Minutes-PC 1980/02/25~~ ~ ; ,a
Clty Hall
A~ehetm~ Callfornla
February 25, 1ga0
REGUTAR MEETING OF THE AHAIIEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR - The regula~ rr~eetin5 oP the Anaheim City Plenning Commisslon wes called
MEETING to o~der by Cheirwoman 9srnes at 1t35 p.m.~ February 2y~ 1980~ in the
Council Chamber~ a quorum beiny present.
PRESENT - Chatrwomans 8srnes
Conmisstoners: Nushore~ Devid~ Fry~ He~bst~ King, Tolar
ALSA PRESENT - Jeck White
Jay Ttcus
Paul Stnger
Joel F(ck
Annike Santalehti
J~y Tashtru
Dean 5herer
Edltl~ Narris
Assistent City Attorney
Officc Engineer
TrafFic Engtnecr
Assistant Di~ecto~ for Plenning
Asslstant DlreGtor for Zon(ng
Assoctatc Planner
Zoning R~pras~ntative
Plenning Cormisslon Secreta~y
PLEDGE OF - The Pledgc af Alleytance to the Flag Nas lec{ by Commissloner Fry.
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - Comnlsslaner Tolar offered a motton~ secanded by Conxntssioner Uavtd
THE MINUT~S end MOTIOtI CARRIEU, thet the m(nutes of the meeting oF January 28,
sncf Fobruary 11 ~ 14i.S~ be approved as subm) tted.
ITEM N0. 4 PUpLIC HCAi~iNC. OWFIERS; gERNARD GEORGE~ 101$ qorth
E t~ NE VE DECIARATIOf~ East 5trect. Aneheim~ CA 921;05 Af~O 91LLIE DEAtJ AND,
S C lz N0. ~j-60-2~ EARL CtIARLES aAFFIE~ JR.~ 1216 Belmo~t Avenue~ Anahelm,
CA 92~;. AGEIaT: GORAON E. SLOAN, 345 Carouse) Place~
Anaheim. GA ~2fi~G. Petttioner requeats that property
described an an irreyul~rly-sl~ap~d parcel of land consisting of spproximately 1.0 acre
located at the southeast c.orner of Belmont Avenu~ end East Street, having frontAges of
approximately 30; feec on the soutl•~ stcle of aelmont Avenue, and approximetely 175 feet on
the eesk side of East Stre~t, and further described as 121C t~~d 1222 BelmonC Avenue and
101$ florth East Street be reclassified from the R5-72~n (RESIDENTIAl., S~NCI.E-FAMILY~ ZONE
TO THE RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL~ NUITiP:~-FAMtLY) ZONE.
It was notcd the pettt;oncr has requested a contfnvance in order to submit revised plans.
ACTION: Comrnlss(on~r Fry off~ered a r.~otion~ seconded tay Commisstoner King and MOTtOfI
t L•0~ that canslderetion of *t~e aforemention~d item be tonttnued Lo the ~egularly-
scheduted rneeting of March 10~ 1930 ln order for the petitioner tu submit revised plans.
80-159 2/25/80
~r I
MINUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEFlaUARY 25~ 1980
$0-160
ITEM N0. 1 GONTINUEU PUBLIC HEAaING. ONNERS: BEAM DEVELOPMENT
NV R NMENTAL IMPACT REPOaT N0. 2 k C0. ~ 1164 North Euclid~ Anahelm~ CA 92601. AGENTt
ROB~RT D. MICKEISON~ 134 South Glassell~ Oranqe,
~ RACT N0. ~e94~ CA 92~~6. Property deacribed as an irregularly-shaped
~--~ parcel af land conststing af epproximately 3•73 acrea
lacated at the southwest carner of Canyon Rim R~ad
and S~~rreno Avenue havlny frontsges of approximately 7~~ feet on the south side of Canyon
Rtm RoAd and epproximetely 80 feet on the west sicie~ of Serreno Avenue. Property presently
classifled RS-A-43~000 (RESIDEI~TIAL. SINGLE-FAMILY ~~ILLSIDE) ZONE.
VARIANCE aEQUEST; (A) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGH7, (B) PERMITTEO BUILDING LOCATION.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTADIISN A OP~E-LOT, 2t+-UNIT CO~tDOMINIUM SIIBDIVISION.
SubJect petitlon waa continued f~om the meeting af January 2E. 1980 for revised plans.
Conmissloner Tolar declared e conflfcc of tnterost as defi~ed by Anah~im City Planntng
Commlssion Resolutlan No. PC76-1S7, adopting a Conflict of Incerest Code for the Planntng
Commission, nnd Government Cock Secttun 36z5 et aeq.~ in thet his brother owns ~dJoini~g
property within 3~~ feGt of the proposed development and decl~red to the Cheirwoman~94;t
he was withdrewing from the hearing in connaction with Tentative Ma~ of Tra~t No.
and wauld not take part in efther Lhe dlacussion or the voting the~eon~ and that he had
not dtsGUSSOd this matter wlth ~ny r-~mber of the Plannln~ Commission. Thereupon~
Commissioner Tolar left the Council Chember.
There we~e fourtnen persons Indicat~ng their presence i~i oppas(Lion to sub~a1980~wA s~ot
and alth~ugh the staff ~eport to thc Pla~~nln; f,ommissio~i dated february 2a~
read at the publfc h~a~tng. ~t is referred to and rtw de ri pa!t of the minutes.
Bab Mickelson~ 134 South Glassell, Oran9c~ agent, explained he hadHry'1epresentedeahcopywefrs
last Tuesday and had presented another concept for th~ir review.
the ravlsed ptan revlewEd by the homcowners to the Cort+mission for thel~ revle++ a~d
explalned this c~ncept was carefuliy thought out by the architect. Ile camiented the
suggestion was made that they should consider patlo hanea and ellminate tM~e requested
varia~ce of two~story structures withln 150 feet of single-family developme~t. and that
th{s plan ~haws the same numbcr ur,its with one-story patlo hc~+-es within 150 feet and two-
sto ry structures beyond the 150-foot limit. Ne felt It aouid be fair to say that the
hpneowners dld not think this wauld be a vidble alterc-attve and they dt~ Rot Ilke either
plan. Ne explained another concept diSCUSSed with the hanea+ners shows single-sto ry unlts
with roughly the seme enwunt of grading, but the units would appear es o~e solld raw of
roof lines ad~ace~t to their bock ysrds and even t~~ugh some of the sita is dep~~~ssed~ a
single-story with roaf would be another sto ry abave pad lavel and any vte,w ~vould 'c: lost
almost entl~eiY• He stated it wo~ld bc the devcloper's feeling that in order to maintain
the qualtty of deval~pment Anaheim Hills. inc. is trying to strive for~ ~nd to the worst
advantage for tt~e haneow~sers a~d to the best advantage of the buyers of this developanent,
they would w~nt to pitch the rc~ofs tc~ provide bulk and spaciousness inside the projeGt and
flat roofs would fRGe ih~eC°t"~~~bulldingtcosts wc~uid be icss~Pbutitfie'untts wouldenotober
to develop that co p
ccKnpatibie wi th the area.
2/25/~
~
~y
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITIf PLANNING COMMISSION~ F~BRUARY 25~ tg80 8Q•161
ENVIApNMENTA~ IMPACT REPORT N0. 234. VARIANCE N0. ;132 ANO TENTATIVE
MAP OF TMCT N0. 10941 (CONTINUCD)
-- ------------
H~ stated thoy h~d considered the possibiltty of flattent~ng the roof of the most westsrly
buildtn9i but tha Anaheim tlills Architectural Committee will not allaw flat roofs in the
srea so thet i~ not t~ vtable alta~netive snd would c{~ange the architecture of the p~oject
and not be compatiDle. He stated even a one-story buiiding wtth raof et that locatton
would ~tll) block the vidv.
Mr. Mickelson steted aft~r meeting with the hon~avners~ it was hts opinlon to stay wlth
the origtna) pl~n; thAt the homeawners offered scveral sug~estions; 1) reduce the number
af unita~ pe~tlculerly those closest to thetr homes; 2) lower the grede end reduce the
number of units, end 3) move the th~ee units on the very easterly end (the na~~ow pert of
the t~la~gle) beceuse the prope~ty a+ner wha lives at the very 1~+st singie•femily lot is
abjncting to the u~its gofng In rtght behlnd his property. He stated there art three
areas where buildings ere proposad adJacent to singte-fomfly development, with open space
between them an~ nach of tha vw~ers felt the unit that should bc romoved was the one rlght
behind thelr p roperty~ but the developer cannot efford to remove that meny units and sttll
have a viable proJect.
Na stated tho prc~Ject ls within the Gene~al Plan ard well wtthin the zoning (olmost 1/2 of
the theorettcal density at 7•7 units per acr~) and they fee) the denstty on the overall
proJect is within rneso~ and proper.
Mr. Mick~lson sCat~d lowertng the grade and reducing the number of unlts (s difficult
because the ped level would have to be lowercd 10 or more feet !n order to get any vtew
over the roof structure~ and the further the pad level ts lowered~ the sm~iler the
buildable orea and alsa the cost of export{ng dirt would be prnhlbit{ve.
Ne stated the three end units would nat flt well tf they were moved along aide the other
units end the r~sult wouid be a rav of tightly packed 6 or 7 units, backed up to the bank,
wlth the turn-around extending the length of the cul•de-sac which would destroy the
ch~racter of the plan.
He stated the ck velope~ has to take the positton of disagreemeni with the adJacent
property owner who fetls he should not have those threc units right behind him und the
developer feels a single-sto~•y unit with e high quality building 20 feet from his praperty
Iine is a reasanable spproach and are submitting the ortginal plan because they fee) It is
the best plan and (s the best, most vlable end reasaneble ciestgn a~d does provide open
space. Ne stated that almost all adJacent awners can took out onto some immedlately
edJac~ent open space and look th rough the buildings.
Mr. Mickelson related there ere a lot of other constralnts Imposed, ane being Anaheim
1lills~ Inc's, general concopt of hiyh quaiity developrn~nt whfch means there has to be some
bulk to the butidings wtth somc pitch to the roof and other things required by tha
Architectural Comnittee. Thcy feel the originai plen really offers the best opportunity
to p rovide these things and a feeling of openness adJacent to the single-famtly hixnes.
In resedrehi~g past actians he steted out of 14 Tracts., 10 Nere granted a varlanc~e fo~ the
maximum butiding height and some Were grantnd setback waivers, su they feel because of the
terreln and differentials in grade~ the request Is re:~son able, He stated or~a property
owner had indicated he was not all that concerned abaut the loss of vtav; however~ the
devetoper felt sure the n~eighbors are upset ebout the loas of view. He felt they a~e also
2/25/ ~
,~
~'
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 25~ 1980 80-162
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 234~ VARIANCE N0. 3132 AND TENTATIVE
MAP_ OF TRACT N0. 10941 (CONTINUED)
co~cerned beceuse they believed there would be e park in the araa snd recorde show there
wss some tnciicatto~ that the site was going to be a park ~t one time~ and in JAnuary~ 1973
a 3•ec~e prrk waa accepted by the City adJecent to the reservoir domm the ht11~ but has
not been develop~d. •
There~ wss a Gene~al Plan Amendment adopted in 1~77 for Plenned Canmunity zo~ing and it was
worked out with steff and various cortmittees and the zone would allaw RM-21i00 for thts
site. In t978 there were discusstons wtth the City Pa~ks Department and Anehelm Htlla~
Inc. informally offered this site for dedicatton as a perk site and with City
representetlves on the site indlcating to residents the stte was betng revlewed fo~ a
park~ the resldents counted on it bcing a park. The City Park~ Dept+rtment reJected the
offer for dedtcatton after revicw becaust the site did not meet their criteria. He stated
the underlying zoning has not changed.
Don Rogers~ 7203 Drake Orive~ stated hls property backs up to subJect property; that at
the prevlous meetfng he had indlcated what they had been told by AnAheim liills~ Inc. when
they purchesed thetr p~operty; that Commlsslonn_r 8ushore stated to the press that their
escrow pap~rs had satd what the property was intended Por, and hc submitted escrow papers
from sanc of the awners end pointed out the escrow peper~ state:
"tho buyar ecknawledgcs that this Is a prcmtum iot~ not a view lotand any view the property
may ~ow heve of presently undevcloped lond is not guArant~ed or Intended as a
part of the velue of Lhe hom~."
He ststed the escrow pepers do not Indicatc what is going to be deveioped on that
prnperty; that they do not understanJ what is meant by the different densities; that Dan
Salceda~ M ehelm Nills~ Inc. pointed out recent appr~val for the i59 ~nlts has a 1.61
density ~nd this project is proposing over six units p~:~ acre. He referred to Sunday's
Register and stated Anaheim Ilills~ Inc. advertlsed upcoming p~oaects and these tawnhomes
are lnctuded and the neighbors were qulte surprised thac they cen advertise homes vfi ich
have not been app~oved for tonstruction. He cantinued that wt~en they purchased thetr
hornes they understood this was a planned communlty and thac this parcel, plus another
parcel. wcre sald es raw land end Anaheim Nills, Inc. did not have any ides whet would be
b~itt there. They felt since this was a planned community~ Anaheim Nills~ Inc. should
hava hed some idCa what the lAnd was bctng sotd for and wfiat the use would bc. Ne stgted
M~. Ssiceda had satd with this particular p~operty~Anahetm Htlis. Inc. was not taken into
consid~ration bccause of the difflculty bu(iding on thts site. I~e stated schoois were
mentfoned and they are already over-crawded end are chanqing the p rogramming because they
cannot handle the number of chlldre~ in the area now; that suppos~dly therc ls a stte
dedlceted fo~ a school to be built possibly !n three years; that Aneheire tiiits~ inc. still
advertise parks and there ~re no parks~ except s picnlc area with no street parking; that
there is no place for children to play except tn strFets a~d o~ the slopes; that they are
constantly changing plans to makc use of the prope~ty and eddi~g condominiuns and not
taki~g into consideratlon the addttional chitdren or added traffic.
Mtke Murray~ 7~99 D~ake. stated it was the appositions' Aplnton at the 7uesday meet~ng
that the ckvelaper's mood was that the sec.ond plan was nat brought in the spirit nf
compromise ancl was obvtously much worse theR the origlnal~ by the developer's own
admtsslo~; that the ne~i~hbo~s had felt thcre could be sane aiternativQ thtngs done with
the original plan to appease those diractty impacted. Ne referred to the nawspaper
2/25/80
~..' ~
MINUTES, ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ REBRUARY 25~ 19~ 80•163
ENVIRONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT N0. 234~ VARIANCE N0. 313~ AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 10941 (C4NTINUEG)
adve~tlsement for lakesido tow~hou~os~ polnting out there is o rese rvoir~ but na lake and
it was ve ry disconcarttng to them to plck up their na+bpeper~ advertlstng these homes,
prtor to e Planning Commisaton meeting and approval~ because they had felt they would have
aevar~l maetinga wtth the develop~r~ but only hed one meeting wtth the devaloper's
represantativa. Ne steted they are willi~g to work with the developer, and they realize
tt is ~ numbers geme of proFit and no one auys land and develaps it without a profit. H~
atated the eldar Mr. Deam, apparently Prealdent o~ Chairman of the Boerd of Beam
Developmant~ has modc several quotatio~s In the Los Angales Times and Register racently
that chey pride themselves as working with homeaw~er's adJacent to their developments~ so
natu~ally as a ~esult of those comnents expected more contuct from them.
Mr. Murray steted the neighbors made several suggestlons at the meeting i.c.~ moving some
units~ or eliminetinc~ one or two units; thet they were told the sellt~g prlce of the units
of the second plan would be 511~,00~ to S125~000 and the orig(nnl p{ann~d unlr,s would sell
for S1~O~OOb tv S160~000 end thc neighbors suggested eliminatlan of some units and ratsing
the prlce to S16~~040 to $1fS5~000. He stated thc oppositlons` big questlon is the density
and asked the Commission to exPlain tl~c density. Mr. Murray read the follawing from an
artlcle In the R~;gister, February 17~ 1A~0:
"that the prevalliny attltudes that land na longer is a prlvate tcmxnodity, but
rather a community asset which the dcveloper has a rosponsibllity to develop tn
accordence with the: desi~e of the Comnuniky. Todey, however~ we are seeing
dectsions made for the greatest good of a limited number usually those In the
trtmediate victnity of the project."
Bill Ashton~ 727~ Drake~ stAted they met wlth the devcloper and are tnterested, for the
most ~art. in sanethiny being develo~ed. preferably homes. rather than e Qark slte. He
stated they have becn presented with 24 connected units or a plen for 24 scparate units;
that the haneawners su99ested the numba~ of units be r~duced which would help ~etatn son~
of thel~ vicw and the denstty. 11c stoted e comQromise nec~ls to bcs something less than the
24 units. Fle felt the units could be shifted around with the bulk closer to Serrano
rather than agalnst their slope, end eliminetfng the one unlt In tht lower left hand
corn~r~ or the hei~fit of that u~it reduccd would help. Ne stated '~e first plan is
probably better than 24 sfngle units. but the plan has not beGn alte~ed.
Cortimissioner Bushore clarified thr~t Mr. Ashton had indicated he wouid prefer homes to s
park site and Mr. Ashton responded that he pe~sonelly rvould prefer hanes~ ~ather than a
park~ but he does not prefer 24 of anything on the slte and would prefer a reduced number
whtch would be a comprnmise.
Roger Vigline, 920 South Boo~~e Circle, President fo Eastridqe Estates Hoeweawner's
Assaciation~ stated ha has had several req uests fram ho~+~or,ners who cb not live ad~acent
to subject property, but in othe~ sections of the tract~ who were told when they bougt~t
their homes that sub)ect property would bG ~ park site and the oomplaints are that there
are rro parl:x and thcy want to kna+ whe~e parks wi li be located !f this is not going to be
a park; thet the only park mentioned ts a smali area on a maJor street, Kohl Ranch Road~
and has 4 or 5 parking spaues,+~~th iwo or three barbeques and picnic tables and maybe two
famill~s could use it and there are no swings~ etc.
2/25f 80
~, ~ <<~
i
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAHNINd tOMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 25~ 1980 HO«16N
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IlEPOlIT N0. 234~ VARIANCE NQ. 3132 ANO TENTATIV~
MAP OF TRACT yQ. 10941 (CONTINUED)
.~........~..._..~.~
Ha pre:ented a copy of tha CCbRa th~•y were given when thoy purchasmd and Paragraph 13
~tatea "no bullding~ .~.ructure or improvement shail bo const~ucted~ erected~ altared~
ptaced or pe~mitted to rematn on any of the lots in auch a 1oc~tlon ar et such a height as
t~ unreaaonAbiy obst~uct the viaw from any other lots in its prooe+rty." HQ stated the
homeowners were told tl~ey wuld only bulid wrouyht Iron fences.
Commissloner Bushore askad if all of Anaheim Hlils has the restrictlon relrting to soild
w~lls.
Uean Sherer~ Assistant Planner. stated solid walls are permitted in some areas.
Msrtha Radack~ 7251 Orake~ explained tf~~• property behlnc! them was lowcr Nhen they
purchasad their hom~~ but withtn slx mo~ths trucks started bringing dlrt tn and filling
the araa and sha felt the prope~ty level beiny ratsed has created this problem. She
stated the vtews e~e st(11 a problem.
Joe f3uzstere~ 9Q1 Joilet Circle~ staced hi: property do~es not adJotn subject property and
he is no langer ~n offlc~r of thc assoclation~ but felt thc whole pelnt Is being missad;
that they ar^ not a~ti-growth; thr• the bASic prablem Is lack of schools and park sites;
that he fel; densitles a~e going ~-. ,~et greater In that area; that they ~s cftl2~ns~ the
Canmisslon and Council should loc~k nvw for some park sites because as densitle' go up~
land should be set aside; that he served on the Canyon II Park site and they were under
the lnpretslon thet aech dcvcloper gives a certaln amount to be s~t estde tor parks and
Anahelm I~Ills~ Inc. has set eside lend rath~r than fees~ but the land they set eslde tg
either mountalntops o~ guliry bottort-s whtch Is unusable because it would be too expensive
to ~ievelop; that 3 acres adJoinlnc~ thls land i~ bottcmland~ goc~d only far wlldlife.
lie statesd the scl~ools ~re in the Orange Unlfied Schoal Dtstrlct. but In planning future
development this should be taken into considcration; that he had moved here from Irvine
because they were on holf-day school prc~gram there and because this area was ln this
particular school district and In thls Clty s~d this is a planned community.
Mr. Mickelson stated h~ felt the oppositlon Is mainly concerned sbout density. parks and
schools; that the EIR covers che lssue of schools •Ad the develo~er feels with this
proJect there wll) be a very Iew school children generation fattor and ref~rred to simtlar
p rojetts in M ehcim Hi11s; that the closer you get to the singlc-family detached product~
the htgher the generation factor for schools and thls type project would be better than
other types. Ne steted he aynpathizes with thosc who reaity belteved that thts was going
to be a pork, but ic has b~een settled that It would not be a park and they v~ent the best
devalopment for the property.
tle felt a more slgnificant Issue was density and the developer decided co ask for exactty
what they want rather than requesting nare and then r-cgottating. He ststed tl~ey did the
best Job Chey could and mede a consctous effort to present the best plan for the property
and this is a compromize. He referred to che suggestlon of reducin~ the number of unfts
and raisi~g the saie price and steted other things than profit are taken Into
considera:lcro such as the quality of thc project, the marketabiltty with larger and more
expe~slva unlts not being soid in the area so reducing the n unber and r~ising the price
do~s not seem to be the right answe~.
2l25/~
~`
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FESRUARY 25• 1980 80'165
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT aEPORT N0. 23~~ VARIANCE N0. 31;2 ANA TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 109W1 (CONTINUED)
--..,,...,._.~..._._.. _.~_
TNE PU4L1 C H~ARI t~C WAS CLOSEO.
Responding to Chelnvoman 9ernes, Dean Sharer explal~ed donsities are figured on thc numbor
of untt~ permittod per g~os: acra or per net ecr~~ mi~us the squa~e footage of driveways~
ate. Ne stotnci Genoral Plan Amandm~nt No. 123A wh4ch is the Approved Genera) Pldn for
thts ares ~peclfles multl~•family ck~sity of ~.8 units per gross acre and the propased
pro~oct t~ y.7 dwelling units per noc acre end by Code 14~5 dwelling u~its psr acre would
b~ parmitted providing they meet all the stendards. He etated the reclasslflcatiun for
the Planned Community =one was April 9~ 1974 and the Ganeral Pian Amendment occur~ed prtor
to that dete. (Commissioncr Uushoro stated the GPA was odoptsd befor~ thc East~ldge
Estetes wa~e sc:uelly a~old.)
Commtssloner Nerbst clarifl~d that ve~rlances allawed for setbscks in the AnAheim Htlls
arer he~-o beon allawed as long aa c!~ey did not Interfero with the views of othe~ parc~is,
primari'ly downgrade 25 to ~0 feet and he cfid not know of any opproval far th~ helght
wAlvar ~~f Mo-story ed)acent to sinyle•fami ly and the ones al lawed were dow~ stope and
wouid rn~t block e view. tle steted his pricnary ob~ection to the proJect (s tho Mo-stary
structure withtn 150 fect end the only wey to yet Z~+ unit~ on chc p~oprrty is through tha
approve) of variance. Ne stated there ts no question thnt this is a hardshi~~ parcel. but
thc hardship should not be t~Ansferrcd !o acfjalning p ropcrty oaners; that it cen be
daveloped. mAyb~e with fcwer untts~ alony the beck slopo and th~se blocking the vier+ cen b~
sin~la•story and thc ones abutting can be stngle-sto ry. Ne stated hc was very
disapp~intad the o~igin~l pians wcra nat chsnged. N e stated the neighbors will overtook
some rooftops, but he would not v~tc for two-story a*,d ~~c fcit a proJect could be
cievelaped within Code; that he would support the variancos for sctb~ck along the street
becausr. the ~end Is dcpressed and will eliminatc some of thc sour~d.
Commlssloner Bushore statec! he orl~lnaliy was concerneci about the views and read frnm the
minut~ea of the previous meeting es follows:
"Don Royers sald they were told to put In wrough t lron fences because thelr vlew
~~ouid navar be lost; that they had nat pald for s view lot. but paid for a
premium lot ~nd are not sure what that e~cc~mpasses and wt~o thel~ canplaints are
with•--" aiso~ "Mr. Murray ~tate~ they really hav~ no qualms about losing their
vlews ~or with the buttder~"
~nd on the pcticitx~ submitted one of th~ it~ms was potentla) deflatian of hon~ values due
to 'loae of the aesthetics, adding ~e was certain that means the loss of thelr vl~vvs. He
sta~ted those are the things that lcd up to the stat~nt hc made that he thought the
opp~~sicion woui~ be opposed to the vta+ being lost and thn proposal for 24 unlts. He
sta+ted ha has heard agaln taday that they are nat op vo~ed to losing thc vlaw and stated he
could not flgure thtx out at the prevlous hea~tng; t hat he researched the matter a~nd
ref~srre~l ta the R~gister arttcle when Oon Rogers said, "We were told when r~ b~u~ht our
homes~ that the aree would be a park~ and w~ were told t~ butid ta+-proflle fencea becau~s
our vler+ would nevcr ba lost." Ne felt the pa~k is s uo Is maot b~cauae It was established
ton,g befo~r the proJect was developed that there wouid be no park at that site; that there
are a lot of peopla who mis~epresent things snd to ask the Commission to change the
pie~ce of p roperty because af what waa toid to them is unreasonable. He resd the escroN
inatruttians submitted that the buycr acknowledged he knew ha was being sold e premlum
lot. He explalned a p~emlum lot m~~ns an oversizeJ tat end not a vidw lot and continuRd~
2/25/6fl
x )
MI NUTES ~ ANAHE I M CI T1f PLANN ING COMMI SS I ON ~ FE6RUARY 25 ~ 19~~ 80• 166
ENVIaONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 234~ VARIANCE NQ. 3132 AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. ~o9a~ (CUr~TINUED)
the buyar und~rstends that any vtewr tha property may now I+ave of p~~sently undeveloped
land is not guerenteed nor Incanded as a pa~t of tne valua of the home~ and the buyer
further understands that he doe' ~ot own tha slope area~" and referred to Mr. Ashton's
commsnt relating to "our slope." N• felt these people signed escra+ papers and knaw when
they purchASed thoi~ property tha~ thay would not heve a vtew and naw are here In
oppositlon wa~ting the proJoct destroyed, polnting out this is the best condominlum
proJeet he has aeen In hhe Anaheim Hills Pl~n~ed Conmunlty~ and this d~vclope~ did not
brtng this tnformation out and allowed the proJect to stand on its vwn merit~ and he has
minimized the Impact on the adJecent pr~pertles to the greet~st degrae possibla and he
could not fathom m~king him change the plans. ~1e wAS ready to go ahead wl th rpproval and
felt the oppositlon had skirtcci a~ound the reai issue whlch Is the loss of vtew.
Chalrwamen Sarnns felt sure loss of vtew is part of the tssue and rlso whether the~e is
going to be a park. She ~xplatned the resolutlon of Intent ta pianned uommunmlty zoning
was adoptdd i~ 197+~ ar.d thare has never been any other Intendod usr on this property since
thon. She ststoJ mo~e parks wont uut wl ch the pessege of Proposl t lon 13 and more wl 1 1 bG
gone wt th the passagc of Jerv t s I 1 because the re i s no money and the on ly money 1 s f ~om
thc federal govornment and the C) ty of Anahetm has gotten a11 that avai lable money. She
statad this is tha best area in the whole world to llve and whetcver is butlt here w111
not downgrade the area. She sceted she has been fighting the schu~l issue all her Iife
And has worked for ~assage of schuol bond measures and statec! citles wtll not furnish
anymore nwney for schools; t~~at there wi 1) be morc houses bui It beceuse people need places
to 1 1 ve .
Sne stated sho syns. ~t ~~^S wt th thc property owner regar~iing thc toss of view and bel ieved
there can be a canp rom; ~.: ; that she woul d 1 I~:e to see the end un t ts redes i gned to ai low a
view over the reservoi r or see them el imi f'romdthcdresidences~ bShei stotedttheideveloper
ordl nanee, and put a h 1 ghcr den~ 1 ty awaY
has e right to bui id a proJeck if they stlck to thc ardinances; that this ls an unusual-
shaped parcei and has e lot of h~rdships. She felt it aas a shame the plen was brought
back without changas. 5he asked the petitioner to stlDutate to reduce the units within
150 f ee t to onc-s to ry.
Commissione~ Bushore statcd ho was re~dy to offer a motion and suggested the hon~owners
tAke thet r escro~ papers back i f they wanted them Indicating he would submi t the resee~ch
he had dc~~a as a pa~t of the records. 11e clarifi~ed he was referrtng to escrow papers
slg~ed by Laarenc.e and Clalre Narton. Nei 1 and Am: Quinn, Oonald and B~rba~a Rogers,
Rich~rd and Glcnna 5escion, and Michael and Paula Murray. He read the statement agaln
~elattn~ to views and slopes. Na axated this ts a hardshtp perc~l and the developer has
cone nverything possible to minimizP the las~ of vlews.
Commlsslener King asked the deveiope~ why the proposed density Is so law wtth the extreme
costciryd a~rhetwould~bedallowed~l4~unitsiperQacreersNef~inted9ou~usupply~istwayEbehind~
poin g
denand.
Mr. Mickelsan stated they tried to present e project compatibie wieh thc area; that they
did atudy n~ximun+ density~ but the parking requtrement constrains the proJect. Ne stated
they dtd try and protect the ~iiew.
2/25/80
~ 80-167
MIMUTES, ANAH IM CITY PLANNING ~~~SVARNANCE~NQ.R31 3Z/~NDaTENTATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT N0. ~3 ~
MAP OF TRACT N0. 10941 (CQNTINUEQ)
Commissioner Harbst stated the density At Singing Wood, a aimilar praJect, is 3~~ units
pe~ yross acrn and is a wall-designed ddvelopment. tle stated he ~e st~ted, thero the
buiider developing the property. but doas abJect to the varlence.
Mickelson did of past
d~veloper~ wlll ~ereo~ch the Commission rulings 1us t r~akstated the pravlous approvals were
actlons and will polnt to this pro)ect if approvad.
dewn grada and dld not block b vldw~ but this would set ~ precedent, aven tho ugh the
Plamning Commlssion is not supPosed to set precedentti.
Commissloner aushore steted the Commlssion does not set Rs~Cedent and there v+es nevar
anything else fnQe`dcSefoeOp;csApl~signcd pepers,that theydknewathey,would not have a
developer becaus P
vlew.
Commissioner Herbst sta;ed again hl~ concern fs th~ varlance requlreci for two-story
davelopment.
Chairwoman Oernes egreed with Cnnrnissloner Oushore that this is a harciship parcel~ but the
veriance ahe does not want ta grant is the one tbue prob~t+lheeveryancrwilihwalkhout hating
Commi ss I on waul c+ 1 1 ke Co make eve ryone happy ~ Y
them, Inclucling the doveloper; then they know they have probably made a right decislon
when nobociy llkes it. She sug9ahceone~~storyetoCtyvoostory Incanothe~area~ry ~its to
one-atory and I~crnas~e some of t
Mr. Mickalson st~ted the viea~+ would still be black~A tf the units were reduced to one-
story; a~d In edditloHetstated you~needia,breekdor+n~oftone bedroomf orcone storythtr+oastory
on the grede tevel.
units.
Cortimissloner King asked if providing places fu~ p~ople to live is more lmportant than
p~oviding vie~ws.
ACTION: Comnissioner 8ushore offered e motion~ s~conded by Commisslo~er K{ng and MOTION
aa 0, that Environmental Impact Raport ~b, 23'~ fo~ the proposed developmenC of
Tantative T~act No. 109~+1, having bcen conslderQd thts date by the Anaheim Citie~~^d~aft
Connission, and cvidence. both w~itten and oral~ having been presented to supp
EIa H0. 23~+~ fi~ds that potential environmentai i~pacts oliciesDand~o~dinances;ethatdOraft
an i~signtficAnc levcl by conformance with Clty Rlans, p
EIR N0. 234 is in compliance with tho Csllfornia Envlronmental Qu~lity Act end with Cicy
and State EIR Guidnll~noe~s:Ge~ilfyeE~vtronmental Iw~Q~Ct ReportoNoat?34. the Anaheim City
Plen~ing Commissio
Commissioncr Bushore offered Resolutlon No. PtBU-32 and ^bved for tts passage and adoption
that the Anahelm City Planning Commission dons h~re4y grant Patltion far Vartance No. 313z
o~ the basls that this is a hardship parcel~ triangula~ly-shaped wlth unusuai topogrsphy~
and the prc>pe~ty t s depressed~ and sub}ect to i nzerdepartmentai Commi ttee ~ecorm~endations.
He added the developar hss done everything possible to minimize the effects and the
adJoining Rr'aP~rty ~-ners wer~e fore~+arncd thet tl~o prope~ty would be develaped and the
pro~ect is being vlewed on tts vwn merlts and approval wouid not set a precedant. Ho feit
this is a reasonabla varlante ~equest.
2/25/~
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNINO COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 25~ 198Q 80~168
ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT N0. z3~+. VARIANCE N0. ;132 ANO TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT ~10. 10 41 (CON1'INUED)
CoMa~is~toner Ilerbst restatad that he spproves of the pro,j~ct~ but does not approva af
tr~nsferring the varlance hardship from ona proparty ta another and believed this would
set a procadent; that develape~s do research the CommlaAlon ruiing• snd vari~nces hav~
been ellowed In the aroe which dld not affect the property next door and thet any vertance
affe cting the property next door should not be ~llowed. Ha felt the bullde~ hss a way to
develop wtthcut tr~nsfarring the hardship.
Chai rwoman Barnas agreed with Commisaloner Herbst's statemcnt~ except the cortNnent that e
pre eedent would be set. She stated she could not suppo~t the resolution.
Commissio~er Bushorf stated the Commtssion takes a close look at each project and houstng
Is badly nEecled in this communlty and thesc ere economically hard ttmes for everybody and
deniel would deprivesomesone else of the orivilegc of home-awnership and thc posstbiltty of
Ilvtng a style that ts foirly compa~eble t~ wh~t wc are used to In the past. He felt t~e
Commiasion has to came dewn to same co1J f~cts that ic Is a different wor)d than it was
whEn the erdlnance waa adoptod. He referrcd to a recent mcettng on houstny and indiceted
he almo~t cemn up with the thought that meybe the setback should be reduced to ]5 fect~
but decided each project should be welghed on its mertt and that Is what was dc~ne here
today.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passcd by the following vote:
AYCS: CONMISSIONERS: BUSt10RE~ DAVID~ FRV~ KIIIG.
NOES : COMMI SS I Ot~ERS : 9AR~tCS ~ HERBST
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
Commissloner Bushors offered a motion~ scconded by Corrmissioner David and MOTION CARRIE~
(Commissio~ers 8arnes and Herbst voting iio and Carimiss(oner Tolar being absent) ~ that the
Anahetm City Plan~fng Commtsston does hereby find that the proposed subdtvfsion~ together
with its daslgn and Improvemant~ Is conststant with the Ctty of An~hetm General Plan~
pu~suant to Government Code Sectio~ b6473.5; dnd does~ thcrefore, approve Tentative Map af
Tract fb. 10941 for a 1-lot~ 2~~-unit conciomi~lum aubdiviston~ subJect to the following
conditioRa:
1. That the approval of Tentativc Map uf Tract No. 10941 ts granced subject to the
approval of Variance No. 3132.
2. That should this subdivision be dcveloped as nare than o~e subdivision~ each
subcllvision thereof shall be submitted in tentatfve form for Approval.
3. That aubJect property shall be sarved by undarg~ound utilities.
4. That the origtnal documents of the covenants, conditio~s, and restrtctlons~ and a
letta~ addressed to developer's tttle compAny authorizing recordatton thereof~
st~all be submitted to fhe City Attorney's office a~d approvcd by the City
Attprney's office and Engineering Qtvision prlor to fina! tract map approval.
Said documents~ as approved~ shall be ftled and recarded in tha Office of thE
Orange County Recorder.
" ~25I80
~> '~ ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM1S51QN. FEBRUARY 25r 19~ ~'169
ENVIRQNMENTAI IMPACT REPORT t~. Z3~~ VARIANCE N0. 313Z AND TENTATIVE
MAP 0~ TMCT N0. 109W1 (CONTINUEO)
w
S. Thst street names shel) b~ app~oved by the Ctty Planntng Deps~tmant prior to
•pproval of a ftnal trsct mep.
6. That the owner of sub~ecc property shall pay to the City of Anahetm th~
approprlete park and recreatlon In•lleu fees as determtned to be dppropriata by
tho Ctxy Council~ said foes to be pald at the tlme tha building permit i• Iss wd.
~. That dralnag~ of satd property shol) be dispo~ed of in a Menne~ sstfsfactory to
the City Enginec~. If, In thc preparatlon of the site~ sufficlent grading is
requlred to necessttate a gradlny permit~ nu work o~ grading wtll be permitted
bctween Octaber 15th and Aprll 1~th unless all requtred off•sice dralnage
faciilties have baen instelted a~d are operative. Posltlve assu~ance shall be
provlcfed the CI ty that such drainoge fec( 1 ttlas wl ! 1 be completed p~tor to
October l~th. Necessary ~tght•of-wey far off-sice drainuge facil(ties shall be
dodlcated to the City~ o~ the Glty Councll stiall heve inltiated condemnstlon
proceedings therefnr (tha costs of whtch shali be t~orne by the developer) prtor
to the cortanencement of greding operatio~s. ?he requlred dralnage facilittes
shull bc of ~~ slze anJ typc sufftcicnt to carry runoff waters ortgtnating from
htgher p roperttes through said propcrty ta ulttm~tr disposal as app roved by tlia
City Engineer. Seid dralnage f~cllicles st~all be chc tirst ttem of construction
and shall be complrted and bc functlonal throughout the tt'act and frorsi the
dawnstream boundery of thc property to thc ulti~nate pol~t of dlspoYal pric~r to
the IicCa~~i~ ~r5n~ntnegreements~maysbe~made~avallableatoythe developerst f9satd
dtstr
property upon thelr request.
$. That all prlvatc st~ects shall be devclopcd ln ecco~dancc with the Ctty of
M aheim's Standard Detail No. 12?. fnr private straets~ inciuding (nstallation of
strset namr. slgns. Plans for the private strect liyhcing~ as required by che
standard detali~ st~all be submitted to snd appraved by the Electrica) Division.
Approven ~o'~~~tluslontwlthhtheybulldinghplenshprlor tobissuance~ofhbu8ldtngn9
Dlvisio
pe rmi ts .
9. That the ow~er(s) of sub,~ect property shali pay approprt~te drainagc essessment
fces to thc Clty of iln~helm as deter*-tned by the Clty E~gin~er prtor to issuance
of a bullding permit.
10. (f perr~anent street name stgns have not be~n inst~lled~ temporary street name
slgna shall be Installed prlor to any occupancy.
11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment fee
(Ordlnance No. 38g6) iR an ~nount as dQtermined by the City Cauncil~ for each new
dHC111ng unit prtor to the lssuance of a bu(lding permit.
12. Thanecessahy~banthesChiefbof~theaFire Departmentdpriar~totco~m~en~emenerofned to
b e rY Y
st~uctural framing.
2/25/80
~'
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLAlININC COMWISSION. F~eau~uer 25~ 1980 ab'1~0
ENVIRONMENTAL 1l~ACT REPORT N0. 23~, VARIANCE N0. j13Z AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 1094~ (CONTINUED)
..~~_..~...~~
13. Th~t el) roqutrements of Ftrc Zone 4, otherwise tdonttfled aa Fire Administrative
Qrder No. 7G-Oi~ w111 be met. S~ach requirements Includo, but are not Iimtted to~
chtmney sperk a~reators~ protect~d etttc and unde~ floor opaning~~ Class C or
batter roaftng material and one hour fira reslsttve construction of horizuntal
surfacns if within 200 feet of edJscent brushlond.
1~~. 7hat th~ develaper of subJect t~act ahali ~ntnr into a speclal fecilitles
eyreemont wtth ;he Clty for water facilitiea tn the High Elevatlon System~ es
r~quired by Rule 15B of the W~tor Utility Rates~ Rules and R~~ulatlons prlor to
approvel of a ft~al tract map es stipulatcd by che peticioner.
15. Thst 100 faet of the weste~ly slop~ aholl be mlllrttalned with a brush height undar
12 Inchss and ahall also be molntelned with permanent ir~iqation focllities as e
f 1 re p~otection mcasure.
16. That 100 fcet of inedien on Canyor Rim aoad shall bc removed to provlda l~ft tu~n
access onto :ubJcct property and that the existtng medlan adJacent to the western
portic~ of sub)cct parccl shell be closed.
17. That al) landscaping dlrectly adJacent to AnJ behlnd proposed sidewelks shall ba
m~lntatned by the Homeowners Associstlon.
Jetk W~Itc~ Assistant Clty Attorney~ prese~ted the w~itten r1ght to
appeal the Plenning Commtsslon's d~clslon within 22 days ta t~ie Ctty Counctl.
ITEM N0. 2 COIITINUED PUBLIC HEARING. 011NER: DUANE HLAVNICKA,
~'{~~RlCAL EXENPTION-CLASS ~ 264a Ruaacll Avanue~ Anahcim~ CA g2801.
V RI NCE N0. 313 Petitla~cr requests WAIVER OF MI~IIMUM 51DEYARD SETBACK TO
CONSTaUCT A RGOM ApDIT10N on property d~scribed
as a raciangularly-shaped parce) of lsnd consisting of
epproxtn-ately 10498 square feet having a frontage of approxi~r.ately 65 feet o~ the south
side of Russell Avenue having a maximum depth of approximately 1G0 feet end befnq located
epp mximataly 532 feec east of the centerline of La Reina Street snd further described as
2648 Russel) Avenue. Property presently ctassifled RS-72A0 (RESIOENTIA~~ SING~E-FAMtLY)
ZOI~E.
SubJect petitlon wes cantinuad from the meeting of February 11~ 1~90 because the
petitioner wss not present at the hearing.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppositian to subJect request, and aithough
the staff report to the Plannin9 Gommission ciateci February 25. 1980 wes not read at the
public hC~~ing~ it ts refe~~ed to and made a p~rt of the mtnutes.
Ouane Hlavnicke, 2648 R~saell Avenue~ avner~ wes presant to answer eny qu~stions~ and
explai~ed there wi 1) be~v~indows or openings on the east wal I. ~~-~-'~°~•'~
31~~~~d
TNE PUBLI C NEA{~I HG MiAS CLOSED.
Reaponding to Commissioner 9ushore's question~ Mr. Nlavnitka explained his business is
plastering and sandblasting and e~lained thls witl be a small affice for paperwark~ but
hls ~In office is in Long 8sach.
2/25/80
\.-
MIN"TES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANHING COMMI3SION, FEBaUAaY 25 198Q
EIR CATE6aRiCAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 ANO VARIANCE N0. 313~i (CONTINUEQ)
-- ._...~.......~....
80-171
Commitstot~er Bushore ~xpleined Of the p~nperty is used for commerctel purpases, another
actlon would be necessary.
It was notad the Plsnning Dl~eetor or f~ts authorizad representative hes determined thdt
the proposod proJect falls withtn the defl~ition ot Categorical Exemptions, Claas 5~ as
deffned In paragraph 2 of tho Ctty of Anahelm Environmental Impact Report Guidelinas And
is~ therefQre~ cata9orically exempt from th~ requlrement to prepare en EIR.
ACTION: Commissiuner King offcrcd Resolutton No. PC80•~3 end maved for its pessage and
ac~optTan that the Anahnim City Ple~ninc~ Commisston does hercby grant chc Petltlon for
Vs~tence No. ;134 on the basis of the Itmited siza of the prope~ty and th~-t the original
building nxtscs~ and s~Ject ta Interdepe~tmcntal Commictee rocannendatlons.
On roll cell~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: C~MMISSIONERS: BAaNES~ BUSt10RE~ DAVIO, FRY~ NER@S7~ KING~ TOIAa
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOHE
ITEM N0. PU9LIC NEARING. OWNERS: WILLIAM P. AND
~ R NEG T VE DECLARATION EMMA S. BREpGER, 1II35 West Kstella Street~ Anaheim~
ON N0. q-8_4-2_8 CA 92a04. Property descrtbnd as a rectangularly-shapad
~ __ . parce0 ~f land conststing of epproximately Q.N6
a~re~ hav{ng a fronteqe of approximately 100 feet on
the south side of Lincoln Avenue~ havtng a maximum dtpth of approximately Z00 feet and
being locat~d approximately 250 feet west of the centc~linc of Magnolia Avenue~ and
fu~ther doscribed as 2G12 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified RS-A-43~040
(RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-F~IMILY) ZONC.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATlON: CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITEDj 20NE.
REQUESTEO VARI~NCE: 11AIVERS OF (A) MAXIMUM STP,UCTUFtAL HEIGNT~ (9) M1NiMUM NUMBER OF
PARKING SPACES~ (C) REQUIREC SITE SCREENING~ TO C~NSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL RETAIL Af~O OFFICE
COMPLEX.
Thare was no c~ne indicatin~ their presence in oppositton to subJact requast~ and aithough
the staff report to the Pl~nning Commlssion dated february 25. 1980 was not read at the
publlc hearing~ it Is referred to and made a part af the minutes.
pary) Bregckr~ 183y West Keteila, stated they wish to construct a commerciai bullding
identical to the prop~rty next door which the~ feel will enhance the area.
TN£ PUBl.I C HEARI NG WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner King's concern~ Mr. Bredger stated they will construct a six
(6) foot high block wall on the south property ltne.
2/25/80
~ S ~• ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 25~ ~98~ 80•172
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION~ RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. 79•80-28 nNo
VARIANCE N0._313d ~CONTINUED)
ACYION; Commisfioner King offered a motion~ seco~ded by Commissloner Tolar encf t1AT10N
~D~ that Che A~ahelm City Planning Commission h~s ~eviewed the proposa) to reclas:ify
subJect property from the RS-A•43~~00 (Resldentiol~Agricultural) Zone to the CL
(Commarcial~ Ltmited) tone to con~eruct e comnercisl ~etsil ~nd office complex with
w~iva~a of maximum structural hcight, minimum number of parking speces~ and requlred sita
screentng on e ~ectangularly-shaped pbrcel of lend consisting of approximately 0.4G acre~
having a f~ontege of appraximatety 100 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue~ h+~ving a
maxtmum depth of Approximately 2011 feet ond b~ing loct+'oveethe~Nogetive Decla~ationsfrem
the centerline of Magr.olla Av~nue; and doos hercby •pp
the requlr~mcnt to prepare en environmantal impact report on thc besis that there v+auld be
no signiftrant individual or cumulative adverse environmental tmpact due to the approval
of this Negative Decla~~+tlon slnce thc Anahelm General Pien designates thc subjett
p~operty for medlum-density residentlal land uscs commeRSUrate with the propasal; that no
sensitive envlronmental Impdcts are involvcd In the propo'al; that the Initfel Study
submitted by the petittoner indicates no signlflcant Individual o~ cumulative adversa
environmental impacts; anJ that the Neyative Declar~tion substantieting the foregoing
flndinys Is on ftlc in the City of A~ahelm Planning pepartment.
Cc~mmisstoner King offercd Resolutlon No. PCB~-34 and movcd for its pessage an~ adoptlon
that the Anehelm Clty Planning Commisslon do~cs hereby grant the Petitlon for
Reclassification No. 79•g~'2~~ s~lect to Interdepartmental Cannittee racanmendattons.
On rol) call. the fnregofny resQlutlon was passed by the follawing vote:
AYCS: COMMI~SIO~~ERS: BARNES,
NOES: CQMMISSIbNERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOt1ER5: NONE
ElUSttORE ~ DAV I D. FRY ~ IIERBS'f ~ KI NG ~ TOLAR
Commissioner Kin~ offered Resolutlon No. PC60-35 e~d ~~d for its passage a~d adoptlon
that the llnaheim Cicy Planniny Commtsslon do~s heraby grant the P~titlon for Yarlance No.
3130 on c~hec~~rc1a11t~aandcsubJectptotlnterdepertmentel Cccxn~nittee~rtduxrreendations!y but
develope Y
On roll call~ thc foregolny resolution was passcd by thc follawing vote:
AYES: COMMIS510~1CR5: BARNES ~ nUSiIORE~ DAYI D~ FRY, HER45T, KING, TOLAa
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMI SS 1 QNERS : I~OIIE
2/25/~
~s
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FE~RUARY 25~ 1980
ITEM N0.
E OECLAMTION
. - 80~0
~~~~~~-
of land conststlnc~ of Approximately
on the south side of Ltncoln Avenue~
betng loceted approxtmately 230 fece
desc•Ibed a: lai4 West Lincoln Avenue.
REQUESTED CL/ISSIFIGATION: CL (COMMERCIAI.~ LIMITEO) ZONC.
REQUESTCD VARIAtiCCS: (A) MINIMUM NUMDER OF PAaM.ING SPACES~ (a) MIIXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT~
(C) MI~I~MUM LA~IDSCAPEO 5CTBACK~ (D) REQUIRED SITE SCREEt11tIG~ TO ESTADLISII A BARBER SCfI00l.
Thera was no one Indicating thetr pres~nce in opposition to subJ~ct rcquast. and aithough
tho staff report to the Planning Commission ctated february 2;~ 1980 was not read at the
public hearing~ lt ls roferred to snd made a pert of the mtnutas.
Jlm Underwood~ egent~ stated thc property to the east Is developad comn-ercially; that a
barber schoo) is in the trade schooi clussificetion~ but ts mor^ a commerctat bustnass.
THE PUaLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Commissloner lierbst offcred a motion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION
C tt D, that the Anahe(m City Plenning Commission has revtewed th~ propasa) to reclassify
aubJect property from the R5-A-43~000 (Restdential/Agrtcultural) Zone co the CL
(Cemnerciai, I.(mttad) 2one ta construct a barber school wtth waivers ot mtntmum number of
perking apaces, maximum struGturai hetght~ mintmum structursl setback end requtred stte
screentng on a rectangularly-shaped porcel of land conslsting of approximately 0.5y acre
havtng a mdximum depth of approximately 234 feet and be(ng located approxtn~ately 230 feet
east of the centerline of Crescent way; and does hereby approve the Nagative Declaratton
f~om the requirement to preparc an environmental impact raport on thc basis that there
would be no signiftcant individua) or cumulative adverse environmanta) (mp~ct due to the
approval of this PJegative Dnclaration since the Anaheim General Plan deslgnates the
subJect propetty for commercipl professio~al land uses comi+iensurece with the proposal;
that no sensitlve environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that th~ Iniiiei
Study sut,mitted by the petitioner indicates no sign(ficant indlvtdual or cumulative
advarse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Oeclaration substantiating the
foregotng findings is on file in the City of Anahelm Pla~ni~g Depertment.
Cortmisstoner Herbst offered Resolution Na. PC80-3G and moved for its passage and adoptton
that the M aheim City Ptanning Commission doos h~reby grant the Petition for
Reclessification No. 79-80-30 subJect ta Interdepartmental Committee recoaurnendattons.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution wES passed by the fotlowi~g vote:
AYES: CQMMOSSIONERS: BARNES, BUSFIORE, DAViD~ FRY, HERBST, KING~ TOLAR
NOES : COHMI SS I ONERS : NOt~E
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
84-173
PUDLIC HEARING. 04-NERS: LINCOLN SCNOOL
PROPERTY~ A GENERAI PARTNERSIIIP~ 320 Ptne Avenue~
Suite G10~ Lon,~ 8each~ CA 90fl~2. AGENTs JAMES R.
UNDERW000. P. 0. Box 1011, Reseda~ CA 91335.
P~oparty described es s rectangularly-shaped pa~cel
0.5~~ ecre~ having a frontagc of approximetely 100 fest
hsvtng a maxtmum depth of epproximately 234 feet and
east of the centerlinc of C~escent Wey, end further
2/25/~
~' '
MINUTES~ ANANEIN CtYY PLANNING COMWISSION~ FEBRUARY 25~ 19~ 8o'11W
EIR NEGATIVE OECIARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 79-80~30 AND
VARIIW CE N0. 3139 ~~ONTINUED)
~~~~~i~~~~
Commtssioner llerbsc affered Resotutlon No. PC80•37 and n~aved for its paasage end adoptlon
that the A~ahe(m City Planning Commlssto~ does hereby qrent Petitton fo~ Vartenco No. 3139
on thn basis th~t adJacent property to the wcsc althougl~ zoned restdentlaliy is developed
commerclaliy and subJoct to Interdepartmental Commtttee recanmendations.
0~ rotl call~ the foreyoing resolutt~n wes passed by the followfng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIO~IERS: B1IRNES, BUSNORE~ UAV10~ FRY~ IIERBST~ KING~ TOI.AR
NOES : COMMI SS I O~IE RS : t10NE
ABSENT: COMMiSS IOt1ER5 : NONC
ITEM N0. 6 PUBLIG HEARIt~G. OWNEaS: WESLEY R. A~AMS~ 515 West
~T~VE OECLARATION Valencla~ Full~rcon~ LA g2632. AGENT: REVEREND OON
0. 205j ~'CST~ 54~~ aond Avanue~ Anehe{m~ CA 92805. Pet(tioner
rcquests permissian to PERMIT A CtiURCH IN Tt1E ML ZONE
WITF! WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
on property descrlbed es an Irregularly-shaped parcel of land conslsttng of approxlmately
1.G ecre~ havtng a frontagc of approxinMtely 21~ feet on the west side of Daly Street,
having a maxlmum depth of app~oximately 320 fcet and being located approximately 320 feet
snuth of the centerline of Via Durton St~eet~ and further drscribed as 14G1 Daly Street.
Property pr~sently classiflcd ML (ItlDUSTRIAL. LIMITED) 20NE.
TherO wos no one indicattng their presence in oppositton to subJect request. and although
the staff report ta the Planntng Canmisslo~ dated Februery 25~ 1~80 was not read at the
public hearing~ it ts refcrr~d to and made e pa~t of the minutas.
Reverend Don West stated this church has been at 11+G1 Oaly sinces April~ t979 and there
have been no complaints end he has talkcd wtth the neighbors; chat thcy h~ve never used
more than 1/2 of the availablc p~rking; that they are andeavortng to comply wlth Codes;
that he was not awe~e this is thc w rong zone, but they were trying to purchase a
butlding f rom Redevelopment Agency and move it to La Palma at Sunkist but after centacting
the trucking company fou~d out the buiiding at the corner of Clementine and aroadway
cannot be moved because it is brick, plastered on the outside. He asked for a variance
for one year and stated they a~a looking at another building at the present ttme.
T~IE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLQSED.
Cortmisstaner Bushorc referred to the sign on State Colleye and Reverend West explatned the
Zoning E~forcement Officer has said those two (3'x2~~ signs are no p roblem~ but the 4'x4'
sign which is usuaily car~ied in and out is the problem because It ts not stetionary. He
stated they wil) do away wtth the big sign.
Commisstoner David stated he felt this kind of work is good anywhere and feit one year
would be acceptable.
2/25/80
~ r
; i
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 25~ 1980 ~4•~75
EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 20~7 (CONIINUEQ)
ACT'ION:
Commtsstoner Davld offered a motion~ secon~fed by Commisslonar King and MOTION CARRIEO~
that the Anahelm Ctty Planning Cornmission has reviewed the proposei to retatn a church In
the ML(Industrlal~ Limited) Zonn with a waivar of minimun number of parking spaces on a~n
I~ragulerly-shapad of land co~slating of eppreximately 1.6 acrc having a frontage of
approximately 210 fcet on the wast sidc of Daly 5trcet and havin~ a mexlmum depth of
appraximat~ly 320 feot ~nd being located approxim~+tely 32~ feet south of the cente~line of
Vta Bu~ton St~oet; and daes hereby approva thc Negative Declaratlon irom the ~aqut~ement
to preparo an envlronmenCal In~ect report on the basls that there would be no signtficant
individual or cumul~tiva adverae environmentAi impact due to the appraval of thts Negetive
~ecleretion since th~ Anshdim Generel Plan deslgnrtes the aub~ect property for genera)
indusc~lal lend uses cexnmensurate with the proposal; that no sensitivn environmental
tmpacts ar~ (nvotvcd in the proposal; that thc Initla~ Study submltted by the pr.titloner
IndiNe~t~i`vQ ~~claratlo~ substantlatingcthe,foregoingcfindingsrls ontfileminCthe CityCoft
the g
Mehelm Plannli.g Department.
Commiastoner David offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner F ry and MOTSON CARalEO~ that
xhe rinuexistenccaforrapproxlmatelytoneenyear andntherenhave beensnohpnrkingcproblemss and
been
on the basts of the Irre~utar gize of the property.
Commtssion~r David ofFcred Resolutlon No. ('C80-3a A~~ ~ved for its ~assage and adoptton
that thNo ~~o~i"'fortthe,perto of oncgycar~~subJect~to~lnterdcpartmental C~ommitteee) Use
Pc rmt t ~7
recommendations.
On roll call, the faregotng resnlution was passed by the following vote:
AYES : COMMISS I ONEftS : BARNES ~ DUSNOftE. DAV I D, FRY ~ HERBST ~ KI t1G, TOLl1R
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
AtiSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Lonwnissioner Tciar stated he had voted in favor of thls rcquest fo~ one year against his
better judgement and it has notliing to do directly with the pastor of the church~ but his
comments would be that he personally wou~d not support a req~ust far extension of Clme
one year from naw, because historically in the past churches altawed in the industrial
area have creatcd some problems. He stated du~ing the hearing on Item No. 1. Conmissioner
Bushore made the statement that this Commission does not set precedcnts, and he agrees
that it does not, however, there is a tremendaus number of people who rem non-precedent
items down their throat and ha dId not think the indust~ia) area ts the place for a
church. Ne stated he will support this request bo~t~en exkensionerequesthonehyeartfrom9
to get estabiished and grow, but he will not supp
now. (Cortmissloners Bushore~ Barnes and t~erbst agreed witi~ Commissioner Tolar).
2/25/60
~'
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ fEBRUARY 25~ 1980 80•176
ITEM N0. PUOLIC HEARING. OWNERSs NIlL1AM C. AND MIRIA M.
~~VE QECLARATION IIOLZIJARTII~ 4350 Von Kan-isn Avenue, Newport Beach~ CA
D AL U M~0. 205a g2fi6Q. AfEt1Te MIY.E SUIriI~EY.S~ tAiB South Lewis Street,
"""-""-'-' "' Anmheim, Cn g28o5. Petitioner requests permisslon to
PERMIT AN AUTOMOTIVE AND MINaINE REPAIR SHOP IN TNE
ML 20~tL- on p roperty oonsisting of ~pproxlmaCely 0.3G acre located at che northwest corner
of Pacifico Avenue snd Santa Cruz Street, having frantAg~s of ~pproximately 130 feet on
the north slde of Pacifico Avenue, and approxtmately 120 feet on the west side of Santa
Cruz Street~ end further descrtbed as 1091 Eest Psciftco Avenue. P~operty presently
classlfled ML (t!~pUSTRIAI~ LIMITCD) ZONE.
There was no one indtcating tl~eir presence in oppositian to subJect request, and althAUgh
the staff report to the Planniny Com~nisslon dated Februsry 25~ 19~;0 was not read at the
publlc hearing~ it is referrCd to ard madc a part of the minutes.
Mlke Sudweeks~ agont~ stated h~ has outgrown his present fncility and needs to relocate to
this locatfon within on~ block of his present factlity and polnted out there are similar
rapatr faciltties in the neighborhood.
TNE PUBLIC NEARItIG WAS CLOSEO.
Commissioner King clarificd that all work h~(11 be performrd inside the facility anJ that
there woulcl be no outdoor storage of any kinci.
ACTION: Commissianer King offered a motion~ sec~nded hy Commissioner Fry and MOTION
CA~~ RRIED~ thet the Anaheim City Planning Commisston has r~vicwed the proposal to permit an
autamotlve and marine re~air shop in the ML (Industr(al~ Limtted) Zone on a rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximt~tely 0.3F> acre located At the northwest
corner of Pecific(o Avenue and Santa Cruz Street~ having a f~ontage of approxtmatety 130
feet on the north side of Pacifico Avenue and a frontage of 12~ feet on the west stcie of
Santa Cruz Strect; and does hereby approve the Negatlva Dectaretlon from the requirement
t~ prepare an envi~onmental impact renort on the basis that there would be no significant
indivldual or cumuletive adverse envir~nm~ental Imp~ct due to tl~e approval of this Negative
Ueclaration since the Anahelm General Plan designates the subject property for general
industrial land uses commensurate wlth the proposat; that no sensitive environmental
Impacts are involved ln the propasal; that the Initla) Study submitted by the petitioner
indtcates no signific~nt individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that
the Negattve Qeclaration substantlating the foregaing fincitngs is on file in the City nf
Anaheim Planning Department.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC80-39 and moved for its passage and adoption
thet the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant the Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 20~8~ subJect to the petittoner's stlpulatlon t.hat all work will be
conducted insi~e the faciiity and there will be no outdoor storage of any kind and subJect
to interdepartmental Committee recommend~tions.
On rol) call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the followfng vote:
AYES : COMMI SSI O~IERS : DARNES, BUSNORE ~ DAV10, ~~;Y ~ HERI3ST, Kl NG, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOME
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~~QNE
RECESS The meeting w as recessed at 3:10 p.m.
_..`..
RECO_ NVEME The meeting was reconve~ad at 3~20 p.m.
2/z5/8o
~~3
1 ~
MINU7ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBauAaY 25, 19 ~ 80•177
I TEM N0. 8 PUOLI C HEARI t~G. QM~NE~S t JACK CULP, JR. ~ Al10
~ f~~i VE DECVIRATION ~IAI~CY CULP~ 26]7 Va11ey v1ew~ Norco~ CA 917G0.
N~ Patitloner rcquests A COtITRACTORS STORAGE YARO
N . 20y9 A~ID PCST CONTROL SERVICE 1-~ THC ML ZONE WITN
~~"~'~- WAIVER OF MINIMUFt LA~IDSCAPED SETdACK on property
described a: e rectangularly-sheped parcel of iand consisting of approxtmately 0.86 acre,
having ~ f~ont~ge af approxtmately 132 fect on the south side of Mlraloma Avenue~ having a
maximum dnpth of ap~roxlnwtely 2By feet~ and being located opproximacely 650 feat weet of
thu centarlina of Red Gum Street~ and further de:scribed ~s 289Q and 2898 Miralana Avnnue.
There w as no one InJicating thetr pres~nce In opposltion to subJect request~ and slthough
the staff report to the Planning Commisston deted FRbruary 25~ 1980 was not read at the
public hearing~ tt is refcrreJ to and made a part of the mtnutes.
Jack ~ulp stated he had bought thc property two years aga when tt was used aa a sewer
cont~actor's storagc ya~d and A privete residnnce and it wes in bad condltton; that he has
spent a lot of mone•,~ tmprovtng it; tha: the front is currently be(ng landscaped and they
havo addad pavi~g, wlth brick desiyn~ veneered the front of the butldings~ improved the
streets and have put threo inches of grave) in the entir~ back area. He referred to
conditlon four requtring that all storage areas be pevcd with three inches of asphait and
felt that would bes a ha~dshtp. fle steted they use part of the prAperty for growing trees
and do control the dust wlth the gravel.
TIIE PUBLIC MFARIt~C WAS CLOSED.
Respondtny to Commissto~er tlerbst~ Annika Santalahti, Assistant Dlrector for Zoning~
explained the complaint could have been relating to another storage yard and that per~on
could have commented there were other storage ya~ds in the arca. She dtd not thfnk the
complatnt related t~ dust.
Answertng Commissioner Herbst, f1r. Cutp explained the plan shows the landscape planttng
areas deslgned for the front and felt it wauld conform with what ts exiscir,g in the area;
that presently the property has young Corai trees planted in the front and the autom~tic
sprinkler system Is being completed now that the rain has stopped; that the trash
enclosure is complete~ except for the Caors; and that the structure is being used for
thelr office.
Responding to Commissioner 8ushore, M~. Culp explained presently they park 3(1-ton)
trucks An the gravel area.
A~nika Sancalathi explained the asphalt was recommended by staff because very aften the
petltloners will not meintain gravel or other material and it does become a problem.
Mr. Culp stipulated tn camplete the sprinkler system and landscaping and to maintain the
landscaping in the future.
Commissioner Bushore offered a motion~ seconded by Conmisslon~r Ki~g and MOTION CARRIEO~
that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Cortmission has reviewed the proposal to retain a
wnt~actor's storage yard and pest control service with a watver of minimum landscaped
structural setback on a rectangularly-shaped pa~c~l of land consisting of spproximately
2/25/$0
~y. ' ,
MINUTES, ANAHEIN CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUAaY :5 1980 ~0-176
EIa r1EGATIVE OECLARATION~ WAtvER OF CODE REQuIREMENTS dN0
GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 20~9 (CONTINUED)
0.86 ecre~ having a frontage of approximctely 132 feet c~ the south side of Miralome
Avenuo~ ~pproxtmatcly 6SA fRet wast of thn centerllne of Red f um St~ect• and daes hareby
approva the ~~egattve Daclarotlon from the roqutremiant to p~epare dn environmental impact
repart on the b asis that there would bs no signtftcant in~ftvtdual or cumulatlve adverse
•nvironn~ntai tmpact due to tl~e approval of this NegAtive DeclsrAtlon since th~ Anehelm
General Plan cfestgnetes the subJect property fo~ general industrtal lAncl uses cortme~+nsurate
with the proposal; that no se~sttive ~nvlranmental inp acts are fnvolved tn the proposat;
that the Initta) Study submttte d by the petitioner indlcetos no significent individual or
cumulativa adverse enviro~mental impacts; and that the Negat(vc Declaratlon substanttattng
the foregoing findings Is on flle in r-~e City of Anaheim Planning ~epe~tment.
Cortimiasloner Dushare oftered a motlon. seGOnded by Comrr~tsstoner Nerbst end MOTIOtI CARRIED~
thdt th~ Anaheim Clt~r Ptanntny Commisslcm docs hereby grant tha request for waiver of Code
raquirenant on ~he basis thet th~ structure is r.xisttng and petittonGr has improved
subJoct property ~nd sttpulated to corr~lete And maintaln automAtic sprinkler system and
1 andsct~p irg.
Commt9stone~ Oc:shorr offered Resolutton No. PC80-40 and movad for lts passagc and adaption
that the Anaheim City Planning Conxnissfon does hercby grent Patltion for Condltional Uso
Permit No. 20y9~ subJect to InterJepArtmental Commttte~ recommendatlons, except Conuttlen
No. l~ whtch shalt bQ deleted subJect co petittoners sttpulatton to malnt~ln the exlsting
three inches of gravel.
On ~oll cali, the foregoing resolutinn was passed by thc foliowing vote:
AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: EtARt1E5~ UUSHORE~ DAVID. FRY~ I~ERBST~ KIIIG, TOLAR
NOES : COMMI SS I ONERS : NO~IE
AOSENT: COMMISSIOfaERS: N~`yE
(TEM N0. PUBLIC HEARING. QWNEaS: VERN4N MONROE, et al~ 5209
E~~VE DECLARATIOFI Seashore Orive, Newport Beach~ CA 92663. AGENT:
, 0. 206J ANAHEIM ELKS LODGE, BPOE 1345, RODERICK M. IJAILACE~
TRUSTEE, ~~?.3 Narth Anahetm Boulevaro~ Anehetm, CA
92805. Petitioner requests permission for AN ELKS
L~~GE I~~ THE ML ZONE WITH wAIVER OF NINIMUM tIUMEIER OF PARKING SPACES on property desc~ibed
as a ~ectengularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of ap~+roximateiy 0.41 ecre~ locdted at
the southeast corner of Alro Way and Clement(nr Street. having frontages of approximately
12$ feet on thc soutl~ slc~- of Airo Way ar.d approxlmately 113 feet or~ the east side of
Clementine Street~ and furthe~ described as 1G00 South Ctementine St~eet.
There was no ona tndicating th etr prasence in oppusition ta subJect raquest~ and although
the staff report to the Planning Commission dated F~bruary 25~ 1980 was not read at the
public heartng~ it is referred to and mede a part of the mtnutes.
Roderick Wallate, 1634 Catalp a, Trustee ef the Elks Lodge, stated they have a reciprocal
parktng agreement with their neighbors ro the north.
THE PUBLIC tIEARtNG WAS CLOSEO.
Responding to Chatrwoman Barnes~ Mr. Wallace further e~lai~ed he has a lette~ of intent
from Ling Electronics and the agreertient will have ~o be submitted to the City Attorney for
approximately 100 spaces. tie stated he alsu has . c:~+ft copy from Grand Hotel that will
allow another 50 space~.
2/25/80
~ i
MINtJTES, ANAHFIM CITY PLANNINa C011h115S10N~ FE.BRUARY 25~ 1~80 gp"19
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAR~'~TION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2 60 (CONTINUEp)
ACTION: Commlasioner Tolar offered a motlon~ seco~ded by Conmissloner King and MOTION
~~U (Commtss{oner Bushore ~bstalning)~ that the Anaheim Clty Pt~nning Commisslon has
revier+ad the propnsal to parmit en Elks Lodge In tha Ml (Industrlal~ Ltmited) Zone with
w~iver of minim~an nunt~er of parktng specas on a rcctangularly-shaped perce) of l~nd
consisting of approximately 0.1+1 acrn ~ov~ti~ce~k~ativeu0eclarationefrom the~ equi~ement
Clamentine St~eet; and cbas hereby epp
to prepere en environmental impect repart on the basts thnt there would be no significant
indlviclual or cumuletive adverse environmental tmpoct due to the approval of this Negetlve
Decleratlon since the Anoheln- General plan destc~nates the subJect property for ~o~mierci~l~
recreation land uses commensu~ate wlth the propofel; thdt no sensltive environmental
impacts are involvod In the proposal; that the Inltlal Study submltted by the petitio~er
(ndicstes no slgniftcAnt IndlviJual or cumuletive adverse environmental tmpACts; snd that
the Negative O~claratlon substantiating the foregoing findtngs Is on flle in th~ City of
Anaheim Planning Dapartment.
The Ca~-rnissfon discussed the parking walver requested and the rectprocal parking agreement
snd Jeck White~ Asslatent Ctty Attorney~ explained if there ts an agreement and the hours
of use do not conflict~ th~:n the welvcr ~s not necessary.
A~nika Santalahti~ Asststant Dircctor for Zoning~ statcd lt weuld have to bc vGrtfted that
both the otl~er uses have excessive parking.
Cortenlssioner Nart~st felt tl~e walver should not be granted and Canmissloner TalAr dtd not
want to delay the proJect.
Annika 5antolahtt felt th~re is a possiblllty that the emount of parking requtred by the
other use wo~;od~~ti~sWOUldtbettorgrantethetwaiverhwtth,thehknowledgetthe~efwll) be
tcrtpora~ry po
available off-site spaces.
Mr. Wallace stated their normal hours are after five o'cl~ck an~J thetr arrangement with
lin~ would beoast8~~si~~rehthanhadequatecfar9thetrnn ort-alcoperation~,dandEthatnagreement
would allcw 5 P ~
has no time restrtctian.
Commissio~er Herbst wanted spproval tied to a specific tlme limit and was concerned about
a waiver betng granted requiring only ten spaces. Fle did not w~nt the Elks to improve the
property and then not be able to canply wi th the parking.
Commissioner Tolar stated if approval is tied to C1~^ requirement for 112 spaces p~ovided
off-site through the egreement~ there will be ~o problcm.
Jack White w as cancerned about the agreemant; that Code requires if the rectprocei
agreement provtdes parking that is non-conflicting i~ hours of operatton~ no varience is
necessary, provlded both individual us~es when using the parking meet the Codt requlrement.
He explained there are two ways to wrtte a reclprocal parking agreement. 1) where a use
has excess spaces~ it can allaw an ad~acent use to use a portion of those spaces, or 2)
that even though thet use may not have excess spacrs. if the hours of operatlon do not
conflict~ they may allow the adJacent use to use their parking during the non-confllcting
ho~~rs. He was not sure which wey the Cemmission wants the Attorney's offlce to vle~w the
agreement; as meeting the Code with excess spaces or as non-confltcting hours of
aperatton.
Commissioner Tola~ statedhainorthiafter15:00 phmt 112 off-site parking spaces be2~25~80 d
o~ sdjawnt property to t
__..~...~,..,,.,.~.,.,. ,9..,,.._-. _.. _...: ,-
_ ~_` _ __..~._~.~~ _~:....:.~...~..,..~,.1.;
~~
MiNUTES~ ANANEIN CITY PLANNINa COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 25- 19~ ~'~~
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATiQN ANO CONDITIOt1Al USE PEltMl1' N0. 2060 (CONTINUED)
Commisslonar Talar offered a mation~ ~econded by Commissionar Nerl,st and MOTION CARRIEO
(Commissioner 9ushore abstsining)~ that the Ana heim City Pldnning Commission does hareby
grant thc request for w~iver of the Code requt~ement on the bttsls that the petitlaner
stipulated to pravide • reciprocr' parking agrc ~menc rs approved by the Ctty Attorney'a
nff i ce to provl de 112 off•s i te park) ng ~paces o~ ad}dcent prope~ty to th~ nor~h and 50
apace~ on the property to the west t f requl red.
Commissio~er Tolar offered Resolutlon No. PC80- W1 end moved fnr Its ~aesage and adoptton
that the Anaheim Cit;~ Planning Commisslon dc~s he~eby grant Petition for Condittonal Use
Permit 1~~. 20G0 for A perlad of Fiv~ years, subJect to review fnr posslble extenstpns of
ttme~ s~d aubject to Interdapartmental Comnttt~e recommendations.
On rolt cal l~ the fore~oi~g resolutlon was passed by the fol ~c~wing vote;
AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: BARt~E5~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ADSTAIfl: COMMISSIOfIERS: BUSIIORE
AE35C~~T: COrtiMISS10~tER5: t~Or~E
DIIVID~ FRY~ NERBST~ KI~IG, TQLAlt
Commtsslonor Bushnre stated f~e had abstain~d because he ls ~~ dues•paying m~r*~bor of another
Elks Lodge.
ITEM N0. 10 PUEiIIC t1EAa111G. 0'IJ~IERSc SYLVIA iIAMMOIID~ 4081 San
~ NE~ E DECLARATION Rafaal Avenup, Los Angeles~ CA ~~065. AGENT: FRANK
Q. ?'~Gi [i:ACY.. 71~+ Narth Anaheim Boulevard~ A.dt~etm, CA 92805.
Petitioner requests AN A1C0~10LIC ANO OP,UG REHABILITATION
CE~~TE~' III TIIE CG tOtiC W~ Tll uAI VERS OF s (A) Mt ~i! MUM
NUWIER A~'JD TYPE OF PARKING SPACES ANU (B) PERMITTED L~CAtIdN OF PARKItIG SPACES on p~oparty
descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of ler~J consisting of epproxtmete ly 7782 square
feet~ having a frontage of approximately 52 fc~t on the east stde of A~ahetm Bouleva~d~
having a maximum dcpth of approxfmatcly 150 fcet and ~eing locateJ approxlma eely 180 feet
no~ ch of the cent~rl (ne of wi lhelmina Street, anci furcher descrtbed as 7t4 North Aneheim
8oulevard. Property presently classified CG (COMNERCIAI~ GEtiERAI) 2011E.
There wes one person indiceting his presence i ~ opposition to subject reques t~ and
althaugh the staff report to ~the Pianning Comi*fiss(on doted February 25~ 19E~0 was not read
et the public hearing, (t is refe~r~d to and rssade a part of the minutes.
Frank alacl., 15123 Brookhurst, Apartment No. 3a~. felt they are fortunate to have only one
perso~ present in oppositton because in the past they hav~ always had some opposltion. He
fe) t they have the abi 11 ty ta perform and shc~s thc res idents in the communi ty, the Ci ty
Cour~cil and Pianntng Commission that they can operate without inctdent; that for the past
one an~i o~e-hal f yeers ~ he was associated wi tR the Colonial M,~nor end hed a lease wl th
Frank Rose's organi zation but has s ince sevcr~d a) 1 ti es wt th Mr. Rose; that they are a
California ~on-pro~it corporation ~nd have proWen to the Doard of Superviso~s, County
Council~ a~d ott~er egencies that they have a elean operatian.
2/2;/80
~
~ ~ ,
~SO• 181
MI~lUTES, ANANEIM CITV PLANHIHG tOi~MISSlON~ FEBRUARY 25• ~9~
EIR NEGATIVE QECLARATION ANO CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT ~10. 20b1 (CONTiNUEO)
He axpl~inad over 3 a~d 1/2 yeara thay have helped over 3f30 young p~ople and their
f amt 1 1 es ; that th 1 s I s a re•en try proy ram end no res 1 cien t 1 s a I 1 uwed to go enywhere
withuut parmissiun of steff; that they heve 24-fiour supervtslon with 9 full-tin~ steff
menbars; that they ~re a~+proved !~y the Probetlon Department for referrais by the c~urts.
Na dsked three restdonts in h{s program to stend in thc ~udtence. I{e explslned thts
progrem does ~pt deal wlth hard-cora offnncinrs endthat thr.taver~aec1etc~Ism2~tYe~rs old~;
yUU~g people and chel r fami l ies rc-anter soclety; ~ 9
that Lh~ liord•core oddl cts and street-wlae cons nnd patent( al ly dAngerous crlminais are
referrr~ tn anoth~r faci l i ty; th~+t they are ep~raved by the G~rden Grove Unl f ied School
Olstrici~ with 2 full•tln+e teachers on the premises end the residents ca~n earn ~n
acc~edi ted higl~ school diplome; that this Is thc largest progrem of this type in the
County; that thny are beinc~ assisted by ttie Fi ~st Chrlstien Church ~f Anahetm gHe statedre
talktng with City rnpresentativas abnut assistl~g wlch thc grefflGtl pragrem.
there ara many rules for f~ope Nouse and they do have a protocol whl ch he can submi t
covering these rules and rnyulotians. -le expialned thc 36Q figure represents young peoPle
who have actua) ly res i cfed at tiopc flousa. Ile s tete~ i n ad~f 1 t lon ~ thcy hr~ve enswered many
hotllne calls and h~ve halpcd parents of younc~ neo~le In trouble.
Mr. E11 ack presentafter~2aand t/2cyears~,atca'io catb~~t~~ feet from~atbnrSw( thaut Incident.
to the community
F~td N i ncs ~ res i dent at Ilapc tlousc ~ s tatcd th i s prog ram has workcd for h t m and has chonged
h!S 1 T fe 100$ anci given him eonfidence he needtd; thAtthaL°Frank a eckthas~been~yood for
would not havc spoken beforc thc Planning Commission;
the program and that the program does work; and that h~ has had r lot of pcrsonat growth
anci is thankfui.
Jim Foley. statr~l he has a bus(ness in 5anta 61na and has a san who had been at this
fecT 1 i ty sincc Christmas eve; that hls son had nine Jobs last year~ but he wi l l only have
onc aft~r he grts out; that he thinks this is a fantastic program and he has a lot of
admtratlo~ for Mr. Black. Ne felt his son is going to mekr. it and has about seven mowi~h
to go. M~. Foley stated he has decideci to dedicate abaut 3/~~ of his time to helping
t~.is progrem; that he was on skid r~ h~^~~~ ~~f andddoes notnhave2an~educatlondand wa~ntsf to
10 years and gives speeches to a lot af peop
help sane of thesc y~u~g peeP~~•
Rene~ gfsbines~ 2~1 Urentwood Place~ Anaheim. stated she is a parent of one of che young
people (n the program and could not bc more pleascd wt th ths program and has a g~e'~deal
of co+~fidence in F~ank Black and his staff. She felt the community needs the prog
that the perents suo~ e o se ~rthe~program rind persrone11yuknoMrstastacparent whati i t,means
stated she rery muc
to n~ed th i s k i n J of p rog ~am i n thc commun i ty .
Ouan~e tlay, 20i6 Chatwin~ Lon9 6eath. stated he awns the business property to the tmmediate
~orth of thix lbc8tlon and he is not aga:nst che p~ogrem~ i~ut is concerned about the
parktng; that f,ode reyul ~es 4 spaces per 1000 squdre fHEt~e; i ah~onti nusncess ouldf bet' so
16 speces aro requt red and they cx~ly havc o~e spare.
granted sa they could work^anCs~bu Lhencouldpnotihsveta~fulletim~gemployee totprotectkthe
on his property for his tc
parking lot.
7l25/~
E ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNtNG COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 25, 1980 8q•182
EIR NEGATIYE OECLAaATlON AND CONOITIONAL USE PEa111T t~0. 2061 (CONTINUEQ)
- .~.._...~...,...~.~...,
Frank Bleck ttAtcd h~ wes ~Jer the tmpresston that there ware sevcrel parking spaces on
the p roperty polnting out w hore thoy are; that thoy are working Glosely wtth the Fire
Mershall end were requlrod to bring a set of stafr~ from the basement In tho driveway
which wauld hindar them frc~m parking two or three vehtcles tn the driveway; that the only
time they wauld have more than fou~ vehiclos is whon they hAVC s staff ineeting once a
weak; that usually tliey have only onc or two statf inembc~s present~ plus the houae car.
He stetod the pcrsnn leasin g the property to the Immediatc north supports thetr usa and
hat allowed them to perk on his porking lot~ and felt they could g~t an agreement f~om him
to park thors, if thc property vwncr wll) pcrmit (t. Ile st~ted thelr restdents are not
ellowed to have a vehicle until they r~ach the f~urth stege of their progress or are going
to colleye enci then they must have valtJ insurence and o Celifornia driver's liconse.
TIIC PUf3LiC IIEARIIIG WAS CIOSED.
Commissinner Kin~ potntr.d out the proporty has e large ba~kyard and a~sked lf vehicles
eould be perked tn the rea r yard (f an opentng ls prowid~sd in the fenc~ with a gete.
Mr. Black s[~toc: wich 29 y oung people~ different groups have activities In the yard such
as rxercising~ exc. or small stuciy yroups can use tl~e y~rd.
Commisslone~ Nerbst folt since tt~e ore~ right back of che yarage has becn blQCkecf off, the
trash enclosurc couicl be moved and the fence moved f~rward ta provide threr sub-standard
spaces~ and the front yate moved back so that two more speces could be provteied for a
totel of five. Ile also sugyosted lonJscaping in thc front.
Mr. ~lacl: steted tt~ey woul d be happy to comply wi th Chose suggcstlans.
Hr. Bleck e~cplalned they a~e currently funded by the Soard of Supervtsors~ for a three-
mo~th pcr(od. penaln~ tl~e OU~CORIC of this request. Ile staCed their residents are referred
by Alcoholic A~nnymaus~ Na ~cotic Anonymous. Uruy Abu~e, The Probatl~n Oepartmcnt, Cou~ts~
Schools. families~ etc. ancf they have 30 peaple on thelr waleing llst.
Commissioner Tolar clarifieJ ti,e maximurn nur*ber alloweJ is 2~ and Mr. Black explatned the
iiealth Dcp~rtment has also appravad thcir fac(Ilty fur 2~1 pcrsons. ~cnding the outcome of
ihis condttlona) usc permit.
Commisstoner Bushore asked how long thc use hes be~n at this tocaifon an~:.:~y the
conclitlona) use permit was not requestad prior t~ ope~ing the cioor and Hr. Black repliad
they havc been there 30 days. and explaine.d thcy wer~ under thc (mp~ession they were in
the pmper zonc ancl a permit was not requircd.
Responding to Commisstoner Bushore's concern. Mr. atack explained most of the young people
who come to them have no j ob skiils end have becn usinq chemicals one or two years and
many do not have hlyh school diplomas and they '.ave no money; that their funding Is
through Ravenuc Sharing~ GenGral Retief and pr.vate funds mos~tly from familtes. !1e
explained they had operated a binyo facillty whtch thay leased fram Frank Rose, expiatning
thcy were 1~ocAted at 73~2 Garden Grove Eloulevard in westminster at that cime. tle
explained Dick Alexander is thc minister working with them from the First Christtan Church
teachiny Blble studies. f~a explained when the residents reach Phase IV~ they are
relocatad to a facility et 611ve and Sycamore~ zoned for mu)ti~famtly uses for those
residents in caltege. (Commissioner Bushore palnted out a condlttonal use permit would ba
requtred at that location.)
2/25/80
+ ~
~ , ' ~
~~ a )
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM1SSlON~ FEf1RUARY 25r 1980 80•183
EtR I~EGATIV~ DECLARATION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT N0.~2061 (CO~~TINUED)
Conxnttslonar Bushor~ asked Mr. Blsck to ~ubmit a copy of tha rules end requlatlons which
would t~a1p tho CortMnisston wh~:n futur~ requests ere m~dc for other homes. Ha stated
problems have occurred in the past with similar uses.
Mr. I~ays (p roperty ~wner next door) stated from the audionce that there hrve been no
parki~y problams In tho past.
Commissioner Bushore fQit tf the pestltlaner stipulates tF-at Phase IV residents Are
relocatod end an off-slte parking agrr.emnnt Con be provided~ with e revicwr perlod of one-
ye.er, I~e could vote far approval. (Mr. tilaclc stated one-yeor would bc flne.)
Comm(sstoner Tolar felt thts use is a much necded o~c ln this Gity and hc did not want to
see requlr~rr~ents a.d stipul~tions which would hinder them from maktng thts operatlon as
successfu) as he would Ilke to see it bacome; that cvcrybody wnnts programS ltke this, but
nobody wents tham in their own backysrd. Ile stated if the use violates the health~ safety
or gono~al weifar~ of thc cttiz~ns, the pe nnit can be revoked at anytime.
Carrmissloner Bushore stated he Is va ry much In fnvor af the requcst and felt Mr. Bleck has
shown hts cr~dibiltty. but felt thc Commisston sl-ould rer~mbcr othcr situations in th~e
past whan permits had to be rcvokc~. ~Ic dld not thtnk a short ttme Itmlc would hlnder the
operAtlon; that if they ar~ a good tenant and have str(ngent rules end regulations~ there
w-11 be no prablcm; and that the Cormtssion (1AS rcquired this one-yoar perlod on a lot of
different uses. Ne st~ted he is going ta vote in favor of the use~ but has to look beck
on past experfence witii group horncs.
ACTION: Cornmisstoner Tolar off~red rr,~tlon~ seconded by CommtssionGr Davtd end MOTION
C RR E0, that the Anaheim City Planning Commtsston has revicAwcd the p ropasal to permit an
alcoholic and Jruy rchabllltation centcr witl~ walvcrs of mintmum numb~r and type of
parking spaces and permitted loc~tion of parking spaces on ~- receanyulerly-shaped parcel
of land conslsting of approximatcly 7782 square fQet, haviny a f~ontagc of approximately
52 feet on the casc side of Anehcim Baulevard~ h~ving e maxlmum depth of app roximately 150
feet and being located app m xlmatcly 130 feet north of thc cent~rline of Wilhcimina
St~ect; and Joes hereby approve the fa~gative Declaration from thc requlrement to prepare
ar envfronmental Impact report on the basts tf~~t there would be no signtficant (ndlvidual
or cumulattvc Adversc environmental Impact due to the approval of this Negetive
Ueclaratfon since the Anaheim General Pian ctc5ignates the sub,ject property for geReral
commercia) land uscs commensurate with the proposal; that no sensttive environmenta)
impaccs are lnvoived in the propasal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitloner
(ndicates no signtfl~ant tndivldual or cumulative adverse envtro~mental imRacts; and that
the Negatlve Derla~atlon substanttat(ng the foregoing findings is cx~ file In the Ci~y of
Ar~ahcim Planning Department.
Canmissione~ Tolar oftered a rnotion, second~d by Commtssioner Oavtd and MOTIOfI CAkR1ED~
that the M aheim Clty Planning Commisslon does hereby gra~t the request for waiver of
minlmun number ~nd typc of parking spaces and Fermitted locetion of parking spaces on the
basts the petittnner stipulateci to provide th~ee additiona) on-site spaces~ by relocating
the fence~ gates and [rash enclosures. and thase rev(sod plans sholl be approved by the
City of Anahetm Sanitation Dlvision and P1en~ing Department and subJect ta
Interdepartmienta) ~ommittee recommendat(ons.
Commissiane~ t~erbst clarified with Sylvta Ham~and. owner~ that the requtrec: dedicatlon
would be made and Ms. 1lammo~d stated that wouid be no problem.
T/2S/80
~
~ ,~
MINUTES~ ANNIEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 25~ 1980 ~'164
EIR NEGATIVE DEC UIRATION AN~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2061 (CONTINUEQ)
~
Conx~istioner Tolar offered Reaolutton No. PC&1-1-2 and mcved for its pessege a~d edoptlon
that tho Anehelm City Planning CommisslUn doos horeby gra~t the Petitton for Condltional
U~a Pe rmit No. 20G1 for a period nf three yoars~ aubJect to revte.w+~ and ~ubJect to the
potlttoner's f~tipulatlan to provl~c a copy of the Cdnter's rule end rec~utetion for tha
fite end subject to IntcrdepArtmental Committoe rr.cnmmondattons.
On ~oll call~ the foreyoing rasniutton was pessad by the following vote:
AYES : CONMISS I ONERS : DARt~ES ~ 4US110RC ~ DAVI D~ FRY ~ IIER9ST ~ KI P!G ~ TOIAR
NOES : COMMI SS I Ot1ERS : NOI~E
A~SENT: COMMISSIOIJERS: NOIaE
ITEM N0. 11 PUULIC NEARING. 041NER; DINOIAI VEafION RAMSAMOOJ,
€1 N VE UECLAR/-TIOtt 431 N~11 Circle~ P1ACentla~ CA ~2G70. Petlt(onar
QU•5 4R AP RO'•'~L OF requasts APPROVAL OF REMOVAL OF FOUR SPECIMEfI TREES
REMOVAL OF SPECIM!'~ T~ on property described as en irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approxlmately 0.5 acre
havtng a frontagc of approxfmately 6~ fcet an the n~rth side of Pleasant Place~ having a
m~+ximum depth of approximatcly 2Qy feet and being located approxlmately 230 fe~t east of
Che centeritne ~f tiJlllden Road~ anci fu~the~ described as 7635 Ploasant Place. Praperty
pr~sently cl~tiss(fleci RS•IIS-22~000 (RCSIDEN7tAl~ SIh~GIf-FAMILY) t0-IC.
There was no one indlcating thelr presence tn o~~positlon ta subJect request~ and elthough
Che staff re(~orc to the Planntng Cou~nisslon datcd February 25~ 1!~30 was not ret+d at the
publtc hearing. it fs refcrred to and made A part of the minutcs.
Ulncita) Vcrnon Ra~m amc.,uj~ property owner, explained his plans Lo construcc a single-fAmily
residence on sub,~ect p roperty and stated there are four trees located I~ the area of
c.onst~uction which need t~ be removed. Ne stated the trees will be ~eplaced after
eonstructton is eompioted.
Comml3sloner King offcrcd a nbtlon~ secon;fcd by Commisstoner David and MOTI(!~~ CARRIED~
that the Anaheim City Planntng Cortmission has rcvla+ed thc proposa) for the removal of
four specimen trees on prapr.rty descrlbed as an irregulariy-shaped parcal of land
consisting of approximately 0.; acre o~ the north side of Fleasant Plat~~ ~nd
approxirratcly 230 fect on thc easc side of W111dan Road; and cioes hereby apprave thc
Negativc Declaratlon from the requirement to prep~r~s an environmental imp~ct ~eport on the
basi~ ih~t ther~ woulci be no significant Indivldual or cumulative adverse envfronmental
tmpact due to the epproval of Chis Negattve ~eclaration; that no sensittve environmental
impects are involved in tha proposal; that the Initiel Study submitted by the petitioner
I~dlcates no signific~nt indlvfdual or cumulative adverse envtron~nental impacts; and that
th~~tlagative Decla~ation s~bstanttating the foregoing flndings ts on file in the City of
Ananelm Rlr,nnin~ O~partrnent.
ACT{ON: Conmisslc~ner King offered a matlon, seconded by
CA~T~D. thet the Anaheim City Pisnning Conmission does
practicei devetapcnent of the property o~ which the trens
the tr~es ancf the trces wiil be replaced on
therefare, does hcreby g~ant spproval of the
trees.
a onc-to-one
raquast fo
Cc~mni ss loner Davl d and F9QTI ON
hereby tind that a reasonable and
are located requt res remc~val of
baais from a spectfled list, and
r app roval of removal of spmcimen
2/25/~
~:
~ i
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 25~ 1980 80-18y
ITEN N0. 12 PUDLIC II~ARI~~G. AMC~~DMENT 1'0 TNE LAI~D USE EIEMENT:
~~ NC~A'~1E DECLARATIQN To consider altcrnat~ proposols of ultimate lend usas
~ 0. 157 Includtng, but not limited to General Industrlal
~+'~-~"+~ clevelopment for approxlmately 47.7 acre bounded on
the north by the R I vers I de F reev+ay ~ south by the
Senta Ana Rlver~ east by Tustin Avenua and wost by Glassell Street.
Af1E-~DMEtIT TO TIIE CIRCULATION ELCMENTs Evaluating th~ follaring areas:
(1) Ctemontina Strect bctwecn Monchester Avenuc and Freedman Way (C~llector to Secondary
Arte~lal I~tghway)
(2) Manchester Avenuc between Clementine 5trcet and Ilaster Stract (dcletc As a secondary
arteri al highway)
(3) Chang~ "Collector" desiynatlon to "Commuter".
There was no one tndlcating thelr prr..sence in apposttton to subJect request~ and althaugh
tl~e staff rcport to the Planning Commisslon dated fabruary :5~ 1~80 wos not read at tho
public heartng, it is reforred to and made a part of thc minutes.
Jay Teshiro} Associate Planner~ presented the staff report e~cplaining Area 1 consists of
~f7.7 aeres of whlch a~-acre portian is property-~wner tnlcistcd and the propcrty ts
located south af the Riversldc Fraeway and north of the SAnta An.~ Rlver bctween Glassell
Street to the west and Tust(n Avenue to the east; that In evaluating an cxtcnslon of ttme
for Reclassiftcalton !lo. 7G-77-A9 and Conditional Use Permit ~lo. 1703 ta permit a resource
recove ry and recycling operation un ~ G.~~ acre parcel~ the City Councit directed planning
staff ta initfatc e Gencral Plan lvncndrt~ent study on february 21~ i978; on August 22~ 1978~
the Ctty Council considernd GPA Ilo 147 and upon recomn~endation of the Planning ~.'ommtsslon,
dnte rrnined that no change be adopteJ at that ttme due to panding zoning actions; however~
Cou~cil ind(cateJ that further cansideration should be gtven In the future to a f;eneral
Plan Amendmant in this area subseq uent to fin~lization of ch~ above-rt~ ntloned roning
actians ~nd said rrciass(fication was finalized on October 3~ 1!~7Eg. The land Use Element
of the A~~heim General Plan designates sub,ject area for General Open Space and Lhe County
General Plan dcslgnates the arca primarily for recreatfon with a smaller portion reserved
for tndust~i~) land uses; that the subject property is l~cated in Redcvelopment ProJect
Alpha and desiynatcd for open space uses on the Redevcloprnent Map.
Na statecf opproximatcly 9 ecres in the westerly portton ~f th~ sub,ject area bctween
Glasaell Street and thc abandoncd tlewl.irk Road arc locatcd outsidc the current City ltmtts
end zoned County A1; that appraximately 2.6 acrea of sald property is developed with a
building materials supply facility; that the remain(ng 39 ac~es east of Lhe abandoncd
tJewkir4: Road ts cu~rently loca~ted within ~ity limits and approxir.~ately 6.b acres is
developed wlth a resau~ces~ recovery and ~ecycling ~peration.
Ne painted out the alternative Exhibits displayed aith Exhibit A for general industriel on
4~.7 acres and Exhtbtt 9 proposes generai industrial on 17.1 acres and general open space
on 3A.6 acres. tla e~lained Exhi5lt B for general tndustrlal designatlon fo~ an 9.0 acre
area of existing industrial tand uses (buildtng materlals sUpply fectlity and resou~cas
recove ry and rerycllnq ope~ati~n) as well as o~ the vecant parcel tn the County. He
2/25/80
~. .
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 2~, 1984 80-186
EIR NEGATIVE OECIAaAT10N AND GENEML PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 157 (CONTINUEO)
~..._.._..~...... .. ,
stated following ann~x~tlo~~ the potitlon p~oposas to construct it *tnqlc-story indust~le)
butlclings with s total butldiny areo of approximatoly 95~~~~ square feet and the boldnce
a~ tl~e acreage (30.6 acres) wauld retain the current Gene~ei Open Space d~signation.
Nr. Tashiro conttnuad th~ Anahelm Gr~noral Plan designetes the study area for open spaco
land uso~~ anJ stAff tn the Parl.s and Recreatton Oepartment (ndtcate therc aro no current
plons for devalopment of a park site; that Ir- additlon~ staff In the County of Orenge
Environment~l Managr~ment Agency hAVO Indicatad no oppositlon to proposed alternativea
provided devalopment givcs recoynition to the rlver c~raenbelt corridor and doas not
contlict with proposed tr~ill systems and ln recc~~~ttton of these concerns and since a
contlnuous open spacc Josiynatior~ ab uttiny the river ~xlsts throughout Anahelm~s sphere of
(nflue~ce, ttn opon spece strip (cxi.ting Santa tlna Rlver levac) I~~s bcen retafned as an
opcn space dcsiynetion of both alccrn~~tfves mnd th~ Plonn(ny Cormission may wtsh to
evaluete spnclfic tandscnpiny plans of parcels ~djacent to the river If ln~.iustrla) uses
arc pcrm) tt~d.
Ne statcd since part(ons nf thc subj~ct Area beCwcen Newkirk Road and thc railroad wr.re
previously dovesloped as the Nswkirk dur~ stte~ spcclal devclopr.~ent casts vnrying by
ultlmatc land usa~c and/or bulicling canstructlon r.~ay be InturrcJ dua to so11 testing,
nxcavatlon or ~ort~act~rm~ etc.; that the Traffic Engtneer has patnted out che fr~eway
frontage road (Frontera Strcet) will havc to bc cxt~ndcd ensterly of 1ts present term(nus
as development occurs; that the Ut111ties Departrnenc I~as Indtcated th~t electrical
s4rvlcss cou1J presen[ly bc m~de evallable to thc subJect area; hc~wevcr~ water serviee mey
bc an expcnslve cost borne by thc devclopcrs ns thP extstin9 zonc west of Giosscll Strcet
Is woek ancl water service to pravlde minlmum flre pratection f~r mnny In~fustrlAl uses
wuuld requl~e boting uncier thrs Rlvcrsidc Frecw~ay; tt~a*. the ~ctittonc- has Indicated an
interest in extending a 1Q-Inch watcr linc from north o~ the fraeway enc~ U to 10-Inch
sawer ilns f rom thr. cast to scrvice the weste~ly pc~rti~rs of the ~rca.
Mr. Tashiro continued that Area II pertalns to the Clrculation El~rr~ nt Analysls tu ch~nge
the current des(ynat(An of Clementine Strect bot~recn Mt~nchestcr Avcnue and Frecdman Way
from e collector to a sr.conda ry areterlal hiyhway end Manchester Avenue between Clementine
and Ilaster Streets be deletecl os a secondary ~~rterial hiql,woy~ and collecCor d~siynation be
ehanged to cortimuter, beca~~se thc County uses that designaticn.
Bitl Uhl~ 171~ "A" Sattcr~ 8rca~ archttect~ stated he rc;~resents the developcrs of thc
proposed lndustrlal complex at the corner of Glassell ar, Frontera; that the area
presently has no wate~ or sewer and as a part of thely devclopn~ent. plan to extend watcr
and sewer to the area, and it will also alci the reclamatlon centcr and bullding material
business; [hat ct~cy feel this is a ycaod site far tndustrtal uscs becausa it is shieided by
tts natural topography.
Joel Fick~ Assistant Director for Planning~ stated there is a well a~ the site at the
pre~ent tlme~ but it is inadequate for ftrc protectlon.
Mr. Uhl explained access will be an Frontera at the northeast co~ner of the slte and they
have an ensement to use Abandoned Newklrk Road as a secandary access.
TIIE PUBL! C NEARI NG WAS CLOSED.
2/25/80
~r
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMM15410N~ fEBRUAaY 25~ 19l30 80-18~
EIR NEGATIVC DECLAMTION AND GENERAL PLAN AM~NDMENT N0. IS7 (CONTINUEQ)
- ._.._.......~~~
Commissfoner lier~bst rcfcr~ad to the old dump slt~ shown as industrial property~ Indlwting
he did not agre~ with that at thts time; that tt h~a thc potentlel of becoming industrtal
propQrty If necessary steps are taken to rerro ve the trash; thet it was a legal County dunp
et ona time end he was concerned about the methane gas. He was el~o concerncd whether or
not the water and scwer would bc su{ tab le for tf,c rest of the prop~rty.
Joal Fick stAt~d potentlal dcvelapers have expressed some lnterest In this property. but
they always r~ech e stumbllny blocl; s(ncQ it (s desi~nated a3 open space and they are not
willl~g to (nvest any mcx~cy in so11n compACtion studlcs or borings; that this ts a long
range genoral plan study and It m~iy becomc feaslble In the fucure to clein It out for some
lnte~se typ~ industrial usc and (n the Intcrlm thcrc may be other typc of less Intense
uscs such ea storaye.
Commissloner flerbst statod hc w~uld h~vc n~ obJectic~ns as long a~ ihere Is an overlay
indicating industrlal uses Are subject to certain conditlons.
Commtssion~r Tolar pointeJ out thc C~nr~ission would still have a ha~dle because any plans
for development w~uld t~avc to be rev(ewed by various departmcnts~ such as Engineering.
Mr. Ftck stated the entfre pro~erty easterly of Newkir-: Roc~d Is all zoned resid~ntlal~
a~~lculture and evc ry parccl wtll requlre a zone changc and buildtng pcrr~tts~ etc. and the
Pl~nning Comrnlss(on wll) soc the plans. Ne stated [he devclopers w(11 hav~ [o wort; wtth
thc Water Uivision ragarcling scrvicing of the property and thc wat~r ptvtsion wl`1 bc
inforn~ d that thc entirc arca has been redeslgnec! for industriat so they wil) be looking
at ultirrwte devel~pr~ent of al{ the properttes.
Commissloner Ile~bst did not fccl t~~e praperty would bc good open space and Chatrwoman
13arnas did not think any on; should live on It and felt (ndustrlol !s probably the htghest
and best usc.
Rcspondiny to Commissloncr Bushorc's questlon es to whether or not the potential current
developc~ will p rovidc adcquatc watcr fnr the other properties, Joel Fick stated staff
will work closQly with the ~Jate~ DiviSion to insure servlcG for all the parcels.
Conmiss(oner Tolar felt to make sure thcrc is adequatc watcr for the rest of the property~
this developer should be rnirri~ursrd for future developr:~ent in some way becausc he felt the
larger itnes should b~ put in nvw.
Jay Titus~ Offlce Engineer, statad reimbursement would be feasible and it could be tied t~
raclassification actions requlrtng them to participate in retr.~bursement agreements.
Mr. ~hl stated he was not at the meeting where the plan was developed for the sewer and
water~ but the(r Civtl Engincer did meet •ith WAter and Fire D~partments and wo~ked out a
pia~ to gst che largesc water main possit~le ancl still yet under thc Riverside F~eeway and
got accoss. Ne stated the initlal study was done fur this project and thc roclamation
conter and he dtd not xhink tl~e study tncluded at l the land.
Commlssioner Tolar offfred a motlon~ seconded by Conunissioner pevtd and MOTION CARRIED~
that the Nnaheim CiLy Plan~9ng Cnmmtssion has revtc~-ed the proposal to change the General
Pla~ desi~nation of Land Use Element property from Genera) Open Space to General
2/25/80
~
MINUTES~ IWIWEIM CITY PLIWNING COMMISSION~ FEBaUARY 25~ 1980 80-188
E i R NEGIITI VE DECUIMTI ON ANO GENERAL PIAN AMENOFIE~~T f~A._ 157 (CONTI NUEO)
...~_~.~.~..~..r~...r..~~__.~.......
Industrlal on a rectengularly•shapod parcel of lend conslsting of epproxfrt-ately ~~7.7 ecres
locatnd aouth of the Rivarsicie Freaw~y and north of Senta Ana aivar betwcen Gla~sei)
Street to the wost and Tustin Ave~ue tu the east; and to changs the curr~nt General Pla~
destgnstion on tho Cl~culation Elmnent of Cleme~tinc Straet batwee~ Mancheste~ Avenue and
Freedmen Way from a"Collactor" to "Secondary Arterlsl Highway" and dolete Mancheste~
Avenua bctween Cldrnantinc onJ He$te~ Stroata es e Secondary Arterial lilghway and to changa
"Collect~~" deslgnation to "Commuta~" designaticx~; and does I~ereby app~ove tha Negative
Declaratlon from the requiroma~t to prepere an environmanta) impect ~nport on the bss~s
that thero would be no s(gnificant indlvidual or cumulative odver~e envtronrn~ntal impoct
due ta tf~e spproval of Cl~ig Megattve Geclaretion; that nn sensittvic envlronmcntal impacts
are Involved in th~ praposal; tl,at the Inikial Study submttteJ by tl~e petitloner indieatc+s
no signiflcant IndiviJuot or cumulatlvc adverse environn~ental Impacts; and that the
IJegattva Doclarattor substantlattng the foregoing ftndings ts on file In the City of
An~hetm Planning Departmcnt.
Commissioner Tolar offercd Resolution Plo. PC~O-43 anci r~ovod for Its paasagc and adoption
that the Anaheim Ctty Planntnc~ Commisston docs hereby adapt and recommend to the City
Counctl ado~tion af Anahaim Genc~n) Plan llmcndment Flo. ly7 - Land Use and Circulatlon
Elemant ~ Exhtbit A for ycneral indu3trtal on ~+7.7 ~cres to pcrmit light manufacturing
warel~ousiny an~J wh~les~itny uses.
bn roll eall~ the foregoing resolutlon was passccf by the followiny vote:
~YES : COMNI SS I ONERS : OARt~ES,
t~~OES : COMMISS I O~IERS : IIONE
ABSENT: COMMI SS I O~IEP,S : WOIIE
ITEM N0. 1
REPO t1D R~COMMEtiDIITtOtJS
RUSI~ORE~ DIIVID~ FRY~ NERDST, KING~ ToLAR
The following Reparts and Recorm~endattons sta~f reports were presentad but not re~d:
A. RECLASSIFICATtOtI N0._ 77-Z8-~0_ - Request from Leon Batrd~ La Solana Corporatlon~
o~ r m one-year extens on o ttmc, to explre Aprtl 24, 193t~ for property located
nn the west side of Magnolta Avenue, 32"> feet norih of the c~nterline of Lincoin
Ave n ue .
ACr TION: Gommissioner King offerad a r.~otion, seconded by Commissiener Tolar and
MOTION CARRIED~ that thc M aheim City Planning Commissio~ does her~by approve the
request for a ane-year extension uf ttme for Reclassificatio~ t~o. 77-78-y0 to
cxplre Aprll 2A. 19a1.
2l25/80
~~ i ,
MINUTES~ ANAIiE1M CITY PLAr~NING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 25~ 1960 KO•189
REPOaTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1~G2 and 1G92 - aequest for te~mtnatlon from Anahalm
- _._. ..~...--_..._.._---
Redeve opment Agency~ar proparty at the northeast corner of Broadway and Anahelm
Boulevard to t~rminate continued usc of two existing btliboards.
ACTI011: Cor.~missioner 8ushore afferr_d Resolutlon ~lo. PCa4-~i3 and moved for tts
pa and adoptlon thati thc Anahetm Ctty Pla~ning Commission does hereby
t~rminate ail proceedinys In connectlon witf~ Condltional Use Permit No. 15N2 and
Resolutlon No. PCE30-4~~ ta termir~ate all praceedings ln connection with
Conditional Usc Pormit f~o. 1692.
On roll call, the forc~oing resolutlon was ~asscd by the fullowing vaie:
AYES : COIM11 SS I ONEi:S ; 6AR~ICS ~ DAVI U~ FRY ~ IIERIIST ~ KI NG ~ TOL11R
NOE:S : C0~4i1 S5 I ONERS ; I~OIIE
AOSTAII~: COIiMIS510NER: BUSHOR~
AUSCtlT; COMMI SS I OIIERS ; c~ONC
C. RC(lUEST FOR WAI VER OF CONSTRUGT I O~i OF OFFS t Tf. STORr~ DRIII N5 PR I ~R TO GRAD 1 rIG
AIII1HC111 NILLS INC. Utl T XIX A b 4. - Anahe m H s~ nc., rQquest ~Letter of
e ruary ~~ 9 0 C~at t ey e e nwed to gracie un i ts XI X A L E3 ~ as shown on
grading plan No. '.'31 and gradiny P1on No. 77u, priar to thc construction of
offsito storn7 dralns.
ACTIOtI: Conar-issloner Kiny offered a mntinn~ seconded by Commissioner Tola~ and
MO~TION Cl1RR{ED~ that the Maheim City Planning ComTtssion cioes hcreby racommend
to Che Giry Councli that the request far walver of construction of offsite storm
dr~ins prlor to yrading be apprc,ved as reconxrx~nded by tha Englncering Qlvision.
0. RCCLASS I F I CAT I Ofl N0. 78- 7~1- i~~ AI~D VAR i ANCE N0. 3d5G - Reques t f ~om Ed Padi 1{ a for
approval o revtsed ptans on property ocated ac the snutliwest corner of Katella
Avenue and Ninth Street (t~i~3 South Ninth Street).
The Commission briefly r~:vfewed che rGVised plans and Canmissioner Herbst vatced
concern relating to the prevlously proposed efyt~t (II) faot watl~ now shown as a
six 'G) fc~ot wail ab~tting the school site and Mr. Padilla stipulated to provide
sn ight (4) fooC wall.
ACTIOtI: Commissioner Herbst offereci a motion, seconded 'ey Carmissione~ King and
~~ CARRIEO~ that the Anah~im City Plann(ng Comm(ssion does hereby app rove
revlsed plans submitced i~ connectton with Rnclassificatio~ No. 78-79-14 and
Varlance No. 305~+, subJect to the pe~ittoner's sttpulatlon to provtde a
cantlnuuus eiqht (8) foot high mason ry wall on the south prop~erty Itne abutttng
the a chool site.
2/25/~
~
~ ;
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEaRUARY 25, 19~0 ~'~9~
REPOIITS AND RECOMMEIIDA'f I ONS
_.. - -
E. OMNGE COUNTY CITItEII OIRECTOR fI~~DING COMMISSION - It is noted the Reglstar
art c 4 ate atur ay~ e ruary ~ wes racQived by the Planning Commission
for revlew end no actio~ was necessary.
F. VARIANCE N0. 3136 ~ nunc p ro tunc rasolutlon delettng requestea unnecessary
wTr.
A~nika Santalahtt ~ IlssistAnt Di rector For Zoning~ polntnd out the developer l~~ad
requested waiver of maximum number of lots on a cul-de-sac and it w~s determined
the welver pcrtalned to the RS-IiS-10~000 Zone whtGh is not a part of che
development prnpased.
ACTIOt~: Commisslo~er ~ushare offerr.d Resolutlon No. PCaO-~~6 and moved for Its
pa`~ss g~ and adopttan tf~at the Anahelm Ctty Pl~nning Commisslon does hereby amend
approvA) of Varlance No. 313G~ nunc pro tunc. d~le~ing u~necessary waiver
pertalning to nianbQr of lots on a cul-de-saG.
On roll call~ the foregoiny resolutlor was passed by the foltowtng votc:
AY[S: CoMr~I5SI0t~ERS: DARtrF.S~ U~SIIORE~ DAVID~ Ft~Y~ HERBST~ r.It~G~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISS! OrllR5: ~IOt1E
ABSEHT: COMMISSIONERS: yOME
OttiER 01 SCUSS I ON 1 TE~1S :
SEA a}~Q SAGE REQUEST FOR MEETItIG; Joel Fick~ Assistant Olrector for Planning~ explatned
ilaro omas, xecut ve OTrector for Envlronmentnl Coalttion of O~ange~ ht~~ been present
carlter, but had to leave to attend anather meeting~ but wauld try to return in ttme to
speak; however~ hc was not yet present.
ADJOURNNENT There bciny no further h;,siness~ Com~lssioner F ry offcred a motion~ seconded
~y Cortntssioner Herbst and MQTIOtd CARR1~0 that ch~ meettng be a~Journed.
The n~ectiny was adJourned ac 4:5~ p.m.
ELfi:lm
Respectfully submltted~
~~~ ~ • /~~
Edlth l. liarris~ Secretary
Anahelm City Planning Conmission
2l25/~