part of the c~nditions of the
co~dlttcx~al use permit, they are showln~ the quality and quantity of the signs and d1d not
think that would be blanket approval or an apen-ended check for more signs.
5/21/?9
~ ~?
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITr PIANNING COMNISSION, NAY 21~ 19)9 1~-382
EIR NEGATIVE OECIARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1981 (conttnu~d)
The Commission r~,vierred the pictures of the signs~ and Mr. Saiceda pointe~d o~t those walis
which wil) remeln whon Ar~aheiM ~Illls ts ultlmately develaped~ and also th~ Canmisslo~
discussed the trmporary stgns which wtll ba removed.
ACTION: Commissioner King ~ftered a matlo~~ seoanded by Wmmtssion~r David •nd MOTION
~0. thAt the Anahei~n Ctty Plann~ng Commistlon has reviewed the prop~sal to permit
sprcif{c slgna for 46 extsting and ~roposed slgns on en trregularly-sheped parcel of land
conststing of spproximetely 4300 acres generally bounded by Sante Ana Cr~,yon Road to the
north~ the Anaheim clty llmita to the south and eest, and Meets Av~nue to the west~ a~d
further de;cribed as M ahelm Hilis; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaretion from
the ~equireneent to prepa~e an envtronment~l Impect report on the basis thsr. thera would be
no stgnificant individual or cumulative adverse Qnvircx~ment~i Impect due to the epp roval
of this Neg~ttve Declaratton; thet no senstclve environmentel Imps~ts are tnvatved in the
propossl; that the Initlal Stu~y submitted by the petitioner indicates no stgniticant
indlvldual or cumul~tive eclverse environmentai (mpects; end chet the N~gative Declaretlon
s~stantl~tl~g th~ fore9otng findtngs is on ftle in tha City of Anaheln, Plenning
Departme~t.
Lommissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC7g-95 snd moved for its p~ssege e~d edoptlon,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby grant Petltlan for Conditional Use
Permlt No. 1961~ subject to Interd~partmental Committee rew+nr~ndatlons.
~n roll call~ the foregoing resolutton was passed by the foilc~+ing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BUSHORE~ DAVIO~ HERBST~ JONNSON~ KING
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: TCLAR
ABSENTt COMMISSIONEP.S: NONE
S/21/i9
MINUTES, ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, M~~y 21, 1979 79-383
IT[r~ N0._ 7 PUBLIC HEARING. OwNERS; aICHARD ANO ELSIC MACKENSEN,
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION 1616 SAUth Euclid StrPCt, Anflhelm, CA 928u2. AGENT:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1980 JOHN W. BERNBROCK, 62S South Euclid Strr.et, Anaheim,
CA 91.802. Petitloner requests permisslon to ESTABLISH
AN ADULT BOpKSTORE an p mE~er[y described as a r~ctangu-
I~rly-shaped parce) of land consisiing of approxim3tely 2865 Square feet having a fronl.~ye
pf aRproxinwtcly 21 feet on th~ south side af Lincoin Avenuc, havinq ,i rnaximum d~a~th of
approximately 135 feet, being located appruximately 110 feet ea~t of the centerline of
Ph(ladelphia Street, and further described as 314 East Lincoln Avenue. Prop~rty prc~sently
classified CG(CONMERCIA(., GENERAL) ZONE.
There was n~ one indicatinq their presencc ir~ upposition to ~ubject request~ and althouyh
the st3ff report to the Planninq Camni55ic~n clated May 71 , 1979 w.~s nc~t read at the publ ic
hearing, it (s rerferreci to a~7d m~de a part of the minutr~:.
Commissioner BushorP declared <i Cc~nfllCl c~f intcre~.- ~~s definrd by An<ihrim City Planning
Commission Resolutfon No. PC76-157 ~~dpptinq a Cont~icc of Interest f,~~dr. (or thc Planning
Commission and Gc~vernment Ce~d~r Sectic~n 3625, ek tieq., in that he h,is ~~ contractual agrecmc~nt
as the Redeve I opmenr_ Ac~ency' s Acqu i s i t i on Ac~~nt and th i s pa rr.r. I i 5 i n che RedevFr loprnent
Pro~eec Alpha;therefore, pursuant to thr_ provi~~ions of the abc.ve Codes, declt~rPd to the
Chairman that he was withdrawinq from thc hr.~irinc~ in connectic~n with Conditi nal Usc Permi[
No. 19B0 and wcauld not t•~ke part in rith~r the discus5ic~n or the v~tinq therean and had
not discussed this m~3fter with ~~ny n~crn!~~r c~f thc Planninq Corrrhission. THEREUPON, CQMMISSIANER
BUSHOkE L~FT THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 4:40 P.M.
John W. Bernbrock, 62~ S. Euclid Street, An,~heim, agent, reported that at the beqinninq ~f
this year the Garden of Eden Adult Bookst.orr received nntice of a rent increase of ov~:r
1p0;,, that the ~rupritt~r had h~~d sarne d~fficulty w:th the l~ndlord because hc would not
repair the premises and would not develop security to de.ter break-ins; chat af[F~r 9 years
the proprietor elected to move next door, Iess th~n 40 feet 3way. Mr.Bernbruck sta[ed he
represents the pr~prietar and the property owncr; that the business has bcen in Anaheim at
[he previous location for 16 years; th~[ the busines5 is inspected weekly by ccrtain
regulatory agencies and tliere hive been no problems.
Don Marshall, proprietor of the Garclen of ~~+en Adult Bookstare, indicated hc had been in
this business fcr 9 years and was present to ans~rer any questions.
THE PU6LIC HEARING WAr CLOSED.
Commissioner David pointed out there are no parking problems involved with this location
as indicated in the staff repart and Robert. Nenninger, Assistant Planner, stated this
is one of the few businesses in the downtown area which has parking located bel~ind the
building.
Chairman Herbst asked what effect this will i~ave on redevelopment of the area and Mr.
Henninger report~d the Redevelopment Co~nission F1d:~ (1~SGU552C) this pruposal and had indi-
cated they have no curfent p~ans for acquisi[ion; that the future of this property on the
conceptual plan is for residential uses, but they do not have any current plans to go ahead
with ~evelopment and made the decision not to make any recommendations to the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Barnes asked the petitianer what their plans are when redevelopment occurs
and Mr. Bernbrock indicated the ~roperty owner wouid sell the property. He reported they
do not expect redevelupment plans to affect this b~siness for 10 years and in 10 years
the proprtetor would close the business.
5/2i~13
~_ ~~.
y
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 21, ~979 79'384
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION b CONDtTIONAL USE PE.RMIT N0. 1980 (continued)
Commissioner Johnson asked if thr. lease on the property from where they had rn~ved had been
dropped and Mr. Bernbrock replied thAt lease wAS on ~~ mrmth-to-month basis. He scated the
le~se on subject prc~perty is for two years and is renewabie with two five-year o~.~tinns,
suo}ect to being approved by the Plann~ny Cortmission.
Commissioner Tolar pointed out a large percentaqe of that building is currently v~cant, an~
Mr. Bernbrock replied approximat~ly I/2 the building is vacant .~nd will remain vac~nt because
this particular business doesn't require a e~reat deal of floor sp.ice. Ne rx~lained the
previousbusines5 had been a dry clcaners ~nd the dry cle~anin~ pl~~nt w~~s in thc rear and it
h-as been removed.
Commissioner David asked if there havc ber,n any comment.s from the Pc~lice Department regardiny
this request and Mr. Dernbrock stated there had been one arrest about iwo years ago of
Mr. Marshall, and the rTM3tter was dismis5ed. ~ie explained someonc fr~~m the Palice Departmc~nt
comes into the store at least once a wc~ek, inspects it and vicws t~~~• patrons and they have
not disapproved the business.
Commissi~ner Barnes pointed out the business has becn there for a long time and stated she
would not like to have ~n adult bookstore in thc nr.w rc~develop~-ent arca, but. in the. mcar~ir.-e
~ince it has be~n thcre and there aren't ar.y plans for rcdevelopment, she ~1id nc~t fecl thcre
are any graunds fur deni~l, unless i[ is f~lt. the use ~~K~uld br. derc~gatory to the arca or
5ort-ehaw harmful to the pevple who live in the .-~rea. She s~ugge~.ted the use be granted far
a period of two years so that it can bc ~~evicwcd.
Cammissianer Tol~r s[.3ted he could see no benefit to having this busin~s5 in that loc,~tion
and did npt think it wc~uld be an as5ct to the arca. He fclt thcrG are prUbably other
businesses which could be developed and be a hiqher and better use c~f the property.
Jack White~ Deputy City A[torney, 5tated that i~~ not the test fora conditional use permi[,
and stated the issue is whether ~,r- noi there is suhstantial evidenr.e in the record of this
hearing to suppart [he followinq factual f+ndings: 1) that the use is ~~roperly onc f~r wh~ch
a conditional use nermit is auth~~rized by the Zoning Code; 2) that the p~~oposed use will not
adversely affect the adjoining land us~s and the qrowth and development of the area in which
is is proposed to be loca[ed; 3) that the size and shapc of tMe s~te propos~d for the use is
ac~quate t~ allow the full develupment of thc proposed use in a manner not detrimental ta
the particular area nor to the peace, health, 5afety and ge~neral welfare of lhe ci[izens;
4) that the traff ic generated by tFie proposed use wi 1 I ~ot ir~pose an ur,due burden upon tlie
s[reets and highways desiqned and improved to carry thc t.raffic in the area; av~d 5)chac the
granting of the conditional use permic ~cnder tlie conditions irn~sed, if any, will not be
detrin-enta) to the peace. health, safety, and ge~eral welfare of the citizens of the City
of Anaheim. He stated it does not take an affirmativc finding that this is the best possible
use for that location; that negativc: findinqs m~,st be shown if
the Gommission feels the u~e is detrimental to the a~-ea and there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support that. whether it be the traffic flow or on~ ~f the ~ther conditions.
Chairrna~ Nerbst stated this action was the result of action by the toning Enforcement Officer
and it was noted the petitiuner had m~ved into ~he building without thc proper permits.
M~. Bernbrock stated a business license was obta~ned before thc move and stated ~t that time
the business had been in operation for 16 years, 9 years with this proprietcr, and he
did nat knaw that a permit was required. and as soon as he was a~vised, he filed an applica-
tion.
Chairman Herbst stated there h,as be~n a lot of hearings in this City regarding adult bonk-
sto~es and the actions have been rep~rted on the front pages of the newpapcrs. Cortmissioner
King stated a n~n-conforminy use has no basis and Mr, lahite rpplied it has no basis because
this is a new kocatian.
5/21/T9
~ ~• • .~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, May 21, 1979 79-385
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION_AND CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 1980 (continued)
ACTION: Cortmissioner Johnson offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION
CARRIEU, ~~~at the A~aheim City Planntng Commissian has reviewed the proposal to retain
a~ adult bookstore on a rectanyularty-shapPd parcel of land consisr.ing of approximately
2865 squarr. fect, having a frontage of approxim~7tely 21 feet on the south s'~e of l.incoln
Avenue~ a maximum depth of approxi~atcly 135 feet, beinc~ laG~ted approximately 110 feet
east nf the centerlinc of Philadelpt,la Street; and does hereby ap~'ove thc Nec~atlve
Detlaration from tlie r~quirement to pr•epare an rnvironmental impatt report on the basis
that there would be na signif~cant in~iividual or cumulativH adv~rse environmental impact
due to the approval of this Negativ^ DeGl3rati~n since the Anal~eim ~eneral Plan desic~nates
the subject property for gener~l commercial land uses corm~ensurate wi[h the proposal;
that no sensitive environmental impacts arc involved in the propoyal; that the Initial
5[udy submitted by the petitianer indicates no significant in~fividual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact•,; and that the Npgative Oeclaration substantiatinc~ t.he
foregoing findings is on ~ile in the City of An~hcim Pl.:~nniny De~artment.
Comnissioner Johnson offered Resolution No. PC79-96 and moved for its passage and adoption
that thc Anaheim Ci[y Planning C~rm~ission does hereby deny thc Petition far Conditional
Use P~rmit No. 19E30 on [he basis that this usc wc~uld h~~vc a decri~nt~l rffect on [he
adjoininy land uses and thc c~rowih and development of the area and en the.~ pe~~+ce, he.~{th,
safety and g~neral welfare c~f the citi~ens of the City of Anaheim.
On rall cali lhc fo~egoin,y re5c~lution was pas5ed by thc followiny vote:
AYES: DAVID, HERBST, JONN~ON, KING b TOLAR
NOES: BARNES
A9SENT: BUSHORE
Commissioner Barnes explained she fclt since the use has bePn in the area for so long
and there hav~ been nq probiCmS, anC Since redevPlopment is nat taking ploce in the
near future, the use shoutd bc allr,wed in order for [he petitioner to havc tin~e to
relocate.
Jack lahite, Deputy City Attorncy, presented the pctitioner the written riqht to appeal
the Planning Comnission's decision within 22 days tu the City Council.
COMMISSIONER BUSHORE RETURNED TO TNE CUUNCIi. CHAMdERS.
5/21/79
~- -
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 21, 1y79 79•386
ITEM N0. 8 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GILBERT N. AND MARIE B.
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION~CLASS 1 KLUTHE, 1621 Cast Santa Ana Street, Anaheim, CA 92806,
CONQITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. I~7~ AGENT: RUSSELL C. MANG(1L0, 37Q1 Pntrero~ Fullerton~
CA 92635• Petitioner requests ON-SALE LIQUOR IN A
PROPOSED RESTAURANY on property described as an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre having a rtrontage
of approximately 119 feet on the west aide of State Colleye Bouleva~d, having a maximum
depth of approximately 270 fe~et, being located approximately 370 feet south c~f the center-
line of South Street, and further described as 83~ South State College Boulevord. Property
presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITEDI ZONE.
There was one person indicatiny his p resence in opposition to subject request, and al-
though the staff report to the 1'lanning Conxnission dated May 21, 1979, was not read ~~t the
public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutr.s.
Russell Mangold, ag~nt, stated he has be~n in this tYpc business for 3! years; that he
currently owns a rest~ur.:~nt known as Rus~,ell's Steak House in Fullerton, bordering Anaheim~
and retently spld thc~ Mi ralorn~3 Inn which was in Anaheim. ~te present~:d +i copy of the menu
and indicated the operatin~7 hours will be from IQ a.m. to 2 a.m, and there will be a small
piano bar wlth no dancing ~r loud music; that constructior~ of thc building is such that it
is well-insul~ted; and the nearest competitar ~;ervinq food and cc~cktails would be the Silver
Fox to the s~uth. He explained this opcrotic~n will b~ simi~ar t~~ the existiny Russell's
Steak Nouse on OrancJethorpe in Fullr.rton, close to the 51 Frecway. He expl,iined the aro-
posed facility will h~ve ample parking.
Gordon Duncan, 1839 E. Dianna, stated his propcrtY is directly behind sut,ject property;
that a Cnlonel SanderS is developed adjacent to the sub.ject I~cation and when it hacl opened,
he thought that would be best ~~ince •here would be nc~ drinkine~ ~~nd no nuise in the parking
lot at night; however, chere has b~.en a proble~~ becsiuse thc trash COnLd1~1Cf is located
next to his bedroom window. N~ ~sked about chc 20-fc~ot. burtfer area mentioned in a previous
heariny. (It was pointed ou[ that there will bc a 20-foot landscaped huffer area between
his pr~perty and the parking lot.l Mr. Duncan explained his bedrohm window is higher than
the exis[ing 6-foot fence and the fence doesn't ~~top any af the n-~ise, and the trash is
pic.ked up at 6 a.m.. He was concerned ~hat a bar ia goinU t~ br. developed and will be ~pen
un[il 2 a.m. and fclt ~hr patrons from the bar leaving the area will be noisy. He stated
he realized I~e was takinq a chance buying oroperty adjacent [a co+nnercia~ praperty, but
h~ped s~mething could be done t~ lessen the noise.
Mr. Mangold stated the trash containers are located about 65 feet away from the rear
property line. He stated they do have more than the required parking spaces and would
have r-o Abjection to providiny the 2p-f~t ~andscaped buffer by eliminatinc~ severa! of the
parking spaces. He stated they would be willing to plant some nice Cypress trees which wil)
grow quite tall and provide additianal bufferiny. Ne stated this will not be a bar ~ven
th~ugh they d~ sell liquor; their primary business is servinq foad. He stated the average
age of his clie.ntele is probably a minimum of 32-33 years old up to 80 years old.
THE PUBLIC HEARiNG WAS CL05E0.
It was noted ihe Planning Director or his authorized representat~ve has determined that.
the proposed project falls within the definition of Catec~oricai Exemptions, Class I, as
defined in Paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Im~,act Report Guidelines and
is, therefore. categr~rically exempt rrv~n the requiremen[ to prepa~e ~n EIR.
ACTION: Cortmissioner Kiny offered Resolution No. PC79-91 and moved for its passage and
adoptton that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant the Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1915, subject co the petitioner's stipulation at the public
hearing to provide a 20-foot landscaped buffer a~ea on the west property line,and subject
to Interdepartmental Committee Recorrrnerdations,
5/21/i9
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 2) 1979 79'387
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 b CONDITIANAL U~E PERMIT N0. 1975 (continued)
______,_-
On roll call the foreqoing resolution was pa5sed by the fallowing vote:
AYES: BARNES, l3USHORE, DAVID~ NERBST, JOHNSQN, KING b TOIAR
NOES: NONE
A3SENT: NONE
Chairman Herbst instructed staFf to have the site adjacF~nt to sub.iect property investigated
for possiblc violati~ns, and possibly having the dumpscer reloc:a[~d.
Jack White~ Oe.puty City Att.c~rney, present~d the right of appea) to anyone not satisfied
with the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
il'EM N0. 4 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: LOUIS ANO FRANCES CANNON,
EIR NEGAtIVE DECIPRATION 13223 ~'entura Buulrvard, North Hollywr~od, CA 9~60G.
WAIVER OF CODC REQUIkEMENTS AGENT: KEkT PHILl.~PS, 1011 East Walnut. Santa Ana,
CONDITIONAL USE PERM!T N0. 1976 ~A 92~01. Petitionrr reyuest.s pcrmiscion to ESTABLISH
AN OUTDOOR STORAGE YARO WITfI WAiVER OF (A) MINIMUM
FtEQUIRED PARKI~:~, (B) MAi(IMUM PERMITTEO WAIL NEIGNT
IN A FRONT SETfiACK AREA, AND (C) PERMITTEO ENCROACHHENT INTO REQUIREO SETBACK c~n property
described as a rectanyularty-shaped parcel of fand cc~nsisting ~f ap~roxirnately 4.5 ~cres,
haviny a frontage o( approximaccly 321 feet on the north side af Mi~al~ma Avenue and having
a depth of approximatcly 615 feet, ~nd beinq loc~~tcd approximately 365 feet west of the
centerline c~f Red Gum Street. Proptrty presently classified Ml ~~NDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
There was no one ir,dicating their pre~ence 'n oppositic~n ta subJect request, and althouvh
the st~~ff report to the Planninq Cammission dated May 21, 1979, W~'~s not read at the public
hearing, i[ is ~efcrred to and R,ade a part of the minutes,
Ron Ishii, 1095 N. t~~in Street, ~r~n~e, ayent, indlcated Kent Phillips, GenerAl Manager of
Apache Plastirs. L~uis Cannun, owncr,and the real cstate ayent were present to answer any
yuestions. Nc ~xplained Apachc Plastics ba5icalty manufactures plascic pipe and wi~tes to
store the pi~e at this Ic~cation; that a 100'x40' buildiny ls proposed; that they propose
six parking spaces and the stoff repc~rt indicates 79 spaces are requireci, but they only
i~ave 5 emplr.~yees at this site ~~~d this is nnt a rPta11 outlet a~d na customer parking is
required; that they a~~ proposing ~~ 6-foot hiql~ fence in [he front setback for the purposes
of security of th:~ outdoor stor•age and for scree~ing and tha[ they are proposing redwood
slats f~r the fence; and ~~xplained if they are r~:yuired ta prc.vide thr required setback of
50 !ee!. they would lose approximatrly 1/3 acre, or 12,800 sq. ft., of the sltc. He stated
this is an industrial area and there are other facili[les in the a~ea whlch havr. the same
type af encroachmen[ as they have requc~ted.
TI1E PUBL I C h1EAR I NG WAS CLOSED .
C~nmissi~ner Johnson asked if the se[back requirement is tk~ same as lt is on La Palma and
Robert Nenninger, Assistant Pt~nner, replied that the requirement is the san-c and explained
the petitioner has referred to an address where there is a setback af lpss than a0 feet
and the recards havc bee~ rev+cwed to determine vr~echer ihere ~~as a z~ning ac:tion and
none was found; how~ver~ further up the street there is a varianct af the setb~ck which
was approved for a 2°year period for a small equip~ent rental yard. He was nut sure of the
exact date the variance was apprcvrd, but though[ it was approximately 4 years aqo and
it has nat b~een rtnewed and should be appearing on the Commission's agenda in the n~ar
future for an extension r~f time.
Commissi~ner Bushore ~~sked if the proposed screening is al! around the r.itc or just around
the front arca and Mr. Ishii ~eplied t~e proposed scree~ing of fencin•: and landsca~iny is
basically in the front area; that a 6-foot fence for stcurlty i~ proposed around the project.
5/21/79
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY RANNING COMMISSION, May 21~ 1979 19'388
EIR NEG. DECLARAT_ION, WAIVER OF CQOE RE UiREMENTS b CONDITIONAL USE FERMIT N0. l~]6 (continued)
He stated they did not anticipate providing redwood slats unless required since the property
abuts other industrial uses.
Commissioner Bushore asked if tl~e trucks coming in to be toadr_d will be contractor's trucks
or Apache Plastic~' trucks.
Ken[ Phillips, General Manager of Apache plastics, st,3ted basically this site will be a
storage/distribution yard; that they have a manufacluriny plant in Santa Ana which is
overcrowded as far as storage is concerred; that th~y have been looking for a new site for
storage for over a year; that the manufac[ured pipe will be stored at this lc~cation and
shipped to other locatiuns; that it is not a sales yarci and 99~x of their whol~sale
is done off the site. Ne explai~~~d 9U~ of the trucks into this facility wili be lheir
own trucks. He sCated there wi11 anly t,e two permanent employees al this site and the
other three will b~ truck drivers who will tak.e a lo~i~ out in the me~rning and come back
in the eveninq. He explained tne six p~rkiny spaces will be for the employees and if a
customer came in with a car or sm~~ll truck, there Hrc~uld be adequate parking.
Commi~sioner sush~,re asked how many truck~ will bc stored on the proFcrty and where would
they be parked? (Mr. Phillips indicated therr w~~uld be tliree trucks on the site.)
Mr. Phillips explained they have 1.75 acres of stora~e spac.e arc~und their Sant.a Ana plant
now ai~d subject proFerty will be 4,6 acres for storaye only; that the Santa Ana p18nt is }ust
able to handle the storage rig-it now. so this sitc would quadruplc the Storage space and
wil) provide space for a great ~any years in the future.
Commissioner Bushore indicated he has no real proble~n with the parkiny spaces, bur was con-
cerned if the reyuest for waiver of thc setback was 9r~nt~~d, others would want the sarne
thing and would have an effect on the entire area. Nc stdted he did not see thQ wisdom
in asking for a~aiver of the 10-foot setback sin~ce they will not be util:zing the en[ire
site right away.
Mr. Phillips stated they have no usc~ of that porti~n of chc propertY if the setback is
required and pointed out other businesses are not using th~t area f~r storaqe, but for
parking.
Chairman Herbst explain~d the petitioner has the chaice af usinc~ thac property for either
landscaping or parking; that [he setback is a requirement in ~rder to beautify the indus-
trial zone and it h~s been very successful; that a portion of the area could be paved for
~arking and the ather por[i~n landscaped. He stated he would n~t vate far a se:back waiver
and did nat feel because a srnall building is plan~ed entitles tt-e property to the waiver
and, in fact, felt because there will be a small building~more beautification wil) be
required. He felt mare bc~auLification would bt tradeoff ir this situation since the
petitioncr i~ requestiny outdocr st~raye fnr ~he entire :.ite.
Commissio~er Tolar stated hc did not bel~eve any outd~or storaye has been allnwed without
adeq~~~e scrcening with redwood slats all thc way around.
RObert Henninger explainPd the Code requires slatting around the entire ~erimeter and he
beiieved the pl~ns show that screening.
Mr. PhilliQs staked he was not aware that the slatti~g Nas re~uired all the way arn~nd,
but would comply.
Chairn~n Herbst asked what the building wauld be used for and Mr. Philliqs replied it would be
a st~rage area for pipe fittinys. etc.
5/21/79
~
r
F
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 21, 1979
79- 389
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1g76
(coniinue~) ~
Chairman Herbst asked thc height of thc materials to be stored and Mr, Phillips replled
the heighks are variable; that the pl~~stic p(pes are bundled in groups approximatcly
2 ft. x 4 ft. x lenyth of the pipe and are stackcd onc cn top of the other.
Chairman Herbst explained if the materials are stacked higher than six feet, the fence will
havc to be hfgher because the Code requires the fence tu be hi~her than the materials to
be stored. (Mr, Phillips indicated they had tried to get th,~t inforrratian prior to this
meetiny, but were unablc to get that quescion answered regarding the height of storage.)
M;. Phillips indicated lhey would lik~ to be able to stack higher than six feet depending
upon the space, but there would be no need to g~ higher than 8 to 10 feet at this site.
Commissi~ner Tvlar asked why thr petitioner would want t<~ ;tack higher than six feet ~vith
that much space.
Commissioner Johnson asked how t.he par•kiny was calcul~ted and Mr. Henninger explained the
Code simply states thc parking requ~rement is I 5p~~.e for every 2,500 sq. fc, of outdoor
uses, not defining tF,~se outdoar us~s.
Commissioner J~hnson stated the P~~nning Conniis5ic~n d~es wan[ this business in th~ City of
Anaheim and is r~Ot just srying to ~ut up a lot of barr~icrs, but the indu5trial area alonq
Miraloma has been set aside to bc a bcautiful arca and the rules werf~ laid down many years
ayo req~~irir,g the 50-foot front setback and many other petiti~ners have requested to use
that area for outdoor storage, but the Ccmmission ha~~ stayed wtth tlie rules. Hr_ felt the
petition should be submitted within che Code which means rrr.et~ny thc 50-foot front setback
~equirement, pr~vidiny thE screened fencing :~rnund the property and that the fpnce should
be as high as the ~~:ateri:~l~, to be ~tored. He r~eferred to Ganahl Lumber Company on Ball
Road,indicatiny it has ~ setback wi;h some parking in the setback and a hiqh screened
fence around it and Stat.ed that is what the Commission has in mind. He stated he did not
see a neeG for any ~( thP waivers e•~x~cpt the parking and felt that requirement was too high
for the pro~osed use.
Chairman Herbst stated the resc of the Corm~i,sion agree that the parking req~~iremen[ is too
hiyh,but t.here would be ample parking ;n thc 50-foat s~tback.
Robert Henninger explained khe ~0-faot setba~k is a structural setback and 10 feet of that
are,3 must be landscaped, but the re~+x~inder can be used for parking.
Commissioner Bushore asked ~f the proaosed •~ix p.~rkiny spaces are insid~e the fence and Mr.
Phillips replied they are. Lomrr,issioner Bushare stateu since these are employee parking
spaces th~y c.auld be plac~d on t.he out;ide of [he fence. He fe.lt ~here should be some
designated parking inside the fence for the trucks. He asked if ,nere was a possibility
of suble:ting a portion of this property to ather types of contractors for storage or truck
storaye,and Mr. Phillips replled thrr `3vp no p!ans to sublet !he property and plan to
utilize the antire property them~elves.
Co:tmissioner Barnes asked if thc trucks o+ould be parked inside at niyh*. and Mr. Phillips
replied :hey would.
Comr~iss~oner King asked Mr. Phillips to discuss ihe 3-~nch layer ~f packed decomposed granite
proposed and Commissioner Barnes asked him to disc~ss the dust factor with the decomposed
c~ranite.
~ '. . Phii{ips explained they have used this typ~ surface in several uf their yards and there
~~ very fittle dust and th~e materia{ packs every time traffic goes over it and it gets
'~0''~ ~.~y hard.
~- S/2 ~ /?9
~ .~
MINUTCS, ANANEIM CIIY P~ANNING COMMISSION. May 21, 1979 79~39~
EIR NE~fTIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT b CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 1976-
continued)_ _
Corrmissio~~e~ Barnes stated sh~ was in favar of granting the request, denying waivcrs (b)
and (c) and granting waiver (a), and suggested the petitioner pr~vide 10 t~et of landscaping
with the remainder paved for parking.
Mr. Phfllips stated he had assumed the front setback would be problem; that they d~~ not
part~culArly want any exteptions madc for them, but unless they can store in that area,
the land is tutally uscless ta them and the question is whether a parking lot is mare
brautiful than slacked pipc; th.~t they can landscape the front 10 feet just like the
rest of the buildinc~s alon~ there and the differenc.c is tha[ the othcr busi~~esses park
ca rs li i nd the I andscaped u rea and they wou 1 d bc s t ack i nc~ p i pt~ b~fi i nd i t; t hat they c:an
stack the pipe helow the heiyht of fence which wa~ld be better than the cars since you
would not b~ able to see the pipe below the height of the fence and you woulcf I~e aole. tc~
see thc cars.
Cuirmissioner Barnes stated this 15 ane of thc primc ind~~st~ial .ireas and none~ of the
CommisslonPrs would be in f,~vor of granting thr woiver; that therc have been a Int af
difficulties with the indu5trial area because everyone wants to do sornething diffcrent and
it is the Planning Corrwnistiic~n's desire to attract ~~ther btJSinC,5C5 1 ik.e this to the area.
She stated :~he wc.~uld not bc• in favor ofanyth(ny~eh~r than thc 50-f~aut setback wi~h the.
10 feet of landsc~ping ,inri the pa-'king could be~ in thc ffUlll~and shc would also want ta
see [hc pro~i^r scr~cninr~.
Gc~rmii'Sioner Barnes askc~d staff to cher_k intc.~ thr. other variancc~ in this area whi~h has
expired.
CcmYnissioner Joh.r,ser ~sked if w~iver (c) wc~ulcl be necessary if (b) were deni~4 dnd Nr,
Henninqer ~xp~~3lned waiv~~rs (b) and (cl 9~ to:~ether and expi~;ned the ~setitioner could
stipulate to mf:Nt Codr require~x~nts for site screening which will require him in the frant
setback adjacent to tne st~eet te have the frnce witti rr~iwoc~d sl~~t5~ plus a tree screen
and redwood slats all t~~e ~ray araund, with storaq~ no h.iqher tha~ thc he+gh[ af the fence.
He stated if the setbacw is rnet, the petiti~ncr c,an have ~ fr.nce as high as he desires,
and can store to that heiyht.
Mr. Phillips cfarified that the f~ncr. mJSt be 50 feet from the property line and asked
what usPS are permitted in the s~roack are~ and Mr. Henni~qer expla+ned the setback area
can either be fully {and~~capeci, or landsca~~ed for 1^ feet with the remainde r of the area
paved for parking.
Conxnissiorcr Barnes .[ated all other petitioners in this area have been req uired ta provide
these sarrx~ th i ngs and she d i d not unde rs tand hc>w t he prev iou~ 1 y d i scus sed wa i ve r was
app roved and felt Lhe Cammissi~n has rpligiou~ly stuck to thc rulcs so there will be a
c~cx~d industrial area ta bring in tax dollars.
Mr, fshii stated if th~ pri~~e objsctivc is the aesttietics of the vlew fr~m thr. st.rect,
that Apache Plastics also wants that attra~tiveness and wvndered if ther~ might be a
compramis~ ,~nd sugge ced a wider than 10-foot Iandsc.~pPd arra along Miralor-a and wra~ped
arour~,d the corners so that the only view would be [he land~,caping and felt that would be
ber.t~r than looking at a parking lot.
Chairman Herbs[ stated providing the 50-foc~t landscapecl area will not be a loss of as
much property as the petitioner is indicating b~c.ause Lhe parking spac~s a re 8} feet wide,
~lus back-up spac~ ~ required.
S/21 /i9
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 21~ 1979
79- 391
FIR NEGATIVE DECLl+RATION, WAIVER OF COUE REQUIREMENT b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1976 -
~continued) _
~1.~T1_ON: Commissioner Bornes offered a matlon~ seconded by Commtssiann.r pavid and MOTION
CARRIED that the Anaheim City PlAnning Commiss(on has ~eviewed the proposal to permit
an outdoor storage yard with waivers of minimum ~equired F~arkinq, max(mum permltted wal)
he!ght in a front setback and permitted encroachment. into required setback on a rectangu-
la~ly-shaped parce) of I~~nd consisting c~f ~7pproximately 4.5 acres~ having a frc~ntage of
approx(mately 32) feet on tf~~e norlh sidc of Mir~lorn~~ Avenue c~nd haviny a depth of approxl-
mately 615 fee~, and b~ing located app:oximately 985 fcrt west of the centrrline c~f
Red Gum Street; and does hereby ~~prove the Neqative Declaration from chc requirement
to ;,repare an environmental impact report on the basls that there would be no siynificant
individual o~ c:umulativc advcrse environmental impact due to thc approval of this Negative
Declaratian since the Anahe(m General Plan desiqnates the subjcct praperty for gen~ra)
industrial land uses corm~cnsurate with [he prop~S»I; that n~ scnsitive environrnental impacts
are involved in the prop~sal; that thc Initial ttudy submitted by the petitioner indicates
no siqnificant indlvidual c~r cumul,~tive ~dverse environmental im~~~r(5; and that the Negative
Declar~ti~~n substantiatinq the forec~oinq fin~inqs is on filP in the City c~f Anaheim Pl~~nning
Departmc~nt.
Cortunissianer Barn~s uffered a n~c~tion, sec~~nd~~d by Cummis5i~~n~r D,ivid ~nd NOTION CAKRIED
that waiver (a) be granted on the hc1515 th~c the prc:,pc~sed u~,c docs not re.quire the number
of parkiny spaces required by C.ade since thc n~jority c~f thc pr~perty will be. us~d for
storoye with very little customar t-aff~c; ,ind d~nying v+elvers (b) and (t) on the hasis
that sub.ject praperty is loc~ted in one ~f Anaheirn's prin~ industri~l ;~reas and approval
c.ould set an undesir~hle prec.edent.
Comni ss iCner Tolar suyger.ted thc permi t br granted fcir the~ terrn of the lease unly and
it was n~ted thr )c.~se is for five years.
Commissioner Barnes offered Res~lut1on Nc~. PG79-98 and moved for its passage and adopiion
th~~t the Anahcim City Planning Comnission does hcreby qrant the pe[ition ,`or C~nditiona)
Use Permit No. 1976. in part, granting waiver (a) and denyen~a waivers (b) anci (c), for a
pcriod of flve ycar•s, subjrct to Interdepartn-ental CoinnitCec Recommend~tions.
On roll call the foreguing re5olution was passec~ by the followin~ vote:
AYES: BARNES, BUSNURE, DAVID, HER95?, JOHNSON, KING ~ TOLAR
NOES: N4NE
ABSENT: NONE
Prinr to voting on the abc~ve resolution, the Commis~i~n d.scussed the possibillty of this
property being usrd for anothFr use and whether or not the pa~king waiver would apply.
Chairn~an Herbst ~~ugc~esced the permit be tied t~ requiring six or more parking spaces.
Also~ Robprt Henninger pointed eut a correctfon t~ Conditic~n Nc~.5 cf the Intsrdepartmental
Comnittee Recommendations whlch shc~uld rPad a: follows: "That subject property shall be
develope:i substantially in actordance with ad~pted City Cauncil Metal 9uildings Policy."
Jack White, Deputy Ci[y Attorney. explained the waiver and conditional use per~it are tied
together and the waivcr woild not apply unless thc propert~ is devcloped with the same use.
Ne presented the written right to .3pp~eal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days
to the City Councfl to the netitioner.
5/2-/79
~
C ~
~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 21, 1979 ~g _392
ITEM N0, lp PUBLiC HEARING. OWNER: BROOKMORE ARMS, I NC. 16A)
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA~S I L~ngley Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. AGENT: JACK E.
CONUITIONAIUSE PEkMIT NO• 1977 WILLIAMS, 16 West Del Amo 8oulevard, Long 6eACh CA
a rectanyulariy-shaped parcel
northeast cor,~er of Brookmore
of 220 feet on the north sidc~
Street, and further described
CL(COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
90805. Petiti~ner requests ON-SALE BEER A ND WINE
IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property desc.^IbFd as
of land consisting of approximacely 1.9 acreS locat ed at the
Av~nue and Brookhurst Stre~t, havinq approximAte frontages
of Brookn~re Avenue ~ind 378 feet an the east Side a f 6rookhurst
.~s 888 South 9rookhurst Street. Property pre5ently classified
There was one persun indic~~ting his prc5ence in oppositic~n to subject request, an d althaugh
the staff report [o the Plnnning Corrr,iission datcd May 1.1, 1979, was not read at t hi~ public
hearing~ (t is referred tc nd rr~ade a part of thc rninutes.
Jack Wi I{ i.7fn5, aqent for 5 i z7. Ie r's Ster~k Hou~,eS ~ i nd i cated th i 5 f,~c i 1 i ty has been uper f~r
about one rrx~nth; that th~~y want to scll ber_r and wine becaus~ they feel it is import~nt
to the viabi 1 i ty af thc ~ r bu5 incss and i t complc~~Krnts thr. Ster~k5 ; th~~t they are nc~t in thc
bu~;ines5 of sel ling l i~; ~or or heer and wine ond it i~ c~nly 5old with the service of Food,
and approximately 8 t!a 10'~ of thFi r cu~,ton,rr~, ~,urch~5c bc~~r ~r wir~c wi th [h~i r mC~3IS ~nd
it is ~i very rare exception that ~lnyonc~ ~~a~ulcl purcha5e beer c~r winr. only; th,~t thPy de not sell
bccr or winc c>ut of ;i bottlc and thr c~,nt~~in~~r i5 pick~d up ~ti so~~ a5 thc n+eal i s finished;
that they are oper~ from I I:00 ~~.m, t<~ 9:30 p.m, ; that the Sale ~.~' ~•r and winF has not
increased or decreased the traffic patterns and they d~ n<~t fe~~l there wau?d b~ a traffic
:,afeiy hazard; that the s~'~Ir. of be~~r and winc~ allows them te~ be cc~rn~~etitivc in ihP Gqrrmunity
and neighborhood; th:~t thei ~ perse~nncl is trained, inciudin~ Srr~~~~~rs wi th [he A1 eohol ic
Bevcraye Control Board c,n ,.3n annua I b~-~, i 5 so that thi~y ,,r~• t r., , na~~f f„r ~,r~,p~~r i~ie•:~e i f ic~l ion
procedures , etc. ; that dur i nq the f i ver years thc~y h~vc had I I(.Cf15C5 , they -iave ne ~er beeri
<.i tcd n~r have they h~~d any typc c~f wnrnuni ty ~roblcros wi th thci r ne ~hbor~.; th~t there are no
beer or wine bot[les thr~~wn around the parkinry lo[ and since they dc~ clos~ early, there
have beci~ no noise problem~,; that thi~re is nr~ entr.rtainment at their restaurants and this
f.~cility has a dc~ublc (irr•. wall and the re~,~d~ntial Cnnr~unity directlybehinrl tl~e f',~~ilitv
is 1~>c.;?~~d (urt.hc•~t from thc~ dininq room; that they da not ~!(~VCYC~SQ the sale of beer end
wi~e; and that they d~ hav~_~ ~idequate narking ,and arr a family restauranc.
Robert Comac, 819 5. Coventry DrivP, Stated th~e steak housr i5 rHally located on Brookmore
Avenue which is basically a dead-end short street which was con5tructed to servic e a bank,
and the strcet i~~ a ~.~rivatc strr~i maintainc•d by their homeowner's assar.iation an d has
5peed bumps and at least two very sharp t~irrts and sevcra) drivers 5peedinG on r.he strcet
have crashed through their bl~~ck walls bec~u~e the Folice Or.partR~cnt doe5 not pat ~ol
the private streets. He s[ated thcy are concerned about their safety wich rven a minimum
decreased c~pacity of thc drivers ~fter E!VPfI one drink. Ne ~:tated thc~v have just recently
resurfaced their streets because the City does not R4~intain them and they do have a lot nf
traffi< .~i,J ihe•re vrill G~~ ,ir~ increase in traffic because of the restauran[ and they are
concerned with th~ additional potential f~r act.idents because th~ir children do p ~~y in
lhe streets,and they feel it is impro~er to have an establishrnent which SFrVeS al eoholic
beverages ~~ their neighborhood whcre t`~e patrons will have to use private streei s fc,r exit.
Mr. '.lilliams stated hc respects the gentlemen's coRxnen[s and would like to say th at thNre
i5 a b-fool high wall behind the restaurant and the alley; that tf~ey have been in the
process of developing khis resta~~rant for almnst two yaars and he was not aware o f the
problems mcr~t~oned; that ihey haae not had a prc~blem in five yrars with 4 person be+ng
intoxic.ated in the;r restaura~ts. H~ stated ihe traffic pattern during the 4 wee ~cs they
have been open show the patron~, to be entering off Brookhurst Street and the rnajo ~i[y of
the traffic leaving thc restaurant appears to be leaving on 6rookhurst, not Braoks~re; that
they are very sensitive to the Rroblems thp. ~aie of beer and win~ can cause.
5/2 ~/79
~.
MINUTES, ANAHE~M GITY PL~NNiMG COMMISSION, May 1, 1919 79-39 3
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1977 (continued)
J. Ashton, 9421 Woodcrest Drive. Huntington Bear_h, California~ supervisor of this facility~
stated managem~nt has had tralning dealing with Che local ABC's, including seminars,so
they are informed of the types of problems in different ar~as with the under-age people
who try to purchase beer and w(ne,and are also instructed on the proper way to card people
and they w(11 only accept a California valid driver's IicensF for i~entification. He
stated they have not found the keenagcrs tryfng ta purchase becr ~nd wine to be a problem
~nd their employees are not allowed to consume alcoholic beverages ~n the premises ~fter,
during ~r before wt~rk an~ the containers are all disposable. He referred t~ the traffic
on Brookmc~re Street and stated duriny the time he has bcen involvsd with tliis restaurant
there has heen c~ncern by :he City Police trying to seop people from going in and out of that
street,raciny~ etc., and to the bese of his knowledge they havc noi been entering off
Brookhurst, but have been coming from this residenti~l arca; that this isn't a city street
and it is easy for residents tc~ race~ up and down in that are~~. He stated he couid not
be~ where thpir customcrs would be usin9 Br•oak-rx,rr_ for anything other than an entrance
and exit ont~ Broakhurst.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Canmissioner Barn~~ Nointed out she ha5 not bcen awarc of any n rohlems at [hc facility
located in the Sarita Ana C~nyon are~, that she hns never seen anyone intoxic~ted and
identifications are checked very carofully ~nd she cuuld not sec~ any problem with this
reyuest .
It was noted the Pl~nninq Director or his ~~uthorized re~presentative has dctcrmined that
thc proposed project falls within the definition of Categorir_al Exemptions, C1~'155 l,
e5 defined in Paragr3ph 2 of the City c~f Anaht:im Envirani~~nt~~l Impac:t Report Guidelines
and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the reyuirrm~nt to ~arc an EIR.
Commissioner Uavid Pointed out ta Mr. Cor~ c that his comnen,s h~ve been heard and if there
are any problems, they arf~ on filc.
Commissi~ner pav+d offered Resolution N~~. PC79-99 end moved for its passagc and adoption
that the Anaheim City Planniny Conxnission does hereby yrant the petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 1977, subject to Interdepar•tm~ental Co~K~it[ee Recommendatians.
On roll call. the foregoing r•esolution was passed by thc following vote:
AYES; BARNES, 8U5HORE, DAVID, HERBST, JONNSON, KING b TOLAR
h0E5: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Jack White, Oeputy City Attorncy pres~nted tlie written ri~~ht to ~pea) the Flanning
Comnission's decision within 22 days to the Li[y Council to anyone aggricved with the
decision,and Chairman Nerbst ex~,laintd that if the use becomes a nuisance in the future,
the permit can be revoked.
5/21/79
w
~`
S~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY pLANNING GOhtMI5SI0N, May 21~ 1979
79-394
iTEM N0. 11 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: CHEW NAR CHENG, 6981 Country
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Club, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGEN7~ JOHN DOMANIC, 10251
WAIV R Q CODE REQUIREMENTS Sun~ise L~.~ne~ Santa Ana~ CA 92705. Petitioner requests
CONDITIONAL USE PERMII~ N0. 1978 p~rmission to ESTA9LISH A 25-UNIT MOTEL WITH WAlVER OF
~ (A) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING~ (B) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL
NEIGNT, ANO (C) MINIMUM LANDSCAPEO SETHACK on property described as a rec:tangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approxirtwtely 0.4 acre having a fr~~ntage of approximately 66
fcet on the east sidc of Beach 8oulevard, having a maximum depth of appruximately 240
feet, being loc~ted approximately 461 feet n~rth of the centerline of Orange Avenue~ and
further described as 426 South Be~ch Boulevard. Property presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL~
~IMIT~D) ZONE.
There was no one indicat.ing their presence in oppc;sition tu subject request, and alth~ugh
the staff report to the PlannincJ Cammissiun dated May 21, 197y, was not re~d ac the public
hearing~ it is refer~ed to and made a part of the minutes.
John Oon~anic, ayent, s[~ted the pr~perty owne~°, live in Anaheim and bwn ihe la Palma Inn
on La P~Ima and Magnalia and the Calic~ ~1~tel whieh is c~~ntiguous to thc ~outh of subject
Nroperty and wish to develop Subject praperty with a 25-unit motel consistent with ather
motel dev~lopment in the area. He statcd thc F~roperty +s very narrow and diffJcult to
~evelop.
TNE PUBIIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Tolar staced ehe only prot,lecn hc~ can see i5 che two-~;tory units abutCing
single.family property to the rcar,~7n~ CD~m115:,ianer King stated that is ~n exisling situation,
and Commissioner Tolar continued that historically the Cortrnission has required some type of
landscaped buffer zone abutting single-f,~mily development and painted out the parking is
proposed against the fence «~ith ?.-story unics within 30 feet. He felt one-s[ory units
should be devcloped W~thin 30 fer.t a~d there should be a landsc.aped b~+ffer. He st.ited he
does nat have a pr~blem with the specific use of the property
Mr. Domanic stated they had considered the single-family develapment to the east and
pointed out those luts ~rc exces~~ively decp and the hout,e to the east whir.h is contiguous
has an addition and,with the addition,the distance from che dwelliny to the propertv lir
is approxi~nately 55 feet and including the 30-foot setback,the distance from structur~~
to structure is appruxin~trly f30 fe~At. Ne stated the Calico Motel to the souch is developed
with two-stary structures within IS fee~ -~f the property line. Ne explained a 6-foot high
block walt is ptanned between the two prv~,erties.
Cammissioner King offe~ed a motion, seconcied by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIEO
ihat the Anah~im City Planning Comnis3ion has reviewed the proposal to permit a 25-unit
motel wi[h waivers of minimum required parking, maximum strutiural height and minimum
landsc~ped setback ~n a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
0.4 acr~, havi~g ~i front~gc ~~ epproximately 66 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard,
having a maximum depth of a•~~rflximately 240 feet. being locaied apprnximately 461 Feet
nnrth of the centerline of .~range Av~nue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declarati~n
from thc requirement ta prepare an esz:~ironr-iental irnpact report on the basis that there
would be no significan[ tndividual or cumulativt advPrse environmen[al impact due to the
approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim Genera) Plan designates the subject
p~operty for general corm~ercial land uses comr~nsurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the prf,posal; that tha[ Initial Study submiited by
the petitianer indicatps no significant individua) or cumulative adverse environme~tal
impacts; and that the Negativr_ Declaracion substantiating the foregoing findings is on
file in the City of Anaheim Planning Departme~tit.
5/21/19
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 21, 1979 79-395
EIR NF.GATIVE DECLARATION 6 CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT W0, 1978 (continued)
C~mmissioner K(ng offered a motion~ seconded by Comm(ssioner David tha[ thc request for
w~'ver of code requirement (a) be grent~d on the. basls that the difference ts (nsigr-if(cant
and ~n the basis of the stze and shape of subject propertv~and qranting wafvers (b) and (c)
on thc basis that denia) wauld be depriving subJect property of privileges being enjoyed
by surrounding prupertie~~.
Commissioner 8arnes staled she c~uld not support the ration f~r approval even thou_yh she
1?ked the idea of a motel and felt It w~uld be r,u(table +or this praperty. Shc felt
Just hecause something existed before doer,n't necessarily make it riqht and ic is up to
the Commission to determine what is right and the Co~m~ission is not abligated t~ a~,prove
sornething similar unless they have a~provPd thc slmilar use themselves In the past. She
5take~~ she could not support the motion for apprc~val ~f w,iivers (b) or (c), but coi~ld
suppo~^t approv~) of waivt~r (a).
Comni~~sioner Tolar stated if twc~ of thr two-story units were eliminated there probably
would not be the need fpr any of the waivers and the landscapinc~ could probably be pro-
vi ded, ~~nd [hat maybe 20 f, ~t of I andsc.ap i ng i s toc~ m~~rh i n th i 5 case and hc woul d go
along with somethinn less, bu[ s~me typP of buffcr should be provided. N~ stated the
distance would be irnportant because thcrc will be traffic in and out of the motel at a11
hours of the night and day and will bc an inva5ion o( thc privacY of Lhc singlc-family
residents, even though hc realized tliere are oth~r rrr~tels in thr, area. but this wou d be
addiny more and more traffic, in[o their back yards. Ne stated he could noL support the
motion.
Ghairman Nerbs[ st~ted tl~i~ reason for the buffer zonc iS becauve there h~ve been problems
with existinq buildings anC son~e of those were constructed be~orc the c,rdin,,nc~s were
adopted, and it is up toth~^ Plar~ning Conmission to enforce [he ordinances, ar,d it may
be true that denial would bc ~icprivinq the prop~~rty of a privi lege, but approv,al rrould be
against the current concept of the Corm~ission and che C~de was changed becau~~e ~~rok:lems
were being created for thc ncighbors.
Mr. D~manic stated he believed this was the last existing,underdeveloped lot. in the area
and indicated~to the best of his knowledge, there have been no problems w~th the ne;gf~bors
and there have been no cor~laints ~ha[ he is aware caf; that che existing mott~l on f.he left
facing the t~raperty has no landscaped huffer area and it is less th~r~ ? Feet fromtre
residentia~ proper[y line; that the motel to the r~ght has a 15-fout~unlandscaped s~[back
and they feel they ar? conforming [o [he existing uses.
Chairman Herbst stated there is ~ stairway on the back o1 the structur~ which is an intrusion
into the back yar~s of these resid~nts at all haurs of the night and statc~d if thac was
blocked off entirely, it might be considcred as a 5c,rt of buffer,and it was nr,ted that the
stairway on the outside is a Code requirement.
Cumn~i5sionrr Bushore s[atcd hc would noi support thc r,x~tion for ap;>rov~l as it ;txndti.
Conrnissionr_r King withdrew his rnr~tion, and Conzmi,sianer David withdrNw the se~_ond,
Cpmmissloner 7olar suggested the awner stipulate to remov~ the two upstairs units 4n Che
east and [c provide a 10-foot wide landscaped buffer and indicated he would supp~ri a
motion for approval with th~se stipulati~ns.
Robert Henninger explained waivers (b) and (c) relate to the east and south property lines,
pointing out the property an the south~ is zoned RSA-43.000, bue is developed with a motel.
H~ stated if the petitioner stipulates as indicated by Comnissianer Tolar~ he would scill
need all three waivzrs~ but he will not necd the structural hcighk and {andsca~e waivers
on the east pr~perty line which is zoned RS-7200~ a~d the waivers will apply only to the
south which is developed wirh a motel. He suggested the petitianer stipulate to providz
5/21/79
..
~~- ~
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 21, 19~9 79-39b
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION b CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1~ 8(continued~,
a 10-fo~t wide landscaped buffer s~tback on the east property line bnd ta rerr~ve two motel
units of the second st~ry unit~~ on the eASt side of the property.
Mr. Damanic clarified that the permit woulci be granted fc~r 23 units, rather than 25 as
requested, and stated they would agre.e to that stipulation because there i5 not much
that can be done with this property,
ACTION: C~ ~~xnissianer Tc~lar offered a motion~ sc~conded by Commis~,ioner Oavid and MOTION
CARRIED th.~t the Anaheim City Plannin9 Cortxnission daes hereby qrant the reyuest for waiver
(~~) for 21 parkiny space5, subject tc~ the p~titioner's stipulation to reduce the number of
units by twu, therebv reducing the parking requiren~ent on the basis th~at a ccrtain percentage
of the guests wi11 rive via a transportation mc>de c~ther than privatc ~-~utomobile; and
granting waiver (b), in p~rt, permitting t.he t-ao-story sr.ructure ne~~r the south property
line only,on [he basi, that al[hough the ad.jacent property to the sauth is zon~•d RSA-~+3,000
(Residential/Agricultural) it is developed with a motel; and ~~~~nying the waiver for the
two-story structure pr~poscAd alony the east propFrty ~inE~ ~n ,he basis that the p~tit.ioner
stiF~~lated atthe public hearin~a to develop a single-stc~ry Strur_cure adj~~cent t~ the RS-7200
(Residen[ial, Single-Family) tc~ne to th~ ea~~t; and grantiny waiv~~r (c), in part, permitting
the proposed 2-fc~ot wide landsc.aped setback adjacent ta the RS-A-43,OOQ zoned property to
the south which is developed with a motel, and denylnca the requestcd wai~~er c~n the east
property line an thc basis that thc petitioner stipulotr.d atth~' public he~'~ring to provide
a;0-foot wide landscaped buffer ~~n the east prc~perty line,and granting the aforementioned
waivers in ~art on thc f.`d5I5 that denial would be depriving subject property of a nrivilege
being enjoyed by surroundiny properties.
Conmissioner Tol~r offerrd P.esolution No. PC79-~00 and mc~ved f~or its passiqc and adoption
that the Anaheim City Pl~nniny Commission does h~reby ,yrant petition for Conditional
Use Pcrmit No. 1978, in part, subjcct lo the stipulatic~ns of the petitioner [a eliminate
two uni[s and tu provide a 10-foot wiac landscape buffer onthr east sidr, of [hc property,
and subject to Interdc~partmental Committee Re~orm~endations.
On ro~l call the foreyainc3 resolution wa~ pa>,~d by the follvwing vote:
AYES: BARNES, BUSNORE, DAVIO, HERBST, JONNSON, KING G TOLAR
NpES: NONE
ABSENT: NONf.
J~~ck Whitr., Deputy City Attorney pre5ented [he w~ itten right of ,~ppeal tott~~ Petitioner
to appeal Lhe Planning Cortxnission's detisic~n within 22 days to the City Council.
5121/79
~ `~ ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 21, 1979 79•397
' EM N0. 12 PUBLIC MEARING. OWNER; LANA CORPORATION, 984 Chestnut
"c~R'~I~C~~ DECLARATION Street, Escondtdo, CA 92025. AGENT: LYNN THOMSEN~
WAIVER OF CQDE RE ~UIREMENT 434 South Euclid Stree[~ Suite C, Anahaim, CA 92802.
CONOITIONAL USE ERM~ IT N0~ 1979 Petitloner reque~ts p~rmission to ESTABLISN A RACQUET-
BALL FACIIITY WITH WAIVER O~ REQUIRED 7REE $CREEN on
property described as an Irrr.gulorly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approximately
0.6 acre having a frontage of approximately 355 Feet on th~ soutf~ side of l,a Palma Avenue,
having a maximum depth of ~pproxlmately 107 f~et, and bcing I~cated approximately 36~
feet west of the centerline of Narb~r Boulevard. Prop~rty p~esently c'~ssified CL
(COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE:.
There was no one indic.~tiny_ their presence in opposition t~~ subject request, ond al[hough
the staff report to the Planning Conmission dated May 21, 1979 ;vas noc read at the public
hearing, it is refPrred to and made a part of the minutes.
Dan Curcis, 25 Mandrakc Way, Irvinc, stated it is thcir plan to cc~nst~uct a 9-court
racquctball and health club facility; [hat it will be a ca-educatic~nal facilit, and
will be open seven days a week and will be de.si9ned aS a semi-prlvate club.
THE PUBLIC HEAf~ING WAS CLOSEQ.
Mr. Curtis explained the waivcr is requesLed fur the sauth side~ of the pr~perty because
the adjacent property is developed with an elementary school and is a non-c~~nfc~rming use
and is shc,wn on some Ciiy dacuments as a cultural arts cenrcr, but ~s actually a school
with a playground adJacent to subject property. He stated che property on the ea~t side
of' subjet[ propc~ty ls de.veloped with a new ap~rtment complex and thc parkin~ yarages
are abutting the cast pr~perty line.
Comnissioner To1ar asked hnw the parking was calculated and aobert Nenninger, Asslscant
Ptanner explained there still is no set standard for a r,~cquetb~ll facility; that basically
staff lcxks at the number of proposed courts and the nrnount of accessory uses proposed
and in this case therc is a very limited number of accessory facilitie, such as rrxeting
raoms, etc. and the Traff(c Engineer has been recorro~~ending where there is an average amount
of accessory uses ~~ spaces per court, and this has less than the Average accessory uses
and 3.4 parking spaces per cc~~~rt are proDosed.
A~TION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Conrnissioner Johnson and MOTION
CARRIED that tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commiysion has reviewed the nropc~sal to permit a
racquetball facility with waiver o~ requircd tree screer on en Irreyularly-shaped parce!
of land c~nsistin9 of Approxim~tcly 0.6 acre havinq a frontage of app~oxlmately 355 feet
on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a rr~ ximum depth of approximately 107 feet,
and being located approximately 365 feet west af the cente~line of Narbor Boulevard;aid
doe~ hereby approve the Neg.~tive D~eclaration from the requiremen[ to Frep~re an environ-
mental impact report on the basis that ther~ would be n~ significant individua) or cumule-
tive adverse environmental impact due to the appr4val of this Negatlve Qeclaration s~nce
the Anaheim Ge~eral Plan designates the subjeci property for gencral commercial land uses
cam~ensuratt with the proposal; that no sensitive environmen[~I impacts are involved in
the prdposal; that the Initial Study submttted by the petitioner indicates no significant
lndividual or cumul~tive adverse environmental impacts; anci that the Negative Declaration
substantiatin~ the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department.
Commissioner Kinq off~red a motior secended by Commissione~ Johnson and MOTION CAitR1E0
ihat the Anaheim City Pl~nning Comnission does he~eby grant the waiver of required Cree
screen an the basis that the adjacent praperty to the south ls developed with n public
schoo! playground althouqh it is zoned residentially. and that the adJacent properCy
to the east is develoaed with carport walls abutting the property line and~ therefore~
the ~equired Lree screen would not provide any needed screening.
S/21/79
~ ~
111NU'TES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 21, ~979 79•398
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT b CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT N0. 1979
,~continued) _
Commissioner King offered Resoluti~n No. PC79'~0! and movsd for its passage and adoption
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heret~y grant petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1979~ subJect to Int.erdepartR-ental ~;ommittee Recortmend~tions.
On rpll call the foregoiny retiolution was pa5sed by the following vote:
AYES: BARNES, BUSNORE~ DAVIO, HERBST, JOHNSON, KING b TOLAR
NOE5: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ITEM N0. 13 PUSL~C NEARING. OWNERS• PETE BILLEY, WILLIAM P. ORAGANZA
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN AND DOUGLAS E. JONES, 26;'~) Harbor B~~ul~vard, Costa Mesa,
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CA 92626. Petiti~ner r~C~U^SCS ~r:rmisslon to CONSTRUCT N
COND~TIONAL USE PEahSIT NU. 19az z~3-UNIT MOTEL WIT11 RELi~TED ACCESSURY USES, WITN WAIVER
OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described
as an irregularly-shaped parGel of land consistin~~ uf
appraximatcly 3•5 acres h~~vinq a frontage oF apprc~ximately 175 feet ~n the west side of
Harbor Boulevard, having a n~ximum depth uf .ypproximat~ly 605 feet, beiny I~ca[ed
approximately 4$5 fe~t north of the centerline of Orangewoad Avenue. and fur:hcr described
as 2041 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently cl~issified CL(COMMERCIAL, LIMITED)
ZONE.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject reques[, ~nd although
the staff report to the Planning Cammissian dated May ?I, I`379 was not rPad at the public
hearing, it is referred to and made a parl of the minutes.
Uougias Jones, agent, stated they h~ve made extensive siudics of uses far this bank and
have fo~~nd no onc int~rested; that they desire to develop a motel, pointing aut this
property adJoins thc Marriott praperty; t1~at they wil) r~ot be in direct compc~[ition with
thc~ Marriott bccause this will be a different type operation with gift shops ~r related
shops, the manager's yu~rte:r5 and a lobby being located in the existing bank building.
Ne stated his architect, John Swint, had indicated several rn~tels in the area have been
grantzd waivers of 4:~;,rking •3nd referred to several with 66~; o~ 70~; parking and indicated
they are prOposing E~~y; thc petitioner owns a portion of the adjacent property and they
have an easement to ~ 1 the parking area lacated ~n that corner.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissfoner King pointcd out the Tr~ffic Enyineer indicates [hat the proposed parking
arr~ngement wc~uld re~~ult in inadequ~+.e parking because the shopping center also is
being proposed as a 5ite for a Gray Line Tours bus terminal.
Mr. Jones stated they have been approached by thc Gray Line Company about the possibility
af leasing a portion of the bank building for use as the Gray Line Bus Terminal, and
they I'~ave been infurmed that if Lhey want [o run thefr business fram this location,
it wi{1 in no way affect the development of the motel and ~ointed out their use of the
property would have to be approved by the Planning Commissian. He e.xplained they have
no lease or agreements with Gray Linc at this time.
5/21/79
~
a
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N, May 21, 1~79 7e~-3c~9
EIR NEG. DECLARATION~ Wl11VER OF CODE REQUIREMENT b LONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1982
(continued)
Commissianer Tolar stated his initial reaction is that that would ca~ • a loc o( problems
and referred to the situation at the Hyatt Nouse,and Mr. Jones st.atrd th~ use would be
similar to that operation; that they are losing thcir lease nt the Ny,~tt House and nced
a biqger l~ication.
Conniissioner Tolar state:d hc: also has a problem with the pr~~pc~sed lucation of thc tr,~5h
enclosures and referred t~ ~n earlier complaint where the trash enclosures were lacated
a~ijacent to a residential .~re~. He pointed out the trash enclo5ure, for this pro.ject
arc located close tc~ residential development and sugqested that they bc relor.ated
because they co~~ld create some discomfort for the residentswith the tr~7sh being picked up
at ai) hours. H~ stated hc- would ayree with the applicant reqarding the parking ~~nd
would vote for approval of the p roject if the~ petitioner would s[ipulate to relocatc
the traSh encl~sures away from the west property line.
Mr. Jones sta;ed thcy would not w~nt the tr~sh area ne~r [hF pec~ple around tht~ swimminy
pool and indicat~~d they would stipulate to relocatc thr~~~.
ACTION: C0~1f1115S1pf,r•r Tolar offcre~d ~ n~~ion, seconded by Commi~~,ioncr David ;~n~1 M0710N
CliRRIED th~t the Anaheim City Planning Conmis~ion h.~s revicwe<1 thc proposal to ~~ermit t-
213-unit mnt~l with related ~~cc~~ssory uses with a waivcr of minimi~m numbcr <~f parkinq
spaces an an irregularly-shaped parcel of land cr~nsistinq of ~~pproximately 3.5 ~~cres
having a fronta_ye c~f approximately 175 feec on tnc west Side of H3rbor Boulevard, having
a maximum depth of approximately 605 feet, beinca l~,cated a{~proximatr_ly 485 feet nc~rth
of the centerline of Orangewood Avenur; and ~f~~es hereby approve th~ Nngative Dec:laraticn
from the requirement t~ prepare an environmental impact report on the ba7515 th~3t therc~
would be no signific~ni individu~l or cumulative adverse envirc>nn~e~ta) impact due [o the
approval „ this Negative Declaration since t.he Anaheim Genert~) Plan designa[es the
subject pr~perty for comn~ercial-recreation land uses cr~iranensurate with the proposal;
tha[ no sensitive r_nvironrr,ental impact5 are involved in the propos~31; th.~t the Initial
St.udy submitted by the peti[ioner indica[es no siqnificant individual or cumulative
adverse environmcntal impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the
foreguing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planninq DepartmPnt.
Cammissioner T~lar off~red a rrp[ion, secanded by Comnissioncr Divid and MOTION CARRIED
that the Anaheim City Planninc~ Conmission does hereby yrant the w~~iver of minimum number
of parking spaces on the basi, that many guests will arrive by a transportatiun mode
other than private automobile and that denial wc~uld deprive sub_ject property of o
privilege being enjc~yed by other properties in the vicinity u+i~ier identical zoning;
arid that off-site ~arkiny is avai labl~ through the arranye~ncr~t of an easerr~ent.
R~tert H~~~~linger, Assistant Pianner, pointed out Conditic~n N~. 7 of the Interdepartmental
i.anmittf•c Recommendations requires that, the parking a~ree~nen[ be submitled,and Mr. Jones
explained they have a rec~,rded Pa~ement already.
Conmissiorier Tolar offered Resolution No. PC79-102 and moved for its passage and a~option
that the A~aheim City Planning Cormiission does hereby grant the petilion for Condi~ional
Use Permit i~o. 19$2~ subject to the petitioner's stipulation to relacate the th~ trash
enclasures away from the west side of the property and subject to Interdepartmental
Cortmittee Recommendations.
On roll call the fo~•egoing resolutio~ was passed by the following vute:
AYES: DARNES, BUSHORE, DAVID. HERBST~ JOFlNSON~ ItING b TOLAR
NOES: NONE
NBSENT: NONE
5/21/7~
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 21, 1979 7q-W00
ITEM N0. 14 READVERTISEQ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: WILLIAM W. LANGE,
EIR NEGAT~VE OECLARATION 1546 West Embassy, Anaheim~ CA 9QSQ2. AGf.N7: CLIFF0~0
CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 1921 B. LANGE, 15~5 West Embassy, Anah~im, CA 92a02.
Petitiuner requests DELETION OF CONDITION NOS. I AND
4 FROM RESOLUTION N0. PC18-289 RELATiNG TO PAYMENT
OF FEES AND TO ~STRICTION OF OU7000R USES FOR AN AUTOMQBILE DETAILING FACILITY on property
described as a rectangularly-sha~ed p~-rcel of land consisting of approximately 0,6 ac~P
having .~ n~ ximum depth of a,nroximately 205 f~ct, be(ng tocr~ted aGproximately 440 feet
east of the centerline ~f Loara Street, and fu~[her de~cribcd as 1536-1538 West Embassy.
Property presen[ly classified ML (INDUSTRIAI.., LIMITED) ZONE.
There was nu one indiGating their presence in opposition to subject request and although
the staff report to the Planninq Commi,sion dated May 21, 1979, was not read at the
public hearing, it is ref~rred to and made a part of the minutes,
8i11 Lange, petitloncr~ stated he is a property owner in Anaheim and owns the indUStri~l
building which is leased to Southland Chevrulet for which a r.onditional use permit was
granted; tha[ his father had ~3cted as his ayent and had mi,understoad the conditions
imposed and he i5 requesting that two of the cc~nditions be deleted. ~~c stated the first
cundition pertained to the~ requirement that the owncr pay traffic signal assessmen[ fees
and he did not think an autr,mobile detailing shop should really requirc a conditiona) use
permit and he ~id not think it should be considered a c~mrr~rci:~1 use. He staCed he had
met with Robert Henninyer and hc hac3 indicated thc petitioner could suggcst to the
Commission ihat [he ~at~~re of this busines, is nc~t commPrcial. He strated Mr. Henninger's
definition of comnerci.~l was a business th~at basically dcals with the general public
and fhe sale of itemS ret~il. Ne read froR, the li5t o( permitt~d uses in thc CL
(COMMERClAL, LIMITED) zone ~3s follows: ~ntique shop , ippliance store , bakery,
barber or beauty shops, bc,ok~ta res, bowlinc;, pool or biliiard centers, b roadcasting,
business or trade, clothinq and appar~l stores, cc~nfecti~nery or candy stores, department
stores or drug stores. He stated four thir;qs seer,-~d to bc~ germane to these businesses:
1) the business has walk-in trade; 2) thc~ businrss has cash receipts cap~bility; 3~ they
are estimated ta have a state resale number; an~1 4) they have yood•. ~n the shelves for
public sale. He stated his tenant does not fit into any of these catecauries ar.d does
not have walk-in tr~de, cash receipts capability, r~ state resale number~ nor yoods on
the shelves for Sale. He felt the Commission's decision rEquiring this condition was
arbitrary and capricious and de~~cribed his deflnition of arbitrary and capricious as,
"subject tc, led by, whim or erratic", and staie~ ayain hc did no[ sec huw this business
could be considered comnc~cial and indicated he felt it is definitely an industrial use.
He stated Fie had viewed thc other businesses in the area an~i ou[ of 15 businesses, 4
h~ve walk-in trade, 6 have cash receipts, and he es[imated 7 have state re5ale numbers,
and 4 have goods on the shelves.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Robert Henninger~ Assistant Planner, explained it is his understandinu that this is a
sort of satellite facility for Southland Chevrolet and che cars are taken to this facility
for detailing and returned to Southtand where they are sold.
Commissioner Bushore stated if they are considc~~d as part of So~i[hland ~:ievrolet, he
would lo~k at the use as purely cnmmercial. (Mr. lange stated the commercial facilit~/
is on Euc;lid and this business is nvt cort~nercial in rrature.)
Commissioner Tolar stated he did not think [he use should be consiciered as tommercial
and is incid~~ntal to Sout~land's operation. and Commissioner Barnes statPd she would
agr~e to change the rate from commercial zo industrial.
5/21/79
~ r ~~~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 21, 1979 79~~~)
EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 1921 (continued)
Ghairman Herbst stated the Cortmission has ~allowed detailing shops in the industrial areas
in the past with app~oval of a conditional use permit and assumed that it should be con-
sidered as an industrial use.
Robert Nenninger stated in the past a determination has bePn rnade as the exact nature
of the detalling business and if they h~~ve had walk-in trade, the ConNnission has rec~uired
the commercial rate, but in olher cases where it has been determined th;~r thc use, such
as van conversion, is beinc~ done dir~ctly for thc dealcr~ the. i~dustrial fee has been
cha rged .
Chairmen Herbsl fclt as long as the petit.ioner is not doing any customer trade, the fee
could be reduced to the industrial rate.
Commissioner Barnes asked why the petit~oner is requcst(ng Conditian No. 4 which pertains
to outdoor storac~e and work to be deleted.
P1r. Lange explained his tenant is not concern~d about this condition because he does not
storc vehicles outside and I~e does not da any wcark outside, but F~e was concerned as the
property owner. He presented a phota~raph of surroun~ing propertiF.s with vehicles parked
on vaca~it pruperty. ye felt this restriction de~~~~~s certain pro~erty rights for thA rear
portian of his property which is zuned for industri.~l uses which allows r~utdoor storag~.
Chairman NPrbst asked if the property is fenced an<f screened,ai~d Mr. Lange replied that
there is no fencing,and Chairman Herbst explained that outdoor stora9e would bc alluNed
with proper screening.
Mr. Henninger explained the back portion uf the prc~perty was pa~t of the requFred parking
spaces for a building of this site with an industria) situation,
Commissioner Bushure stated the restriction of outdcx~-- storage and work pertained to
this particular use in the Conditional Use Permit and Jack White,Deputy City Atcorney,
further explained lhat this condition does not restrict the property rights and relates
to this particular conditional use permit.
Mr. Lanye stated he would withdraw his request that Condition Wo. 4 be deleted.
Commissioner Bushore pointed out the original action was taken by the Zoning Enforcement
Officer and Mr. Lange indicated he ~~till did not believe a conditlonal use permit is
required for this use,and Chairrnan Herbst explained a permit would be required for any
detailing shop or van Gonversion shop in the industrial tone.
It was noted that ~ Negative Decarat+on was previously approved in conjunction with the
subject conditional u5e permit.
ACTION: Commissioner Earnes offered Re~olution No. PC79-103 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Plann)ng Commission daes hereby grant the request
for amendment of Condition No. 1 of PC7g-289 pertaining to the payment of the traffic
signal assessment fee.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was p~ssed by [he following vote:
AYES: BARNES~ BUSHORE, DAVID, iiERBST, JOHNSON, KING b TOLAR
NQES: NONE
ABSENT: NON~
5/21/79
~
MINUTLS~ ANAHEI~1 CITY PI.ANNIN(; COMl11SSION~ MAY 21, 1~79 79_402
I TE11 I~O. 1';
EI'OR S t ) RcC~MMC.~UATIQHS
/-. CUNDITION~L USE. PtRM17 M0. 1~;7~ • ~~unc nm tunc resnlution tc~ anxnd Pes<~lution
1 c~. C u-Z~:,.
The staff rcpart tc~ th~~ f'lannfnr~ Commisston ~i~t~c! Itay 21~ 1'1J~ was presented~ n~ting due
to an incorrect le~~ai .fescription containc~l in thP ~riqinally-subMitted titlc re~>ort~ ~
nunc pra tunc resolutfnn (s nrccssary to carr~~ct R~:sc~luti~n Ilo, PCJI'-^;~ in c~nntCtlon
wlth ConJiti~~n~~l Us~~ Per~it Nc~. l~J,, v~hicr, r~as ~,a~:inte~l hy thc Plnnnln~, (,cx~nissi~n on
NovemGcr F ~ 191~-.
ACTIUIJ: Gommissiane~ 1'ol.ir c~ffere~ Respluttnn No. PC7^-1~)b ,inc; r~v~~i f~r its ~ass~~ge and
aJo~tion~ th th~ Anahci~o City Plannin~_~ Cor~missl~n dc~es hcrc}~y ~r:~nt th~ arx~nclment of
Resolutiun No. PC7$-1;,, r~u~c prn tunc, in connettiun w(th Conditic~nal Use Permit 40.
1875.
On roll c~ll, thc forcyoln,_; resulution was raSScJ by che foll<~rinn vot~~:
AYCS ; COhUtI S:; I~)ilC RS : aAR~at~ ~~ EiUSNUR(.., DP,V I ~~ fiCF.t.:;7 ~ JC~~!150~~ ~ KI ~~~~ ~ T(iLJ',R
t~OCS; CUMt~15510,1ER5: I~~~~~L
A13SCi~T: CUNMiS.r,IONLRS: NUtIE
d. CONDIIIONAL USE PERMiT N~. 1~3c: - Re~ue~t for .~ci extcnston of timr..
The staff report ta the Planntng Comm(ssion ~ated May 21~ 1~79 wes prescnted, noti~g
subJect property is an (rreqularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ~,0 acres havino a
f~ontage of approximotely 775 feet on the north sid~ of 8a11 Road~ having a mriximum depth
of approxlmetely 6~i7 fcet, anct bein~ located apnroxir~atcly 3~0 fect eest of the cente~l(nc
of Narbor Eioule~arJ; ttiat tt~c applicant (1lelene M. Corn~ Irvine Enterprises~ rcquesta an
extension of timc for Condit(~nal Use Pcrmit No. 18~:; which wAS granted for one year by
the planning Comnission on Nay 22~ i~%~~ to permlt ~ tent camping facility in an exist(ng
recreationa) vehicle park~ subJect to revie.wr and consideraxion for extensions of ttme;
that no previous extensions have b~cn granted; and that it hRS been the policy [F~at an
extensiori of time be granted only fdr a period which does not txceed the length of time
for which tl,e conditto~al use permit was originally granted.
ACTIOft; Commissioner David offered a motion, s~ rnded by Commtssfoner T~lar and NOTION
CARRIEU~ that the AnaheOm Clty Plannin5 Commissi•.n does tiereby grant a one-year extension
of ttme fpr Condlttonal Usc Permtt No. 163b, to expire on May 22~ 19~i0.
C. CO~~DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 11y3 - Request for clarificatlon of related facillties
to establish a pre-school.
The statf report to the Planning Commission dated May 21, 1979 was presented, noting
sub~act property is a ~ecta yularly-shaped parc~l of land consisting of approximatcly 6.~f
acr~s located at thP sautheast corner of Wagner Avenue and State College Boulevard; that
the petttiorer (David 0. Beadles~ Anaheim United Methadist Church) requests clarific+~xten
of relate:d fecilir(es to establish a pre-schooi; thst Condicional Usc Permit No. t~g;~ to
permit a church and related facilities. was granted by the Planning Commission on Auqust
10~ 1970; that on June 10, 1974~ the Planning Conmission co~sldered a request by the
petitloner for clarification of rQlated uses on subJect praperty ta allow a"Regianal
5lz~/79
~
-11NUTES~ ANAHE{M CITY PIANNING GOMMISSIOt~~ MAY 21~ 1979
REPORTS AND RECOMMENpAT10NS • ITEM C(continued)
~
19-403
Occupetlonal Progranr' fo~ hlgh school and adult stude~ts; thet the petitioner proposes to
~establish e pre-school as ~ related use on the church prop~rCy which wlll op~rat~ betwean
thc hours of 7:Ou a.m. and t,:UO p.m.~ Monday through Fridey; that the meximum number of
studants would t,e 1Q0 anC sstd sc.hool wo~~ld use the existinq 5unday schoa) classrooms; and
that the plens or(ginally xubmitted witt~ the candltlonal use permit i~dfcate 24?. parking
spaces developed on sub.ject p~aperty.
Robert Henninyer~ Asststant Planner~ explaf~ed t~~at it Is thc pctitloner's propose) to
establish a pre-schc~ol as e related use and it i~. up to the Planninq Cammission to
determ(nt whether or not the t~re-school would he cunsidered n rel~ted f~c(lity.
Che{rmen tlerbst indica'ted his concern that th~ ~naximum number nf students would be 10~ and
did n~t fcel that use should be allowtd without a public he~rinq.
Robert Henninger explalned that ~riqinally the RQP pro~ram was ellowcd for 3~ students And
was eppr~ved und~r the reports anc~ recommenda~fons portlon of the aganda and a publlc
hear(ng was not hir1J,
Commissl~~ner Tolar Indicated he felt a public liear(ny sho~ild be held due to the number of
students be(ng rec~ucsted.
AGTION; Commtssioner bernes offcred a mocion~ secnnded by Commissioncr Tolar ond MOTION
C~tt TED~ that a public hearing De rec~uired in order to p~ermit a pr~-schoot in cnnnection
wtth Candltiona) Use Pe nnit No. 11!~3•
J. VARIA~~CE N0. 2214 - Request for a r~troactivic extenslon of time.
Commtssioner Kiny declared a conflict of Incerest as defined by Anaheim Gity Planning
Commtssicn fiesolutlon No. PC76-1;7~ adoptinv a Conf{ict of interest Code fo~ thr Planning
Gamm(sston~ and GovPrnment Code Sectlon 3625 et seq.~ in that he owns Paclfic Telephone
Company stock and~ pursuant to the provisions of the above codes~ declared to the Chairma~
that he was withdrawing from the heartng (n conncct(on with Variance No. 2214 and would
not take parc in eleher the discussi~n or th~ voting thereon~ and has not discussed this
matter wlth ~ny member of the P1An~ing Comrnission.
The staff report to the Planning Commission Cated May 21, 1979 was p~csented~ noting
subJect property ls an irrequlariy-shaped parcei of lend conslsting of approximately 2.k
acres haviny approximate frontages af 154 feet on the south side of Cypress Street. 358
feet on the Nest side of Lenon 5treet, 31~ feet on the north side of Chartres Street, and
~48 feet on the east side of Cierrw~ntine St~eet; that the epplicant (V. S. Crocker, Pacific
Telaphona) is requestiny a retroacttve extensfon of time for Uaria~ce No. 2214 which was
granted by the Plan~ing Commission on October 19, 1970 and by the City Counctl on Decemt~er
29, 1~70, co permlt a 225•foot tall, microwave tawe~ wlth waiver of maxtmum st~uctural
helght; that the conditions of epArovAl of the varianc~ spectfy tonstruction of the t~rwer
was to be completed within three years af approvai~ or such further time a5 the Pl~nning
Commission and/or City Co~~ncil may grant; that the appiicnnt des(res to start construction
on the tawer in July of 197g~ to be completed in Novernber 197y~ and, therefore, requests
subJect extension of time; that the applicant indicates tF~e temporary measures were usad
at the site which enabled the postponement of construction of subJect tower unttl now; and
that n~ prevtous extensions of time heve been granted for Varience No. 2214.
5121/79
~
b
~..
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 21~ 1979 79_4~4
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM D(continued)
Chet Zahl~ rapresentln~ the Telephone Cerrtpany, was present to answer ~ny questlons end
explalned that the~e may he e del~y (n constructlon end aik.ed that the permlt be qrrncod
untll June 1~ 19$0.
AC'ION; Comnissioner Rer~as offe~ed a motion~ seconded by Comnlssioner Tolar ~nd MOTI~N
CI~RRIE~D (Commissioner King r~bstaining)~ that the Anahelm Clty Plrnninc~ Conmtssion rioes
hereby recamiend to the Lity C ~ncll that a six-year~ retr~ecttve ~xtenslon ~f ttme be
graRted tn ellow the appltcant tn corr~ly wlth the conditi~ns of ~~pr~val of Vartancs No.
2214, la expire on June 1, 198(1,
E. CONpl7'ONAL USE PERNtT N~, 1;1J - Request for ~n extension nf tirt-e.
The stafP report to the Planning Commisslon dateci -iay Z1~ 197q was ~resr_nted~ notinq
subJect pr~perty Is s rectanqularly-sF,~ped parcel of I~nd consistin? of approxtnuitely 7700
squa re fecc loceted at t'~• northwast torner of Wilhelmina Strcet and Len~n Street~ end
fur.her destrtbed as 703 Nortl~ Lem~c~n StrFet; tf~,~t the anplicant (Robert W, Hostetter~
propPrty owner) requests a twc>-year PxtcnSlon of time for Conditional Use Pcrm(t No, 151)
which was c~ranted by tlie Pl~nninn Commisslon on Mey 2A~ 1~~15 for a period of two years~ to
permit a board and care tacilt[y for tf• reatment of alcohoifcs~ suh~PCt to review and
consideration for extens~c~ns of time unon request by the ~etiti~ner; that the rermic wes
gront~d subJcct ta ie conditlon that thc structure be hrou~~ht u~ t~ the minfr~um buildtnq
stendnrds and records af the Hutldin~ piv(sl~n Indicat~ thls eondttton has bee~rt n,et; that
one ~~revlo~~ extr:nslon of timr hes been qr~~nted to expire na~~ 2h~ 1~7'!; ~nd th..t n~
complaints havr been recPived ~bout the suhject usr..
ACTtnN; Comr.~is: ioner Tol3r offr.rcd a r~y,!t~n~ Sec~~ded by Cormissioner f`~+.id and MOT101~
~I ~0 (Cor~x~issioner ~ushore ab;tainfn~)~ that the Plann(n~ C~mmfssion does hcrehy grant
a tw~•~~car ext~nsicx~ ~f tlmr f~lr C~sndlti~nal Use P~rmdt No. 1;17~ to exrire May ^Ei, 19~1,
F. CUNDII"IOt1Al USE PERM17 N0. 17~; - Rcqucs[ for an ex~ension ~~ tlme.
The s[ef f report to the P I ann i n~7 Cor~ni ss i m datE~ d May 2~, i97'j was presented, not ( nc~
subJ~ct property ts a rectangularly-shaped narcel of la~.d consisting of approximacely 1.8
acres hav(ng a froncagp of app rox{mately 2~1~ feet on the e~st slde ~f Red Gum Street,
having a maxtmum depth of aoproximately 2q~~ fer.t, and bcing I~,c.~ted a~p roximately 3~0 feet
south af the canCerline of La Jolla Strer_t; chat the apnticant (Rot,~rt S. Anderson)
requ~ests a two-yPar~ re[roactive extenslon of time fot Condltional Use Pemit No. 1705
which was ciranted by thP Planning Commission on May 9~ 1~177~ to permit truck ~nd trailer
storage w(th a waiver of permitted o~:tdoor use~; that subjcct conditional use permit was
granted for a pcr(od of [wo years~ subJect to rev!ew and consi~terati~~n for possible
extenSiunS of timc; that the Zoni~~ Enforcament Officer rr_~~~rts ~o complalnts rel~cive to
the usc of subiect property; ar.d that it has bcen the paltcy ~f the Ctty that an cxtension
of time br granted only for a p~.iod which dae~ ~o*_ exceed the i~n~th of ttme for which
the conditional use permit r+as origlnally qranteC.
ACTI011: I.ommissioner King offered a motfon, sc~~nded by CcmmissionPr David and MOTIOJI
~A~~D. that the Anahetm Clty Planning Ccxnmission does hereby q~:tnt a two-year~
retroactlve extension of ttme for Canditlonal Use Permit Ko. 17~5, to expire on l+lay q~
1981.
5021 / 79
`~ .
MINUTES~ IWAHEIM CI1'Y PLANNING CQMMISSION, .HAY 21~ 1979 79'WOS
REPOR7S A110 p.EC4MMEN0ATI0NS (continued)
G. VARIA1JCt N0. ?.5~iy - Request for sn ext~nslon of tlr-x.
The staff report to the Planning Comm(sslon dated May 21~ 1~7`~ was prese~ted~ noting
sub.ject property ls an irreyuiarly-sh~ped parcel of land ccnsistinq of apnreximetely 1.4
acres lott~teci qn the northe~st slcie of Anahelm Boulevard~ approxlmately 2b0 feet north of
the centorl in~ of Pacific~ Avenue; tl~at the ap~+) icrnc (lCenneth ICe~see~ vwn~r of I~eesee
Tank and Pumn Company) requests a ratroactlve extenslcx~ of time for Varlance No. 259'~
whlch w as grt~nted by the Planning Commission on May 13~ 1974 for a ~erlod of onc year~ to
establtsh an aut~mobile Ie~~stng agenty wi;h waivers of permlCted uses end minlmum number
of parking spaces. subJact tc review and cons(deratf~n for axtensions of time upan request
by the petltloner; that the conditlons af approval Included tht+t a maximum number of three
automobiles shall be retained on tl~e subject sit~ fnr dlsplay o~ storaqc purpases and that
no signing~ advertising~ o~ dis-.ley of automc~btles shall be made to thc gener,~~ public for
ths purpos~ of ret~ll salcs of eutomoblles, ancl thcre shall bs no retrilinv of eutomc~biles
f~om the tubJect site; that two ~extcnsions af [ime have heen grantcci: that f~e~d
InsN~eci.lc~ by staff has indicatect the exiscinq use doPS nat appear to be detrimental to
the s:~je~t property and clocs not apnr.ar to havc an a~ivcrse impact on thc su~round~ng ~and
uses; a~~,d tf~at parking is edequate far [he cxlstinr~ Industrial com~lex and exist(n~
stgning i~ in acca~dance with codc requlr~~R~ents and the {~roperty a~oears tc., l~e utillzPd In
aecorJanca wi th the candi t ions of np~r.~va I of Vari~~nce I~o. 2~99.
ACTICN: Commissioner Kiny offerecl a moc(on, Sec.~indcd by Commissloner Tolar and MOTIQN
CARRIED~ that the Anahcim City Plannin~a Commisston cioes liereby yrant a two-year extensiun
of time for Variance No. 2;99~ retroACtive to May 13~ ~179 nnd to ex~irc on May i3, 1981.
N. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEtIT N0. lal
Jay 7ashiro~ Associ~tc Planner. pr~~sented chz st~ff rcpa~t to the Plannl~g Commi~sion
dated May 21~ 1~7~1~ naCing su~.jec~ rcauest is for a Gener~l Pta~ ArMnclrrt ~t for three
parce~ls consistin~ ~f 4.~1 acres lc~cated on the sc~uthwest corner of Orannethnrne Avenue and
Ray~~ncJ Avenue; that Che reau~st is property awner initiated to change the current nener~+l
industrfal desiqnatl~n eo ccmnercial•professional; that subier.t property Is predominantly
~acant with a cl~sed servic;e station on the southwest corner of Orangethorae Avenue and
Reymond Avenuc ar~d c~ld property is currently zoned ML (Industrioi~ Limit-.d); that (c i5
the intent af tf~e property owner to seeS: the CQ (Comnercial~ Office and Professional) Zone
and co~struct an office complex consfsting of a fina~ctal Institucion, restaurant and
m(scelleneous office uses; tl~at surrounding lar,d uses include a bank a~d inJustrial uses
(ML) to the north across Orange[hor~e Avenue. :ndustrtal uses (City of Fullerton) to the
east across Raymond Avenue~ i~dustrlal use (MI; t~~ the south, and a rnutel (ML) to the
west; and should the Planninq Oepertment be aut~o~=Ztd to proce~~ with this study~
property avne~s tn the surroundinq area~~auld be contactzd and further s(te :nelysfs would
be con ducted.
The request is also for an ia uation of thc Ci~culation Elem~~nt of the General Plan to
cl~ange the cu~•re~C dcsignations of Via Cor:ez b~eMeen 5anta Ana Canyon Roed and the
Riverside Free~+ay from a local street to ~ secondary arterial highway; Freedman Way
between Mancheste~ Avenue and Na~tyor Boulevard f~oa~ a collector~ street to a secondery
artertal highway; and Ciementine Street betweer, Freedma~ Way and Katella Avenue frcxn a
collector street to a s~conda ry arterial highway. This ~e~luest was inttiated by the
Enginee~ing ~~~ 'tfon.
ACTION. Commiss~oner Tolar offered a rrc~tion~ seconded by Commissioner Barnes and MOTION
A~RRIEO~ that the Anaheim CTty Planntnq Commission hereby dr_tertntnes that General Plen
M~endment ? rocesdings are app~oprtatc at th~s time and sets June 1B~ 1979 as the date for
a public hearing for Ge~eral Pian Amendment No. 151. 5/21/79
~ ~.~~ ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 21, 19~9
)9-406
ADJOURNMENT Th~~a being no ~~~~ther busine~s~ Com~nissloner B~rnes offered a m~tlon~
•eco~ded by C issloner Tolar •nd MOTION CARRIED~ that the meetinq be
ad,~ourned.
Yhe meetlnq •dJourned +~t 6s5~ p,m.
RespectPully ~udmitted,
f~ ~~~
Edith 1.. Herris. S~cretery
An~he(m Clty Planning Gommtssinn
ELH:hm
5/21179